Why?

I'm only seeing 6 docs added today - all drainage related.

All other docs are historic.

Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place - can you post the link?

EDIT - think I've spotted it - the map search function shows 2 planning apps...the red writing = aspects amended removed for "VE" - "value engineering"??

Only negative amendment I can see is omission of the polycarbonate "ends" for the stands??

Where's resident expert?

Just that the money and project is all in place so any reduction in spec or plans at this point etc could only be negative as we would be getting less for likely the same cost.

Quote: dboy "Only negative amendment I can see is omission of the polycarbonate "ends" for the stands?? Where's resident expert?'" If you mean me I’ve just woken up Below is a link to the latest documents validated just a week ago, enjoy https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... ab=summary

Quote: dboy "Only negative amendment I can see is omission of the polycarbonate "ends" for the stands?? Where's resident expert?'" If you mean me I’ve just woken up Below is a link to the latest documents validated just a week ago, enjoy https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... ab=summary

Any pictures?

You can’t see much from the road, you’ll see far better on Sunday in the ground tbh.

There are drawings and amendments on the planning portal, you need to click the link on my previous post, I’m not a planning expert, and I think the best way to compare the previous and current drawings would be to have hard copies side by side.

Just had a good look and can't see anything I'd call a lowering of spec.

It looks like the ends of the concourse have been changed from transparent to full cladding, can't really see an issue there.

The roof line is now higher to allow the roof to slope over the office area. Meaning the office no longer has a flat roof, in our climate that's just logic.

The other bits look more like additions to me, though I don't claim to know what some of them are.

What continues to fascinate me is the 'void' area over the concourse. That is so ripe to be converted into boxes at a later date, looks like you could fit six in, Probably wasn't worth it for now, but fashions change and the flats won't last forever so it's a nice safety net.

I’ve had another look this morning at the amendments, it seems most changes are minimal such as 1 set of double doors instead of 2 set of doors, and I know we have to cut our cloth accordingly, but I do agree with you regarding removing the rain screens at each end of the seating. That will not be pleasant for anyone sitting there when the rains blowing in. Only time will tell how that pans out.

I’m not sure if the cladding is being extended along the end of the stands, the drawings show in red Text

Polycarbonate rainscreen cladding to terrace omitted as part of VE

Yep I missed that. TBH I don't know whether that is good or bad. At the south end it's not really needed as the Cats bar offers a rain/wind break. At the north end I'm not sure. I've seen plenty of modern stands without them so there must be a reason. I suppose you could call it a downgrade or a cost cutting exercise. If it did become an issue I can't see it being difficult to retrofit.

TBH, the ends of the stands are at the North and South - when the wind blows and the rain falls, it invariably comes from the West, so everyone in that stand will be getting a face-full anyway.

Looking again at the latest planning application I noticed
July 7th Application received
July 26th Application validated
Status. Awaiting Decision.

I’ve looked at the council meeting calendar and there is no planning meeting for August.
The next planning meeting is scheduled for September 15th.

As far as I’m aware, the demolition can still go ahead as this doesn’t affect the latest application. I can’t see anything on the latest application for changes that would prevent the start of building work, due to start 23rd August.

Does anyone on here know for sure if the work can still Carry on even if the application has not yet been approved.

I'd have thought so. I'd guess that none of thees things count as planning issues so I'm a bit surprised this is required. Although I did notice that the capacity was now 2,600 which I'm sure is higher than it was before? This may be the reason.

But yes I'm 99.9% certain its purely procedural.