I have got the full list of non-statutory consultation replies from the planning office today. Makes for some very interesting reading! Not least of which is a bloke OBJECTING called Phil Townsend... however, as there is a Phil Townsend from an address I know who is in SUPPORT of the application I used my detective powers to work out that they were not the same person!





These stats are rough and have been done by me quickly on a calculator, so they could be a slight margin of error.

Total number of replies was 1387
Total number of those listed as objecting was 1114

Of those objections, a staggering 700 were from outside Wakefield MDC!!!! That is 63% of all objections coming from outside the district.

The overwhelming majority of the objections from outside the district came from Methley/Mickletown.... surprise, surprise!!! It would appear that someone has a Kent connection as 10 objections came from there, within a total of 30 that came from outside of Leeds or Wakefield districts. There were odd objections from Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Barnsley etc but also just the one from Wigan!

Now, what is also interesting is the amount that came from the same postal address, I estimate that over 50% of all objections had one or more (I think 7 was the biggest number from one address I spotted) letter from the same address. Also, it would appear that many of the people that objected early decided to write again in September/October once they knew the committee meeting date. I estimate that about 20% of the objections are repeated from the same address later in the year. June Fender's (Methley Residents Association Chairman) name appears 3 times on three different letters!

The vast majority of the 250 ish support letters come from one person at one address only.

I would therefore estimate that if you tried to do a like for like analysis there would not be a great deal of difference in actual objections (taking one from each address instead of the multiple letters) against the support letters of say around 250 each side.

This bit is a total guesstimate but I suspect if you went through and actually looked at the number of actual unique objection letters (as in the many number of 'standard' objection letters that were passed around via e-mail for people just to add there name and address and send) I think they would be less than 100. The vast majority of the support letters are unique and are not copied from a standard.

It was also very interesting to note that objection from Bottom Boat was quite high but hardly anyone objected from Moorhouse and not that many at all from anywhere else in Stanley, with the exception of Newmarket Lane itself of course.

I understand that the councillors at the meeting all had a copy of this list as well and it does not take long to work out that the majority of the objections have clearly been 'prompted, pushed & coerced' out of people by e-mails, newsletters and the majority of them come from several 'standard' letter types! When you are getting 4 letters from one address in Kent, you suspect that maybe these objectors have not actually looked the plans at all and have just sent an e-mail/letter because a close relative has asked them to!

Finally, I bet if you actually compared the electoral register to the number of people who have written from each address I suspect you would find more than a handful of discrepancies... I bet a few family pets have written in as well... if you know what I mean!

dirty tactic's indeed, the council should check out the properties in that area to see if any boundaries have been changed

Never did trust those Invicta lot

some one needs to RELAX,

I noticed John Sheridan left it late to add his and his family's objections. Perhaps didn't want to reveal himself too soon.

Was the objector's name from Huddersfield C. James by any chance?

That makes very interesting reading I_A.
I am very pleased that the council were aware of what we all knew ... and I hope the Regional Office knows as well!

I can explain why a lot from Bottomboat protested - the 'daft old bat' (I do know this person and my description is 100% correct

) who predicted storms, earthquakes, deadly chrystals, pneumomia, hundreds killed by lorries etc.. etc.. went round the whole of Bottomboat Road getting people to sign petitions and scaremongering.

She sent 3 'beautifully hand written

' letters herself!

To be fair to John, while he did leave it late he clearly got his kids to (sort of) write their own letters and they were different. But I think you might be right about wanting to keep a low profile.

I also noticed (as the list is in order) who was the very first person to submit a comment never mind one in support!

There were loads from Fulham as well!!!



There wasn't really, but there were two from the greater London area!

There were four from Huddersfield but none from C. James.

Her letters are the highlight, without a doubt!

The list I have is in order of receipt and it jumps out at you, you will see a glut of letters from the same street all together with separate letters from each of the members of the house, it is not hard to see the many patterns emerging! As someone in one street/area gets hold of a 'standard' letter they contact their near neighbours and get them to send the same letter etc... it is like a wave!

Omg Planning has been given mindful to approve status and your doing an indepth breatkdown of the letters of complaint.

At the end of the day people are entitled to object, if they wish wether sombody puts the idea in their head or not. It was the same with the petition from swag, did people not actively seek signatures for that. Also letters to the planning department was the offical way to register your view, unlike the swag petition which gave a very brief outline of the overall development.
I have different opinions to you, but what has irked me all along is the fact that you seem to think that other people are not entitled to theirs. It is obvious that people living close to the development will want to have their view known and that it will more than likley be based on localised issues. Im sure the main factor that compelled trin fans to support the project were rugby related.

The fact of the matter is though the Council wanted this project all along, and more than likley initiated it as you know developments like this do not happen by chance (which made it all the more funny listening to people on here slating the council), they happen because councils want them to happen. The big test now will be weather the government agree with the council.