I followed closely the ‘smoke and mirrors’ rhetoric is recent weeks on the proposed development at Glasshoughton and watched with interest the lines being drawn on both sides.
I too live in Glasshoughton but am not anti-development and fully support a new stadium for Castleford Tigers.
I do believe however that despite the assurances from Lateral, that this scheme is simply in the wrong place and the developers have failed to demonstrate how they will manage the environmental issues that this will create.
We are assured by our council representatives that there is ample room to house the development on the opposite side of the road close to Xscape which has the bus and rail infrastructure to support it and which has already agreement in principle for a new stadium.
It also allows access from different directions avoiding the bottleneck that the current proposal would create.
One would therefore wonder why Lateral would choose a green-field site as their preferred location and simply hand over a purpose built stadium to Castleford Tigers to boot?
I also know that Phillip Lunn has made great mileage from the ‘Country Park’ as a benefit to the community, but this hides an obligation on the part of any sustainable developer to manage the excavation material and surface water thrown up by the new site.
It seems by landscaping it and calling it a country park they can hand over the responsibility for maintenance to others.
The results are evident from your columns that this proposal has set neighbour against neighbour and divided a community and I find myself being asked to choose between my loyalty to the town I was born in and the club that represents it.
There is no doubt that Castleford Tigers desperately need a new ground, although I believe that it is success on the field that will bring prosperity - not where they play, but is it really worth the 30 pieces of silver?
Despite the differences of opinion I am sure we all want what is best for Castleford and we should seek a solution that ticks all the boxes rather than being manipulated by a divisory campaign which capitalises on desperation.