RLFANS.COM - The World's Most Popular Rugby League Website

Ok, having read Richard's comments then unfortunately there is quite a bit of straw clutching and also, it smacks of a little desperation now on his part. You must remember Richard is an 'environmentalist' and his default position is that he just does not want anything to be built ever on this land, so he will continue to object because of his own principles, so as such he can not be criticised personally but his arguments can be challenged and it is now very weak and isolated. I suspect the non-statutory objectors to the development will put much stock in this reply, but if anything it indicates that he knows 'they' are on the back-foot and struggling to sustain any meaningful arguments.

1) He seems to be saying that because the report calls a footpath by the wrong name then the whole report is questionable! These type of minor errors are just that, minor errors and quite frankly if you don't have the benefit of local knowledge it is an easy mistake to make - Trans-Pennine Trail to Pennine Way, not that dissimilar! Someone will have got it wrong on an early report or plan and no one will have picked them up on it, nothing more sinister than that.

I am also unsure what the very small power station has to do with anything? In answer to his questions then there are no planning restrictions or any issues and it has no impact on the proposals. So this is a non-question.

2) He seem to be saying that British Waterways have got their calculations wrong because he clearly thinks (in his opinion!!!) that the ditch is not as wide or deep as the figure they use in calculation (I assume?). It is not unreasonable to make assumptions at this outline stage based on published O/S survey information and any slight ambiguity in their calculations will be picked up at detailed submission stage. This is not a point of objection but a technical comment, nothing more.

3) Well, we all know what we call people on this board who reduce themselves to picking up on grammatically errors in posts!!! Sloppy, yes a little, but you can't question a whole report because it has a few grammatical errors in it - this is weak!

4) Again, they got the name of the treatment works slightly wrong!!! He then tell us, that he thinks (in his opinion!) that they may have chosen the wrong treatment works! He may well be right... or he could be wrong, but the thing is, at this stage, it doesn't matter as this is just a technical point that will be resolved at detailed submission stage. As point 2, this is not a point of objection but a technical comment.

5) This is just yet another petty comment! So in exchanging some e-mails they have called the River Calder the River Aire and talked about the site being in Oulton, as opposed to Stanley... errr, what was the point again!

6) This is him being an environmentalist and trying to make out this site is a more valuable wild life haven than it really is... it is isn't IMO, but this come back to his principle about this site having any development at all and he will object because this is his principle position. Also, a large proportion of the current tree and hedgerows will remain as part of the proposals, so it is weak.

7) As part of any reserved matters application for the site, all this will be dealt with and they will simply have to meet current UK and European legislation on all carbon emissions and off-sets etc! As for light, noise and air pollution, the same applies, but given it is next to 6 lanes of lit M62 then the additional impact is minimal! Again, a technical comment and not an objection!

8 & 9) The last two points can be answered at the same time - look at the plans!!! This has to be the ultimate irony of Richards comments. He effectively accuses the consultants for lack of rigour in their reports, yet clearly has not seen or bothered to re-visit the actually outline planning drawings and proposals as all his questions are answered and to every one of his points raised, the answer is yes!

"What if any visual screening via bunding or vegetation does the developer propose to
install?" Lots and lots... it is on the plans for gods sake, they have submitted an outline landscaping plan to show just this!

"Where are the bus stops (shown on the plans!), shelters (shown on the plans!), walking and cycle routes (shown on the plans!) and cycle parking (shown on the plans!) that might
help reduce the traffic impacts of approaching 3,000 extra cars? And is the developer going
to pay to install traffic lights, cycle lanes and pedestrian crossing facilities where Newmarket
Lane joins the A642?" - Yes they are... IT IS ON THE PLANS!

The point is, that the only statutory objector left objecting to these proposals is Leeds City Council now that agreement has been reached with the Highways Agency and Natural England/West Yorkshire Ecology. We (any many others) are also talking to Leeds City Council and while we think they will not withdraw their objection completely (politicians and voters remember!), they are likley to have no choice but to back down on the majority of their objection points they raised because they have indeed been resolved and have lost any expert back-up. This will probably leave them with a toothless objection based on the pure principle of the site currently being Greenbelt and not a lot more.