Wakey to get new ground maybe

Super League, National Leagues and the NRL
User avatar
alcasfan
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 3048
Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 12:59
Location: LS25 About as far from LEEDS as you can get with an LS code - Thank God!
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by alcasfan » 10 Nov 2017, 13:59

The Firm wrote:Everyone seems to accept that Walker knew about Newcold but didn’t pass the info on. So the developers and the council told the chairman of the trust the full state if play, what he did with that information is his business.

Can anybody tell me why that is the councils fault?

Nail on Head! :clap:

Also, why "not one person" associated with the club, trust, and even fans having taken such microscopic interest in the Planning Inquiry bothered to look at the Newcold application from July to September and raise any objection?

Still bugs me ,does that one.
Last edited by alcasfan on 10 Nov 2017, 14:09, edited 2 times in total.
Image
"Castleford's biggest home crowd of the 1991-1992 season wasn't quite 12,000 while on average they'd sit around 6000 but the noise, the chanting and the singing just blows you away" - Tawera Nikau "Standing Tall"

HuddsTigers
Verified
Grand Final Winner
Grand Final Winner
Posts: 15893
Joined: 31 Jan 2009, 03:55
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by HuddsTigers » 10 Nov 2017, 14:08

The only question the council has to answer IMO is why Newcold was passed falling outside of the original planning application.

And I suspect the answer lies along these lines: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... rue&bhcp=1

The application submitted outside doesn't have any implications for the original planning application. Therefore, they have the obligation to hear the planning application and unless there's an actual proper reason to deny/refuse that application then they have to pass it.

Was it the council's fault that Yorkcourt submitted a separate planning application?
Was it the council's fault the Trust didn't object, the club didn't object and WT fans didn't object?
Is it the council's fault that the trigger points haven't been met?
Is it the council's fault that 88m have offered them a chance to stay at Belle Vue but want a rent for doing so?

Again IMO, the answer is no to all of these. It's interesting to see how this is going to fall out, it really is. We'll get accused of bias and being Nutjobs but I don't see it as the council's fault in the grand scheme. And the sad thing is, they're now using the Cas beating stick to try and make out that's the reason.

Personally, I don't rate WMDC or the Labour council either but I think the issue is wider than WMDC.
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!

Toady
New member
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Mar 2013, 06:17
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by Toady » 10 Nov 2017, 15:06

Just a few points.
The SoS doesn't grant planning permission, the LPA does.
The SoS doesn't accept s106 obligations, the LPA does.
There was nothing in the public domain that stated newcold would not count towards the trigger point before the period for objections passed.
S106 obligations cannot be disaggregated.
The public inquiry report made it clear that the main reason for approval was Wakefield's urgent need for a superleague compliant stadium.
The council never owned the land.
The PI report made it clear that the stadium would be leased to the trust for peppercorn rent.
The anchor tenants would pay rent to the trust to cover their running costs and also take on the maintenance, repair and insurance costs.

User avatar
alcasfan
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 3048
Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 12:59
Location: LS25 About as far from LEEDS as you can get with an LS code - Thank God!
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by alcasfan » 10 Nov 2017, 15:45

Toady wrote:There was nothing in the public domain that stated newcold would not count towards the trigger point before the period for objections passed.
Bloody Hell! How many times does it take.!

08/07/2013 Design and Access Statement Page bloody 4!!

http://cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf


"This detailed application is a stand alone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above"


.
Image
"Castleford's biggest home crowd of the 1991-1992 season wasn't quite 12,000 while on average they'd sit around 6000 but the noise, the chanting and the singing just blows you away" - Tawera Nikau "Standing Tall"

Toady
New member
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Mar 2013, 06:17
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by Toady » 10 Nov 2017, 16:20

alcasfan wrote:
Toady wrote:There was nothing in the public domain that stated newcold would not count towards the trigger point before the period for objections passed.
Bloody Hell! How many times does it take.!

08/07/2013 Design and Access Statement Page bloody 4!!

http://cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf


"This detailed application is a stand alone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above"


.
Calm down dear.
Only with hindsight could you perhaps extend that to mean the s106 obligation. In the context of the whole statement, it is talking about the planning permission. The reason given by the council that it had to be a stand-alone application was that the height exceeded the limit laid out in the original application, hence not tied to the original outline consent.
Again, why did the LPA allow this without insisting that the s106 be redrafted? The mysterious mythical legal advice?
We'll let the judicial review decide shall we? Assuming WMDC have the conviction to stand by their position.

WallTiger
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 210
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 18:21
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by WallTiger » 10 Nov 2017, 16:54

Toady what about the Chairman of the Trust knowing?

Toady
New member
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Mar 2013, 06:17
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by Toady » 10 Nov 2017, 17:02

WallTiger wrote:Toady what about the Chairman of the Trust knowing?
You'd have to ask him why he told no-one else and didn't think it would be in the trust's best interests to object. Maybe the reasons will come out in court? Who knows?

The Firm
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2893
Joined: 05 Sep 2012, 15:24
Location: In your face.
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by The Firm » 10 Nov 2017, 17:02

Toady wrote:
alcasfan wrote:
Toady wrote:There was nothing in the public domain that stated newcold would not count towards the trigger point before the period for objections passed.
Bloody Hell! How many times does it take.!

08/07/2013 Design and Access Statement Page bloody 4!!

http://cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf


"This detailed application is a stand alone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above"


.
Calm down dear.
Only with hindsight could you perhaps extend that to mean the s106 obligation. In the context of the whole statement, it is talking about the planning permission. The reason given by the council that it had to be a stand-alone application was that the height exceeded the limit laid out in the original application, hence not tied to the original outline consent.
Again, why did the LPA allow this without insisting that the s106 be redrafted? The mysterious mythical legal advice?
We'll let the judicial review decide shall we? Assuming WMDC have the conviction to stand by their position.
Hindsight? What part of ‘in no way’ is difficult to understand? Is the education system really that poor in the big city?

WallTiger
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 210
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 18:21
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by WallTiger » 10 Nov 2017, 17:07

Toady wrote:
WallTiger wrote:Toady what about the Chairman of the Trust knowing?
You'd have to ask him why he told no-one else and didn't think it would be in the trust's best interests to object. Maybe the reasons will come out in court? Who knows?
But surely the point is that a member of the Trust (The Chairman no less) knew! The reason why he chose to not tell anyone is not the point the fact is that the Council will argue the Trust were aware. No? am I totally missing something here?

User avatar
alcasfan
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 3048
Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 12:59
Location: LS25 About as far from LEEDS as you can get with an LS code - Thank God!
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by alcasfan » 10 Nov 2017, 17:12

Toady wrote:
alcasfan wrote:
Toady wrote:There was nothing in the public domain that stated newcold would not count towards the trigger point before the period for objections passed.
Bloody Hell! How many times does it take.!

08/07/2013 Design and Access Statement Page bloody 4!!

http://cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf


"This detailed application is a stand alone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above"


.
Calm down dear.
Only with hindsight could you perhaps extend that to mean the s106 obligation. In the context of the whole statement, it is talking about the planning permission. The reason given by the council that it had to be a stand-alone application was that the height exceeded the limit laid out in the original application, hence not tied to the original outline consent.
Again, why did the LPA allow this without insisting that the s106 be redrafted? The mysterious mythical legal advice?
We'll let the judicial review decide shall we? Assuming WMDC have the conviction to stand by their position.
Hindsight!??

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) #-o
Image
"Castleford's biggest home crowd of the 1991-1992 season wasn't quite 12,000 while on average they'd sit around 6000 but the noise, the chanting and the singing just blows you away" - Tawera Nikau "Standing Tall"

Toady
New member
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Mar 2013, 06:17
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by Toady » 10 Nov 2017, 17:30

alcasfan wrote:
Toady wrote:
alcasfan wrote:
Toady wrote:There was nothing in the public domain that stated newcold would not count towards the trigger point before the period for objections passed.
Bloody Hell! How many times does it take.!

08/07/2013 Design and Access Statement Page bloody 4!!

http://cominoweb.wakefield.gov.uk/Plann ... nt=obj.pdf


"This detailed application is a stand alone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above"


.
Calm down dear.
Only with hindsight could you perhaps extend that to mean the s106 obligation. In the context of the whole statement, it is talking about the planning permission. The reason given by the council that it had to be a stand-alone application was that the height exceeded the limit laid out in the original application, hence not tied to the original outline consent.
Again, why did the LPA allow this without insisting that the s106 be redrafted? The mysterious mythical legal advice?
We'll let the judicial review decide shall we? Assuming WMDC have the conviction to stand by their position.
Hindsight!??

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) #-o
Post a link then to show it wasn't hindsight.
Not legally tied to the extant outline consent i.e. not limited by the height restrictions of that application. What reason would you have to think otherwise unless you'd been specifically told the scope of such a vague statement? Or view it with 20-20hindsight.
Why didn't the LPA see it as an attempt to circumvent the s106 and insist on revising it?

I would suggest that SRW will also have some questions to answer about his inaction to protect the best interests of the trust and its aims.

The Firm
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2893
Joined: 05 Sep 2012, 15:24
Location: In your face.
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by The Firm » 10 Nov 2017, 17:37

Toady wrote:Just a few points.
1 The SoS doesn't grant planning permission, the LPA does.
2 The SoS doesn't accept s106 obligations, the LPA does.
3 There was nothing in the public domain that stated newcold would not count towards the trigger point before the period for objections passed.
4 S106 obligations cannot be disaggregated.
5 The public inquiry report made it clear that the main reason for approval was Wakefield's urgent need for a superleague compliant stadium.
6 The council never owned the land.
7 The PI report made it clear that the stadium would be leased to the trust for peppercorn rent.
8 The anchor tenants would pay rent to the trust to cover their running costs and also take on the maintenance, repair and insurance costs.
1&2 Correct and nobody seemed to have a problem with the deal at the time including the trust and the club.
3 Yes there was as has been proven. And the chairman of the trust was told.
4 Correct. Although they can be altered after time, which conveniently is now.
5 It was part of the reason, community facilities were another. This means alternative options can be considered when looking to alter the S106.
6 No, neither does the developer. There are though i believe contracts in place with the landowner and Yorkcourt meaning nobody else can use the land.
7&8 Only at Newmarket, which the club knows is never going to happen hence the deal struck at Belle Vue. Given Wakey seem to have taken their bat & ball home over the rent at the new Belle Vue development, where there is no such peppercorn agreement, then this seems a pointless exercise. Involving 88M in the arguments and then quoting a deal from another development makes Carter & Co. appear rather stupid.

Now i don't doubt the council could have done more to push things on but they can't force a company to take up plots on a development and neither can they stop a developer from land banking to maximise profit when the time is right. I have no doubt you are hurting at the minute but you are running up a blind alley with this.

tigerfeat
Super League Player
Super League Player
Posts: 14603
Joined: 23 Jun 2014, 12:07
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by tigerfeat » 10 Nov 2017, 18:09

HuddsTigers wrote:Just a blame game.

They're blaming everyone but anyone associated with the clubs.

Interesting that there was a post stating that one other trust member was present when Rodney informed them that Newcold was falling outside the Unilateral Undertaking. Also interesting that no one is criticising the Trust Member for not passing on that info to the new trust members or for not doing anything about it.....

I know I'm guilty of blind faith at times myself - and have been historically - but at least we have quantum of our fanbase willing to question everything too and at least provide some balanced opposition. Least means that everything is scrutinised.
Thats a intresting thought if the roles were reversed there would be just as meny people having a go at the club on here as there would be having a go at box and the council , apart from the odd post and ones from cas fans all the 30 or so regulars who post on the wakey forum are singing from the same hymn sheet
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi

Toady
New member
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Mar 2013, 06:17
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by Toady » 10 Nov 2017, 18:11

The Firm wrote:
Toady wrote:Just a few points.
1 The SoS doesn't grant planning permission, the LPA does.
2 The SoS doesn't accept s106 obligations, the LPA does.
3 There was nothing in the public domain that stated newcold would not count towards the trigger point before the period for objections passed.
4 S106 obligations cannot be disaggregated.
5 The public inquiry report made it clear that the main reason for approval was Wakefield's urgent need for a superleague compliant stadium.
6 The council never owned the land.
7 The PI report made it clear that the stadium would be leased to the trust for peppercorn rent.
8 The anchor tenants would pay rent to the trust to cover their running costs and also take on the maintenance, repair and insurance costs.
1&2 Correct and nobody seemed to have a problem with the deal at the time including the trust and the club.
3 Yes there was as has been proven. And the chairman of the trust was told.
4 Correct. Although they can be altered after time, which conveniently is now.
5 It was part of the reason, community facilities were another. This means alternative options can be considered when looking to alter the S106.
6 No, neither does the developer. There are though i believe contracts in place with the landowner and Yorkcourt meaning nobody else can use the land.
7&8 Only at Newmarket, which the club knows is never going to happen hence the deal struck at Belle Vue. Given Wakey seem to have taken their bat & ball home over the rent at the new Belle Vue development, where there is no such peppercorn agreement, then this seems a pointless exercise. Involving 88M in the arguments and then quoting a deal from another development makes Carter & Co. appear rather stupid.

Now i don't doubt the council could have done more to push things on but they can't force a company to take up plots on a development and neither can they stop a developer from land banking to maximise profit when the time is right. I have no doubt you are hurting at the minute but you are running up a blind alley with this.
3. Where's the proof? It was a separate application not linked to the first but it's on the same land, so why was it allowed not to count? Even Box was suggesting in the summer that he would get it included. The LPA have all the powers here, but seem reluctant to use them.
4. They can apply to change it after 5 years, but they have to have good reason. Very rarely happens.
7&8. Who do you think was going to pay to redevelop BV?

What the council could have done more of is fulfilling their statutory duty to ensure that the community was suitably recompensed for giving up greenbelt land as per the findings of the PI.

Toady
New member
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Mar 2013, 06:17
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by Toady » 10 Nov 2017, 18:21

HuddsTigers wrote:
Interesting that there was a post stating that one other trust member was present when Rodney informed them that Newcold was falling outside the Unilateral Undertaking. Also interesting that no one is criticising the Trust Member for not passing on that info to the new trust members or for not doing anything about it.....
I think you've misread this. Only one current member of the trust was a member at that time, but he wasn't present at the meeting nor informed afterwards. SRW kept it to himself.

HuddsTigers
Verified
Grand Final Winner
Grand Final Winner
Posts: 15893
Joined: 31 Jan 2009, 03:55
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by HuddsTigers » 10 Nov 2017, 18:48

tigerfeat wrote:
HuddsTigers wrote:Just a blame game.

They're blaming everyone but anyone associated with the clubs.

Interesting that there was a post stating that one other trust member was present when Rodney informed them that Newcold was falling outside the Unilateral Undertaking. Also interesting that no one is criticising the Trust Member for not passing on that info to the new trust members or for not doing anything about it.....

I know I'm guilty of blind faith at times myself - and have been historically - but at least we have quantum of our fanbase willing to question everything too and at least provide some balanced opposition. Least means that everything is scrutinised.
Thats a intresting thought if the roles were reversed there would be just as meny people having a go at the club on here as there would be having a go at box and the council , apart from the odd post and ones from cas fans all the 30 or so regulars who post on the wakey forum are singing from the same hymn sheet

What I meant is that everything along the way is scrutinised to the nth degree. We all interpret things differently. It could quite easily have been us but again, we're lucky we have WR to fall back on.
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!

WallTiger
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 210
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 18:21
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by WallTiger » 10 Nov 2017, 19:00

Toady wrote:
HuddsTigers wrote:
Interesting that there was a post stating that one other trust member was present when Rodney informed them that Newcold was falling outside the Unilateral Undertaking. Also interesting that no one is criticising the Trust Member for not passing on that info to the new trust members or for not doing anything about it.....
I think you've misread this. Only one current member of the trust was a member at that time, but he wasn't present at the meeting nor informed afterwards. SRW kept it to himself.[/quote

But from the Councils viewpoint the Trust were made fully aware because the Chairman was in the meeting. Now forgetting for one minute the whole WMDC could have done more to object this and make sure it counted etc. They will surely argue that the Community Trust were involved and had no problem with it!? Shouldn’t the current Trust members and Club be gunning for SRW as much as WMDC in all this?

HuddsTigers
Verified
Grand Final Winner
Grand Final Winner
Posts: 15893
Joined: 31 Jan 2009, 03:55
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by HuddsTigers » 10 Nov 2017, 19:01

Toady wrote:
HuddsTigers wrote:
Interesting that there was a post stating that one other trust member was present when Rodney informed them that Newcold was falling outside the Unilateral Undertaking. Also interesting that no one is criticising the Trust Member for not passing on that info to the new trust members or for not doing anything about it.....
I think you've misread this. Only one current member of the trust was a member at that time, but he wasn't present at the meeting nor informed afterwards. SRW kept it to himself.
Fair point, you're right I did misread it. So many threads, so much information.

However, the question remains as to when the rest of the Trustees found out.
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!

Toady
New member
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 Mar 2013, 06:17
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by Toady » 10 Nov 2017, 19:19

WallTiger wrote:
Toady wrote:
HuddsTigers wrote:
Interesting that there was a post stating that one other trust member was present when Rodney informed them that Newcold was falling outside the Unilateral Undertaking. Also interesting that no one is criticising the Trust Member for not passing on that info to the new trust members or for not doing anything about it.....
I think you've misread this. Only one current member of the trust was a member at that time, but he wasn't present at the meeting nor informed afterwards. SRW kept it to himself.[/quote

But from the Councils viewpoint the Trust were made fully aware because the Chairman was in the meeting. Now forgetting for one minute the whole WMDC could have done more to object this and make sure it counted etc. They will surely argue that the Community Trust were involved and had no problem with it!? Shouldn’t the current Trust members and Club be gunning for SRW as much as WMDC in all this?
As I said, SRW may have questions to answer over his failure to protect the best interests of the trust, but really that's just a side issue. The main point is why the body charged with the duty to enforce the deal have completely failed to do that. They have allowed or even encouraged the developer to believe that the s106 is something they can ignore or get around. Unfortunately, they spent too long denying it was anything to do with them. Somehow they managed to completely misunderstand what a unilateral undertaking is and what role the LPA have in it, even blaming the SoS. We'll have to wait and see how it pans out.

The Firm
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2893
Joined: 05 Sep 2012, 15:24
Location: In your face.
Contact:

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by The Firm » 10 Nov 2017, 20:29

Toady wrote:
WallTiger wrote:
Toady wrote:
HuddsTigers wrote:
Interesting that there was a post stating that one other trust member was present when Rodney informed them that Newcold was falling outside the Unilateral Undertaking. Also interesting that no one is criticising the Trust Member for not passing on that info to the new trust members or for not doing anything about it.....
I think you've misread this. Only one current member of the trust was a member at that time, but he wasn't present at the meeting nor informed afterwards. SRW kept it to himself.[/quote

But from the Councils viewpoint the Trust were made fully aware because the Chairman was in the meeting. Now forgetting for one minute the whole WMDC could have done more to object this and make sure it counted etc. They will surely argue that the Community Trust were involved and had no problem with it!? Shouldn’t the current Trust members and Club be gunning for SRW as much as WMDC in all this?
As I said, SRW may have questions to answer over his failure to protect the best interests of the trust, but really that's just a side issue. The main point is why the body charged with the duty to enforce the deal have completely failed to do that. They have allowed or even encouraged the developer to believe that the s106 is something they can ignore or get around. Unfortunately, they spent too long denying it was anything to do with them. Somehow they managed to completely misunderstand what a unilateral undertaking is and what role the LPA have in it, even blaming the SoS. We'll have to wait and see how it pans out.
There’s also that small matter that Newcold or not THE TRIGGER POINT HAS NOT BEEN REACHED. I’m shouting it because you wakey fans seem to be glossing over that rather important fact. There is nothing statutory to enforce yet and i’m really not sure why you lot don’t seem to get that. Yorkcourt haven’t built on all of the greenbelt and buggered off, it’s still there mostly untouched.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests