Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:00 pm  

Glassblower wrote: Very good of you matey, has for you feeling a little sensitive I can honestly say I have been there done that and pretty sure I have the T-shirt. You probably understand why I have reservations with Newmarket when we read such has below: http://www.wakefieldangryresidents.com/ ... on-30.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/se ... dium-plans http://cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf Be careful Glassblower! IA is even more sensitive about the Guardian link.

Glassblower wrote: Very good of you matey, has for you feeling a little sensitive I can honestly say I have been there done that and pretty sure I have the T-shirt. You probably understand why I have reservations with Newmarket when we read such has below: http://www.wakefieldangryresidents.com/ ... on-30.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/se ... dium-plans http://cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf Be careful Glassblower! IA is even more sensitive about the Guardian link.

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:09 pm  

bigalf wrote:

Be careful Glassblower! IA is even more sensitive about the Guardian link.

Thanks for the heads up Alf.

To be honest I don't blame him, there are a lot more negative articles than there are positive. I believe folks forget this is not just about Rugby League it is about a community and lets not forget peoples livelihoods!

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:25 am  

If you read it all closely it's actually quite scary! I'd probably be worried if I was a WC supporter.

The objectors all claim not enough carparking (800) for a 12000 capacity stadium. to be honest it certainly doesn't seem to be enough in my opinion. Yet the club says it's been rectified! Yet the outline planning documentation still only says 800.

FWIW I actually believe the council will support this with certain conditions, however I can also see it being called in by the government, and where will that leave them?

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:29 am  

Junglefever wrote:

If you read it all closely it's actually quite scary! I'd probably be worried if I was a WC supporter.

The objectors all claim not enough carparking (800) for a 12000 capacity stadium. to be honest it certainly doesn't seem to be enough in my opinion. Yet the club says it's been rectified! Yet the outline planning documentation still only says 800.

FWIW I actually believe the council will support this with certain conditions, however I can also see it being called in by the government, and where will that leave them?

The co op championship

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:35 am  

Glassblower wrote: Thanks for the heads up Alf. To be honest I don't blame him, there are a lot more negative articles than there are positive. I believe folks forget this is not just about Rugby League it is about a community and lets not forget peoples livelihoods! He tells you to be careful and that is ok! I am not sensitive about the Guardian article, it is at it's worst only very sloppy journalism and then is just reporting the views and opinions of three ward councillors from Leeds. He original stated that the site was in Rothwell and when prompted he changed it and apologised but he clearly just took my word for it and the piece still says New Market Lane and of course it is Newmarket Lane... as a professional journalist he could not even be bothered to look at the site on Google maps it would appear, he has just written a piece off the back of maybe a press release and no more. I of course disagree with the Councillors views and set out my argument for doing so. I just want to say the following information below is all from public record, I have not named anyone directly even though that is also public record, as that is against the AUP of RL Fans, where I have made assumptions and connections I have clearly stated so and asked the reader to make their own judgement based on this public record information. As for Wakefield Angry Residents (W.A.R.) it is not all it seems and is just a faux group invented by a prominent affluent resident of Newmarket Lane and possibly some of his neighbours (we can only factually trace the groups to one resident, but rumour in Stanley is that some, not all, of his neighbours are involved). They set up two faux groups actually, the first one was Wakefield Community Conservation Group. It is a very emotive name isn't it, makes it sound like they are interested in conservation doesn't it and that they were an existing group before this came along... they both didn't exist, they are just vehicles designed, very expertly mind, to give a sense of credibility and solicit and even trick (IMO) people into objecting! This person is very clever and knows what he is doing, because as well as his business on Newmarket Lane he is also a Director of, among many businesses, a housing developer. He has skeletons in his closet (I will come back to that) and has therefore tried to conceal his identity but has not done that great a job of it! The first website he set up, http://www.wakefieldccg.co.uk he registered under his business name on Newmarket Lane and some of you may know, you have to reveal your address if you are a business on the WHOIS search, search it yourself, it is still there on the WHOIS. He then set up the http://www.wakefieldangryresidents.com website, he got a little cleverer here and by using a .com a address he was able to conceal his identity using a concealment service... of course, the website is hosted by the same company as all his websites and has exactly the same DNS servers, as well as directly ripping off much of the material and pictures from his original website.... coincidence, you decide! His latest trick was to take out a new domain for the now re-christened Wakefield and Leeds Community Conservation Group http://www.wccg.co.uk. This time he clearly just decided to register the domain as being for an individual, in that way he doesn't have to give an address you see, but he can't use his real name, so what does he do... he registered the site as being owned by a Mr Ted Richardson, funny, odd and quite possibly illegal all at the same time! Go have a look at the WHOIS... he of course still points the original web address at the new one, so the fact that once again the new domain uses the same host and DNS server addresses are not required to link him to this site. He (and possibly some of his neighbours) has printed and paid for leaflets to be commercially distributed all over the surrounding areas. The flyers in the main are like the website, it has some reasonably factual information on them but most of it highly subjective, without factual foundation and at the worst contains lies and libels Wakefield MDC more than once. This has all been expertly designed to gain and then IMO use and abuse peoples trust and play on most peoples issues with officialdom. On the WAR website the lies start straight away... The current issue we are tackling is the proposed destruction of Green Belt land in Stanley, Wakefield. For the now the website is dedicated to this pressing issue, and will resume to normal in the coming months. Makes it sound like this Wakefield Angry Residents group has been going a while doesn't it and was tackling other issues in the area prior to this one and will go on to another issues when this is over? Of course the website only went up in April this year and it looked like this from day one I can assure you, it is a con mate, a brilliant elaborate one, but a con! It is full of other lies mixed in with some facts but of course turned to suit his (their) objective... that is to stop this development because they don't want it near them, nothing more, nothing less... they are NIMBY's. Now you might come back with the often used phrase of, 'well, how would you like it if someone built this next to you?' but this is not only a loaded question (a bit like saying how would you like it if I punched you in the nose?) but is not a valid objection, in fact it is the top of the list of objections you should not make! Painful if it is you, of course, but the system and the law don't work that way. Our friend on Newmarket Lane knows this and that is why he has very cleverly done what he has done! He knows it because he is no stranger to being on the other side of this process and has before now, got himself into a spot of bother in Scotland for prematurely chopping some tress down on a housing development the housing company he is a Director of were looking to get planning permission for (he is named personally as the applicant of the application as well)! Not strictly illegal, as we understand it there were no TPO's on the trees, but it lost him his planning permission that the planning offices were actual going to recommend approval of if he reduced the number of new houses and retained more trees! Maybe this guy has seen the light and therefore he is now serious about conservation, after all we can prove he at the very least runs a website called Wakefield & Leeds Community Conservation Group, or maybe he couldn't give a stuff about conservation and is just interested in looking out for his own interests and getting others to help him through some very clever 'PR' work... you decide? It is for this reason that I actually got so heavily involved and passionate about putting over an alternative view, one that is a little more balanced than theirs but like everything, still subjective. It would be hugely hypocritical as a Structural Engineer by profession and therefore someone who has to be pro-development as it is what I earn my living from, to say that I don't have a pro-development bias! But I live very local to the site (more local than the majority of the objectors) , I don't support Wakefield Trinity, as everyone knows I am a Rhinos season ticket holder and Rhinos 4 Life member (so do support RL and therefore both Wakefield and Cas getting new grounds) and I don't have anything to gain from either build as I work in a very specialist sector of the timber industry. The site has some issues, not least of which is that it is in Green belt (the only real valid objection issue IMO), but I will let you into a secret, all sites this big do, it is very rare for them not to have just by the pure nature of the size of the development! Glasshougton certainly did, and it also had until very recently a Highways Agency Section 14 holding notice imposed on the site of the new Cas ground, so it is not a big deal and just need dialogue and work to resolve. Please don't believe everything everyone tells you, they have agenda's, including me I suppose, but unfortunately they wish to conceal their true intent to get what they want, I have at least told you why I support the support the development and my real identity is no secret!

Glassblower wrote: Thanks for the heads up Alf. To be honest I don't blame him, there are a lot more negative articles than there are positive. I believe folks forget this is not just about Rugby League it is about a community and lets not forget peoples livelihoods! He tells you to be careful and that is ok! I am not sensitive about the Guardian article, it is at it's worst only very sloppy journalism and then is just reporting the views and opinions of three ward councillors from Leeds. He original stated that the site was in Rothwell and when prompted he changed it and apologised but he clearly just took my word for it and the piece still says New Market Lane and of course it is Newmarket Lane... as a professional journalist he could not even be bothered to look at the site on Google maps it would appear, he has just written a piece off the back of maybe a press release and no more. I of course disagree with the Councillors views and set out my argument for doing so. I just want to say the following information below is all from public record, I have not named anyone directly even though that is also public record, as that is against the AUP of RL Fans, where I have made assumptions and connections I have clearly stated so and asked the reader to make their own judgement based on this public record information. As for Wakefield Angry Residents (W.A.R.) it is not all it seems and is just a faux group invented by a prominent affluent resident of Newmarket Lane and possibly some of his neighbours (we can only factually trace the groups to one resident, but rumour in Stanley is that some, not all, of his neighbours are involved). They set up two faux groups actually, the first one was Wakefield Community Conservation Group. It is a very emotive name isn't it, makes it sound like they are interested in conservation doesn't it and that they were an existing group before this came along... they both didn't exist, they are just vehicles designed, very expertly mind, to give a sense of credibility and solicit and even trick (IMO) people into objecting! This person is very clever and knows what he is doing, because as well as his business on Newmarket Lane he is also a Director of, among many businesses, a housing developer. He has skeletons in his closet (I will come back to that) and has therefore tried to conceal his identity but has not done that great a job of it! The first website he set up, http://www.wakefieldccg.co.uk he registered under his business name on Newmarket Lane and some of you may know, you have to reveal your address if you are a business on the WHOIS search, search it yourself, it is still there on the WHOIS. He then set up the http://www.wakefieldangryresidents.com website, he got a little cleverer here and by using a .com a address he was able to conceal his identity using a concealment service... of course, the website is hosted by the same company as all his websites and has exactly the same DNS servers, as well as directly ripping off much of the material and pictures from his original website.... coincidence, you decide! His latest trick was to take out a new domain for the now re-christened Wakefield and Leeds Community Conservation Group http://www.wccg.co.uk. This time he clearly just decided to register the domain as being for an individual, in that way he doesn't have to give an address you see, but he can't use his real name, so what does he do... he registered the site as being owned by a Mr Ted Richardson, funny, odd and quite possibly illegal all at the same time! Go have a look at the WHOIS... he of course still points the original web address at the new one, so the fact that once again the new domain uses the same host and DNS server addresses are not required to link him to this site. He (and possibly some of his neighbours) has printed and paid for leaflets to be commercially distributed all over the surrounding areas. The flyers in the main are like the website, it has some reasonably factual information on them but most of it highly subjective, without factual foundation and at the worst contains lies and libels Wakefield MDC more than once. This has all been expertly designed to gain and then IMO use and abuse peoples trust and play on most peoples issues with officialdom. On the WAR website the lies start straight away... The current issue we are tackling is the proposed destruction of Green Belt land in Stanley, Wakefield. For the now the website is dedicated to this pressing issue, and will resume to normal in the coming months. Makes it sound like this Wakefield Angry Residents group has been going a while doesn't it and was tackling other issues in the area prior to this one and will go on to another issues when this is over? Of course the website only went up in April this year and it looked like this from day one I can assure you, it is a con mate, a brilliant elaborate one, but a con! It is full of other lies mixed in with some facts but of course turned to suit his (their) objective... that is to stop this development because they don't want it near them, nothing more, nothing less... they are NIMBY's. Now you might come back with the often used phrase of, 'well, how would you like it if someone built this next to you?' but this is not only a loaded question (a bit like saying how would you like it if I punched you in the nose?) but is not a valid objection, in fact it is the top of the list of objections you should not make! Painful if it is you, of course, but the system and the law don't work that way. Our friend on Newmarket Lane knows this and that is why he has very cleverly done what he has done! He knows it because he is no stranger to being on the other side of this process and has before now, got himself into a spot of bother in Scotland for prematurely chopping some tress down on a housing development the housing company he is a Director of were looking to get planning permission for (he is named personally as the applicant of the application as well)! Not strictly illegal, as we understand it there were no TPO's on the trees, but it lost him his planning permission that the planning offices were actual going to recommend approval of if he reduced the number of new houses and retained more trees! Maybe this guy has seen the light and therefore he is now serious about conservation, after all we can prove he at the very least runs a website called Wakefield & Leeds Community Conservation Group, or maybe he couldn't give a stuff about conservation and is just interested in looking out for his own interests and getting others to help him through some very clever 'PR' work... you decide? It is for this reason that I actually got so heavily involved and passionate about putting over an alternative view, one that is a little more balanced than theirs but like everything, still subjective. It would be hugely hypocritical as a Structural Engineer by profession and therefore someone who has to be pro-development as it is what I earn my living from, to say that I don't have a pro-development bias! But I live very local to the site (more local than the majority of the objectors) , I don't support Wakefield Trinity, as everyone knows I am a Rhinos season ticket holder and Rhinos 4 Life member (so do support RL and therefore both Wakefield and Cas getting new grounds) and I don't have anything to gain from either build as I work in a very specialist sector of the timber industry. The site has some issues, not least of which is that it is in Green belt (the only real valid objection issue IMO), but I will let you into a secret, all sites this big do, it is very rare for them not to have just by the pure nature of the size of the development! Glasshougton certainly did, and it also had until very recently a Highways Agency Section 14 holding notice imposed on the site of the new Cas ground, so it is not a big deal and just need dialogue and work to resolve. Please don't believe everything everyone tells you, they have agenda's, including me I suppose, but unfortunately they wish to conceal their true intent to get what they want, I have at least told you why I support the support the development and my real identity is no secret!

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:55 am  

Junglefever wrote:

If you read it all closely it's actually quite scary! I'd probably be worried if I was a WC supporter.

The objectors all claim not enough carparking (800) for a 12000 capacity stadium. to be honest it certainly doesn't seem to be enough in my opinion. Yet the club says it's been rectified! Yet the outline planning documentation still only says 800.

FWIW I actually believe the council will support this with certain conditions, however I can also see it being called in by the government, and where will that leave them?

I can imagine the road up to Newmarket (is it Aberford Road)? will be gridlocked before & after the game, especially around visiting time at Pinderfields.

I had heard park & ride for home supporters had been mentioned is that right?

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:01 am  

Junglefever wrote:

If you read it all closely it's actually quite scary! I'd probably be worried if I was a WC supporter.

The objectors all claim not enough carparking (800) for a 12000 capacity stadium. to be honest it certainly doesn't seem to be enough in my opinion. Yet the club says it's been rectified! Yet the outline planning documentation still only says 800.

FWIW I actually believe the council will support this with certain conditions, however I can also see it being called in by the government, and where will that leave them?

Wouldn't like to be stuck in the traffic by pinderfields hospital on matchdays

Is that why park & ride has been mentioned

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:12 am  

Junglefever wrote:

If you read it all closely it's actually quite scary! I'd probably be worried if I was a WC supporter.

The objectors all claim not enough carparking (800) for a 12000 capacity stadium. to be honest it certainly doesn't seem to be enough in my opinion. Yet the club says it's been rectified! Yet the outline planning documentation still only says 800.

FWIW I actually believe the council will support this with certain conditions, however I can also see it being called in by the government, and where will that leave them?

I think they are worried mate, the 22nd is a big day for their club and it could all go pear shaped if the application doesn't get a 'minded to approve' decision on Friday but I also think, like you it will get a positive outcome on Friday. IMO the scheme stacks up and while it does have a few outstanding issues and it is on Green belt the majority of the land being used is reclaimed land from the pit site. However, unlike you I am still inclined to think it won't get called in (but it is a lottery to be honest) as the word is, the new government as pushing most back and not taking any to PI's to save money. Also the Conservative Group on Wakefield MDC have already publicly backed the scheme, so that bodes well for Friday (the planning committee looks to be 40% Tory!), but also for the Coalition supporting it's local councillors and rejecting the inevitable call from now Labour controlled Leeds to take it to a PI.

As for the car parking issue you raise it is an interesting one and one that appears to be at the heart of the differences of opinions between the Highways Agency (who want more spaces, we think) and the local Highways office and planners who want less spaces and better public transport options etc, etc. The Highways Agency have been a little rubbish here to be honest, they have had the developers travel plan for some time, including several revisions and have only just replied months late and that is by way of a Section 14 notice (a tactic they use more and more because they can't keep up with the work load and with the cuts, that should get worse not better) because they have left it late to ask questions.

I am slightly inclined to agree that more spaces would be a good idea, however current national planning policy disagrees and they would be happy with less spaces! This shows you that even with Statutory Authorities there is some disagreement and one will get their way while another might not. That does not make it a valid reason to turn down any planning application, there are always ongoing difference of opinion, and in my experience delaying things (when you can of course impose a planning condition instead) is not the answer because the continue to push home their own position until such time they have to come to some sort of compromise agreement to the let the development move on. The developer has 28 days after Friday to get things agreed between them all anyway and it it does get called in then it doesn't really matter!

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:27 am  

duke street 10 wrote:

I can imagine the road up to Newmarket (is it Aberford Road)? will be gridlocked before & after the game, especially around visiting time at Pinderfields.

I had heard park & ride for home supporters had been mentioned is that right?

The car park is proposed to be a park and ride for serving Wakefield city centre during the week and the travel plan is proposing the laying on of special buses from both Wakefield City Centre and also places like Outwood and Wrenthorpe on match days to stop home support travelling by car.

The issue of Pinderfields access is one of the scaremonger tactics being used by the NIMBY's and doesn't have any real foundation IMO. Aberford Road is very, very busy at AM peak anyway and queues form to get into Wakefield past Pinderfields every morning. Traffic heading to and from the game will not create anything like the same amount of a problem as they have at other times, as many people who will drive will use the motorway or other routes via the A61 (Leeds Road) and come through Stanley. Of course there will be extra traffic but it is not a threat to Pinderfields access as Ouchthorpe Lane can be used instead of Aberford Road if busy. In actual fact, I would argue that Belle Vue causes more problems to Pinderfields access now on match days than the new ever development will as Chantry Bridge creates a bottleneck and backs up many access roads to Pinderfields on the city side!

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:11 am  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-11588424 So is Leeds City Council's leader now seriously still going to lobby central Government to hold a public inquiry on Newmarket that will cost hundred of thousands (if not into the millions) to hold and potentially turn down the opportunity of thousands of long term private sector jobs, hundreds of construction jobs as well as the resultant community sporting facilities on the border of the two cities? He surely can no longer be that hypocritical after this outburst... can he? While the spending review is hard news on many hard working people and the country as a whole, I also think it is very good news for the future of the Newmarket development. I really can not see the Government office calling this in the 28 days following tomorrows meeting. It is just not worth turning down the opportunity of private sector employment when public sector jobs are going to be so hard hit. The Coalition have said that they need and want the private sector to take up the slack, coupled with the investment of Wakefield College to increase practical further eduction and therefore needed skilled workers in the hospitality, leisure and sporting sectors. This has to be a no-brainer now surely, appease a small number of relatively affluent NIMBY's in Methley and Rothwell or create employment and training opportunities in the region many people who need them. Wakefield MDC, Leeds City Council and Central Government would be plain stupid to turn down such an opportunity in this climate! I am sure that Wakefield MDC and Central Government will make the right and only choice and let Yorkcourt get on with this much needed regional investment. We all love this great game we call Rugby League, can we not all put our own allegiances aside, like I have done with mine, and see that this development is much, much more than just about a stadium for Wakefield Trinity Wildcats. It is about opportunities, jobs, education and training for all ages of people in the district and region. I know that supporters from both sides are worried that been to seen to back each others developments with what we all understand are still factors that are difficult to predict and plans that may work or worryingly fail and leave one OR both clubs not playing in the top flight of our great game is hard to swallow.... even as a Leeds Rhino, I know that because it is all supporters worst nightmare! But it is my greatest hope that both clubs and both sets of fans get what they want and will be playing at new purpose built facilities at Glasshoughton and a Community Stadium at Newmarket. I will take great pride and honestly look forward to standing on the terraces of both grounds as the team I love, like you love yours, walk out to take on two of the games most historic names and teams, Castleford Tiger and Wakefield Trinity Wildcats!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-11588424 So is Leeds City Council's leader now seriously still going to lobby central Government to hold a public inquiry on Newmarket that will cost hundred of thousands (if not into the millions) to hold and potentially turn down the opportunity of thousands of long term private sector jobs, hundreds of construction jobs as well as the resultant community sporting facilities on the border of the two cities? He surely can no longer be that hypocritical after this outburst... can he? While the spending review is hard news on many hard working people and the country as a whole, I also think it is very good news for the future of the Newmarket development. I really can not see the Government office calling this in the 28 days following tomorrows meeting. It is just not worth turning down the opportunity of private sector employment when public sector jobs are going to be so hard hit. The Coalition have said that they need and want the private sector to take up the slack, coupled with the investment of Wakefield College to increase practical further eduction and therefore needed skilled workers in the hospitality, leisure and sporting sectors. This has to be a no-brainer now surely, appease a small number of relatively affluent NIMBY's in Methley and Rothwell or create employment and training opportunities in the region many people who need them. Wakefield MDC, Leeds City Council and Central Government would be plain stupid to turn down such an opportunity in this climate! I am sure that Wakefield MDC and Central Government will make the right and only choice and let Yorkcourt get on with this much needed regional investment. We all love this great game we call Rugby League, can we not all put our own allegiances aside, like I have done with mine, and see that this development is much, much more than just about a stadium for Wakefield Trinity Wildcats. It is about opportunities, jobs, education and training for all ages of people in the district and region. I know that supporters from both sides are worried that been to seen to back each others developments with what we all understand are still factors that are difficult to predict and plans that may work or worryingly fail and leave one OR both clubs not playing in the top flight of our great game is hard to swallow.... even as a Leeds Rhino, I know that because it is all supporters worst nightmare! But it is my greatest hope that both clubs and both sets of fans get what they want and will be playing at new purpose built facilities at Glasshoughton and a Community Stadium at Newmarket. I will take great pride and honestly look forward to standing on the terraces of both grounds as the team I love, like you love yours, walk out to take on two of the games most historic names and teams, Castleford Tiger and Wakefield Trinity Wildcats!