[url=http://www.marycreagh.com/wakefield-community-stadium/Mary Creagh Blog[/url

All fair game IMO.

We do have a tentative offer based on £x per m2 developed. But it neither has an overall value, a timescale or includes any benefit from NC. The nett result is that it would be a long way short of a stadium and may never be reached anyway!

We are fighting for our lives here, but if it comes to us getting nothing, then I will do my upmost to make it difficult for others to make the money they think from this site.

A deal is a deal in my book, you break the deal and you should suffer the consequences!

I could handle that. What I can't stomach is them developing the whole area but not delivering the community facilities.

Trb thanks for your courage

Yes thanks TRB. The whole thing is particularly galling for local supporters who can see this monstrosity growing bigger every day. Come to think of it it's now so big you can see it for miles.

Standard response from the Council. We share your frustration but its nothing to do with us.

As TRB has said we will fight and if we get nothing it will not be for the lack of trying. I'd much rather "die like a lion" than "live like a lamb".

The people of Wakefield are being let down and we will not just meekly let this happen.

The council response is disgraceful in that they aided and abetted the circumnavigation of the S106.
If they had really had the interests of the community of Wakefield and its historic professional rugby league club uppermost in their minds they could have halted the whole procedure.
They could surely have seen that the 'Newcold' monstrosity was not within the 'spirit ' of the agreement .
They are trying to talk down to us as if we are little children and they know best!

My concern it that it states the Trust Chair was aware of the proceedings & didn't object.


"I can confirm that there was no Section 106 Agreement to link this development with the funding of a community stadium as the size of development (22,300sqm) is below the 60,000sqm threshold for contributing toward the stadium that was set out in the original outline application issued by the Secretary of State. A meeting with the Trust Chair, myself and Andy Wallhead was held at that time and it was discussed that there would be no linkage with the Newcold development. I can also confirm that no objections to the planning application were subsequently received from the Trust or its members."

The chair of the Trust is Sir Rodney Walker and I believe he has stated that he has no recollection of being informed that Newcold would not contribute to the S106. Other members of the Trust at the time were Andrew Glover and James Elston. I believe that James also was not informed that Newcold would not contribute so would not object.

IA stated at last weeks meeting that he cannot find any reference to the fact that Newcold would not contribute to the S106 in all the papers on the Councils Planning Portal until it appeared in the Agenda pack which was a week before the planning meeting and outside the period for objections.

So every developement at newmarket will be under 60000sqm and a involve a seperate approval every time so the building of a stadium point will never be triggered.

Picking up on clans post, is it right that the Newcold building should not have been allowed because it "aggregates" the land in question which was specifically disallowed by the SOSs ruling after the PI?

Because if that's the case then the statement from the council quoted by Devils Advocate is so misleading as to constitute a lie!

If that's the case
The Council knew full well that the new application for Newcold contravened the Secretary of States ruling yet they allowed it to be passed and seemingly tried to sneak it under the radar until it was too late.

If that can be proved and documented then you've caught the WMDC doing wrong and possibly caught it's officers trying to cover up their mistake.

Retrospectively trying to sell the line that Sir Rodney Walker knew about Newcold NOT counting toward the S106 and that he did not object would also seem to be a case of catching the WMDC Offecers, Box and Wallhead in a lie.

So this meeting between Walker, Roney & Wallhead, was it informal or were there actually any minutes taken?

If it was informal there’s no hard proof other than the Chief Executives vague recollection, if it was minuted – where are the damn minutes?

And there lies the problem and difference of opinion.

The SoS stated that the development cannot be "disaggregated" and my opinion having been involved with S106 Agreements that once a S106 has been applied to the site it becomes a land charge and has to be complied with. IA has quoted an example of mine on an earlier page of this thread to demonstrate disaggregation.

The Council allowed the Newcold application to be submitted as a "stand alone" application rather than a reserve matters application on the Outline Consent that was granted by the SoS following the PI. Nothing wrong with that as the building at 42m high was above the maximum height approved. What was wrong in my opinion was specifically excluding it from the obligations of the S106 agreement. I believe that it still should have contributed towards the trigger amount in the agreement.

The Council have a different view on this and when asked, stated that they took legal advice on this matter but when we asked under the Freedom of Information Act, to see a copy of said advice addmitted that they "do not hold" the advice and therefore could not provide it. Interpret that as you wish.

Sadly I think that the only way that this will be resolved now is through the Courts.

As far as I understand no one has been able to produce any minutes of the meeting and there is nothing in the Stadium Trusts own minutes on this matter as well.

And if that conversation did happen, it seems reasonable to assume that at least one of the parties allegedly involved would have had the nouse to see it as a stitch up and voice their concerns; equally, had the Trust been given the opportunity, they would no doubt have lodged a formal objection to the planning application, on the grounds that it was a deliberate strategy to undermine the s106 agreement.

As it stands, WMDC have colluded with YCP to make a monkey out of the SoS and in so doing, rob the citizens of Wakefield of much needed community sports facilities; they've set a precedent that allows them to develop the entire site with units under 60k m2, and now they're lying and twisting to cover their tracks. Worse still - precedent is quite weighty in planning law, so they could be contributing towards the collapse of the whole s106 system. Wakefield - a genuine rotten borough.

I'm certain that if someone from the Trust wrote this up in an accurate timeline, an element of the national media would take a look; it would be interesting to see how arrogant Box is when his bent behaviour is being properly scrutinised by someone outside our insignificant parish.

It's not keeping the development below 60,000 sq m. It would appear that if Yorkcourt just submit stand alone applications they can simply ignore the SoS and the S106 and the stadium will never be built. How can that be right. Personally I don't think it is.

On the whole the s106 system works well, what has to be done is that it needs implementing correctly and thoroughly. This one case wouldn't take the whole system down, far from it but what it might do is in future these things are taken more seriously. Take a look at the difference between thet document for Newmarket and the one for the five towns development. One looks a professional piece of work, countersigned by all interested parties and worded as so legally watertight, whilst the other looks like its been written on the back of a fag packet with more get out clauses than you could shake a stick at. Any half decent planning lawyer would get round that and that the council have allowed it through is pretty poor on their part.

BUT they are correct, it isn't signed by themselves so they can play the 'it wasn't us guv' card and dodge the bullets. Morally it is totally wrong though but will that stand up in court? The Newcold build does state at the beginning of the process that in NO WAY does it legally tie into the Newmarket development so there is the argument the other way and the way that the s106 is worded gives the get out by stating the 60,00m2 trigger 'under the planning permission' be built, not 60,00m2 of building on the land. But the building goes against the spirit of the agreement and what the s.o.s passed it for in the first place. It was though outside the existing building regulations so could be circumnavigated, my worry would be what is to stop Yorkcourt making sure all the future applications also happen to be so?

What now? I agree with Sandal Cat that it is probably legal action or bust as the council seem to have dug in and the real villans Yorkcourt have shown their true colours. A word for the land owners Oldroyds as well, they must have know what was being set up here. The chance of a successful outcome? Impossible to tell, the lack of documentation on either side gives an element of 50-50 but it could get messy and even a win in court doesn't mean a stadium if they just walk away. Stops them getting rich out of it but it doesn't help the club get a ground. I'm not sure how some of these people sleep at night to be honest.

So the elephant in the room is why would the WMDCs Planning Officers act this way, who has the power to make it happen, who has the authority to cover it up and who benefits how?

That is the million dollar question. Why woulda Wakefield Council Leader not be all over this project so he could bask in the glory of it?

It was designed to fail, the Council get their development & more, the developer gets rich, the Wakefield public, Newmarket residents and sports fans get shafted.

The politics of the concocted WMDC area means the City will never thrive as the outposts have a vice grip on the political power which has stifled any progress through vested interest.

bang on the money, but it isnt going to do the labour partys reputation in the city much good is it.

The bit i didn't get from the councils reply was this bit....

[iI can confirm that there was no Section 106 Agreement to link this development with the funding of a community stadium as the size of development (22,300sqm) is below the 60,000sqm threshold for contributing toward the stadium that was set out in the original outline application issued by the Secretary of State.[/i

Surely the 60,000 sqm is part of a cumilitive effect where various individual builds total up to the trigger point? That seems to suggest they think that a single development has to be 60,000 sqm itself to trigger it. That can't be right? Am i reading it wrong? What does it matter that it is beliw the threahold, it still would have counted towards it, just not trigger it yet?

You don't get it because in my opinion it's gobbledygook and a load of cobblers.

The S106 was a condition of planning laid down by the SoS and the 60,000 sq m is a cumulative total as you say and nothing to do with individual developments. Had the Council not explicitly excluded Newcold from the S106 it would have contributed to but not hit the 60,000 sq m trigger.

You are reading it correctly but as I said its a load of ballcocks.

SC, do you believe them to be that thick or incompetant that they didn't understand the A106 and in particular the 60,000m2 trigger and the non aggregation of the land?

Are Yorkcourt still looking to develop the rest of the Newmarket site or have they got what they need from the Newcold white box ?

Thought so, at least it isn't me.

Seems they are experts in ambiguity and making things as confusing as possible as well then.