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.

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.