Wakey to get new ground maybe

Super League, National Leagues and the NRL
User avatar
alcasfan
Luke Gale
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:59 pm
Location: LS25 About as far from LEEDS as you can get with an LS code - Thank God!

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by alcasfan » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:29 pm

Toady wrote:
alcasfan wrote:In the words of the planning statement "the application is a stand alone and is in no way legally tied to the extant outline consent for the site"

I don,t suppose there will be many objections either from the local groups regarding the scale of the building 42 m high that is about 11 or 12 storey
So, a new & separate application because of the height restrictions. No mention of trigger point.
Do you have another link?
Thanks for the support for my view #UrbanMyth
Where have I ever said there was any mention of the trigger point?

The quoted line should have been enough to concern any one connected with the development.

Surely the people "involved" should have queried the implications at the time?
Last edited by alcasfan on Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:34 pm, edited 1 time 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"

User avatar
The Firm
Danny Orr
Posts: 1726
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: In your face.

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by The Firm » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:32 pm

Toady wrote:
alcasfan wrote:In the words of the planning statement "the application is a stand alone and is in no way legally tied to the extant outline consent for the site"

I don,t suppose there will be many objections either from the local groups regarding the scale of the building 42 m high that is about 11 or 12 storey
So, a new & separate application because of the height restrictions. No mention of trigger point.
Do you have another link?
Thanks for the support for my view #UrbanMyth
#headinsand
#laughedoutofcourt

User avatar
alcasfan
Luke Gale
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:59 pm
Location: LS25 About as far from LEEDS as you can get with an LS code - Thank God!

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by alcasfan » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:34 pm

The Firm wrote:
Toady wrote:
alcasfan wrote:In the words of the planning statement "the application is a stand alone and is in no way legally tied to the extant outline consent for the site"

I don,t suppose there will be many objections either from the local groups regarding the scale of the building 42 m high that is about 11 or 12 storey
So, a new & separate application because of the height restrictions. No mention of trigger point.
Do you have another link?
Thanks for the support for my view #UrbanMyth
#headinsand
#laughedoutofcourt
#asleepatthewheel

#wheresRodney
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
Sean Rudder
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:17 am

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by Toady » Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:01 pm

alcasfan wrote:
Toady wrote:
alcasfan wrote:In the words of the planning statement "the application is a stand alone and is in no way legally tied to the extant outline consent for the site"

I don,t suppose there will be many objections either from the local groups regarding the scale of the building 42 m high that is about 11 or 12 storey
So, a new & separate application because of the height restrictions. No mention of trigger point.
Do you have another link?
Thanks for the support for my view #UrbanMyth
Where have I ever said there was any mention of the trigger point?

The quoted line should have been enough to concern any one connected with the development.

Surely the people "involved" should have queried the implications at the time?
But that is the point.

The urban myth is that it was obvious that newcold would not count towards the trigger point and the helpful people from over the common even warned Wakefield fans about it.

On what grounds would the trust object to a relaxation of height restriction?

The height issue was the only reason given for the need for a separate application. Unless (like SRW) you were told directly about the council/developer's view that it would not count, why would you ever consider that land subject to a S106 obligation would not be included? As yet, there is still no evidence that this position from the LPA is actually correct or legally justified. We will see...

P.S. I am not, and have never been, a member of the trust. My house is quite close to the white monstrosity though.

WallTiger
Dean Widders
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by WallTiger » Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:37 pm

Toady wrote:
alcasfan wrote:
Toady wrote:
alcasfan wrote:In the words of the planning statement "the application is a stand alone and is in no way legally tied to the extant outline consent for the site"

I don,t suppose there will be many objections either from the local groups regarding the scale of the building 42 m high that is about 11 or 12 storey
So, a new & separate application because of the height restrictions. No mention of trigger point.
Do you have another link?
Thanks for the support for my view #UrbanMyth
Where have I ever said there was any mention of the trigger point?

The quoted line should have been enough to concern any one connected with the development.

Surely the people "involved" should have queried the implications at the time?
But that is the point.

The urban myth is that it was obvious that newcold would not count towards the trigger point and the helpful people from over the common even warned Wakefield fans about it.

On what grounds would the trust object to a relaxation of height restriction?

The height issue was the only reason given for the need for a separate application. Unless (like SRW) you were told directly about the council/developer's view that it would not count, why would you ever consider that land subject to a S106 obligation would not be included? As yet, there is still no evidence that this position from the LPA is actually correct or legally justified. We will see...

P.S. I am not, and have never been, a member of the trust. My house is quite close to the white monstrosity though.
You mean the CHAIRMAN of the Trust tasked with delivering the stadium!?

Notwithstanding why SRW chose not to tell the rest of the Trust (like you say this may come out in court) can you understand why it’s feasible for people to conclude that if the Chairman of the Trust was aware then the Trust as a whole/Club would be informed?

At the end of the day as has been said numerous times before the trigger point has not been reached even if they included Newcold today. So the only thing I can see court action wanting to achieve is exposing potential corruption. Even if that transpired other than some officials in public office facing serious charges it would not get Wakey a stadium.

User avatar
alcasfan
Luke Gale
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:59 pm
Location: LS25 About as far from LEEDS as you can get with an LS code - Thank God!

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by alcasfan » Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:54 pm

Toady wrote:
The urban myth is that it was obvious that newcold would not count towards the trigger point and the helpful people from over the common even warned Wakefield fans about it.
No. Nothing to do with the trigger point. That myth is of your own making.

The S106 UU is a legal document attached to the Outline planning permission.

The Newcold application was submitted and allowed to proceed as "no way legally tied to the extant outline consent for the site"

If that phrase did not ring massive bloody alarm bells to those "involved" to ask questions of the planners (as I assumed it would) then so be it.

#asleepatthewheel

#wheresbloodyRodney

Try taking Rodney to court !
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
Malcolm Reilly
Posts: 15367
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:55 am

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by HuddsTigers » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:42 pm

No way tied to the extant consent.

Extant = existing

Existing consent being the outline planning application. The outline planning application in any guide including the unilateral undertaking.

Bloody hell it isn’t that hard to comprehend. If it isn’t tied to the original planning application or consent it ain’t going to be tied to any unilateral undertaking or Section 106 within that application. Which is another interesting point: even with a multilateral S106 agreement could Yorkcourt have circumvented it again?
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!

User avatar
alcasfan
Luke Gale
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:59 pm
Location: LS25 About as far from LEEDS as you can get with an LS code - Thank God!

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by alcasfan » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:46 pm

HuddsTigers wrote:No way tied to the extant consent.

Extant = existing

Existing consent being the outline planning application. The outline planning application in any guide including the unilateral undertaking.

Bloody hell it isn’t that hard to comprehend. If it isn’t tied to the original planning application or consent it ain’t going to be tied to any unilateral undertaking or Section 106 within that application. Which is another interesting point: even with a multilateral S106 agreement could Yorkcourt have circumvented it again?
Glad it is not just me!

The Club,Trust and their advisors etc should have been all over the Newcold application like a rash but, for whatever reason, they failed.

#asleepatthewheel

#wheresRodney
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
Sean Rudder
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:17 am

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by Toady » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:05 am

alcasfan wrote:
Toady wrote:
The urban myth is that it was obvious that newcold would not count towards the trigger point and the helpful people from over the common even warned Wakefield fans about it.
No. Nothing to do with the trigger point. That myth is of your own making.

The S106 UU is a legal document attached to the Outline planning permission.

The Newcold application was submitted and allowed to proceed as "no way legally tied to the extant outline consent for the site"

If that phrase did not ring massive bloody alarm bells to those "involved" to ask questions of the planners (as I assumed it would) then so be it.

#asleepatthewheel

#wheresbloodyRodney

Try taking Rodney to court !
Tigerade wrote: The deal makers - the people who agreed the original 106 are the community trust that are still flying the flag for the new stadium at NM. I cannot believe they are still going. They should have fell on their swords a long time ago IMO. When they didn't spot the "anomaly" in the Newcold building not been part of the trigger point (a massive oversight) they should have walked.
You'll be pleased to know I'll make this my last post on the subject (for now ;) )
Couldn't be bothered to trawl through for a better example, so 'tigerade's' will have to do.

S106s (including UU's) are contracts between interested parties in the development and the LPA. The LPA has the statutory duty to enforce the planning obligations. The trust & club were not party to or beneficiary of the s106 and so had no influence on it whatsoever. The UU has to be accepted by the LPA, they can refuse planning permission until they are satisfied. This also goes for changes in planning. Why didn't they insist on a new s106 when Newcold was put forward? Why did they accept the original UU?
Blaming the trust (or club) for not spotting the possibility of the workaround at the time is somewhat disingenuous. They had reassurances from all parties that everything was above board and going well. Blaming the current members of the trust, who were not even members at the time, is even more obtuse. Clearly, SRW's role and reasoning remains a mystery.

It is solely the LPA's responsibility (and their statutory duty) to ensure that the terms of the deal agreed at the public inquiry are met and that the community gets suitable recompense for the planning gain.

From Wakefield council in the Wakefield Express as recently as 6th April 2017:
In December 2012, planning permission for a new stadium was granted by the Secretary of State – a decision that the Council welcomed. The permission was accompanied by a Unilateral Undertaking. This document was signed by Yorkcourt Properties Ltd (the developer) and two other landowners and was accepted by the Government’s Planning Inspector. It was not signed by Wakefield Council. The Council asked for, and would have preferred, a Multi-lateral Section 106 agreement, signed by a number of parties including the Council. This would have enabled the local authority to negotiate clear funding streams and tighter triggers for the development of a stadium. The decision to accept the developer’s Unilateral Undertaking was that of the Planning Inspector and ultimately formed part of the planning approval issued by the Conservative MP Eric Pickles in his capacity as Secretary of State. The Council is not a party to, or a beneficiary of, the Unilateral Undertaking. The persons liable to the obligation are those persons with interests in the land only – namely Oldroyd and Sons, Clysdale Bank and Yorkcourt Properties Ltd.

Read more at: http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-8480012
Do you think 2 judges will be able to pick any holes in such a statement? planning permission granted by SoS? He was minded to approve, but only the LPA can approve planning.

I am not privy to the current thinking on legal action or what they hope to gain from it. It looks likely that the trust will apply for a judicial review looking into the council's actions and procedures since the PI. The review, at best, would find the council have not carried out their duties correctly and make them redo the process. I'm not sure how far back they can go.
Perhaps the trust is using this as a using this as leverage to get a better deal? who knows?

If the application for JR succeeds, the council will have to reply laying out their defence. Do they have one?
The recent changes in attitude of WMDC would appear to indicate their lack of confidence in facing a judicial review.
For the first 4 years after the PI, they toed the party line and always replied with the same 'it's nothing to do with us, we are not party to the UU, it's a matter for the developer and the trust' and 'we're not in the business of building rugby stadiums'.
This year, they've gone from that to, 'we'll renegotiate with the developer to produce a new s106 and include the Newcold build' and then 'we'll build a community stadium whether Wakefield Trinity wants to use it or not'.

What prompted this change in attitude?
Twitching sphincters?
Maybe they've looked up the grounds for indictment for gross misconduct in public office?
I predict that the huge machine that is the self-preservation society of WMDC officers will be in full swing shortly.

Apparently, the club/trust are having meetings with their legal team today, so things may soon become a little clearer.

Away from that, it's good that, on the whole, this isn't so much a Cas V Wakey slag-off-a-thon.
Cas have received plenty of recognition and praise for how they've turned it around on the pitch since Powell came in. For me, the turning point was when Steve Gill took over and created the environment where growth and development were possible. MC & CB have made a similar cultural change at Wakefield. I wish you well with your own stadium plans and should we both get suitable facilities there is no reason why the district shouldn't be the hotbed of RL in the UK that it has the potential to be.

TT Tiger
Danny Orr
Posts: 2260
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:02 pm

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by TT Tiger » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:11 pm

I don’t normally comment on this thread is I’m a Leeds city council resident. But to me all this seams like a massive waste of tax payers money. Also I am involved with running a small business that was thinking of taking LCC to court to over turn a noise abatement order served on us. Our advices we received from a barrister was “you’ll probably win but do you want to take the local council to court? They will be watching you like a hawk for anything.”

HuddsTigers
Malcolm Reilly
Posts: 15367
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:55 am

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by HuddsTigers » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:27 pm

In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!

HuddsTigers
Malcolm Reilly
Posts: 15367
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:55 am

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by HuddsTigers » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:31 pm

If anyone wants to watch what was said you can here:

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/about-the-c ... l-meetings

It starts at around -1:22:45 remaining
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!

HuddsTigers
Malcolm Reilly
Posts: 15367
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:55 am

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by HuddsTigers » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:49 pm

Really interesting and hard-hitting from the council. Raises more questions back towards the club and trust. It's like a huge ping pong match.

Here's also the statement from Councillor Ahmed that Peter Box refers to: https://www.facebook.com/wakefieldsouth ... 9068995371
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!

JIN JER
Junior Moors
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:53 am

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by JIN JER » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:52 pm

HuddsTigers wrote:
Why on earth would the council get a business plan together to build a £12M community stadium without anchor tenants? Are they hoping to build a white elephant then get anchor tenants after the event? Seems a bit hung Ho to me.

HuddsTigers
Malcolm Reilly
Posts: 15367
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:55 am

Re: Wakey to get new ground maybe

Post by HuddsTigers » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:02 pm

He speaks of this in the video. Basically to see if it is feasible without WT as anchor tenants and if the numbers don’t work that’s the way it is.
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!

Post Reply