Quote: Inflatable_Armadillo " these sites were already in the core strategy and ARE NOT contributing the additional 95ha. The only site that has been identified in the LDF as, so far, contributing to the additional 95ha is indeed circa 34ha at Newmarket isn't it!
'"
I accept that you are strictly correct but
Lets not get into the semantics about this:
"Site detached from any settlement
which is contrary to Policy CS 1. It is
in the Green Belt which contrary to
Policy CS 3 but proposed to be
removed in accordance with Policy CS
12 due to exceptional circumstances
(the requirement for strategic
employment land on the M62 corridor
in accordance with Policy CS
. The
proposal is restricted to B8 wholesale
and freight distribution use. This is a
brownfield and greenfield/previously
reclaimed site adjacent Junction 30 of
the M62 contributing towards the
required additional 95 hectares of B8
(storage and distribution) land along
the M62 corridor, which conforms to
Policy CS 8."
as opposed to this:
"In accordance with the regional spatial
strategy and the core strategy, no
further employment land is required to
be allocated for the plan period other
than 95 has of wholesale and freight
distribution (Bicon_cool.gif employment land
within the M62 corridor. This
establishes the exceptional
circumstances required for the 'release'
of green belt land in the absence of
other suitable non-green belt land
being available."
You and I both know that the land at Ferrybridge/Knottingley is "earmarked" for the 95Ha as stated above.
I am sure that there would be little objection to a Stadium on the site as it is proposed (Green Belt) with a small industrial area on the 33 Ha leaving the vast majority untouched. But that would never happen even if it got the all clear, would it?