According to the S106 agreement dated 26th October 2012, this was executed as a deed by two representatives of Yorkcourt (200icon_cool.gif Ltd, one of which signatures appears to be Curtis Jones and the second, I assume, is Colin Mackie but according to Companies House, both Mr Mackie and Mr Curtis resigned on 25th October 2012, some 24 hours previous. I am certainly no expert in these matters but how can 2 company directors sign an agreement when they are no longer directors? Furthermore, is the reinstatement date of both directors on the 10th March 2017 significant? This is 48 hours before MC released details to the press that he had given notice to quit Belle Vue and also when it was revealed that SRW had quit the Trust. Coincidence?

There is also the issue of the contributory build and the 'trigger' or magic 60,000m2. I have passed the site on many occasions but cannot recollect any advertising boards, nor can I find any relevant marketing agents/material which appears to imply that they are making absolutely no effort to locate any purchasers or tenants so the magic trigger point will never be reached.

I seem to recall the very same having been said about one J. D. Pearman!

I disagree.
Without the power of hindsight, i.e. knowing that the Newcold application wasn't included in the trigger point and then going back and looking for some wording that may justify this, the paragraph above, taken in context, in no way states this clearly. It is just a narrative explanation of the situation from WMDC and there is no need to use specific technical jargon with special meaning in the art (if that's what it is). If they'd wanted to make it clear that the application wouldn't count towards the trigger point or would not be covered by the s106 planning obligation, why didn't they say that?
We were told, as it states above, that the reason for a new application was that the Newcold building exceeded the maximum height allowed by the original application. The letter from the SoS is clear that the planning obligation applies to the land and should not be disaggregated. With this in mind, the most obvious interpretation of the highlighted paragraph would be that the reason for the new application was to get around the height restriction of the original application. In the next sentence, 'This detailed application is a standalone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above' could mean that it is not bound by the height restrictions of the first application, which seems entirely reasonable due to its juxtaposition with the previous sentence. Likewise, the very next sentence, 'The outline approval has however been carefully considered to ensure the proposed scheme integrates with it [iand in no way prejudices the implementation of [uany development[/u controlled by that consent[/i.' could be reasonably be interpreted as confirming that the implementation of the stadium is in no way prejudiced, i.e. the new application is still included in the trigger point.
The question still remains, why did WMDC, as the planning authority charged with ensuring the s106 planning obligation, allow this application to be removed from this requirement?

Yes that's the thing they fail to answer time after time. In all fairness though they did say they took legal advice on the matter. Yet they can't say who gave it or what that advice was, or in fact provide any evidence whatsoever that advice was taken. This was confirmed by a freedom of information request.

However they continue to try and mitigate themselves by saying they told Sir Rodney and he had no objections. In naming Sir Rodney in this controversial decision it would be interesting to hear an official response from him, I wonder if he will make a public statement about the matter.

Was just wondering if there is any interest in people attending next Wednesday's council meeting at 2pm and if there will be an opportunity for members of the public to put questions to Mr Box

Again, another absurdity, WMDC don't think that it is their role.

Have they actually named Rodders? If so where?

A Couple of more points.

They try to mitigate this decision by saying there were no objections.

Firstly one must ask, if there were objections could this have been stopped unless it was included in the trigger area ? To me they are suggesting if objections were lodged, it could have been. This then tells me they did have had the power to over rule this, so why the hell didn't they ! they must have fully realised what they were doing.


Secondly if they had no alternative but to allow it as they purport. If I was the developer, I would instruct the architect that draws up the next scheme to ensure some part of it is again over 25 mts tall. Then this whole process will be followed again and this will also be passed outside the development.

Yorkcourt could carry on like that and fill up the site without a brick being laid at a stadium.

Just looks like it was a stitch up all along to me from what I read here (you don't say... I know) You build your storage facility, we'll get it by for you says WMDC, but build lots of nice little get our clauses in for you so you don't ever have to build that pesky stadium. That'll keep that lot at'Rugby ground quiet a while. One wonders why the Council did that .....

So amidst all this Newmarket bluster. Has Manni of 88M washed his hands of a refurbished BV, I seem to remember he promised a 3D model of a new and improved BV shortly after buying it.

This is an assumption from me but I would guess that would have been dependent on some sort of commitment to him financially if Newmarket was off why spend money on BV if the club are to move

Think the council have said things along the lines of they'd met with the chairman of the trust which is of course Rodders.

A response from Mary Creagh; Thank you very much for contacting me recently regarding Wakefield Trinity. I share your concerns over the lack of progress for a new stadium. Wakefield Trinity is at the heart of our sport in Wakefield and I am sad to hear the club has given notice to quit Belle Vue. I have fully supported plans for a new stadium since being elected MP for Wakefield 12 years ago and have published on my website the correspondence I have had with the Club, the Trust, Wakefield Council and Government ministers on this issue. Available at: www.marycreagh.com/wakefield_trinity_stadium_update2 As you are aware, Conservative Ministers approved a planning application on green belt land in Stanley on condition a new community stadium was built. Last year, I asked the Department for Communities and Local Government what steps they were taking to monitor construction of a new stadium and I have enclosed a written ministerial response I received from Gavin Barwell MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, for your information. There are four organisations involved in the process of securing a new stadium: the Club, the Trust, Wakefield Council and the developer Yorkcourt Properties. In a situation like this, it’s about trying to bring all four organisations to the table to ensure Wakefield Trinity have a suitable ground that will allow them to compete and succeed in the Super League. I’ve had several meetings with the Trust since it was set up, and continue to correspond with the Club and the Council to seek updates on what action is being taken to ensure that the Club has a stadium for next season. I have also recently met with the developer to press upon him the need for a partnership approach to secure a new or redeveloped stadium for the club as soon as possible. I know that another meeting is also planned between the Council, the developer and the club to map out a way forward. Please be assured that I will continue to work with the Trust, the Club, the developer and the Council to secure the future of the club and the new stadium. Thank you again for contacting me about this matter, and please do not hesitate to get in touch if you would like to discuss this or any other matter. Yours sincerely Mary Creagh

A response from Mary Creagh; Thank you very much for contacting me recently regarding Wakefield Trinity. I share your concerns over the lack of progress for a new stadium. Wakefield Trinity is at the heart of our sport in Wakefield and I am sad to hear the club has given notice to quit Belle Vue. I have fully supported plans for a new stadium since being elected MP for Wakefield 12 years ago and have published on my website the correspondence I have had with the Club, the Trust, Wakefield Council and Government ministers on this issue. Available at: www.marycreagh.com/wakefield_trinity_stadium_update2 As you are aware, Conservative Ministers approved a planning application on green belt land in Stanley on condition a new community stadium was built. Last year, I asked the Department for Communities and Local Government what steps they were taking to monitor construction of a new stadium and I have enclosed a written ministerial response I received from Gavin Barwell MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, for your information. There are four organisations involved in the process of securing a new stadium: the Club, the Trust, Wakefield Council and the developer Yorkcourt Properties. In a situation like this, it’s about trying to bring all four organisations to the table to ensure Wakefield Trinity have a suitable ground that will allow them to compete and succeed in the Super League. I’ve had several meetings with the Trust since it was set up, and continue to correspond with the Club and the Council to seek updates on what action is being taken to ensure that the Club has a stadium for next season. I have also recently met with the developer to press upon him the need for a partnership approach to secure a new or redeveloped stadium for the club as soon as possible. I know that another meeting is also planned between the Council, the developer and the club to map out a way forward. Please be assured that I will continue to work with the Trust, the Club, the developer and the Council to secure the future of the club and the new stadium. Thank you again for contacting me about this matter, and please do not hesitate to get in touch if you would like to discuss this or any other matter. Yours sincerely Mary Creagh

I emailed Mary and got a reply from someone else wanting to know where I live in case I don't live in constituency...

The last piece of correspondence..
It's not upto the S.o.S to implement the agreement it's the responsibility of the local authority...

Council statement says you have to reach both trigger points , 60,000 sqm AND 2m funding.

https://www.andreajenkyns.co.uk/campaig ... et-stadium

https://www.andreajenkyns.co.uk/campaig ... et-stadium

Excellent work there No1.
Can you see that this gets exposure in the wider media as this type of things seems one of your skills.

Yeah but who's job is it to make sure the LA implement the agreement?

Rodney Walker is a sideline issue thrown in by WMDC to distract attention away from the truth. Rodney may have some questions to answer ......edited

The quoting of "No Objections" is also irrelevant as it too is a distraction from the WMDCs possibly illegal failure to enforce the SOSs ruling. There's also some very suspicious and questionable anomalies surrounding the timing, wording and transparency of WMDCs planning documents pertaining to the Newcold build.

The main question is why did WMDC choose to allow the Newcold build to fall outside the UU (which IS a S106) when they have a legal obligation to to enforce The SoSs ruling.

That ruling stated that the land involved would only be lifted out of the Green Belt on the express provision that the developer built Community Sports facilities and a Community Stadium once 60,000sqm of warehousing was built out.

The SoSs Officer clearly ruled that this was a legal condition and that the land in question could not be disaggregated. What that means is that the ruling is on the land and not any particular planning application. Therefore any planning application is subject to this condition and it is the legal obligation of the ruling Planning Authority (WMDC) to ensure its enforcement!

There seems to be no logical reason whatsoever for WMDC not to enforce the SoSs ruling, indeed they have brought suspicion and possible legal action against themselves by not enforcing it.

The subsequent intransigence, evasiveness and failure to answer the charge against them further increases a feeling of complete distrust in WMDC and in particular its Leader, Peter Box.

Obtuse statements that the WMDC did not sign the UU and it therefore has nothing to do with them, that WMDC are not beneficiaries of the UU which they clearly are and that they are not responsible for enforcing a planning application ruling for a huge development IN WAKEFIELD are so crazy and illogical as to invite suspicion.

Refusing Freedom of Information requests and eventually admitting that legal advice fundamental to their position hasn't been kept on record is at best incompetent and at worst. . . we'll make your own mind up!

Good post, with well reasoned points. The thing that I still can't 'get my head around' is their argument that the height of a building 'disaggregates' the footprint. I understand that the original planning application contained a hotel, if they put a few storeys on this building, would WMDC then see that as being 'disaggregated'?

Nice post Avenger.

Don't say something about an individual you can't prove though. Not fair on them and can get the site in trouble.

Good post Avenger.

Brilliant post avenger

Cas fans still pedalling the myth that we bought BV back from wmdc for £1.