Plans

Just looked at the axiom build plans and they have responded to each point. It’s not possible to view whilst on my mobile, so I’ll have a look later.

So in conclusion of my earlier conclusion. The planners responses have to satisfy themselves that the issues raised are dealt with before the November planning meeting. If there’s no further issues then it’s a rubber stamping time.

Again a lot of work and money gone to fulfill the planners issues. Do people still think that the builders are doing all this to not fulfill either plan?

GMI are the project planners and builders for the sites and will complete the ground refurb in full and we have to put our 2m from the council in.

Hoping for good news in November.

i’ll keep my fingers crossed once again!

I won’t hold my breath.

RaoulDuke The EA will respond to our mitigations. What they say will decide whether it’s a rubber stamping exercise. We haven’t actually altered much at all on the WR application, just said that much of what is required is not feasible so sadly i’d be surprised if the EA changed their stance on the back of that.

TheFirm and more to the point is that their stance is only a recommendation and holds no power. We have still given extra assurances and added work. Ten extra houses on wheldon road wiould have the same impact as our new extended stand. Strangely enough the knocking down of the nestle factory hasn’t been a reduction in flood risk, v when it should add it’s no longer a factory and grass land.

RaoulDuke I’m afraid that is incorrect. The EA have officially objected to the WR plans and given they are a statutory consultee and as such their stance holds a lot of power, a positive response by them to our our reply is vital to it’s chances of passing.

TheFirm I was under the impression it was only a recommendation. I will stand corrected.

I am unsure why it hasn’t been noted about the removal of the nestle factory actually decreasing the flood risk. What will happen there as it’ll be unsellable land if cas is refused.

I wonder what they used as a point for the removal of the school for all the flats/houses to get that through.

If the unthinkable happens and Axiom get the go ahead but our plans are refused, do Axiom still have to give us that money or do we revert to the new build at glasshoughton?

CTID

They don’t get planning if the ground doesn’t. It’s a hybrid planning application. The Cas one gets passed, then they pass the axiom but it’s only valid when they have paid the 12.2m into the ground account for our rebuild.

The EA have replied and they are maintaining their objection and recommending the application is refused. Given they are a statutory consultee is it highly unlikely the planning commitee would go against this.

We have a major problem now.

yorky

Not looking good.
But I’d bet if the place was knocked down the EA would be quick to pass the site for houses.

If that happens then what? The development at J32 can’t go ahead unless they backtrack and the stadium goes ahead there.

At this point if we can’t even upgrade our current stadium without objections then the club is pretty much done. At some point the facilities will become unsafe and too expensive to keep going leaving us without anywhere to play.

Does anyone know how much it would cost to meet the EA demands? I would have thought the developers would rather pay for that than lose the whole project unless it is a prohibitive amount.

who is submitting these applications, is it axiom or Mr Gratton & why aren’t they working with the EA so that they get what they want to satisfy planning, its just another wasted 4 months of waiting to be kicked in the teeth again.

Who’s paying the EA off to be so concerned about such a nothing burger of an issue?

There’s something that needs investigating behind this because WR is not some high risk flood plain that is completely unsafe to redevelop.

Seems strange

yorky
this is all in Axiom’s hands… and the council’s.

Asked this on the other place:

I am a hobbyist at best in this area, is there no one in our pantheon of posters or family members therein who could actually read this and give an opinion from a position of up to date planning knowledge. No offense to anyone’s opinion, it isn’t one of those bickering threads…..

Genuinely just asking.

I’m still not clear that the EA can stop the build, only recommend. The council needs jobs, it needs the tax from axiom, it needs the Tigers to grow to pay more tax

But just to throw this out there, if we keep to the same footprint, there would be no recommendation. So at what point does the footprint extension make it seem like we are building on Morecambe beach?

I’ve yet to read the EA response but the question of, after the nestle factory was returned to grass, how can the flood risk now be more of a threat?