As you say Greenbelt is a planning term and I think what is being said is if further land that was designated for development use is reclassified as Greenbelt then there can be a net increase in Greenbelt.

Hung himself with his own reasoning.

Ironic thing is his reasoning was 100% correct, just his hated blinded the correct thinking.

FWIW I actually think RB's actually pretty well informed- he just takes a polar opposite view point to us because of his RL loyalties.

AI was sat no more than 5 foot away from the councillors who explained this point.

IIRC the only time "green field" was brought up was to clarify the difference and point out that this site was in no way "green field".

I was at the meeting and I cannot remember whether they said greenbelt or greenspace.

There certainly has been an increase in "green" due to a number of old pit sites that have been reclaimed most notably the former Frickley, Wheldale and Fryston Collieries which are now "green". Also a large part of Fryston was designated for housing and is now green space.

I think the point that Councillors were making is that there is an increase in green space in the District and may be not necessarily an increase in greenbelt but the fact of the matter is that there is an increasein green space however you want to look at it.

It was Greenbelt that has gone up by 1%. It's nice to think that we've played a part in that - professionally - and it would be even nicer if we could cash a little bit of that in - somewhere around the M62 would be good!

As TRB has pointed out, it was definitely green belt that was mentioned.

Thanks for all your replies and Clan for your essays ! Hope it is read by the PM, the more views and posts we get the more it is likely to do some good or rather it cannot do any harm

Could not recall exactly what they said but certainly land that was previously designated for development has been redesignated greenbelt - I think there was some around Cutsyke and the housing land at Fryston that will never be developed will be greenbelt so its not inconceivable that greenbelt has gone up 1% - all the Council has done is redistributed around.

One of the main purposes or greenbelt is to crate a space between towns cities to stop them merging into one, if it is true what you has been said, then most of these areas will hardly stop Leeds and Wakefield converging.

What is more it is another example of how the process over this whole thing has been poorly managed, we have residents we real concerns and a right to know what is going on, and the council are giving the facts to out at a supporters meeting, rather than trying to quell the fears of those effected. Also playing swapsy on land reclassification at the whim of one developer. I am glad that this is going to inquiry and the people of Wakefield will get an unbiased result.

Fair do's, however not so good for the job creation, regeneration of the areas that are having their land reclassified to suit one development.

No fair comment on this issue I stand corrected. However lets face it you lot have had it explained to you by the councillors where as the rest of us are left in the dark.

Apology accepted!

If that's what it was?

Capitalist you say! You clearly don't have any grasp on my politics... as this would not be a description most people who know me would use at all... pro-development, free market, pro-European and social democracy yes, capitalist no. I know not everybody holds my views but I have explained time and time and time and time again why I hold my views... have you?

I didn't take offence at the way they ran they campaign, I was upset by their take on morality and values in the way they presented their arguments.

As for the 'voluntary' consultation event at the Stanley Church centre, I read about it in the Wakefield Express not on here! I understand that the YEP, Ridings FM and Real Radio also rans stories about the event... hardly low-key. I don't think could afford a full one page add in the Times though! The objection groups keep saying that this was low-key but they have several of there own meetings directly with Yorkcourt, Denise Jefferey and other Wakefield and Leeds councillors. The buggers did not invite me, very low key! They don't like what they heard, so they convert this into no consultation and the classic... we are not been listened to! Do they know that some people hold different views to them... the majority of Wakefield Council and the whole of the planning committee for one!

As for the plans, I saw the same ones as everyone else did, which was the original application drawings... warehouse units and all! Did you actual go, I did, and they were the same (first issues) drawings you will find on the planning portal right now. I saw lots of local people (remember, I know quite a few of them, being a local and all) looking at plans and in general they understood and where happy. Did they not get something like 250 forms completed and only 10 or so anti comments.



Of course they are unclear, you can only estimate and those estimates are based on known statistics for this type of development... and that will include relocation jobs. Morrison's is a bad example, they would only ever want more space as they are expanding as a business. There is a strong rumour Tesco have their eye on the big unit (as well as other sites in the area I understand) and they will be almost all new jobs.

What I said was is that there is not much available space in the Wakefield district and the small amount of space that was available were generally older spec units and mostly not suitable for more modern distribution operations. These units will probably be taken, when growth returns, by low grade warehousing operations for which they are only suitable.

As for the LDF then it is plan period 2011 to 2022 for the additional (you understand this word, it means as well as the stuff already there!) 95ha and I would anticipate the site not being fully occupied until towards the end of this plan period (as do Yorkcourt) as no spec units will be built.



This is your daftest comment yet. Why would Wakefield build an Olympic size swimming pool complex when there is a brand new one for West Yorkshire in South Leeds? I know, I occasional do dive (scuba) training in the dive pit. What Wakefield needs is a community stadium and more so the outdoor and indoor field sports training facilities. This is in the LDF too! As for your Bolton comment, I think that is more daft than your Ponds Forge comment!



I think the other people have already corrected you on what Clan was meaning and I understood what he was trying to say, he is layman and is not deliberately trying to deceive anyone... unlike some of the prominent objectors! He also said 92ha and it's 95ha... did you miss this one. I didn't but decided it would be rather pedantic to point this out!

And as other have said, I never attack peoples spelling or grammar... however, I occasional recommend Firefox!

The meeting was open to all, some objectors were there so they will have heard what was said.
Was it poor management that the cllrs were there? Not in my opinion as the council was unanimously in support of the development.
As for the local residents with real conserns, I don't believe there are really all that many, I work with a lot of people who live in Methley, and they tell me there are only a few "real" objectors who are whipping up a bit of hysteria, many/most residents aren't hugely bothered as they don't really think it will bother them.
Their concerns will be addressed with all the other issues through the proper process.

You are correct... the M62 and A1M do that quite well though! This element of greenbelt argument for Newmarket in particular is not being used, even by the objectors, for this reason. You need to pick one of the other relevant ones to make a coherent argument!



What rubbish, for a start our meeting was a public meeting and a few people who came, came to object, and where allowed to speak and be heard. One of them, the cycle warden guy, changed his whole opinion because of the meeting and his comment was very much 'well most of what I heard (from the objection lobby) was not really true, and he took some Statements of Support away with him! Another guys was someone who I met in Kev's chippy who lived at the end of Watergate. He also changed his opinion quite a bit and when I spoke at length with him after the meeting he voiced some genuine issues about existing LGV/MGV traffic from a quarry using the route against their planning consent. He did not know an actual HGV restriction order was proposed for Newmarket Lane and Watergate because he just believed what he had been told as well. We discussed Wakefield and Leeds CC possibly being pressured into putting in physical restrictions to stop this current problem and new HGV accidentally using this route in future and that I would support and help with that if he wanted. He was contemplating sending a letter to Leeds and Wakefield Councils about this issue asking for this anyway to solve the current issue and future issue.

As I said before, the Newmarket Lane/Watergate/Methley Residents have had more meetings with councillors (Wakefield & Leeds) MP's and Yorkcourt than anyone else about this issue... the truth is they don't like what they are being told. This is fine, they don't have to like it, but then they turn this into no consultation and they don't listen to us! The three ward councillors for Outwood East and Stanley turned up because we invited them... that is part of their role!!! The answered questions and they support the development, so they gave us the same answers they probably gave to the residents outside of their district, never mind ward, but they don't like their answers!