Redesignation : Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:20 pm  

I've put it in a separate thread as it is more of a specific planning question.

One of the factors in favour of our application was because the land was about to be redesignated as commercial development land. The public inquiry is because it is currently green belt. Will it be redesignated soon, and if so, does this then take it out of the public inquiry;ie, can the hiccup be much shorter than would be the case with a public inquiry?

Re: Redesignation : Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:53 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

I've put it in a separate thread as it is more of a specific planning question.

One of the factors in favour of our application was because the land was about to be redesignated as commercial development land. The public inquiry is because it is currently green belt. Will it be redesignated soon, and if so, does this then take it out of the public inquiry;ie, can the hiccup be much shorter than would be the case with a public inquiry?

The designation does not come in for a couple of years. The logic for there being no PI was that as the land was going to be designated for development in the future so why not allow it to be developed now rather than go to PI but the SoS (or whoever advised him) saw it differently.

I've said on another tread that I think the outcome of the PI will be to grant outline consent for the development but its the timing that the problem. The outcome of the PI will not be known for at least 6 months and more than likely 12 so that when our Franchise application goes in we will have no certainty of a new ground so I believe we are likely to fail.

The only outside chance is to apply with us playing in Barnsley on the proviso that if Newmarket succeeds we move there but if it fails we change our name to the Barnsley Ballcocks and become a South Yorkshire expansion team - it might just work.

Re: Redesignation : Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:39 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote: I've put it in a separate thread as it is more of a specific planning question. One of the factors in favour of our application was because the land was about to be redesignated as commercial development land. The public inquiry is because it is currently green belt. Will it be redesignated soon, and if so, does this then take it out of the public inquiry;ie, can the hiccup be much shorter than would be the case with a public inquiry? The redesignation is due 2013 I believe. The redesignation only covers about a 33% of the whole site (the old colliery). Here- http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment The area where the stadiun is will still be Green Belt along with the remainder of Yorkcourt's planned development.

Slugger McBatt wrote: I've put it in a separate thread as it is more of a specific planning question. One of the factors in favour of our application was because the land was about to be redesignated as commercial development land. The public inquiry is because it is currently green belt. Will it be redesignated soon, and if so, does this then take it out of the public inquiry;ie, can the hiccup be much shorter than would be the case with a public inquiry? The redesignation is due 2013 I believe. The redesignation only covers about a 33% of the whole site (the old colliery). Here- http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment The area where the stadiun is will still be Green Belt along with the remainder of Yorkcourt's planned development.

Re: Redesignation : Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:53 pm  

allmatt wrote: The redesignation is due 2013 I believe. The redesignation only covers about a 33% of the whole site (the old colliery). Here- http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment The area where the stadiun is will still be Green Belt along with the remainder of Yorkcourt's planned development. Yes, it is 33% of the total site area but remember the MUGA, Stadium and leisure would not generally be considered permitted development in an area specifically allocated for B8 development, as the the Newmarket site is in the LDF. So in terms of B8 development the old Newmarket Colliery area it is about 65% to 70% of the current B8 total proposed. I think to present it that way shows a better picture of the B8 contained in the current proposal, versus what is likely to be re-designated, so Yorkcourt are asking for 30% to 35% of the green-belt area as B8 outside of the colliery site. The MUGA, and ancillary buildings are permitted development in green-belt anyway, so it would just be the car park and stands of the stadium that are the green-belt planning issues along with the leisure. I reckon the take out of green-belt in pure area terms are quite small. Don't forget the legal direction of 95ha in the draft review for B8, which the re-designated area provide less than half of... and we both know the remainder will have to come out of green-belt here, or somewhere else on the M62 corridor! So where if not here... serious question?

allmatt wrote: The redesignation is due 2013 I believe. The redesignation only covers about a 33% of the whole site (the old colliery). Here- http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment The area where the stadiun is will still be Green Belt along with the remainder of Yorkcourt's planned development. Yes, it is 33% of the total site area but remember the MUGA, Stadium and leisure would not generally be considered permitted development in an area specifically allocated for B8 development, as the the Newmarket site is in the LDF. So in terms of B8 development the old Newmarket Colliery area it is about 65% to 70% of the current B8 total proposed. I think to present it that way shows a better picture of the B8 contained in the current proposal, versus what is likely to be re-designated, so Yorkcourt are asking for 30% to 35% of the green-belt area as B8 outside of the colliery site. The MUGA, and ancillary buildings are permitted development in green-belt anyway, so it would just be the car park and stands of the stadium that are the green-belt planning issues along with the leisure. I reckon the take out of green-belt in pure area terms are quite small. Don't forget the legal direction of 95ha in the draft review for B8, which the re-designated area provide less than half of... and we both know the remainder will have to come out of green-belt here, or somewhere else on the M62 corridor! So where if not here... serious question?

Re: Redesignation : Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:08 pm  

allmatt wrote: The redesignation is due 2013 I believe. The redesignation only covers about a 33% of the whole site (the old colliery). Here- http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment The area where the stadiun is will still be Green Belt along with the remainder of Yorkcourt's planned development. I don't think it is due as late as 2013... I think you are thinking about the last date that LDF's have to be in place by for all Metropolitan authorities. The Wakefield site specific consultation was originality scheduled to be completed late 2009 and submitted to the SoS by March 2010, but it has been delayed for valid and legitimate reasons. The consultation actually closed at the end of September 2010, so would think they would send it it to the SoS office within three to four months of this, so Jan/Feb next year? The SoS will take three to six months to comment, it will then come back to Wakefield to approve. As soon as this bit gets approved then the site specific proposals are adopted straight away. The Wakefield LDF is in force already, that is why they HAVE to allocate an additional 95ha as a legal requirement in the currently in force elements of the LDF. The UDP only remain in force to cover area that the LDF has not yet replaced! So, it could be sorted by autumn 2011... before the inquiry is likely to end! Interestingly, I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be re-designated for B8 development, so the Newmarket Lane residents are going to get industrial units built around them anyway... do you think they fully appreciate this fact... again, serious question?

allmatt wrote: The redesignation is due 2013 I believe. The redesignation only covers about a 33% of the whole site (the old colliery). Here- http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Planning/Sp ... Employment The area where the stadiun is will still be Green Belt along with the remainder of Yorkcourt's planned development. I don't think it is due as late as 2013... I think you are thinking about the last date that LDF's have to be in place by for all Metropolitan authorities. The Wakefield site specific consultation was originality scheduled to be completed late 2009 and submitted to the SoS by March 2010, but it has been delayed for valid and legitimate reasons. The consultation actually closed at the end of September 2010, so would think they would send it it to the SoS office within three to four months of this, so Jan/Feb next year? The SoS will take three to six months to comment, it will then come back to Wakefield to approve. As soon as this bit gets approved then the site specific proposals are adopted straight away. The Wakefield LDF is in force already, that is why they HAVE to allocate an additional 95ha as a legal requirement in the currently in force elements of the LDF. The UDP only remain in force to cover area that the LDF has not yet replaced! So, it could be sorted by autumn 2011... before the inquiry is likely to end! Interestingly, I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be re-designated for B8 development, so the Newmarket Lane residents are going to get industrial units built around them anyway... do you think they fully appreciate this fact... again, serious question?

Re: Redesignation : Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:24 pm  

I know this question is off topic and not of much importance anymore but did the problems this development was haveing with the highways agencey ever get sorted out ?, I only ask as i never saw any conclusion come about from the travel plans issue.

Re: Redesignation : Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:34 pm  

tigerman10 wrote:

I know this question is off topic and not of much importance anymore but did the problems this development was haveing with the highways agencey ever get sorted out ?, I only ask as i never saw any conclusion come about from the travel plans issue.

Well it is of importance because they need to be resolved, but to call it a problem would be overstating it. The highways agency are under resourced and in recent years they have thrown holding notice around like confetti... mainly because they can't keep up. You probably don't know this, but the outline planning for GH was held up for exactly the same reason, they didn't ask any questions until it was too late and then threw a hold notice at them! It held it up for a few months and then it got sorted! The same happened on Newmarket, they had the travel plan for months and months and then a couple of weeks before the planning meeting they ask a boat-load of questions (valid ones mind) and send them along with a holding notice!

It is not a problem, they just wanted more information, and I assume they will have most if not all of it now!

Re: Redesignation : Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:49 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

The MUGA, and ancillary buildings are permitted development in green-belt anyway, so it would just be the car park and stands of the stadium that are the green-belt planning issues along with the leisure. I reckon the take out of green-belt in pure area terms are quite small.

The Stadium is not part of the MUGA, they are seperate proposals.

"The majority of the proposals in this application therefore constitute inappropriate
development within the Green Belt with the MUGA being the one element of the scheme
which is appropriate given that it is classed as an essential facility for outdoor sport and
recreation.The associated development with the MUGA (seating area, changing area
and parking) is however is classed as inappropriate development."

Re: Redesignation : Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:52 pm  

allmatt wrote:

The Stadium is not part of the MUGA, they are seperate proposals.

"The majority of the proposals in this application therefore constitute inappropriate
development within the Green Belt with the MUGA being the one element of the scheme
which is appropriate given that it is classed as an essential facility for outdoor sport and
recreation.The associated development with the MUGA (seating area, changing area
and parking) is however is classed as inappropriate development."

This stuff is over my head, but isn’t that just confirming what IA said?

Re: Redesignation : Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:58 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: Don't forget the legal direction of 95ha in the draft review for B8, which the re-designated area provide less than half of... and we both know the remainder will have to come out of green-belt here, or somewhere else on the M62 corridor! So where if not here... serious question? I thought we had agreed to disagree on this - Land at ferrybridge etc - you say you are right and I believe I am right but it ended on me being insulted( not by you) because of a vegetable viewtopic.php?f=33&t=475497&start=90

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: Don't forget the legal direction of 95ha in the draft review for B8, which the re-designated area provide less than half of... and we both know the remainder will have to come out of green-belt here, or somewhere else on the M62 corridor! So where if not here... serious question? I thought we had agreed to disagree on this - Land at ferrybridge etc - you say you are right and I believe I am right but it ended on me being insulted( not by you) because of a vegetable viewtopic.php?f=33&t=475497&start=90