Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue May 05, 2015 12:26 pm  

Theboyem wrote:

I have to agree and it probably represents the only chance a stadium would be built there. But Yorkcourt would no doubt bleed every last square metre it could without having to build before moving on, probably just leaving all the part of the site which remains greenbelt. Whether a company, Peel or otherwise, would be interested in the much reduced profit for the possible hassle involved i'm not sure.

Which is why there should have been a levy on every m2 rather than a total cumulative amount of 60,000m2.

That way YCP would have to pay the pro rata amount and any other developers would have to do the same.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue May 05, 2015 3:15 pm  

FIL wrote:

I read that article first thing this morning and have spent several hours stewing on it (and waiting for the steam to stop coming out of my ears ), before concocting the below response :-

Neil Rodgers put across a very convincing article in this weeks League Express detailing Wakefield Metropolitan District Council's stance on the disgraceful state of affairs that has been allowed to develop at Newmarket. He must have spent a great number of hours writing his tale, which details from thread-to-needle how the council worked hand-in-hand with all other parties in striving to achieve their aims in relation to the development. It is very eloquently written and leaves the reader in no un-certain terms as to where the council currently stands on the issue. Well done, Mr Rodgers, I would expect nothing less of a highly-paid council official, you can be rightly proud of such an impressive article.

However, the people of Wakefield along with the supporters of the Wildcats, believe you have missed out the most important thing. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the aim of the entire lengthy process to improve sporting facilities in Wakefield by providing the people of the town with a stadium to be proud of, along with associated training pitches to be used by Wakefield College and local sports clubs, and also providing jobs for local people, with this part of the development being facilitated by the warehousing build ?? If it hadn't been for the legally binding S.106 agreement signed by the Secretary of State insisting that the only way the land could be taken out of greenbelt and used for B8 warehousing, was by incorporating a community stadium and associated community facilities, then the warehousing would NOT have been authorised. However, the developers - Yorkcourt - have now deviously circumvented this legally binding agreement, and for whatever reason, the WMDC planning committee approved it !!

So, Yorkcourt have made a nice healthy profit in developing the site, and will no doubt continue to do so....WMDC have created new jobs in the district and gone part of the way to fulfilling their commitment to providing additional B8 development land, and the people of Wakefield have got.....NOTHING !!!

Yes, Mr Rodgers, you may wax lyrical about the Council's legal position on this matter (which is likely to be put under scrutiny in a court of law), but morally the council's position stinks. The people of Wakefield were promised much-needed new sporting facilities, along with a new Community stadium, but are now not going to get either. I hope you are all proud of yourselves.

After reading the whole letter in league express, the only words that spring to mind are "what a total nice person.."
"The planning inspector reference to dis aggregation in his report to the secretary of state was concerned with the quantum of development needed to enable the construction of the stadium and whether the scale of development could be delivered on an alternative site with less environmental impact. The inspector comments were not directed at the acceptability or not of any future potential developments on the wider site" is what he said, so the secretary of states report didn't say the site shouldn't be separated up into individual developments then, and the only reason they passed it was the need for a new stadium for Wakefield? What report did this bloke read????

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed May 06, 2015 7:18 am  

For some clarity:

The site is divided in 3 principal areas:

1. The stadium site which remains in GB
2. The B8 development land which is removed from GB
3. The A3, A1, Hotel & Restaurant site which remains in GB

It would seem that WMDC believe that Anyone can develop on the B8 land without reference to the 106 - a point we strongly contest - even if the original OPP lapses. This land is re-designated and can be applied for new PP quite reasonably, albeit we still maintain that there is a land charge on this area.

The Stadium site and the remaining areas can on,y be developed under the original OPP. If the developer does not follow the original OPP and the conditions set, he will lose this area and it will return to GB and will be very difficult to remove from it, just leaving an industrial estate on the former colliery land.

IF he considers the Stadium issue to be too big to fund, he could sacrifice the remainder of the site and just accept the profit he can realise from the B8 land and no more. I'm not saying he will do this, but he might, and this is all brought about by the disaggregation of the site - via a loophole that WMDC claim to have taken legal advice over for which we were told does not exist but is now referenced by Neil Rodgers who was not there at the time! Either Neil has seen something we have been told does not exist OR it still doesn't exist as formal legal advice! Which is it? A further FOI has been submitted!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed May 06, 2015 9:58 am  

My new neighbour of two months from Somerset, who has no knowledge of RL , was shown the response of the council in a letter I received from Mary Creagh and also the League Exp letter,and said they seemed to being deliberately obstructive and could not understand why they were not pressing for the new community facility to go ahead.
He said why were they involved in the first place if they do not support it now?
An simplistic, immediate response from someone with no 'axe to grind'.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed May 06, 2015 10:23 am  

TRB wrote:

For some clarity:

The site is divided in 3 principal areas:

1. The stadium site which remains in GB
2. The B8 development land which is removed from GB
3. The A3, A1, Hotel & Restaurant site which remains in GB

It would seem that WMDC believe that Anyone can develop on the B8 land without reference to the 106 - a point we strongly contest - even if the original OPP lapses. This land is re-designated and can be applied for new PP quite reasonably, albeit we still maintain that there is a land charge on this area.

The Stadium site and the remaining areas can on,y be developed under the original OPP. If the developer does not follow the original OPP and the conditions set, he will lose this area and it will return to GB and will be very difficult to remove from it, just leaving an industrial estate on the former colliery land.

IF he considers the Stadium issue to be too big to fund, he could sacrifice the remainder of the site and just accept the profit he can realise from the B8 land and no more. I'm not saying he will do this, but he might, and this is all brought about by the disaggregation of the site - via a loophole that WMDC claim to have taken legal advice over for which we were told does not exist but is now referenced by Neil Rodgers who was not there at the time! Either Neil has seen something we have been told does not exist OR it still doesn't exist as formal legal advice! Which is it? A further FOI has been submitted!

What are the total square metre amounts for each of the 3 principle areas?
And how much is the Newcold building taking up?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed May 06, 2015 10:35 am  

Wakey Til I Die wrote:

What are the total square metre amounts for each of the 3 principle areas?
And how much is the Newcold building taking up?

Without digging around I am not sure, but its reasonably substantial areas which are left. There is plenty of B8 to reach the 60,000m2.

Is there enough to fund a Stadium in full, probably not.

We particularly like the bit where it says about 'if the developer is minded' or something to that effect - it isn't if hes minded, he bloomin well obligated!!!! Otherwise, what is the point of a 106???

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed May 06, 2015 12:33 pm  

I asked this earlier but no one replied

Do we have any other funding in place or if not in place then guaranteed should the project go ahead or funding that we know 100% is accessible to us once we sign contracts to build or more speculative possible sources of funding identified that yet need applying for?

If yes to any of the above, can someone categorise the sources for me and give approximate values?

Thanks

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed May 06, 2015 12:35 pm  

Having contacted Mr Ed Balls regarding the stadium issue, I have now received a reply telling me how he is fully in support of the stadium project and how "everyone" needs to get back round the table and get the stadium "back on track".

I have reminded him that our council have said this is not a matter for them and I will let people know if/when he responds.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed May 06, 2015 12:58 pm  

Do we know what was said in the meeting(s) between Glover & Elston and the developers?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed May 06, 2015 2:31 pm  

milopolly wrote:

My new neighbour of two months from Somerset, who has no knowledge of RL , was shown the response of the council in a letter I received from Mary Creagh and also the League Exp letter,and said they seemed to being deliberately obstructive and could not understand why they were not pressing for the new community facility to go ahead.
He said why were they involved in the first place if they do not support it now?
An simplistic, immediate response from someone with no 'axe to grind'.

coughbrownenvelopescough