Because it's part of the development of the whole Belle Vue/Super Bowl site which they own.

I think 88m are looking at the surrounding development as there money maker with the stadium a nest egg to keep funds rolling in. Should the stadium site not be needed in future then they have additional land they can build on or sell. The council may have negotiated the plans/stadium build as a sweetener.

Not bad for a 600k punt.

As long as the standing view is higher than it is currently on the sidelines!

Great news and fingers crossed this comes off. Roll on 31/10.

You mention the site not being needed in future, that was what I was getting at, if we take on a 99 year lease then they can't sell it on can they?

Depends, they can sell the land as the BOI did with the stadium in situ. If Trinity went under the stadium would be financially unviable then the trust may give the lease back to the landlord or it defaults back.

Anyone able to clarify ?
Are the council taking on the lease for the stadium part of land owned
by 88m, or is the lease for all of the land they own?

They wouldnt be able to sell it on if the tenant (The Community Trust) adhered to the terms of the lease.
Of course, in the private market, if a landlord wants the tenant out, they would jack up the rent but, can you really see WMDC, having finally appeared to get their backsides in gear, stuffing the club and leaving themselves with a white elephant, ie a shiny new rugby ground.

As a Trinity fan, getting such great news, usually means a fall just around the corner.
Let's just hope that the mould has finally been broken and that there may be some truly good times ahead.

I'm in the camp of being cautiously optimistic; I always thought that NM was the better option from a commercial standpoint, with BV, however fancily dressed up, being limiting due to its location and it being landlocked.

But - if this is the best we can get - it's certainly better than nothing.

I'd also question how everything is going to fit on that site - stadium, training facilities, hospitality, retail, leisure, and crucially - parking. It just doesn't add up at this stage - unless they've been able to buy up some surrounding property with a view to bulldozing.

On the question of planning objections - whilst neighbours may well raise objections, I can't see them being material; given that the site has long established use as a sports stadium, it would seem to be an argument that has already been had.

Wasn't Glover's original plan to put a roof along the length of the western terrace, but get turned down because of the height?

Pretty sure it was Sky because you wouldn't have been able to see from their gantry properly.

I seem to recall the same thing.

I'm not an expert - but I'm involved in a lot of build projects through work; in my experience, a weighty tome of objections from neighbours, although scary, can often in large part be discounted, because they're not material objections and are not backed up with any facts or evidence; planners don't like speculative stuff.

A lot of what could be considered material objections to this proposal, will already be the case with the existing use - negative amenity effects, over-development, bulk & mass etc; so I can't see it being too big an issue. Also, if the 88M guy has thrashed this out with WMDC, one has to assume that he's been given some assurances that the planning committee will look at it favourably.

The big issue could be actually getting YCP to cough up - although I would imagine they'll be less inclined to welch on a deal with WMDC than they would with WT.

If it does come off, it could be a big step towards regenerating a part of Wakefield that is an absolute mess and has been for years; I still don't see how it all fits on that site though.

I just hope we aren't playing into the hands of York Court and whatever motives the council have for not enforcing the original deal at Newmarket. Now we have the foot out of the door for Newmarket I presume YC will be able to carry on as they please with that land, I just hope they don't intend on dragging their feet some more when it comes to coughing up funds for our stadium because at that point it will be too late. Cautiously optimistic like everyone else but YC have given us no reason to trust them so far

As I understand it the longer they drag it out the longer the council will hold onto the lease as security. This way the funds for the stadium are front loaded as they should've been in the first place rather than back loaded. Stadium first, units second.

Yorkcourt's involvement concerns me too but this way they end up owing the Wakefield public rather than, in the wider perception, the Wakefield Trinity club. This is much more politically damaging to council and developer alike and would generate far more interest in the saga. Were it not for the pressure applied by certain journalists and posters on here we certainly wouldn’t be where we are now. Clearly somebody doesn’t want any further digging on this matter and they have been shamed to pull together. Right now it seems like something will come of it. Once we have it, perhaps that is the time to delve further into the murky goings on here.

That is pretty much the crux of the argument.

If this were a 'new' development it wouldn't get through, not a chance. Not enough access, not enough, disabled issues, to close to residential etc etc.

However this is the clever bit. I've overlay'd the plans onto the existing site and the footprint is identical or in some cases smaller. Every stand has an historical past. There have always been or at some time been roofed stands on all four sides.

There is absolutely no change of use, no change of size, nothing. Basically it's cosmetic, expensive and wonderful cosmetic but in pure planning terms it's not 'new'.

Put simply if your front wall falls down you just replace it with a new one, you don't need planning permission etc. I know planning isn't as simple as that but what we are doing reduces the chances of any meaningful opposition to a minimum.

I'm not saying it's nailed on but if you're looking for the straightest route from A to B this is it.

As for training facilities they don't need to be on site - I'm sure there are any number of organisations we could do a deal with on that one. Ditto Parking.

It's not ideal but compared to the bomb site we currently play in.....

Box and Mackie had backed themselves into a corner and were collectively crapping themselves at the thought of very damaging litigation from the club/Trust - a Court case that they would have likely lost - bearing in mind what we all now know, so to save face they have had to come up with a viable solution, and this appears to be it.
Box, being the manipulative politician that he is, has found a way of digging the two of them out of the brown smelly stuff and has come up with this solution which appears on the face of it, to be satisfactory to all parties concerned and Mackie gets an additional 35 acres of land down at Newmarket to do with as he pleases. Mannie gets to develop the BV site and we get a new stadium...everyone's a winner (hopefully !!)