| |
Welcome to the NEW RLFANS.COM. After twenty-five years of service, the old site expired over the last few days. To maintain service we have had no option but to make an early switch to the new site which was in development/testing. Some elements of the new site are unfinished, such as; page numbering and quotations. We will fix these minor issues as soon as we can, please bear with us.
If you are having problems logging in, please try a different browser or platform, if problems persist then email support@rlfans.com
 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 129 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2018 | Mar 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Have to agree, why has this turned once again into a Wakey and Cas slanging match. The OP has produced a document which aims to dispose of Wakefields current ground to the highest bidder. Wakefields lease ends at he end of the year. These are real valid questions which if i was a Wakefield follower i would find quite alarming to say the least.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5035 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2021 | Oct 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"The actual Grampian condition appears to have been poorly written and maybe it should have been a little more 'detailed' in hindsight, but I suspect any attempt to just fob Sport England off with a new field not suitable to be developed into a playing facilities fit for development into a stadium would be legally challenged by Sport England and given this is a Grampian condition, the developer of the Belle Vue site would surely lose in court'"
But when making a contract is it up to the writers to make sure every little detail is in and anything missed out can be used by the other party to gain an advantage, such as wording it as "playing field" as opposed to "facilities fit for development into a stadium".
Which, in this case would mean that there would be no case in court because a poorly worded contract is not the fault of the person(s) taking advantage of it.
Ideal wording would have been something like [i ...facilities fit for development into a stadium for use by a professional sporting organisation.[/i |
|
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"The actual Grampian condition appears to have been poorly written and maybe it should have been a little more 'detailed' in hindsight, but I suspect any attempt to just fob Sport England off with a new field not suitable to be developed into a playing facilities fit for development into a stadium would be legally challenged by Sport England and given this is a Grampian condition, the developer of the Belle Vue site would surely lose in court'"
But when making a contract is it up to the writers to make sure every little detail is in and anything missed out can be used by the other party to gain an advantage, such as wording it as "playing field" as opposed to "facilities fit for development into a stadium".
Which, in this case would mean that there would be no case in court because a poorly worded contract is not the fault of the person(s) taking advantage of it.
Ideal wording would have been something like [i ...facilities fit for development into a stadium for use by a professional sporting organisation.[/i | |
|
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="bigalf"Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong!
Right - let's get things straight - FACTS
At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document.
The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing.
After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site.
Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only.
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 Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf
Do you?'"
The fact is you FACTS are not that clear cut are they... be honest!!!
This Wheldon Road site is currently designated to provide housing within the SPA N9 site in the site specific LDF document that has just been submitted to the planning inspectorate. It was rejected as a specific housing site in it's own right because the SPA was favoured for the whole area instead. This does mean it does not HAVE to be developed for housing but is highly recommended to be developed for housing. If they pass a planning application to replace the 104 (IIRC) houses designated with a Tesco then they have to find another site within N9 to replace the same number of houses they would lose. Given that Nestle and the developer of C6 also want to be able to develop parts of their land for commercial and not just residential use as well, they are hardly going to take kindly to having to provide extra houses on their sites that they don't want.
The thing is mate, and you know it, this is not simple and a supermarket on this site is going to go against (the about to be implemented) planning policy.
You never did reply to my last post when exactly this same discussion came up here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=494835&start=240 |
|
Quote ="bigalf"Ok Sandal let's get things correct! Because you are wrong!
Right - let's get things straight - FACTS
At the moment The Ground is not classified as anything, it is "White Land", and is covered by the UDP which is the present planning document.
The draft LDF plans (as quoted by Gary Price Sandal Wild Cat fan club) from 2008 proposed that WR was allocated as housing.
After consultations the present (as of now), proposed Site Specific Proposals Document has rejected WR (and other sites in the riverside area) as Housing allocation and incorporated WR and the others into the Special Policy Area N9 Castleford Riverside, which includes housing, but not on any specific part of the whole site.
Cas Tigers could put in a Planning Application now for whatever they want and it would have to be appraised through the planning system taking into account the UDP, not the proposed LDP neither of which specifically classify WR for housing only.
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 Tigers Ground on here: (Page 3 Northern Area)
www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... ls_Map.pdf
Do you?'"
The fact is you FACTS are not that clear cut are they... be honest!!!
This Wheldon Road site is currently designated to provide housing within the SPA N9 site in the site specific LDF document that has just been submitted to the planning inspectorate. It was rejected as a specific housing site in it's own right because the SPA was favoured for the whole area instead. This does mean it does not HAVE to be developed for housing but is highly recommended to be developed for housing. If they pass a planning application to replace the 104 (IIRC) houses designated with a Tesco then they have to find another site within N9 to replace the same number of houses they would lose. Given that Nestle and the developer of C6 also want to be able to develop parts of their land for commercial and not just residential use as well, they are hardly going to take kindly to having to provide extra houses on their sites that they don't want.
The thing is mate, and you know it, this is not simple and a supermarket on this site is going to go against (the about to be implemented) planning policy.
You never did reply to my last post when exactly this same discussion came up here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=494835&start=240 | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1347 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2008 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2022 | May 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"I am wrong am I? So Sport England and Wakefield don't hold the key to discharging this condition then in having to agree to the new location? Lets not forget, this is a Grampian Condition, so it has serious legal precedent behind it and it is not a straight forward situation!'"
No one disagrees with that. A new location for a playing field will have to be agreed.
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"The actual Grampian condition appears to have been poorly written and maybe it should have been a little more 'detailed' in hindsight, but I suspect any attempt to just fob Sport England off with a new field not suitable to be developed into a playing facilities fit for development into a stadium would be legally challenged by Sport England'"
The planning condition is for the purposes of:-
To secure a replacement facility in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy L3.
L3 PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE
L3 GREEN OPEN SPACES IN THE URBAN AREA WILL BE PROTECTED WHERE THERE IS A LEISURE, NATURE CONSERVATION, URBAN WILDLIFE OR AMENITY VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WHICH MATERIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE VALUE OF SUCH LAND FOR THESE PURPOSES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED, UNLESS ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE FOR SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE PROVISION.
A rugby league stadium is not a Green Open Space - a playing field is.
BTW
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"I am sure =#FF0000[uour[/u 'estate agent' '"  icon_eek.gif" alt="icon_eek.gif" title="Shocked" /> icon_eek.gif" alt="icon_eek.gif" title="Shocked" /> icon_eek.gif" alt="icon_eek.gif" title="Shocked" /> icon_eek.gif" alt="icon_eek.gif" title="Shocked" /> |
|
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"I am wrong am I? So Sport England and Wakefield don't hold the key to discharging this condition then in having to agree to the new location? Lets not forget, this is a Grampian Condition, so it has serious legal precedent behind it and it is not a straight forward situation!'"
No one disagrees with that. A new location for a playing field will have to be agreed.
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"The actual Grampian condition appears to have been poorly written and maybe it should have been a little more 'detailed' in hindsight, but I suspect any attempt to just fob Sport England off with a new field not suitable to be developed into a playing facilities fit for development into a stadium would be legally challenged by Sport England'"
The planning condition is for the purposes of:-
To secure a replacement facility in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy L3.
L3 PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE
L3 GREEN OPEN SPACES IN THE URBAN AREA WILL BE PROTECTED WHERE THERE IS A LEISURE, NATURE CONSERVATION, URBAN WILDLIFE OR AMENITY VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WHICH MATERIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE VALUE OF SUCH LAND FOR THESE PURPOSES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED, UNLESS ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE FOR SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE PROVISION.
A rugby league stadium is not a Green Open Space - a playing field is.
BTW
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"I am sure =#FF0000[uour[/u 'estate agent' '" icon_eek.gif" alt="icon_eek.gif" title="Shocked" /> icon_eek.gif" alt="icon_eek.gif" title="Shocked" /> icon_eek.gif" alt="icon_eek.gif" title="Shocked" /> icon_eek.gif" alt="icon_eek.gif" title="Shocked" /> | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1347 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2008 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2022 | May 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"The fact is you FACTS are not that clear cut are they... be honest!!!
This Wheldon Road site is currently designated to provide housing within the SPA N9 site in the site specific LDF document that has just been submitted to the planning inspectorate. It was rejected as a specific housing site in it's own right because the SPA was favoured for the whole area instead. =#FF0000[uThis does mean it does not HAVE to be developed for housing[/u but is highly recommended to be developed for housing. If they pass a planning application to replace the 104 (IIRC) houses designated with a Tesco then they have to find another site within N9 to replace the same number of houses they would lose. Given that Nestle and the developer of C6 also want to be able to develop parts of their land for commercial and not just residential use as well, they are hardly going to take kindly to having to provide extra houses on their sites that they don't want.
The thing is mate, and you know it, this is not simple and a supermarket on this site is going to go against (the about to be implemented) planning policy.
You never did reply to my last post when exactly this same discussion came up here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=494835&start=240'"
You have just confirmed exactly what I have said. No one has ever said it would be easy! |
|
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"The fact is you FACTS are not that clear cut are they... be honest!!!
This Wheldon Road site is currently designated to provide housing within the SPA N9 site in the site specific LDF document that has just been submitted to the planning inspectorate. It was rejected as a specific housing site in it's own right because the SPA was favoured for the whole area instead. =#FF0000[uThis does mean it does not HAVE to be developed for housing[/u but is highly recommended to be developed for housing. If they pass a planning application to replace the 104 (IIRC) houses designated with a Tesco then they have to find another site within N9 to replace the same number of houses they would lose. Given that Nestle and the developer of C6 also want to be able to develop parts of their land for commercial and not just residential use as well, they are hardly going to take kindly to having to provide extra houses on their sites that they don't want.
The thing is mate, and you know it, this is not simple and a supermarket on this site is going to go against (the about to be implemented) planning policy.
You never did reply to my last post when exactly this same discussion came up here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=494835&start=240'"
You have just confirmed exactly what I have said. No one has ever said it would be easy! | |
|
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Rather than people putting FACT at the end of a point, or then going on to argue their opinions as FACT, there is one, actual, real-life fact and that is bids have already been submitted.
How on earth can Wakefield have put in a well researched, well evidenced, quality bid when they havent publicly confirmed where they will be playing next year, dont own their ground and dont have a lease on it for next year and dont even know who will own it next year.
You can debate whether Cas or Wakefield will be in a new ground first until the cows come home, but whilst the home that Wakefield are playing at and what is quality will be are still up in the air a matter of days before the decision is made public, never mind the bids being submitted, then it isnt really relevant is it.
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
| POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD |
|---|
| 19.67M +1 | 492 | 80,283 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
|
|
icon_eek.gif" alt="icon_eek.gif" title="Shocked" /> 
