You don't say, I thought I'd just missed them being there for the last 50 years that I've lived in Wakefield!

Unless I passed through a time warp while jogging round Pugneys, they're there now and now is when I'm talking about!

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but Newmarket was passed by the council but called in by Mr Pickles who I believe represents the Conservative party.
Why is it the councils fault they have only given Castleford what they had provided us with several years ago. The difference is I hope for them a more honourable developer.
I have not read anything that suggests the blame lies with anyone other than the developer.
I guess some on here are more interested in making political points rather than asking why is it the council's fault the stadium is not being built.

The council have bent a few rules in order to make the Cas stadium happen. There's not much wrong with that, but what it proves is the attitude difference compared to that with the Wakey ground! If they really do support NM, as they say they do, then help us - and that goes for BV if it works out best for us to stay there!

11 years and counting!

There is a binding contract in place to say the stadium must be built first. The council have learnt their lessons with Newmarket and looked to close all potential loopholes.

You keep saying this but like I and a few others have said, it's more about WMDC seemingly wiping their hands of the whole situation that they were involved in. Instead of making the right noises when Yorkcourt was obviously trying to wriggle out of their aggreement and then putting pressure on them to fullfill their end of the deal. All you have to do is read what Box said in an interview about Newmaket, if someone can find it, which if I remember right was something along the lines of its nothing to do with me gov'.

Which rules have been bent? (B&Q/Sainsburys delayed decision?) Genuine question.

Bent the rules = liberal interpretations!

For 1 - the very same site was deemed unsuitable for development just 3/4 years ago by their own planners in the UDP PI.

For 2 - they have bypassed a whole raft of issues to do with mining applications by putting it as part of the development. We understand that circa £5m worth of coal resides in that site.

For 3 - it's retail on GB. It's a real no-no, but it has gone with unanimous support and even a recommendation to approve - something that should ensure that it does not get called in for a PI.

It's more to do with what 'can be done' when there is a will to make it happen.

Cheers. I have a real problem with "over development" of areas particularly in unsuitable places, which both Newmarket and the 5 towns park are in my opinion (not a popular one I might add!)
The develop at all costs attitude and the cosying up to developers really sticks in my craw and are things we, as a community, will regret in time.
From the limited information I have been able to glean from someone involved in the planning I genuinely believe the main driving factor for the council has been the business development side rather than the stadium and the club are simply a means to an end, in the same way wakey were at NM. I don't go in for all this cloak and dagger Box is a Cas fan and he's gifted it to us stuff. People in council may have sporting allegiances, but in my experience they are only out for themselves.

That's not the sight Mopsey is originally refering to, he's talking about the other side of Denby Dale road the side where Mercedes are.

Is there? Have you seen it? Who is the contract between? There is a yet to be agreed S106 agreement to be entered into, but I see nothing about any separate contractual agreement?

Also, the stadium does NOT have to be built first. The conditions proposed say that none of the retail can be occupied prior to the freehold of the stadium being transferred to the club, it says nothing about about building it first?

Sounds depressingly familiar. At least it's a bit more definitive than the ambiguous 'built out' terminology.

I'd love to see it. For me that's just film flam and folk seeing what they want to see - not impossible but highly unlikely.

No developer or bank would sign up for that IMHO and no Council could force them, especially as it's a buyers market at present. This is a private development and as such no bank would lend money on those terms and no Supermarket (if one appears) would wait for that to happen.

As this seems to hinge on a supermarket taking a slice of the action, which one do you reckon it will be? As an observer there already is a sizeable Asda pretty much on the site and numerous brand outlets at Xscape, I can't see the scope for a second supermarket which would have to be a big one to justify the development.

If It's any consolation I reckon it's possibly as likely as NM maybe slightly more which isn't saying much.

Didn't the Asda application to extend their current store also get passed? So it won't be them. Sainsburys are currently arguing over changing the B&Q store nearby and opposed the application so they are unlikely. Tesco & Morrisons have scaled back big store openings massively so also aren't likely to be interested in the immediate future either, especially with Asda already close by and no guarantee of instant success. It may take a while for it to all come to fruition.

None of the above if we are right. The movers in the supermarket stakes are the premium stores and the budget stores. But this scheme is a retail park and the supermarket is but one part!

Vastly, I understand your scepticism, but I suspect the agreement is much, much stronger than ours was. Peter Box has put his name on this one! He won't even talk to us!

Marks and Spencer's I've been told.