Maybe we can all just apply to build huge retail parks and stadiums on green belt land then once we get planning permission, we can just build whatever we feel like there

Quote ="MANTAMAN"I can confirm that there was no Section 106 Agreement to link this development with the funding of a community stadium as the size of development (22,300sqm) is below the 60,000sqm threshold for contributing toward the stadium that was set out in the original outline application issued by the Secretary of State. Maybe I have missed something, it wouldn't be the first time. But this reads to me that only structures above 60,000sqm contribute to the trigger point, and this was the original agreement with the SOS, so allowed outside the 106. However, it was my belief that the trigger was a total of 60,000sqm available for occupancy, and that 20,000 plus (seen figures of 40,000 quoted) would indeed be a significant contribution. Please can anyone clarify, or perhaps I have mis-interpreted the quote? As a side point, if Newcold, which is visible from both the Great Wall of China and space, is too small to contribute to the stadium trigger point, someone is going to have to plan and construct something akin to a couple of death stars in Methley for us to see progress.'" reminded me of this: dailycaller.com/2017/03/15/truck ... ing-comma/

Quote ="MANTAMAN"I can confirm that there was no Section 106 Agreement to link this development with the funding of a community stadium as the size of development (22,300sqm) is below the 60,000sqm threshold for contributing toward the stadium that was set out in the original outline application issued by the Secretary of State. Maybe I have missed something, it wouldn't be the first time. But this reads to me that only structures above 60,000sqm contribute to the trigger point, and this was the original agreement with the SOS, so allowed outside the 106. However, it was my belief that the trigger was a total of 60,000sqm available for occupancy, and that 20,000 plus (seen figures of 40,000 quoted) would indeed be a significant contribution. Please can anyone clarify, or perhaps I have mis-interpreted the quote? As a side point, if Newcold, which is visible from both the Great Wall of China and space, is too small to contribute to the stadium trigger point, someone is going to have to plan and construct something akin to a couple of death stars in Methley for us to see progress.'" reminded me of this: dailycaller.com/2017/03/15/truck ... ing-comma/

E mails sent 3 days ago Cll Margaret Holwell (Conservative) No reply Cll Darren Byford (Labour) No Reply Cll Janet Holmes (Labour) a very brief reply but a complete waist of time, totaly missed the point. List of all WMDC councillors if anyone missed it. mg.wakefield.gov.uk/mgMemberInde ... LIST&PIC=0

E mails sent 3 days ago Cll Margaret Holwell (Conservative) No reply Cll Darren Byford (Labour) No Reply Cll Janet Holmes (Labour) a very brief reply but a complete waist of time, totaly missed the point. List of all WMDC councillors if anyone missed it. mg.wakefield.gov.uk/mgMemberInde ... LIST&PIC=0

There appears to be a lot of contradiction in the 'official' responses previously issued. I can only see Box coming out with a statement similar to the email posted by Joanne Roney OBE.

One of the vagaries of the 106 agreement appears to be around the alleged 60,000m2 'trigger point' however, in the e-mail from Joanne Roney it states;



'No more than' can be interpreted, as it seems to have been by the council as - there must be 60,000m2 of occupied space before the Stadium is to be built. The nature of the planning condition issued by the Secretary of States to me reads that as a condition of the planning approval for the undertaking of any works on the site, a Stadium is to be built. This however does not have to be complete and fit for purpose until 60,000m2 of space is occupied. It could however be completed at any point if the developer so wished.

The argument that the Newcold Ltd development is from a separate planning application may be factually correct, however, would this application have ever been approved in isolation, if not backed off the original planning application, and subsequent approval from the Secretary of States? And has any of the services roads, power, plumbing etc... required for the access/operation of the Newcold Ltd development fallen within the original development site?

The proposition seemingly implied by the council that they have no responsibility in enforcing the 106 agreement, and that this is "principally a matter for the Trust, not the Council" seems incorrect and inaccurate based on a quick check on the Government website for S106 Obligations:


[urlhttp://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE[/url

In summary, the Council appear to have a number of 'get out' clauses by attempting to circumnavigate the original planning condition of a section106 agreement. These is a case to push to say that the Newcold Ltd development should contribute towards the s106 agreement. And it is the responsibility of the Local Authority to enforce this agreement, once conditions are met.

The issue we have is in the interpretation of "no more than 60,000m2" and the fact we have a Local Authority who do not want to assist in achieving this planning condition, and are for all intents and purposes deliberately and actively seeking to avoid triggering the condition. For this they need to be held fully accountable.

Excellent post - and exactly the way I see it; well said.

Quote ="dull nickname"reminded me of this: dailycaller.com/2017/03/15/truck ... ing-comma/'" Let's eat, Grandma. Let's eat Grandma. Commas save lives!

Quote ="dull nickname"reminded me of this: dailycaller.com/2017/03/15/truck ... ing-comma/'" Let's eat, Grandma. Let's eat Grandma. Commas save lives!

Thats a well thought out and constructed post this exactly where problems andcresponsibilities can be identified

An oldie but always makes me smile.

Let see say Newcold counts towards the stadium build, isn't it still short of th trigger point? If so, wouldn't they simply just stop building?

And has anyone contacted Rodney Walker? If he was given the power to act on behalf of the Trust, can't they just argue that each party agreed to it?

There's still plenty of money to be made from that site at some point, I just doubt Yorkcourt have enough cash to build a ground after 60,000 sq m.

The letter from the CE is not particularly clear.

The Public Inquiry was clear. As soon as a total of 60,000 sq m was built and occupied then subject to some other conditions being met on funding then the Stadium had to be built. Its nothing to do with the size of the individual developments.

Of course they don't, thats why they originally wanted 100sqm to be the trigger. And by agreeing to a unilateral undertaking rather than a full blown S106 agreement the council have made themselves powerless to enforce it until the conditions are met, which they never will be. They technically haven't broken any promises as there is nothing for them to enforce as yet, they've just shown themselves to be rather incompetent by getting themselves into that position in the first place and are trying to save face by passing the buck. The emphasis is all on the developer to front up and get building, which it seems they have no intention of doing or can't due to finances. I'd like to see a little more of the ire directed in their direction. The council should have insisted that the white box counted whether it was a seperate application or not (it was the height of the building that meant it had to be seperate, not the overall size) but it wouldn't have made any difference, there still wouldn't be a stadium there, Yorkcourt never had any intention of building one and now the council will play on the fact that they can't force them to develop the site and that they can't force companies to move there to try and dig themselves out of the hole they are in.

The feedback we are getting from Box and his cronies is that they are prepared to look inept, totally clueless and prepared to weekly lie down against any attempt to enforce the S106 which will provide the Wakefield Community with the facilities that were promised. They would not do that unless there was an ulterior motive - now compare their attitude to the other development over the common which will ultimately benefit (to the tune of £10m) a private concern of which Box is apparently a shareholder.
Why will Wakefield Council not fight tooth and nail to make the developers deliver what was promised to the people of Wakefield for the massive planning gain they have made? How hard did they challenge the big white box application?

Newcold/York Court "we are building outside the s106 agreement as a separate application and there's nothing you can do about it.."
WMDC "... oh ok you carry on.."
That hard...

There were a couple of councillors at the last fans meeting, regarding the ground at BV and even though they had voted on the Newcold plans, they had absolutely no idea that this impacted on the original NM plans.
Sandal Cat used a phrase, which I cant remember exactly but, it was that nothing could happen on the site to adversely affect the original NM plans and Newcold being built on adjacent land, seems to be a direct contradiction ??

Following the Councils thorough response, several further questions present themselves

1) Why did The Trust not object to the Newcold planning app outside of the original PP, if it was that a certain individual did not share this info, then what was their motive? If he did, then why no objection.

2) Are the council not able to see when a developer is trying to wriggle out of their obligations and insist they complete the development on the former greenbelt for which it was reallocated?

3) What's the next move?

I think the term is disaggregating the planning conditions. No development that is outside the terms of the agreement should be permitted, the approval from the govt minister was quite clear on that.

Seems like Box's influence spreads beyond the Labour Group on the council. No reply from any of my three councillors - AND THEY'RE ALL CONSERVATIVE!!
Stuff them all!!!! I hope they come knocking on my door come election time.

Seems like Box's influence spreads beyond the Labour Group on the council. No reply from any of my three councillors - AND THEY'RE ALL CONSERVATIVE!!
Stuff them all!!!! I hope they come knocking on my door come election time.

I've had a reply from one of my councillors, Monica Graham, in Wakefield South. This is her reply

"Thank you for your email. I note and share your concerns and frustrations in this matter. I have received a number of representations on this issue recently and can assure you that I will continue to do my utmost to get the answers to all of these outstanding questions. There is a Full Council Meeting next Wednesday at 2pm at County Hall and members of the public are able to attend and listen to the discussions and I encourage you to do so. This important matter will be raised then and I hope that we will be able to provide some clarity as to what actually has been going on between the Council and the Developer in this regard and therefore try to help move this process forward.”

I'm going to be in Bath next Wednesday so can't make it. Can anyone else do so?

I think it's really important that there is a presence to support any councillor who may be even partially trying to support us. Surely a few of us can make it.

I am hoping to be able to get there. Could do with someone from the Community Trust togo and see what is said.

I've just had the same email, I'm hoping to make it down as it's half-term so I'm off Uni

Have finally received a reply from Councillor Darren Byford which basically just referred me to the published WMDC statement.

I have just sent the following reply:

=#FF0000Councillor Byford,

Whilst I appreciate you sending me a link to the WMDC statement I feel that it is still missing several of the points raised. I would appreciate an answer to the following questions:
1) Are WMDC the local planning authority in respect of the development at Newmarket Lane, Stanley?
2) Is the local planning authority responsible for enforcing planning conditions set out in any s106 agreement?
3) Why did the local planning authority accept a Unilateral Undertaking in respect of the s106 agreement, when the SoS clearly stated in the public enquiry that he would prefer a Multi-Party agreement? My understanding is that as the planning authority it was totally within WMDC's control to insist upon a multi-party agreement.
4) I understand that due to the height of the Newcold development that it did not fall within the conditions of the original planning application for Newmarket, however given that the SoS clearly stated that the development could not be disaggregated because to do so would mean that it could not fund the community stadium elements. Why therefore did the local planning authority not (as is their right) insist that this separate application was included as part of the s106 UU or insist that a new Multi-Party agreement was drawn up in line with their preferred option?
5) Given the importance and potential value of a Community Stadium to the public of Wakefield, why have meetings between WMDC and the Community Trust and the developer not been minuted, or if they have why are WMDC unwilling to disclose the minutes of those meetings, even when requested to do so under the Freedom of Information Act?

I understand there is a Council meeting this Wednesday and I would like you to raise the above questions as I do not feel that the statement that you referred me to answers any of these really important points

Kind regards

My comprehensive reply from Cllr Ahmed, Conservative, Wakefield (South):

I support the community stadium bid. There is a council meeting this wednesday at 2. In the county hall. Hope to see you there

Best wishes

Nadeem

Sent from my Windows Phone

Good response.

He and all Labour Councillors now have a full copy of the Trust Statement issued on Friday 7th April so cannot claim not to have seen it particularly before Wednesday's Council Meeting.