Subject:Author:
Please feel free to comment below, in time we will try to group comments in subject groups
19 June 2007 15:19  Total Comments(17) Show Comments  +Add Comment

Subject: Author: Yes the development has been completed, however there should now be a campaign for compensation for residence. Why? I judicial review of the connection between the Wakefield Council and the Wakefield planning department should be sort as it is clear that land sold by Wakefield Council to developers always gets the green light to any planning proposal as it is in the interests of the authority to prevent legal challenge from developers who have purchased land who then have planning permission refused. Because of the authorities representation of the planning department and the way the department is funded this conflict of interest is not challenged. Another example is the land at the front of Normanton Common Primary school (site of existing School building). Half the land was set aside for the school car park the other half to help fund the new school was sold off. The developer’s proposal included access to new proposed flats via the school car park and despite strong objections from residence and the school planning was granted. I assume that if the developer’s plans were refused would they have then taken legal action for having been sold land by the authority and the same authority refusing planning omission? Residence should continue to fight for compensation and for a review of the links and bad practice (possibly illegal) practice of the authority. Date: 27 March 2009 09:28  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: A council is obliged by law to send every neighbour official notification when plans have been submitted/significantly amended allowing them time to make comments before the council reach a decision. I would hazard a guess that the developer got planning permission on one set of plans and the changes were nodded through by the planning department. Have you checked if anyone connected to the granting of planning permission is driving a new car or has recently moved into a new house? Date: 14 November 2008 15:53  author's email: trevor@psow.co.uk Subject: Author: give me a ring 07967107791 Date: 22 September 2007 07:09  author's email: Subject: Author: Saw the Look North programme tonight, well done for highlighting how Wakefield planning break ever rule in the book. I've lost thousands of pounds through a similar development near me in St John's. They claimed they'd posted notices, but their proof of that was a photocopied sheet of A4 signed by an employee that had left 2 years before! Date: 17 September 2007 22:30  author's email: Subject: Author: 2a Stannard Well Lane Horbury Wakefield WF4 6BW Deputy Mayor of District Date: 12 July 2007 15:02  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: In Section 17c of the outline planning application it states that, except in an emergency or with prior written consent of the local planning authority, construction work that is audible at the boundary of the site which is the subject of this permission shall not take place outside 0830 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1300 hours on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays or bank holidays and national holidays when the builders dont follow these rules tel contracts manager mr grimbleby mobile no 07917218298 Date: 12 July 2007 08:32  author's email: wakefieldcarsales@lycos.co.uk Subject: Author: thats disgraceful on the part of the council and the builders that they can do such a thing to the residents. I would say hold back on the council tax until they listen... good luck everyone! Date: 25 June 2007 19:55  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: i think this is stupid. would the council want to see scafoling when they look out of there windows its ridiculous not even thinking about the residents in the area. they should put a stop to it Date: 21 June 2007 11:56  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: Does the council think that because a large majority of the houses over here are owned by themselves that they can ride rough shod over us , some of us are also private residents and trying to make the most of our properties , this certainly isn't helping. Date: 20 June 2007 21:04  author's email: 20/06/07 stevenchurch@blueyonder.co.uk Subject: Author: YOUR RIGHT WHY HAS BARRY SMITH NOT STOPPED THIS Date: 19 June 2007 22:39  author's email: Subject: Author: Yvonne Crew ycrew@wakefield.gov.uk Antony Wallis awallis@wakefield.gov.uk Tracy Hardwick thardwick@wakefield.gov.uk Pat Doyle pdoyle@wakefield.gov.uk Peter Walker pwalker@wakefield.gov.uk Phillip Booth pbooth@wakefield.gov.uk Harold Mills hmills@wakefield.gov.uk David Atkinson datkinson@wakefield.gov.uk Jacqueline Williams Jacquelinewilliams@wakefield.gov.uk Betty Liles bliles@wakefield.gov.uk David Hopkins dhopkins@wakefield.gov.uk June Drysdale jdrysdale@wakefield.gov.uk Margaret Isherwood margaretisherwood@wakefield.gov.uk Barry smith barrysmith@wakefield.gov.uk Chairman of planning Normanton councillor what has he done to stop this hes the chairman of planning send them emails Date: 19 June 2007 22:32  author's email: Subject: Author: we wonder what happened to Ed Balls - to say he took up this case he's been mighty quiet! Date: 19 June 2007 22:08  author's email: Subject: Author: We had our house valued in May at £234,000. We'll be having a second valuation if the build is completed and will attempt to sue the council and/or SYHA for any loss of value. Date: 19 June 2007 22:00  author's email: wakefieldcarsales@lycos.co.uk Subject: Author: We think this is an outrageous development they have obviously not thought about the reidents in the area and it is an absolute eyesore and with a gym room and it room its obviously going to be an halfway house, would the council themselve want that at the bottom of there garden? Date: 19 June 2007 21:41  author's email: emma2989@hotmail.com Subject: Author: we tried to arrange a part exchange for our home this week, a property valued at £240,000 in May 2007, the development company won't even quote us. They told us it't worth less than £180,000, a lot less than our mortgage. This is really, really wrong Date: 19 June 2007 21:40  author's email: Subject: Author: We have recieved a letter today, our Insurance covers Legal.Solicitor as requested all info which i have sent on behalf of us all. Date: 19 June 2007 19:08  author's email: oliviamorgan66@hotmail.co.uk Subject: Author: I received an email this afternoon from Sarah Bird, she has promised replies to our letters by the end of the week Date: 19 June 2007 15:25  author's email:

Subject:Author:
I would like to put together a list of the names and home addresses of everyone that sanctioned this development so that we can contact them directly and ask for their help in explaining their decision. Can anyone help?
21 June 2007 00:00  Total Comments(10) Show Comments  +Add Comment

Subject: Author: We think it is disgraceful that after site hours we still have to put up with noise pollution from,what we think are sub-contractors who live in a caravan 5 foot from our back garden fence.it looks an eye sore. Thankyou SYHA,what a great job you are doing!!!! Date: 24 October 2007 21:34  author's email: 24/10/07 Subject: Author: 17 Weetworth Ave Castleford WF10 4Qa Date: 12 July 2007 15:56  author's email: Subject: Author: 14 Thackery Walk Knottingley West Yorkshire WF11 8QQ Date: 12 July 2007 15:16  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: 60 Wentworth Drive South Kirby Pontifract West Yorks WF9 3RY Date: 12 July 2007 15:07  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: 2a Stannard Well Lane Horbury Wakefield WF4 6BW Deputy Mayor of District Date: 12 July 2007 15:03  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: 9 Ingswell Ave Notton Wakefield WF4 2NG Date: 12 July 2007 14:53  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: 35 Ravensmead Court Featherstone Pontifract West Yorkshire WF7 5AQ Date: 12 July 2007 14:49  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: 13 Attlee Cres Wakefield Date: 11 July 2007 08:40  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: The required consultaion with residents in and around this development has not been fulfilled, therefore it should be demolished, or compensation should be given Date: 26 June 2007 19:24  author's email: Withheld Subject: Author: Barry Smith Flat 21 Fairways Approach Normanton Date: 23 June 2007 11:41  author's email: Withheld