Re: Wheldon Road - Retail Planning Application! : Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:05 am
|
bigalf wrote: Sorry I_A but You are wrong. I know where the table is thanks, and that table is for information only to show all the available housing supply allocation within the whole of SPA N9, not specific sites such as N101 (WR). The Spatial Policy dept think it may be misleading to have included it (Their words, not mine). The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the site on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you? Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right  ) it is very confusing.Can you provide a link to the rejected land allocations report you mention please? I understand that Ben Bailey originally pushed for this to be specifically recognised as a housing site in it's own right and that was indeed rejected (hence the reason for no red-line, as you point out) in favour of the whole Castleford Riverside area being given SPA status instead. However, you have to identify proposed areas for housing within SPA's, hence the table that shows 12 sites (N101 being one of them) within SPA N9 allocated to provide the total 2525 houses for the plan period in N9 I know that SPA's enjoy a greater level of flexibility than the rigid site allocations and that as such it would not be like trying to get planning for housing on a designated employment site or planning for employment use on a designated housing site... but WR is envisaged as being for housing along with 11 other specified sites in N9. They are all listed there, so why list them at all if you are not directing the site be used for housing??? They don't do the same with employment land in SPA's, they just list the sites for housing and the remaining development land is considered to be for employment. If the was not any issue with the allocation for N101 as housing and it was for 'information only', why would Castleford Tigers (well Opus really now I suspect) have made this comment in the technical consultation? Relates to N101. Justifiable - Given the downturn in the market, and the inextricable link between this site (N101) and the delivery of the new Castleford Tigers stadium, it must be recognised that other alternative land uses may be more appropriate on this site to deliver the capital receipt required. Continued reliance on the housing market to deliver the capital receipt in the short term is unjustified. Deliverable – PPS12 requires that partners who are essential to the delivery of the plan such as landowners and developers should be signed up to the proposal. In the current economic climate it is clear that there are doubts as to the deliverability of the site for residential development, given the reduction in capital value this would result in. Consequently, the site may not be viable within the current market (1-2 years), but may be deliverable in the following years (3-5) and beyond, as a housing site. Flexible – National Planning Policy advocates that Local Planning Authorities are flexible both in terms of Core Strategy Policies, and related DPD’s, and in relation to the delivery of housing sites. Proposal SPA N9 does offer flexibility in terms of the generic wording of the proposal as detailed in section 1. However, the text refers explicitly to the Wheldon Road site in the following terms: “Development of…nearby housing proposals on previously developed land in locations close to the town centre on Wheldon Road at the…Castleford tigers ground are included in the Castleford Riverside SPA”. Although the proposal offers generic flexibility this implies that the site is allocated for residential development, and the overarching policy flexibility contained in Proposal SPA N9 does not apply to the site. In conclusion, the following representations are made: Support for the generic flexibility in proposal SPA N9; Support for the identification of site N101 for residential use; but Object to the specific identification of the site for residential purposes without the benefit of the generic flexibility that proposal SPA N9 provides. On the basis of the above analysis and context the following changes in CAPITALS are recommended to be made to SPA N9: 1. End of 1st paragraph: This area, and in particular the former colliery sites and chemicals plant, is ideally suited to mixed use development, including the provision of public open space, local leisure facilities, and both residential and industrial/commercial development opportunities; THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE FOR INDIVIDUAL SITES MAY, HOWEVER, CHANGE OVER THE PLAN PERIOD AS THE AREA IS COMPREHENSIVELY REDEVLOPED. 2. Amendment to 6th bullet point: Provision of employment opportunities to replace jobs lost through closures of collieries and chemical plant THROUGH ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. 3. Amendment to 5th paragraph: Development of the C6 Solution site for mixed use but predominantly employment uses including an energy village and housing, THE CASTLEFORD TIGERS GROUND FOR USES APPROPRIATE TO FACILITATE DELIVERY OF A NEW STADIUM, and nearby housing proposals on previously developed land in locations close to the town centre on Wheldon Road at the Arriva bus depot, AND the Nestle site (DELETE THIS NEXT BIT: “AND THE CASTLEFORD TIGERS GROUND”) are included in the Castleford Riverside Special Policy Area. There are some key bits in red that I think are important! I think even Castleford Tigers and Opus think that this has been identified as being for housing and hence the reason they are now arguing that the site should be removed from the housing table and allowed to be more flexible. They are also seeking to amend the proposals for the whole of N9 to allow more commercial development... well, lets be honest, a supermarket in their case. Again, I don't think I have any overarching objections to WR to being developed into a supermarket but of course I am trying to demonstrate that the issue here is time and not the end result long term. The situation is... this is not simple! I suspect the majority of the people reading mine and your posts will neither currently understand or be interested in understanding what we are debating but you must admit, this is backing up what I said in my original post on this thread. The council did not foresee this site being developed for anything other than housing and possibly never expected to have a supermarket development in N9 (possibly on C6 maybe towards the end of the plan period?) at all. I notice that Nestle are wanting their site to be looked at for retail as well because they too want to realise a larger commercial value for their land!!! You also have Aeternum Capital arguing about the requirement to realise high land values for C6 in order to justify the cost of re-mediation of contaminated land and therefore commercial viability of this whole part of the SPA. They even say "Due to the lack of an up-to-date evidence base, Policy SPA N9 does not make any reference to leisure, retail or town centre uses; uses which are fundamental to the commercial viability of redevelopment. As the Council is aware, Aeternum Capital is considering options for the C6 Solution site and this may well include retail and leisure uses in addition to those listed in Policy SPA N9." As the council are aware... sounds to me like they quite fancy some retail and even possibly a Supermarket on C6! The questions is, is their case stronger or weaker than Cas Tigers? This is a rhetorical question, I don't want an answer, but of course can you see why this isn't going to be resolved quickly? This has complicated and long winded written all over it mate... come on, you know it! |
|
bigalf wrote: Sorry I_A but You are wrong. I know where the table is thanks, and that table is for information only to show all the available housing supply allocation within the whole of SPA N9, not specific sites such as N101 (WR). The Spatial Policy dept think it may be misleading to have included it (Their words, not mine). The Cas Tigers Ground has been rejected for specific housing allocation- Page 33 of Technical Paper Volume 2 Rejected Land Allocations. Have a word with the Spatial Policy team to confirm this if you need, as I have. I don't see a Red Line around the site on here: (Page 3 Northern Area) http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf Do you? Ok, this isn't stacking up for me and if you are right and I am wrong (the jury is still out for me and I do think I am right ) it is very confusing.Can you provide a link to the rejected land allocations report you mention please? I understand that Ben Bailey originally pushed for this to be specifically recognised as a housing site in it's own right and that was indeed rejected (hence the reason for no red-line, as you point out) in favour of the whole Castleford Riverside area being given SPA status instead. However, you have to identify proposed areas for housing within SPA's, hence the table that shows 12 sites (N101 being one of them) within SPA N9 allocated to provide the total 2525 houses for the plan period in N9 I know that SPA's enjoy a greater level of flexibility than the rigid site allocations and that as such it would not be like trying to get planning for housing on a designated employment site or planning for employment use on a designated housing site... but WR is envisaged as being for housing along with 11 other specified sites in N9. They are all listed there, so why list them at all if you are not directing the site be used for housing??? They don't do the same with employment land in SPA's, they just list the sites for housing and the remaining development land is considered to be for employment. If the was not any issue with the allocation for N101 as housing and it was for 'information only', why would Castleford Tigers (well Opus really now I suspect) have made this comment in the technical consultation? Relates to N101. Justifiable - Given the downturn in the market, and the inextricable link between this site (N101) and the delivery of the new Castleford Tigers stadium, it must be recognised that other alternative land uses may be more appropriate on this site to deliver the capital receipt required. Continued reliance on the housing market to deliver the capital receipt in the short term is unjustified. Deliverable – PPS12 requires that partners who are essential to the delivery of the plan such as landowners and developers should be signed up to the proposal. In the current economic climate it is clear that there are doubts as to the deliverability of the site for residential development, given the reduction in capital value this would result in. Consequently, the site may not be viable within the current market (1-2 years), but may be deliverable in the following years (3-5) and beyond, as a housing site. Flexible – National Planning Policy advocates that Local Planning Authorities are flexible both in terms of Core Strategy Policies, and related DPD’s, and in relation to the delivery of housing sites. Proposal SPA N9 does offer flexibility in terms of the generic wording of the proposal as detailed in section 1. However, the text refers explicitly to the Wheldon Road site in the following terms: “Development of…nearby housing proposals on previously developed land in locations close to the town centre on Wheldon Road at the…Castleford tigers ground are included in the Castleford Riverside SPA”. Although the proposal offers generic flexibility this implies that the site is allocated for residential development, and the overarching policy flexibility contained in Proposal SPA N9 does not apply to the site. In conclusion, the following representations are made: Support for the generic flexibility in proposal SPA N9; Support for the identification of site N101 for residential use; but Object to the specific identification of the site for residential purposes without the benefit of the generic flexibility that proposal SPA N9 provides. On the basis of the above analysis and context the following changes in CAPITALS are recommended to be made to SPA N9: 1. End of 1st paragraph: This area, and in particular the former colliery sites and chemicals plant, is ideally suited to mixed use development, including the provision of public open space, local leisure facilities, and both residential and industrial/commercial development opportunities; THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE FOR INDIVIDUAL SITES MAY, HOWEVER, CHANGE OVER THE PLAN PERIOD AS THE AREA IS COMPREHENSIVELY REDEVLOPED. 2. Amendment to 6th bullet point: Provision of employment opportunities to replace jobs lost through closures of collieries and chemical plant THROUGH ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. 3. Amendment to 5th paragraph: Development of the C6 Solution site for mixed use but predominantly employment uses including an energy village and housing, THE CASTLEFORD TIGERS GROUND FOR USES APPROPRIATE TO FACILITATE DELIVERY OF A NEW STADIUM, and nearby housing proposals on previously developed land in locations close to the town centre on Wheldon Road at the Arriva bus depot, AND the Nestle site (DELETE THIS NEXT BIT: “AND THE CASTLEFORD TIGERS GROUND”) are included in the Castleford Riverside Special Policy Area. There are some key bits in red that I think are important! I think even Castleford Tigers and Opus think that this has been identified as being for housing and hence the reason they are now arguing that the site should be removed from the housing table and allowed to be more flexible. They are also seeking to amend the proposals for the whole of N9 to allow more commercial development... well, lets be honest, a supermarket in their case. Again, I don't think I have any overarching objections to WR to being developed into a supermarket but of course I am trying to demonstrate that the issue here is time and not the end result long term. The situation is... this is not simple! I suspect the majority of the people reading mine and your posts will neither currently understand or be interested in understanding what we are debating but you must admit, this is backing up what I said in my original post on this thread. The council did not foresee this site being developed for anything other than housing and possibly never expected to have a supermarket development in N9 (possibly on C6 maybe towards the end of the plan period?) at all. I notice that Nestle are wanting their site to be looked at for retail as well because they too want to realise a larger commercial value for their land!!! You also have Aeternum Capital arguing about the requirement to realise high land values for C6 in order to justify the cost of re-mediation of contaminated land and therefore commercial viability of this whole part of the SPA. They even say "Due to the lack of an up-to-date evidence base, Policy SPA N9 does not make any reference to leisure, retail or town centre uses; uses which are fundamental to the commercial viability of redevelopment. As the Council is aware, Aeternum Capital is considering options for the C6 Solution site and this may well include retail and leisure uses in addition to those listed in Policy SPA N9." As the council are aware... sounds to me like they quite fancy some retail and even possibly a Supermarket on C6! The questions is, is their case stronger or weaker than Cas Tigers? This is a rhetorical question, I don't want an answer, but of course can you see why this isn't going to be resolved quickly? This has complicated and long winded written all over it mate... come on, you know it! |
|
|
