Re: Newmarket : Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:38 pm  

Thanks rob but it will not open on my iPhone properly.

Re: Newmarket : Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:03 pm  

inside man wrote: Thanks rob but it will not open on my iPhone properly. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 CALLED IN APPLICATION BY YORKCOURT PROPERTIES LTD LAND ADJACENT TO NEWMARKET LANE, ROTHWELL, WAKEFIELD LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL NOTES OF PRE-INQUIRY MEETING Held on Monday 26 September 2011 @ 1000 hours in Old Restaurant, Town Hall, Wood Street, Wakefield. 1. Inspector’s Opening Points: After welcoming those attending the Pre-Inquiry Meeting the Inspector explained that the aim was to discuss the procedural and administrative arrangements relating to the Inquiry and to confirm the timetable for the submission of proofs of evidence and also a programme for hearing the cases of the various parties appearing at the Inquiry. 2. Identity of the various parties to the Inquiry The Applicant will be represented by Mr Andrew Piatt, Partner for HBJ Gateley Wareing (Manchester) LLP. He expects to call 5/6 witnesses. Wakefield MDC will be represented by Mr Jonathan Easton of Counsel. Wakefield MDC expects to call 5 witnesses. The Rule 6 party, Leeds City Council, would be represented by Mr Alan Evans of Counsel. Leeds City Council expects to call 2 witnesses. 3. Appointment of Programme Officer The Inspector explained that it would greatly assist him if the Council could provide a Programme Officer for the duration of the Inquiry. He said it would be helpful if the person chosen had some knowledge of Inquiry procedures but must have had no direct involvement in this case. The person appointed would act as an impartial officer of the Inquiry and would be directly responsible to the Inspector. The main tasks of the Programme Officer would be: · to act as liaison officer for all participants; · to organise the Inquiry programme; and · to ensure that all documents submitted to the Inquiry are recorded and circulated. Mr Easton said he could not suggest anyone for the Programme Officer’s job at present but he agreed to notify the Planning Inspectorate (Sarah Banwell) of the person chosen in the next few days. There were no objections raised to the Inspector contacting the Programme Officer before the opening of the Inquiry. 4. The Inquiry Programme The Inspector said that a bespoke programme had been agreed for this Inquiry. This indicates that the Inquiry would last for 12 days. He asked the parties for information so that he could assess whether this was a reasonable estimate. The Applicant considered that 4-5 days should be sufficient to present its case including any cross examination. The Council said that 3 days should be sufficient to present its case in total. It is anticipated that 1.5 days would be needed to hear the Rule 6 party’s case, and 1.5 days to hear representations from local residents and organisations, to prepare closing submissions and to carry out site visits. The Inspector said that it appeared from the information given that the Inquiry could be accommodated within the 12 days sitting time. The parties indicated who they would be calling as witnesses and what topics each witness would be covering. The parties would be calling witnesses to cover matters such as planning, highways, regeneration, sport, ecology and viability. The Inspector indicated that by 29 November 2011 the Planning Inspectorate should be notified of the final list of the names of the advocates and where appropriate, instructing solicitors and the names and professional qualifications of all the witnesses they propose to call. This requirement applies to both main parties and the Rule 6 party. It would be helpful if the witnesses were listed in the order in which they intend to be called. Please notify the case officer via email {sarah.banwell@pins.gsi.gov.uk}. 5. Inquiry procedures The Inquiry is to be held at The Kingswood Suite, Town Hall, Wood Street, Wakefield. This will be the venue for the whole of the Inquiry. The Council will ensure that the venue is suitable for disabled access and that access to the Inquiry room is clearly signed. The Inspector and the Applicant should be provided with a retiring room if possible. These rooms and the Inquiry room should be locked in the evenings. The Inquiry will start on Tuesday 6 December 2011. It would sit from 1000 hours to about 1700 hours each day with a break of an hour taken at about 1300 hours for lunch. Fridays may have an earlier close at around 1500 hours but will have the same opening time unless otherwise agreed. The Inspector expressed the hope that it would be possible for tea or coffee to be provided mid morning and mid afternoon as in his experience, short breaks in the morning and afternoon help to make proceedings go more smoothly. They are a good way of relieving tension and they provide an opportunity for informal discussions to take place. The Inspector said that the procedure to be adopted at the Inquiry would follow the August 2000 Procedure Rules. He explained that after his opening announcements he would invite the Applicant’s advocate to make a brief opening statement doing no more than to outline the Applicant’s case (not exceeding 10 minutes in length). He would then invite the Council’s advocate to do the same and then ask the Applicant’s advocate to call each of his witnesses. There would be an opportunity for those opposing the Applicant’s case to question the witnesses. The Inspector said that when all of the Applicant’s witnesses had been called, he would ask the Council’s advocate to put forward its case following the same process. Next it would be the turn of the Rule 6 party, other parties and members of the public. The Inspector indicated that he may ask questions at any time. Following a session(s) when suggested conditions and obligations would be discussed, the Inspector would invite closing submissions from other parties, the Council and the Applicant in that order. Following the close of the Inquiry, the Inspector indicated that he would carry out an accompanied site visit. The Inspector reminded the parties that any planning obligation that is proposed must be completed before the close of the Inquiry. The Inspector asked to be notified about any planning obligations at the outset of the Inquiry. If appropriate he will deal with any planning obligations in a separate session towards the end of the Inquiry. 6. Proofs of evidence The Inspector indicated that in order that all the parties have sufficient time to read and understand the evidence, he would like all proofs to be sent to the Planning Inspectorate by Tuesday 8 November 2011. Rule 6 parties, other parties and written representations are also asked to meet the 8 November 2011 date. Any Rebuttal proofs should be submitted by no later than 29 November 2011. The Inspector also reminded the parties that proofs over 1,500 words should be accompanied by a summary of the main points to be given in evidence. Summaries should be written at the same time as the proofs and be sent to the Inspectorate at the same time, not provided later. To save time at the Inquiry, only summaries would be read, but the main proof would be the basis for cross-examination. The aim should be for the proof of evidence to be no longer than 3,000 words. Proofs of evidence should not include matters which are not in dispute. The Inspector indicated that he would need 2 copies of each proof of evidence and summary; one for submission to the SoS and one for his own use at the Inquiry. However, he only required one copy of any appendices and the core documents. A copy of the proofs and documents should be available for each main party who intends to participate in the Inquiry and a further copy should be available on the day of presentation of any particular evidence for the use by interested persons. The Inspector requested that documents, plans and photographs be bound separately from the proofs. A list of Core Documents should be produced. To avoid possible confusion, it would be helpful if a simple numbering convention was adopted for documents e.g. CD/1, WMDC/1, APP/1. 7. Main Issues From a preliminary look at the files, the Inspector indicated that he would like to see the proofs of evidence covering the topics set out in the SoS call in letter i.e. A-I in the letter dated 13 December 2010. It would assist reporting if the evidence was structured around the matters set out in the call in letter. In relation to the Green Belt issue the Inspector said it would be helpful to follow the usual sequence of reasoning in Green Belt cases and work through the various stages: (i) Is the development inappropriate? (ii) If yes, what are the relevant material considerations? 3 For each one, consider: (a) Which side of the balance should it be put? • is it one which causes harm to the Green Belt or other matter?; or • is it one which potentially weighs in favour of the development and could thus be described as an ‘other consideration’? (b) What weight should it be given? (iii) The Green Belt balance: look at the balance as a whole; do the other considerations clearly outweigh the totality of the harm? (iv) If so, do very special circumstances exist? 8. Statement of Common Ground (SOCG). The Inspector noted that the date for submission of the SOCG was 24 August 2011. It was accepted that a draft had been prepared but a final version has not been agreed with the Council. Both main parties agreed to expedite the submission of the SOCG as soon as possible. 9. Other Procedural and Administrative matters The application comprises “EIA development” by virtue of Regulation 4(2) (a) of the Regulations1 and is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). The ES has already been assessed and further information required in relation to otters and water voles. This information was requested pursuant to Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations. The Inspector indicated that he was currently considering all of the ES information in relation to compliance with the Regulations. However, he pointed out that a conclusion as to adequacy can only be reached after he has considered all the environment information, including responses to the consultation on the environmental statement and evidence and representations at the Inquiry stage. In other words, a settled position on adequacy cannot be reached until all the evidence has been heard. Closing submissions should be supplied to the Inspector in hard copy and on disc or memory stick using MS word at the Inquiry venue. The Inspector indicated that he would endeavour to make time within the programme to permit this. Closing submissions should follow the topics set out in the SoS’s call in letter and should seek to provide a summary of the case to be put to the SoS. The font to be used is Verdana 11 point. Please note that all measurements should be in metric except mph for road traffic purposes in the context of statutory speed limits. It was confirmed that photocopying and fax facilities would be available at the Inquiry venue. No other procedural matters were raised and the meeting closed at 1050 hours. Harold Stephens Inspector 26 September 2011

inside man wrote: Thanks rob but it will not open on my iPhone properly. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 CALLED IN APPLICATION BY YORKCOURT PROPERTIES LTD LAND ADJACENT TO NEWMARKET LANE, ROTHWELL, WAKEFIELD LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL NOTES OF PRE-INQUIRY MEETING Held on Monday 26 September 2011 @ 1000 hours in Old Restaurant, Town Hall, Wood Street, Wakefield. 1. Inspector’s Opening Points: After welcoming those attending the Pre-Inquiry Meeting the Inspector explained that the aim was to discuss the procedural and administrative arrangements relating to the Inquiry and to confirm the timetable for the submission of proofs of evidence and also a programme for hearing the cases of the various parties appearing at the Inquiry. 2. Identity of the various parties to the Inquiry The Applicant will be represented by Mr Andrew Piatt, Partner for HBJ Gateley Wareing (Manchester) LLP. He expects to call 5/6 witnesses. Wakefield MDC will be represented by Mr Jonathan Easton of Counsel. Wakefield MDC expects to call 5 witnesses. The Rule 6 party, Leeds City Council, would be represented by Mr Alan Evans of Counsel. Leeds City Council expects to call 2 witnesses. 3. Appointment of Programme Officer The Inspector explained that it would greatly assist him if the Council could provide a Programme Officer for the duration of the Inquiry. He said it would be helpful if the person chosen had some knowledge of Inquiry procedures but must have had no direct involvement in this case. The person appointed would act as an impartial officer of the Inquiry and would be directly responsible to the Inspector. The main tasks of the Programme Officer would be: · to act as liaison officer for all participants; · to organise the Inquiry programme; and · to ensure that all documents submitted to the Inquiry are recorded and circulated. Mr Easton said he could not suggest anyone for the Programme Officer’s job at present but he agreed to notify the Planning Inspectorate (Sarah Banwell) of the person chosen in the next few days. There were no objections raised to the Inspector contacting the Programme Officer before the opening of the Inquiry. 4. The Inquiry Programme The Inspector said that a bespoke programme had been agreed for this Inquiry. This indicates that the Inquiry would last for 12 days. He asked the parties for information so that he could assess whether this was a reasonable estimate. The Applicant considered that 4-5 days should be sufficient to present its case including any cross examination. The Council said that 3 days should be sufficient to present its case in total. It is anticipated that 1.5 days would be needed to hear the Rule 6 party’s case, and 1.5 days to hear representations from local residents and organisations, to prepare closing submissions and to carry out site visits. The Inspector said that it appeared from the information given that the Inquiry could be accommodated within the 12 days sitting time. The parties indicated who they would be calling as witnesses and what topics each witness would be covering. The parties would be calling witnesses to cover matters such as planning, highways, regeneration, sport, ecology and viability. The Inspector indicated that by 29 November 2011 the Planning Inspectorate should be notified of the final list of the names of the advocates and where appropriate, instructing solicitors and the names and professional qualifications of all the witnesses they propose to call. This requirement applies to both main parties and the Rule 6 party. It would be helpful if the witnesses were listed in the order in which they intend to be called. Please notify the case officer via email {sarah.banwell@pins.gsi.gov.uk}. 5. Inquiry procedures The Inquiry is to be held at The Kingswood Suite, Town Hall, Wood Street, Wakefield. This will be the venue for the whole of the Inquiry. The Council will ensure that the venue is suitable for disabled access and that access to the Inquiry room is clearly signed. The Inspector and the Applicant should be provided with a retiring room if possible. These rooms and the Inquiry room should be locked in the evenings. The Inquiry will start on Tuesday 6 December 2011. It would sit from 1000 hours to about 1700 hours each day with a break of an hour taken at about 1300 hours for lunch. Fridays may have an earlier close at around 1500 hours but will have the same opening time unless otherwise agreed. The Inspector expressed the hope that it would be possible for tea or coffee to be provided mid morning and mid afternoon as in his experience, short breaks in the morning and afternoon help to make proceedings go more smoothly. They are a good way of relieving tension and they provide an opportunity for informal discussions to take place. The Inspector said that the procedure to be adopted at the Inquiry would follow the August 2000 Procedure Rules. He explained that after his opening announcements he would invite the Applicant’s advocate to make a brief opening statement doing no more than to outline the Applicant’s case (not exceeding 10 minutes in length). He would then invite the Council’s advocate to do the same and then ask the Applicant’s advocate to call each of his witnesses. There would be an opportunity for those opposing the Applicant’s case to question the witnesses. The Inspector said that when all of the Applicant’s witnesses had been called, he would ask the Council’s advocate to put forward its case following the same process. Next it would be the turn of the Rule 6 party, other parties and members of the public. The Inspector indicated that he may ask questions at any time. Following a session(s) when suggested conditions and obligations would be discussed, the Inspector would invite closing submissions from other parties, the Council and the Applicant in that order. Following the close of the Inquiry, the Inspector indicated that he would carry out an accompanied site visit. The Inspector reminded the parties that any planning obligation that is proposed must be completed before the close of the Inquiry. The Inspector asked to be notified about any planning obligations at the outset of the Inquiry. If appropriate he will deal with any planning obligations in a separate session towards the end of the Inquiry. 6. Proofs of evidence The Inspector indicated that in order that all the parties have sufficient time to read and understand the evidence, he would like all proofs to be sent to the Planning Inspectorate by Tuesday 8 November 2011. Rule 6 parties, other parties and written representations are also asked to meet the 8 November 2011 date. Any Rebuttal proofs should be submitted by no later than 29 November 2011. The Inspector also reminded the parties that proofs over 1,500 words should be accompanied by a summary of the main points to be given in evidence. Summaries should be written at the same time as the proofs and be sent to the Inspectorate at the same time, not provided later. To save time at the Inquiry, only summaries would be read, but the main proof would be the basis for cross-examination. The aim should be for the proof of evidence to be no longer than 3,000 words. Proofs of evidence should not include matters which are not in dispute. The Inspector indicated that he would need 2 copies of each proof of evidence and summary; one for submission to the SoS and one for his own use at the Inquiry. However, he only required one copy of any appendices and the core documents. A copy of the proofs and documents should be available for each main party who intends to participate in the Inquiry and a further copy should be available on the day of presentation of any particular evidence for the use by interested persons. The Inspector requested that documents, plans and photographs be bound separately from the proofs. A list of Core Documents should be produced. To avoid possible confusion, it would be helpful if a simple numbering convention was adopted for documents e.g. CD/1, WMDC/1, APP/1. 7. Main Issues From a preliminary look at the files, the Inspector indicated that he would like to see the proofs of evidence covering the topics set out in the SoS call in letter i.e. A-I in the letter dated 13 December 2010. It would assist reporting if the evidence was structured around the matters set out in the call in letter. In relation to the Green Belt issue the Inspector said it would be helpful to follow the usual sequence of reasoning in Green Belt cases and work through the various stages: (i) Is the development inappropriate? (ii) If yes, what are the relevant material considerations? 3 For each one, consider: (a) Which side of the balance should it be put? • is it one which causes harm to the Green Belt or other matter?; or • is it one which potentially weighs in favour of the development and could thus be described as an ‘other consideration’? (b) What weight should it be given? (iii) The Green Belt balance: look at the balance as a whole; do the other considerations clearly outweigh the totality of the harm? (iv) If so, do very special circumstances exist? 8. Statement of Common Ground (SOCG). The Inspector noted that the date for submission of the SOCG was 24 August 2011. It was accepted that a draft had been prepared but a final version has not been agreed with the Council. Both main parties agreed to expedite the submission of the SOCG as soon as possible. 9. Other Procedural and Administrative matters The application comprises “EIA development” by virtue of Regulation 4(2) (a) of the Regulations1 and is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). The ES has already been assessed and further information required in relation to otters and water voles. This information was requested pursuant to Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations. The Inspector indicated that he was currently considering all of the ES information in relation to compliance with the Regulations. However, he pointed out that a conclusion as to adequacy can only be reached after he has considered all the environment information, including responses to the consultation on the environmental statement and evidence and representations at the Inquiry stage. In other words, a settled position on adequacy cannot be reached until all the evidence has been heard. Closing submissions should be supplied to the Inspector in hard copy and on disc or memory stick using MS word at the Inquiry venue. The Inspector indicated that he would endeavour to make time within the programme to permit this. Closing submissions should follow the topics set out in the SoS’s call in letter and should seek to provide a summary of the case to be put to the SoS. The font to be used is Verdana 11 point. Please note that all measurements should be in metric except mph for road traffic purposes in the context of statutory speed limits. It was confirmed that photocopying and fax facilities would be available at the Inquiry venue. No other procedural matters were raised and the meeting closed at 1050 hours. Harold Stephens Inspector 26 September 2011

Re: Newmarket : Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:13 pm  

Cheers man, appreciated.

Re: Newmarket : Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:56 am  

Hi everyone

Firstly, I am still here but have had quite a bit on my plate over the last few months, so have not really had chance to spend any time on the board. However, it has been, as expected, during a lull in the Newmarket & LDF proceedings but as you can now see... things are starting to ramp up to both the LDF hearings and the planning application inquiry.

As TRB posted, we had a planned meeting last night to discuss things and start putting all our ducks back in a row, so to speak. We are ever more confident of a positive outcome, not only because the current coalition government are making their planning and localism agenda much clearer (and are already acting on it) which means both developments for growth/job creation and also local decisions are both being encouraged and acted upon. I think had the Newmarket planning application being going through planning now, and as an automatic referral to SoS then, with a unanimous cross party verdict, we would not be having an inquiry at all and the SoS would have sent it back for local determination.

The inquiry is starting to look a little superfluous to requirements as well IMHO, as the ONLY remaining statutory objector to the scheme is Leeds City Council and their objection would appear to be weak, ever more so now that the Aire Valley is confirmed as an enterprise zone. That all said, at the moment lots of work is being put into speaking and trying to work with Leeds (from all parties) to understand and resolve their perceived issues and reach as much common ground as possible. So we are trying to catch flies with honey at the moment, so we should all go easy on LCC at the moment and see exactly what happens over the coming weeks.

As for timetables, then the LDF hearings are currently scheduled for 10 days from 14th to 25th October and the Newmarket public inquiry as above from 6th to 21st of December. However, we have had word that things might change on those dates because the inspector conducting the LDF hearings wants to push them back by a couple of weeks (nothing sinister, just her current workload) but that would mean that they would conflict with Newmarket Inquiry timetable and poor old Wakefield are not going to be able to host two inquiries that conflict and overlap with each other at the same time... just from a logistics and resource point of view. So, some or all of these dates could change but that should be resolved in the next few days. If they do move, then it will be just a few weeks, so this would be a minor delay and the worst case scenario I can see is that the Newmarket Inquiry ends up being put back into January 2012.

As for reporting on and therefore getting the result of the LDF and planning inquiry, then March 2012 for the LDF and April/May for the planning inquiry look still to be the best guess.

We will know more in this coming week and we will post information as and when available and keep everyone as informed as possible but don't worry if things go quiet.... they are possibly very well planned periods of quiet!!!

Re: Newmarket : Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:09 pm  

I notice in today's WE that Yorkcourt have had good news for another big development just outside the city; a massive housing estate and commercial developments alongside the Paragon Business Park.

It doesn't mean much to the NM scheme in a substantive way, but I suppose it demonstrates their credentials in terms of getting these big projects off the ground; it could also suggest that their business is flush with both cash and confidence?

Re: Newmarket : Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:30 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I notice in today's WE that Yorkcourt have had good news for another big development just outside the city; a massive housing estate and commercial developments alongside the Paragon Business Park.

It doesn't mean much to the NM scheme in a substantive way, but I suppose it demonstrates their credentials in terms of getting these big projects off the ground; it could also suggest that their business is flush with both cash and confidence?

The only real relevance I wondered about was the park and ride.
They're running something very similar with NM during the week (for people traveling to and from Wakefield) and on match days. I would be very surprised if they weren't linked in some way.

If nothing else it shows two things which I think we should find comforting:
1. The developers have a very good working relationship with WMDC- Colin Mackie especially which could prove invaluable in the coming months.
2. That the NIMBY cry (literally "Not In My Back Yard") carries no weight whatsoever. Legislation & compromise are supreme.

Hopefully we will have a similar outcome & Wakefield will get more of what it needs: Jobs (present & future) & facilities.

Re: Newmarket : Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:54 pm  

bren2k wrote:

it could also suggest that their business is flush with both cash and confidence?

Re: Newmarket : Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:33 pm  

The new development ajacent to the paragon business park is right next to broomhall one of the most affluent areas in north Wakefield so it's good to see that the new jobs and new development attitude is winning and the nimby attitude seems to be losing in our good City,let's hope it's the same with the Newmarket development. On a side issue did anyone see the gardians web article about our great City? which was very complimentary for a change.

Re: Newmarket : Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:02 pm  

bigalf wrote:

:THINK:

sold your ground yet? Or even got close? No didn't think so. Tara

Re: Newmarket : Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:18 pm  

Cas will be forced to share Newmarket because selling their ground for sufficient money to fund a stadium will take years and years. The alternative to sharing will be loss of SL status which some of their fans will see as preferable to admitting defeat and sharing our new stadium.