butchill Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I think they're trying every trick in the book to get their 'exciting and essential' development built, which by a strange coincidence will make them millions of pounds. would you invest 80 million and not expect to make a profit if it was not for the ski slope the landfill site would be three times bigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalaland Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I bet if this was some crappy version of the olympics or some games event that few people have heard of they'd jump at it. It seems a shame, that sounds like a good development. I agree that the owners would make a lot of money from it, but they are a business, that's what they should be doing. At the same time this would create jobs and bring more trade in to our city, that's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifsit Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 It'd be a real shame to see it close, i learned to ski there when it opened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feargal Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Why do the developers need the houses at Beeley Wood to be able to develop the ski village at Parkwood/Neepsend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firecracker Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Seems we've got to make do with xscape near Castleford after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Why do the developers need the houses at Beeley Wood to be able to develop the ski village at Parkwood/Neepsend? possibly to subsidise the ski resort if they cant make enough money from it? I am also suspicous as the article linked implies the council wants to build houses on this site with its own plan that has not got adequate funding. The ski resort people seems like the ideal solution unless I am missing some important piece of information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butchill Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 would the real reason be that the "backhanders are not big enough" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theripsaw Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The council cant be held responsible for the fact the ski village might have to close. I always suspected the developers were basically saying 'we will deliver this great ski resort development- if you give us planning permission for this housing development'. Thats not how planning works. If they've always said the site isnt suitable for housing and the developers pressed ahead spending time and money regardless then somebody wasnt listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butchill Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 why was nobody listening there is two sides to every story. and why is,nt land suitable for housing IMO a nice little village type constuction will fit nicely in that neck of the woods would be very nice (pun intended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I think they're trying every trick in the book to get their 'exciting and essential' development built, which by a strange coincidence will make them millions of pounds. I'm with butchill 100% on this one, what sort of left wing ill concieved garbage is this? Investment requires a return metalman, pension funds invest heavilly in companies that attempt to make millions, I presume that you would wish them to make a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.