Correct. Lets hope some of them do something about it.

Considering that Colin Mackie was all over the club like a cheap suit during the campaign to get planning passed I think he knows he has an obligation to the Club and Community of Wakefield. What's happened to the so called trustworthy and honourable man that he said he was and portrayed himself as during that period? What we have now is a charlatan, a cheat, a liar, a chancer, a user and morally if not legally a thief.

I hope he reads this and tries to take action against me, I'll counter claim and have him in court explaining his actions and justifying his reasons for not doing what he said he'd do!

Couldn't make it last night, but it seems to me we are no further forward, which is not a criticism of anyone striving so hard to achieve the 'goal'.
In almost 60 years supporting Trinity I have never felt so depressed, disillusioned and angry.
I feel resigned to the fact that Trinity will never be 'up there' challenging for honours within my remaining lifetime.
The anger is aimed at the disgraceful action of the so called representatives of the people of Wakefield who seem totally immune to being taken to task over this issue.
Why don't they rename Wakefield as Castleford and have done with it?

Just a thought , The facility at Newmarket is to be a COMMUNITY asset , so if Yorkcourt have now agreed or proposed a drip feed arrangement why can’t the council loan ( at a commercial rate ) the trust the money to build the stadium (the repayments to be paid by the developer) ,This would release Bellevue and the super bowl to be developed which in turn would gain the authority revenue from the rates on the properties and the Aldi supermarket that would be built. After all the facility will become a community asset not a 12 million GIFT which Castleford Tigers WILL BE GIVEN on completion of their stadium , it will be solely owned by the tigers to do with what they wish (mortgage if they wish to raise funds ). On a political note would it we worth submitting the evidence shown to us last night to the National Labour Party ethics committee or even the district auditor.

Because that would give Wakefield Trinity a stadium and help us prosper which is not what the Castleford led council desire.

Both of those ideas do seem worth pursuing victar.

Out of interest has it been decided that a revamp of Belle Vue is a non-starter now and it's a build of some description at Newmarket or nothing? What is the current state of play with the sale of the superbowl & oasis centre and have the bank being trying to push the sale of BV along!

Another quick question, how much of the total proposed Newmarket development does Newcold take up once fully completed?

Edit: Think it says 16 hectares out of a permitted 36 on that part of the site. It looks like the total development size at Newmarket is 86.53 hectares.

Some good points' made here Vic.

Good points. We are thinking of involving the Secretary of State and the Local Government Ombudsman but will now think about those you have suggested.

Ok guys. The links below are public links to a PDF copy of the three PowerPoint presentation shown at last nights meeting. Please feel free to share these links in fact, PLEASE DO share these links as widely as possible.

Phil T - [urlhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Pur6TjyOf5WDRmcXBhUk5RMUE/view?usp=sharing[/url

Ian B - [urlhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Pur6TjyOf5dE80OVdPQ243MXc/view?usp=sharing[/url

Jonathan S - [urlhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Pur6TjyOf5SmVkenQ3X3VJZG8/view?usp=sharing[/url

Enjoy!

Belle Vue has not been ruled out but given the cash Newmarket is the most cost effective solution. As you have mentioned the Trust will have to buy back Belle Vue and Super Bowl and oasis which makes a big dent into any cash available before you start. Belle Vue is "shot" and needs a lot spending on it to make it fit for purpose and comply with Super League minimum standards.

To answer your other question I don't know how much land exactly is left after Newcold but it's a lot. Plenty to enable Yorkcourt to comply with the Section 106 Agreement if they would like to.

For the record, and as we were threatened with potential libel action before yesterdays meeting, and avoidance of all doubt now this is in writing. We have not said anyone has lied or anything was done deliberately, all we have done is present facts and we consider them to be indisputable.

You of course Tricky are fully entitled to voice your own opinion and reach your own conclusions on the evidence and factual information we have presented.

Have been digging around on the planning portal and found this. It is in a part mentioning the original planning permission..


The proposed building height is above that identified on the current outline approval, therefore an application for All Matters reserved was not deemed appropriate. [iThis detailed application is a standalone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above.[/i The outline approval has however been carefully considered to ensure the proposed scheme integrates with it and in no way prejudices the implementation of any development controlled by that consent.

Thats in the design and access statement posted online on the 08/07/2013, right at the beginning of the planning process? Seems to state there that it wouldn't count. Also interestingly in there is this...

[iMeeting with Mick McKigney of Wakefield MDC and Phil Cole of Leeds City Council on Wednesday 15th May, also with James Elston and Andrew
Glover of Wakefield Wildcats on Wednesday 15th May.[/i

That implies that the club and trust as then were involved even before the the application went in. Were they told the full picture, not understand the implications or otherwise?

Thanks for that. I had a look on the portal and amended my post on the land amounts, plenty of space available.

Whether the change in the LDF and the land classifications have any effect on this situation regarding other planning permissions now I have no idea. Maybe come renewal date?

We were aware that the application was a "stand alone". It had to be because the height of the building at 42m was outside that approved in the Outline Consent. We cannot see anywhere where it makes it clear however that the development would not contribute to the Section 106 Agreement until the Agenda papers were issued a week before the planning meeting and outside the period to object.

If anyone, including the Council can point out where there is reference to Newcold not contributing to the S106 other than the Case Officers Report then please do so.

With regard to meetings with The Stadium Trust and the Club we have asked to see minutes of those meetings but the Council cannot supply them. Make of that what you will.

I suppose that phrase is all in the interpretation. With the phrase 'in no way' i read it straightway as a seperate application with no legal binding to the original application and as such won't count towards the s106. Other may read if differently. I guess thats why it would be a legal minefield.

As for the second part that certainly sounds rather convenient on the councils part. Although in any meetings i attend all departments represented usually get a copy of the minutes. Glover and Elston should gave chased this up on the trusts behalf. That said they were too busy spending money we didn't have to bother with that.

It's a shame as i for one would much prefer to stay at Belle Vue if possible. I have always thought that Newmarket was a poor location for a stadium and could turn out to become a costly white elephant. All that said it doesn't alter the fact that we seem to have been shafted good and proper.

Ok, that is how you 'read' it but you are, I know, a reasonably intelligent guy but equally I read it differently because I also knew that S106 agreements are land charges, so while they might have written that, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act clearly takes precedent and as such, they can write what they like because they cant avoid the S106... well, we thought not (because they have) and we think this may be unlawful, but equally I am sure WMDC's opinion is different and a such while that is my opinion it remains that until tested in law.

Now, lets take the legal argument out of it. Lets ask people here, as laypeople, what do they think? Has it been made clear that this did not count towards the trigger areas in the S106 agreement? The first time they actually state that this will NOT count towards the unilateral undertaking is in the planning officers report, when it was no longer possible to object?

Also, when Peter Box was asked in a letter about this, he said, and I quote verbatim "At the time that the application [Newcold was received, we took legal advice which confirmed that as a separate application, it could not be subject automatically to the same conditions as those applied by the ones granted by the Secretary of State."

When we asked about this and his contention that he told the Trust and the Club about this too, this is, verbatim, what we got back from WMDC.

[iThank you for your request for information about the issues raised in the letter from Council Leader Peter Box dated 28/8/14 Ref PB/KES concerning Newcold development at Newmarket. Namely the request asked for
 
1.      In what form were both parties [the club and the trust alerted (written, verbal, other etc) and if there is any record or copies of these alerts and their subsequent replies available, could I please see them and
2.      Copy of the legal advice sought by WMDC in respect of the planning application for the Newcold Development at Newmarket and a copy of the advice given with the details of the lawyers who provided it.[/i

[iWith regard to Question 1 following careful consideration, I regret to inform you that we have decided not to disclose this information. The information you requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in Section 43(2) under the Freedom of Information Act which applies to information which, if released, would be likely to prejudice the interests of the Council or another person.[/i

[iAs this is a qualified exemption, we have also considered whether in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In reaching our conclusion we have considered the factors in favour of and against disclosure. We believe in promoting transparency and accountability by public authorities for decisions taken by them.[/i

[iWith regard to Question 2 concerning legal advice I can confirm that the Council do not hold a record of the legal advice received. I am unable therefore to provide you with the information requested.[/i

You can make of that what you will.

I can also add that both Sir Rodney and James Elston have both acknowledged that meetings took place but they have also said that they do not recall being informed that the Newcold development would NOT count towards the S106. Sir Rodney can not recall (not surprisingly, given how long ago this was) whether any meeting minutes where taken and having looked back through his and the trusts records, no minutes have been found.

So, the above are just facts, we have put them out there and you guys have to decide what you think and what you might like to do about it. We have made it clear that feel an injustice has been done and the ultimately, we might have to go to the High Court to test this in law. In our opinion we have a case, and I am sure they will say the same, so that at the moment is that!

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, and sometimes with these things you immerse yourself so deep in the lingo that you lose sight of what's actually been said, but to me the purpose of that statement is to legally exonerate the Newcold application from the previous planning application and subsequently the 106 agreement. I can't read it in any other way.

I don't profess to know anything about planning regulations, which is why I might come to that conclusion, perhaps someone can enlighten me...

Does explicit reference to the 106 agreement have to be provided in this context?
Can you have a 106 agreement without "extant outline consent"?
If you can't are the two not intrinsically linked?
Is the purpose of the 106 agreement to set out the planning terms included in granting "extant outline consent"?
If yes, are the 2 separate things or does one inform the other?

I'm not having a pop by the way, hope you don't think that! I'm not going to pretend i know enough about planning or legal issues to make any kind of judgement. I'm just trying to get my head around why the council and Yorkcourt have been able to dodge their responsibilities, how they might of seen it or how it may be seen by others. A bit of devils advocate if you like to try and work it all out. We will obviously be looking at it from one direction whilst others may see it differently and my fear is a defeat in court would open the gates for them to just build everything else outside the original agreement and finish us forever.

Also a wise man once told me when you get an estimate for legal costs add at least a 25% buffer as it never runs to plan. Who would pay?

Sums up my feelings too.

I know, and they are all fair points. The issue is, we don't know the answers and ultimately we only ever get them if we test this in court. However, you need to think bigger about this, if we did go to the High Court and did lose, then the whole of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 could be brought into question and the possibility that all section 106 agreements are invalid? Just think about it for a moment!

Here is an example that is actually Sandal Cats, not mine.

A developer for a big housing get outline planning for 2000 houses and enter into a S106 agreement to build a primary school (just like the one near the Hospice) because they need extra capacity. The developer decides to sell the site off to 10 housing developers, and take his profit from selling land with planning for houses. The new developers of those 10 sites decide that they don't want to contribute to the building of that school, so they all decide to lodge a new legally separate application for each of their 200 house plots. The council decide, despite this, to grant those planning applications. Who now pays for the school? The 10 housing developers claim that they don't have to and the council say we had no choice but to approve the planning application because they were separate applications and not reserved matters under the original outline? The section 106 agreement has therefore been, deliberately or not, circumvented and neither the developers nor the council claim it is their problem? So, have they acted unlawfully? If this is the case, then S106 of the entire planning act is worthless?

Answers on a postcard please?

Like I said last night, if you give up on Newmarket you will definitely get nothing, because no one promised to build you a new Belle Vue and therefore you lose!

If we stick with Newmarket Belle Vue is still an option, if the people who promised to build Newmarket feel fit to make us offer which we find acceptable (so far, they haven't) then we would take it.

Now, we might still get nothing, but there is still a good chance we will get something, if not even possibly everything.

So guys, what do you want to do now? Genuine question BTW?

Why do i get a feeling that the only people that are going to come out of this well are the lawyers?