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.
Try taking Rodney to court !
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?
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.