In my first post I covered the whole gambit of reasoning behind why this development should not have been called in, which includes the misguided notion that Wakefield will lose a quantity of Greenbelt land.

In my second post I answered the previous contributers post which contained a reference to greenbelt, not out of context at all.

dont let it worry you pal , most of these are trolls with very little prospect personally

No he doesn't - that's me, and for what it's worth, you fail.

Carry on!

Thier will not be a net increase in Greenbelt. Greenbelt is a planning term not a conservation term. A site does not have to be Green and pleasent for it to be green belt. Planting more trees does not make a net increase in Greenbelt, it produces a net increase in trees.

Also just planting more trees does not mean a site become a richer habitat or more environmentally friendly. Perhaps if some of you actually read and understood what Natural England were saying instead of taking an they are against us approach you would not seem so ignorant on the matter.

I do not think it worries him, he unlike some has the ability and openness to debate(something he is a champion in) issues rather than resort to the predictable insults.

I'm quoting directly from the planning application regards a net increase in greenbelt land.

Lets not get started on matters of ignorance!

that's overlooked such is the depth of your overwhelming anti Wakefield verses you sing , im waiting for you to post a video from a secret cave in Leeds denouncing Wakefield and its rugby team . you are an inflated balloons worst fear .

So what your saying is if you have 50 acres of greenbelt and concrete 2/3 of this and plant trees on the other 1/3 it becomes 60 acres of greenbelt? mmmmmm not convinced.

Lets see what IA says. I think you may be mixing up your green field and green belt.

I see what you did there, well lets just say you have nothing to trouble a balloon then.

I'm not saying anything, I'm quoting what it says somewhere else.

I think the whole point here is, why are YOU sooooooooooooo bothered what happens at Newmarket? does it directly affect your life? are you a greenpeace envoy? why do you seek to pull apart every arguement on here in favour of the development? why does it matter to you?

Rather than try to explain the net gain of green belt just let him work it out on his own by READING THE APPLICATION.

The GB land doesn't have to be based at NM- merely owned by YK. It can then be transferred from their control to that of another body (WMDC) who reclassify it and protect it- until the next time to redevelop comes along, then it's back to musical chairs.

This point was explained at length at a fans evening. Funnily enough not attended by RB.

Thank you GP FC

I wonder if the irony of an ignoramous accusing someone of ignorance whilst being the very definition of ignorant will dawn on RB at some point!

The two cllrs that were at the meeting at Stanley Rangers stated that there was going to be a net gain of 1% green belt in the district.
How and where it comes from I don't know, but they were their words.