The fact that one site has a petition in support of it means nothing if there is no planning application put in on it. Only if the two sites went up against each other would it maybe hold sway, although the planning would be judged on each sites individual merits first. The backing would make no difference as to whether the plans get called in, if they want a PI on it they will have one, if not they won't.

I just heard it mentioned in comparisons with WR with respect to their properties. Whether or not its preferable I don't know.

Good luck to them.
For the genuine CT fans, may of whom I teach & work with I really hope they don't end up being lead down the garden path. Any WTW fan who felt as crippled as I did when Thornes Park fell through shouldn't wallow in anyone else's pain.

As we all know the pace isn't being set by themselves, their developers or even central government, all of whom tend to work to set timescales. Their fate is in the hands of Tescos. The native biggest company in the land! They work in line with the markets, moving only when it best suits them. This is a worse scenario than a PI IMO. After they sign a supermarket they still have to form an application, put it to consultation, get it past the council & and the regional office without it resulting in a PI. Not a great place to be in.

Although as the next few days unfold I think we'll discover Tescos have more to do with NM than we think: IA did promise an early Christmas present. Now I'm not saying that's what it is, but I am insinuating that's part of what it COULD be.

As far as Neverdid goes; I'll have a momentary chuckle!

COULD it be a huge part of Tesco's distribution hub?

It appears to me that the possibility of delays now could be a problem for cas, other sites, other supermarkets, objectors etc etc.
What it doesn't prove though is that it won't still happen, and anyone who says another supermarket or two cant be developed at once or in close proximity clearly doesn't understand the power of the supermarkets.
Look at Wakefield, Tesco's sniff around mention they want the old Sainsburys site, Sainsburys kick off and Wakefield ends up with a new Tesco and ANOTHER Sainsburys all within a mile of the city centre, on the same road, and i would argue that the people of Wakefield don't need either.

The council are backing WR, its in their interest GH gets built, it will be alot easier to build with council backing.

Not yet it hasn't. The planning application has been in since August and probably won't be heard for a couple of months at least, developments of this nature are nortoriously slow. No guarentees it will get passed either as it doesn't meet the councils own plans for the area.

And the two Sainsburys?

The fact that they are always jammed, implies Wakefield can clearly handle two big supermarkets

The council might well be backing it but if there is no application to back then there is not much they can do. If a rival site gets an application in first then it is obliged to consider it on its own merit. It can't refuse it based on what might or might not happen at another site regarding an application. If the WR application goes in first you should have no problems in eventually getting it through (although as has been mentioned, it wion't be a quick job, these things never are). But you really can't afford any more delays now, progress has to be made quickly or I fear the chance will be gone. If Opus' statement is correct and other sites and supermarkets are interested in the area then whoever gets the application on the desk first more likely than not wins the battle. The others will walk away.

The Trinity Walk one took a while but as it was submitted as part of the whole centre proposal no one noticed as that took forever to get built. The one on Ings road didn't need planning permission to reopen as it was already a supermarket.

Sainsburys at Trinity Walk, where we do our shopping, is usually operating about a quarter of its tills, that implies nothing of the sort.