Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:51 pm  

bigalf wrote:

Tell us again, where is the funding coming from for Newmarket?

York Court Properties. Of course the real agenda is for the big industrial units. Providing these community sporting facilities should greatly increase chances of gaining planning permission. A loss leader kind of thing. hth

Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:54 pm  

deeHell wrote: York Court Properties. Of course the real agenda is for the big industrial units. Providing these community sporting facilities should greatly increase chances of gaining planning permission. A loss leader kind of thing. hth Do you honestly believe that greenbelt land (200 acres approx) will be given up to a development of that magnitude on the basis of a stadium, I would be very jittery about this, if i was you, but good luck I Would Read This from page 9 Planning and refusals and enquiries cost lots and lots of money, i know ive been involved in them and that wasnt green belt

deeHell wrote: York Court Properties. Of course the real agenda is for the big industrial units. Providing these community sporting facilities should greatly increase chances of gaining planning permission. A loss leader kind of thing. hth Do you honestly believe that greenbelt land (200 acres approx) will be given up to a development of that magnitude on the basis of a stadium, I would be very jittery about this, if i was you, but good luck I Would Read This from page 9 Planning and refusals and enquiries cost lots and lots of money, i know ive been involved in them and that wasnt green belt

Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:57 pm  

deeHell wrote:

York Court Properties. Of course the real agenda is for the big industrial units. Providing these community sporting facilities should greatly increase chances of gaining planning permission. A loss leader kind of thing. hth

Do you honestly believe that Yorkcourt( or their bank ) will splash out 15/20 million on a stadium plus infrastructure before they have sold or let a single industrial/retail/hotel/ unit?

Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:05 pm  

bigalf wrote:

Do you honestly believe that Yorkcourt( or their bank ) will splash out 15/20 million on a stadium plus infrastructure before they have sold or let a single industrial/retail/hotel/ unit?

Well the planning application for the industrial units is on the condition that the sporting facilities are built. So I'm sure they have run the sums and considered every possible objection and seen it as viable. The project does seem a lot more financially solid than Glasshoughton, hence the reason for Castleford desperate attempt at a money grab from what is a separate project.

Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:18 pm  

Speedy's put a link up (elsewhere) to some very interesting reading indeed. It seems our colleagues from down the road have been a little disingenuous when compiling the Newmarket application:

> Citing excellent public transport links (apparently) which the Highways Agency have poo-poohed by pointing out that the bus services they rely on don't actually run on matchdays and there are no plans from the bus company to change that fact.
> Noise levels originally quoted now being disputed by Environmental Health after doing their own surveys and reaching contradictory conclusions.
> Claims that no other development has been proposed for the area being exposed, given that applications for both a housing development and some kind of gas storage facility are or have been (pardon the pun) in the pipeline.
> Leeds City Council blocking the proposal after themselves previously touting the area as prime for development and being told by the UDP it would be an 'inappropriate' use of green belt land.
> Not to mention the poor old otters...

I've only had a cursory glance at the objections (the environment objections run to thirty odd pages alone) and sure, the Newmarket development might not be quite dead yet, but you've got to say it's definitely coughing up blood.

Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:21 pm  

Disco wrote: Speedy's put a link up (elsewhere) to some very interesting reading indeed. It seems our colleagues from down the road have been a little disingenuous when compiling the Newmarket application: > Citing excellent public transport links (apparently) which the Highways Agency have poo-poohed by pointing out that the bus services they rely on don't actually run on matchdays and there are no plans from the bus company to change that fact. > Noise levels originally quoted now being disputed by Environmental Health after doing their own surveys and reaching contradictory conclusions. > Claims that no other development has been proposed for the area being exposed, given that applications for both a housing development and some kind of gas storage facility are oe have been (pardon the pun) in the pipeline. > Leeds City Council blocking to the proposal after themselves previously touting the area as prime for development and being told by the UDP it would be an 'inappropriate' use of green belt land. > Not to mention the poor old otters... I've only had a cursory glance at the objections (the environment objections run to thirty odd pages alone) and sure, the Newmarket development might not be quite dead yet, but you've got to say it's definitely coughing up blood. As my learned friend Disco has pointed out and just to repeat myself ....... I could be wrong here and im sure the polecats will pounce, but if it has to go to a public enquiry, then the secretary of state has to be involved, and rarely does planning permission be given, It may allow for sports purposes the building of a stadium, depending on many factors, but i doubt anything else. Im sure the Nimby's are banging their drums as we speak, so its not going to be plain sailing. The highways Agency arent happy yet either " intresting Reading, If you can be Arsed Especially from Leeds Council in section 5 Oooer the dreaded otters section 8 statutory responses Ecology Also........ Under the Town and Country Planning Acts there is a presumption in favour of development. However within the Green Belt this situation is reversed and there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm to the Green Belt, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. This is a tough test and it is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Whilst it is for the local planning authority to judge the special circumstances being put forward it would be unreasonable to give weight to a matter which national policy is unlikely to view as a very special circumstance. For example the fact that something can or cannot be seen should not be a determining factor. Planning applications for inappropriate development will, therefore, by their very nature, conflict with the development plan and if the Council wishes to grant permission the proposal must be treated as a departure from the development plan and referred to the Secretary of State. That will cost a small fortune, believe me, and i has to be bourne by the developer in the first instance, they may get recompensed if the enquirery is sucessful, but its not always that way, Ive been involved pesonally with one of these and it is a long drawn out issue,

Disco wrote: Speedy's put a link up (elsewhere) to some very interesting reading indeed. It seems our colleagues from down the road have been a little disingenuous when compiling the Newmarket application: > Citing excellent public transport links (apparently) which the Highways Agency have poo-poohed by pointing out that the bus services they rely on don't actually run on matchdays and there are no plans from the bus company to change that fact. > Noise levels originally quoted now being disputed by Environmental Health after doing their own surveys and reaching contradictory conclusions. > Claims that no other development has been proposed for the area being exposed, given that applications for both a housing development and some kind of gas storage facility are oe have been (pardon the pun) in the pipeline. > Leeds City Council blocking to the proposal after themselves previously touting the area as prime for development and being told by the UDP it would be an 'inappropriate' use of green belt land. > Not to mention the poor old otters... I've only had a cursory glance at the objections (the environment objections run to thirty odd pages alone) and sure, the Newmarket development might not be quite dead yet, but you've got to say it's definitely coughing up blood. As my learned friend Disco has pointed out and just to repeat myself ....... I could be wrong here and im sure the polecats will pounce, but if it has to go to a public enquiry, then the secretary of state has to be involved, and rarely does planning permission be given, It may allow for sports purposes the building of a stadium, depending on many factors, but i doubt anything else. Im sure the Nimby's are banging their drums as we speak, so its not going to be plain sailing. The highways Agency arent happy yet either " intresting Reading, If you can be Arsed Especially from Leeds Council in section 5 Oooer the dreaded otters section 8 statutory responses Ecology Also........ Under the Town and Country Planning Acts there is a presumption in favour of development. However within the Green Belt this situation is reversed and there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm to the Green Belt, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. This is a tough test and it is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Whilst it is for the local planning authority to judge the special circumstances being put forward it would be unreasonable to give weight to a matter which national policy is unlikely to view as a very special circumstance. For example the fact that something can or cannot be seen should not be a determining factor. Planning applications for inappropriate development will, therefore, by their very nature, conflict with the development plan and if the Council wishes to grant permission the proposal must be treated as a departure from the development plan and referred to the Secretary of State. That will cost a small fortune, believe me, and i has to be bourne by the developer in the first instance, they may get recompensed if the enquirery is sucessful, but its not always that way, Ive been involved pesonally with one of these and it is a long drawn out issue,

Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:34 pm  

I'm sorry but they cannot see the wood for the trees! (of which there are many on the Greenbelt Land in question)
They just don't get it!

Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:48 pm  

^^ Wot Speedy said.

Also also...

Of the two clubs, Cas seem to have all the cards given that they could survive at the ground they currently own (albeit in the lower leagues), while Wakey are genuinely screwed if they've nowhere to play out of, nowhere to call home, nowhere to go. Remember that Belle Vue is already sold pending the Wildcats relocating and the proceeds have, in part at least, already been spent.

Also also also...

I neglected to mention that the Newmarket planning application's estimates in respect to the creation of local jobs by the development has also been questioned by LCC.

Also also also also...

It's worth bearing in mind that Wakey have a fair bit of form when it comes to getting into Super League on the back of bulls**t promises. Oakwell and Thornes Park spring immediately to mind.

So, while in an ideal world I'd like both to thrive - on balance, which club would you say is more desperate to see a groundshare happen?

Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:53 pm  

Disco wrote:

^^ Wot Speedy said.

Also also...

Of the two clubs, Cas seem to have all the cards given that they could survive at the ground they currently own (albeit in the lower leagues), while Wakey are genuinely screwed if they've nowhere to play out of, nowhere to call home, nowhere to go. Remember that Belle Vue is already sold pending the Wildcats relocating and the proceeds have, in part at least, already been spent.

Also also also...

I neglected to mention that the Newmarket planning application's estimates in respect to the creation of local jobs by the development has also been questioned by LCC.

Also also also also...

It's worth bearing in mind that Wakey have a fair bit of form when it comes to getting into Super League on the back of bulls**t promises. Oakwell and Thornes Park spring immediately to mind.

So, while in an ideal world I'd like both to thrive - on balance, which club would you say is more desperate to see a groundshare happen?

Can't believe you've quoted the Thornes park debacle when that was your beloved Box stringing us along again. The sad thing about all of this is if the franchise system was weighted so that things to do with the sport side carried more value - neither clubd would have much to worry about

Re: Wakey Express- Groundshare : Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:58 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

Can't believe you've quoted the Thornes park debacle when that was your beloved Box stringing us along again. The sad thing about all of this is if the franchise system was weighted so that things to do with the sport side carried more value - neither clubd would have much to worry about

Oh come on... Thornes Park was a superb ruse. Well done...

And my box is neither here nor there!