|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 10926 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2021 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="sixtogo"Sorry if I have missed this somewhere but where are the stadium trusts figureheads in all this, I'm thinking Sir Rodney Walker and David Hinchliffe? Are they no longer longer involved if so why not? Or if they are why are they not using their considerable influence to try and push things along? I would have thought that to make any headway they have to be involved and in a big way as they know how the system works. Please don't take this as a pop at the rest of the guys involved, they are doing some good hard yards here but why is the chairman or the former MP around election time not making the statements and leaning on the politicians? Does Sir Rodney still have his own political ambitions and not want to be involved? He always fancied the house of Lords but that might have changed after all this time. If he could get himself in there then it could be a boon to the process. Is David still involved?'"
Both are still involved and operating actively in their own circles to further our cause. I have no complaint about either of them or their efforts, nor would I wish for them to be involved in our public campaign at this time. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 5114 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2014 | 11 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Does the SoS Officialy know what's gone on here?
Is he aware that the S106 Disagregation clause has been disregarded by the WMDC Planning Department
Can someone clarify once and for all, is this blatant disregard illegal?
Have we sought to find out who took the decision to pass the Newcold planning application, who instructed the Planning Officer to pass it with no questions asked was Box involved, was it his decision?
Heads should roll for this
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 10926 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2021 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Avenger"Does the SoS Officialy know what's gone on here?
Is he aware that the S106 Disagregation clause has been disregarded by the WMDC Planning Department
Can someone clarify once and for all, is this blatant disregard illegal?
Have we sought to find out who took the decision to pass the Newcold planning application, who instructed the Planning Officer to pass it with no questions asked was Box involved, was it his decision?
Heads should roll for this'"
Contact with the SoS will happen after the GE.
Has anything illegal happened, we don't fully know and will be asking others more qualified that question. Has anything immoral happened, yes, without any doubt from this side.
The final part of the question is very complicated and involves many elements, but the planning officer can only recommend - it is the planning committee who have the final say. Now whether they knew all the details about the consequences of what they were doing.....? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 200 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | May 2023 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
WMDC had a perfect opportunity to gain fantastic facilities, much needed sporting facilities, for the City of Wakefield for a very minimal cost of £2m pounds - and its unlikely this would have needed to be in the form of cash. The S106 was designed as a 'softener' for allowing the re-designation and development of an area of land.
Why have they let this go? - they knew right from the start that it would never come off. That is why they have discreetly distanced themselves from the S106 right from the start, not being a signatory to it so they later have the current cop out that they are now shoving in front of us, but allowing, and positively going along with the sham that this development would come off - their name is all over it, even though they never added their signature to it. Thereby, conning everyone that this was a realistic proposal for providing desperately need facilities for the citizens of Wakefield. Out of this, they got approval for a development that would have had a serious struggle without the support that the community facilities and the stadium in particular provided to the application. WMDC and its Labour leaders duped us, knowing that it didn't stand a chance in hell of coming off. That s a pretty mean and cynical way to treat your constituents - shameful in fact.
The fact that a development business will come out of this pretty well just adds to the disgrace and give the whole shambolic scenario a very nasty smell.
I doubt very much that the same attitude will prevail should the opportunity to provide similar community facilities in Castleford arise. There was never any way that a new stadium would be permitted in Wakefield, before Castleford with the current cabal in charge.
Lets face it - the Wakefield district will only get one new stadium and that will be in Castleford.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 5507 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2017 | Nov 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I have always thought there would only ever be one stadium built in the area, this delay has enabled the Cas scheme to come up on the rails and if/when the s.o.s. passes it after the election then they will overtake us and disappear off into the distance. And that will be the final nail going in the coffin.
What is the time frame now? I guess wait and see the outcome of the election and see if those in power can make any progress over a couple of months or so. If not then it the s.o.s. and see what he has to say. And then i guess its taking it to court if the legal eagles thinks there is a case. As has been said previously i doubt it will persuade Yorkcourt to get building either way but i guess we will have a clearer picture by the end of the season.
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 5114 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2014 | 11 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="TRB"Contact with the SoS will happen after the GE.
Has anything illegal happened, we don't fully know and will be asking others more qualified that question. Has anything immoral happened, yes, without any doubt from this side.
The final part of the question is very complicated and involves many elements, but the planning officer can only recommend - it is the planning committee who have the final say. Now whether they knew all the details about the consequences of what they were doing.....?'"
The nub of my questions is driving at the why. . . why would someone calculatingly instruct a planning officer to recommend approval or mislead a committee through the omission of details in order to get this Newcold building passed? Who could do it? What's in it for them?
What's needed is information, information like the name of the Legal company the Council took advice from, we need to catch them in a lie and turn up the heat to get to the truth. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 200 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | May 2023 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Avenger"The nub of my questions is driving at the why. . . why would someone calculatingly instruct a planning officer to recommend approval or mislead a committee through the omission of details in order to get this Newcold building passed? Who could do it? What's in it for them?
What's needed is information, information like the name of the Legal company the Council took advice from, we need to catch them in a lie and turn up the heat to get to the truth.'"
There has only got to be one answer for me - the first (only?) new stadium in the district will be in Castleford. The question is - has there been anything illegal in making this happen, or are they just conniving, slimy, greasy articles who have no regard for their public and are only there for their own ends. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 3192 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2022 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Avenger"The nub of my questions is driving at the why. . . why would someone calculatingly instruct a planning officer to recommend approval or mislead a committee through the omission of details in order to get this Newcold building passed? Who could do it? What's in it for them?
What's needed is information, information like the name of the Legal company the Council took advice from, we need to catch them in a lie and turn up the heat to get to the truth.'"
We asked under the Freedom of Information Act to see the legal advice but the Council whist saying that they took legal advice informed us that they do not hold the advice so are unable to supply it. Read into that what you will. I know what I think but cannot say on here. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 5114 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2014 | 11 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sandal Cat"We asked under the Freedom of Information Act to see the legal advice but the Council whist saying that they took legal advice informed us that they do not hold the advice so are unable to supply it. Read into that what you will. I know what I think but cannot say on here.'"
As someone else said on here earlier, there must be a paper trail an invoice or something, that's if it ever happened |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 3192 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2022 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Avenger"As someone else said on here earlier, there must be a paper trail an invoice or something, that's if it ever happened'"
You would think so wouldn't you but it may be as you have speculated.
Whatever the case they are not producing the advice for us to see. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="The Avenger":1c4rxjheAs someone else said on here earlier, there must be a paper trail an invoice or something, that's if it ever happened'" alerted (written, verbal, other etc) and if there is any record or copies of these alerts and their subsequent replies available, could I please see them and
2. Copy of the legal advice sought by WMDC in respect of the planning application for the Newcold Development at Newmarket and a copy of the advice given with the details of the lawyers who provided it.
Your request has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. With regard to Question 2 concerning legal advice I can confirm that the Council do not hold a record of the legal advice received. I am unable therefore to provide you with the information requested.
With regard to Question 1 following careful consideration, I regret to inform you that we have decided not to disclose this information. The information you requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in Section 43(2) under the Freedom of Information Act which applies to information which, if released, would be likely to prejudice the interests of the Council or another person.
As this is a qualified exemption, we have also considered whether in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In reaching our conclusion we have considered the factors in favour of and against disclosure. We believe in promoting transparency and accountability by public authorities for decisions taken by them.
However, we believe that the release of the information relating to correspondence between the Council’s economic development officers and their business clients would be likely to prejudice any ongoing and future negotiations in relation to any ongoing and future development activities in the District. There is an expectation from both parties that any initial discussions should be treated as commercial and confidential. This is to ensure that both parties can conduct preliminary discussions without these being exposed into the public domain before they reach the formal stages of negotiations. Release of the correspondence between the parties would also be likely to prejudice the companies’ commercial interests in that it would reveal their internal business operations and intentions which in turn would be likely to place them at a competitive disadvantage when competing for business and negotiating suitably advantageous terms of contracts. The release would be likely to prejudice the Council’s commercial interests in not being able to secure agreements on a more advantageous and value for money terms.
We can however confirm the following:
• At the request of senior representatives from the business NewCold and Wakefield Wildcats both parties were provided with each other’s contact details in September 2013.
• Contact details for the then Chair (Mr Andrew Glover) and Chief Executive (Mr James Elston) of Wakefield Wildcats were given to NewCold.
• Both parties: NewCold and Wakefield Wildcats, then met at their mutual convenience to discuss matters as they saw fit or had agreed.
• No one from Wakefield Council (elected official or council officer) was present at or party to those discussions.
In all the circumstances of this case we have concluded that the public interest in withholding the information is greater than disclosing it.
If you are unhappy with the way the authority has handled your request, you may ask for an internal review. Please contact Information Compliance Officer either on the above number or in writing: Information Compliance Team, Room 115, County Hall, Wakefield WF1 2QW (marked Private & Confidential) or e-mail on freedomofinformation@wakefield.gov.uk who will arrange an internal review of your case.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF.
If you have any queries about this letter please contact me on the above number / e-mail. Alternatively you can direct your correspondence in relation to this matter (marked Private & Confidential) to the Freedom of Information Officer, Information Management Team, Room 115, County Hall, Wakefield WF1 2QW.
Yours sincerely
Galina Smithson
Freedom of Information Officer
Room 115, County Hall
Bond Street
Wakefield
West Yorkshire
WF1 2QW
Tel 01924 306112
e-mail: gsmithson@wakefield.gov.uk |
|
Quote ="The Avenger":1c4rxjheAs someone else said on here earlier, there must be a paper trail an invoice or something, that's if it ever happened'" alerted (written, verbal, other etc) and if there is any record or copies of these alerts and their subsequent replies available, could I please see them and
2. Copy of the legal advice sought by WMDC in respect of the planning application for the Newcold Development at Newmarket and a copy of the advice given with the details of the lawyers who provided it.
Your request has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. With regard to Question 2 concerning legal advice I can confirm that the Council do not hold a record of the legal advice received. I am unable therefore to provide you with the information requested.
With regard to Question 1 following careful consideration, I regret to inform you that we have decided not to disclose this information. The information you requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in Section 43(2) under the Freedom of Information Act which applies to information which, if released, would be likely to prejudice the interests of the Council or another person.
As this is a qualified exemption, we have also considered whether in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In reaching our conclusion we have considered the factors in favour of and against disclosure. We believe in promoting transparency and accountability by public authorities for decisions taken by them.
However, we believe that the release of the information relating to correspondence between the Council’s economic development officers and their business clients would be likely to prejudice any ongoing and future negotiations in relation to any ongoing and future development activities in the District. There is an expectation from both parties that any initial discussions should be treated as commercial and confidential. This is to ensure that both parties can conduct preliminary discussions without these being exposed into the public domain before they reach the formal stages of negotiations. Release of the correspondence between the parties would also be likely to prejudice the companies’ commercial interests in that it would reveal their internal business operations and intentions which in turn would be likely to place them at a competitive disadvantage when competing for business and negotiating suitably advantageous terms of contracts. The release would be likely to prejudice the Council’s commercial interests in not being able to secure agreements on a more advantageous and value for money terms.
We can however confirm the following:
• At the request of senior representatives from the business NewCold and Wakefield Wildcats both parties were provided with each other’s contact details in September 2013.
• Contact details for the then Chair (Mr Andrew Glover) and Chief Executive (Mr James Elston) of Wakefield Wildcats were given to NewCold.
• Both parties: NewCold and Wakefield Wildcats, then met at their mutual convenience to discuss matters as they saw fit or had agreed.
• No one from Wakefield Council (elected official or council officer) was present at or party to those discussions.
In all the circumstances of this case we have concluded that the public interest in withholding the information is greater than disclosing it.
If you are unhappy with the way the authority has handled your request, you may ask for an internal review. Please contact Information Compliance Officer either on the above number or in writing: Information Compliance Team, Room 115, County Hall, Wakefield WF1 2QW (marked Private & Confidential) or e-mail on freedomofinformation@wakefield.gov.uk who will arrange an internal review of your case.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF.
If you have any queries about this letter please contact me on the above number / e-mail. Alternatively you can direct your correspondence in relation to this matter (marked Private & Confidential) to the Freedom of Information Officer, Information Management Team, Room 115, County Hall, Wakefield WF1 2QW.
Yours sincerely
Galina Smithson
Freedom of Information Officer
Room 115, County Hall
Bond Street
Wakefield
West Yorkshire
WF1 2QW
Tel 01924 306112
e-mail: gsmithson@wakefield.gov.uk | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4259 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
We are going to discuss taking this FOI request further and potentially making a formal complaint to WMDC & the Information Commissioner after the Bank Holiday weekend. Interestingly, since this email, no one at WMDC has ever mentioned said legal advice again... until a very recent piece of correspondence that came back to us from a supporter of the club who had contacted WMDC (after the public meeting) and had a reply.
I don't want to say exactly what it said just yet, but suffice to say that we think we can make use of this in the follow up!
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 13898 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Like I said before, they may have been successful with this story they're trying to spin but for the sheer arrogance in assuming the legal advice line would not be challenged.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 5114 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2014 | 11 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"We are going to discuss taking this FOI request further and potentially making a formal complaint to WMDC & the Information Commissioner after the Bank Holiday weekend. Interestingly, since this email, no one at WMDC has ever mentioned said legal advice again... until a very recent piece of correspondence that came back to us from a supporter of the club who had contacted WMDC (after the public meeting) and had a reply.
I don't want to say exactly what it said just yet, but suffice to say that we think we can make use of this in the follow up!'"
Very good,
I was about to say, surely they must have to justify to someone, somewhere that the information you're requesting is too sensitive for public release? Otherwise what's the point of a Freedom of Information Act?
I'm purely speculating here, if the legal advice line was a lie then why,
unless the WMDC feel they've acted inappropriately and are trying to cover it up, again pure speculation on my part.
As I've suggested earlier, if you were a competent Planning Officer you would do your job conscientiously and efficiently, you would know that the land in question is locked into an S106 contract, governed by the Secretary of State!
Why then would you allow that land to be disagregated, expressly against the clause insisted upon by the Secretary of State?
Unless someone with authority over you told you to do so, - who has that kind of authority?
If that's not the case then due to the seriousness of the error and its future implications and potential financial cost, surely someone's been severely reprimanded or even sacked!
If no ones been reprimanded or sacked then it makes the former more likely than the latter!
Beyond that, who organised the suppression of the planning information in order to hide the disaggregation of the land until it was too late for objections - who has that authority?
Once the full betrayal of the Newcold planning application was known, who concocted the story about 'Legal Advice' - who has that authority?
Who concocted the story about the Stadium Trust, the Club and The Supporters Trust being informed of the disaggregation, a statement all have refuted including Andrew Glover and James Elston - who has the authority?
So, and I'm still speculating here, who has the kind of authority, control and influence to do all of that? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 13898 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I suppose the question remains if Elston and Glover were informed at the meeting did they fully understand what was being said to them.
Was it put in a way to suggest the wording had to be so to enable the increase in the height of the Newcold Development to get through the planning process but YC would still honour (ha) the agreement. I guess without a minuted meeting we'll never know. Elston ain't the most reliable of characters so him saying he doesn't recall this issue is neither here nor there.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 3192 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2022 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Avenger"Very good,
I was about to say, surely they must have to justify to someone, somewhere that the information you're requesting is too sensitive for public release? Otherwise what's the point of a Freedom of Information Act?
I'm purely speculating here, if the legal advice line was a lie then why,
unless the WMDC feel they've acted inappropriately and are trying to cover it up, again pure speculation on my part.
As I've suggested earlier, if you were a competent Planning Officer you would do your job conscientiously and efficiently, you would know that the land in question is locked into an S106 contract, governed by the Secretary of State!
Why then would you allow that land to be disagregated, expressly against the clause insisted upon by the Secretary of State?
Unless someone with authority over you told you to do so, - who has that kind of authority?
If that's not the case then due to the seriousness of the error and its future implications and potential financial cost, surely someone's been severely reprimanded or even sacked!
If no ones been reprimanded or sacked then it makes the former more likely than the latter!
Beyond that, who organised the suppression of the planning information in order to hide the disaggregation of the land until it was too late for objections - who has that authority?
Once the full betrayal of the Newcold planning application was known, who concocted the story about 'Legal Advice' - who has that authority?
Who concocted the story about the Stadium Trust, the Club and The Supporters Trust being informed of the disaggregation, a statement all have refuted including Andrew Glover and James Elston - who has the authority?
So, and I'm still speculating here, who has the kind of authority, control and influence to do all of that?'"
All very good points which need answering but it may take legal action to prize out the answers. You cannot hide behind sensitive information or confidentiality when asked by a High Court Judge and you cannot lie for fear of purgery and its consequences. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 5114 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2014 | 11 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sandal Cat"All very good points which need answering but it may take legal action to prize out the answers. You cannot hide behind sensitive information or confidentiality when asked by a High Court Judge and you cannot lie for fear of purgery and its consequences.'"
Well one last question, still speculating, what inducements would be required for an individual with such authority and influence to act in such a way? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 3192 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2022 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Khlav Kalash"I suppose the question remains if Elston and Glover were informed at the meeting did they fully understand what was being said to them.
Was it put in a way to suggest the wording had to be so to enable the increase in the height of the Newcold Development to get through the planning process but YC would still honour (ha) the agreement. I guess without a minuted meeting we'll never know. Elston ain't the most reliable of characters so him saying he doesn't recall this issue is neither here nor there.'"
You are correct. If the question was put to them about disaggregation would they have understood it if it was not explained to them in layman terms, they will have no knowledge of planning procedures. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 3192 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2022 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Avenger"Well one last question, still speculating, what inducements would be required for an individual with such authority and influence to act in such a way?'"
I'm afraid I cannot answer that on here and in view of the threats of legal action against us I think we all need to be careful what we say on here. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 10926 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2021 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Avenger"Well one last question, still speculating, what inducements would be required for an individual with such authority and influence to act in such a way?'"
Slow down a little there. No-one is suggesting any individuals have proceeded for an individual gain. If there have been rules stretched, then the likelihood is that it would be for corporate gain and nothing else. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 5114 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2014 | 11 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sandal Cat"You are correct. If the question was put to them about disaggregation would they have understood it if it was not explained to them in layman terms, they will have no knowledge of planning procedures.'"
Even if it was explained, surely the WMDC Planning Officers would have to contact the SoS to get their permission to ignore the clause their office had expressly insisted upon, even if just as a matter of courtesy?
If not then is that not suspicious? Surely you can't have a 6 month Public Inquiry with an officer from the SoS Office ruling over it then not even show them the professional courtesy of informing them of changes you want to make to the resulting contract?
If the SoS wasn't informed, why not? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 5114 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2014 | 11 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="TRB"Slow down a little there. No-one is suggesting any individuals have proceeded for an individual gain. If there have been rules stretched, then the likelihood is that it would be for corporate gain and nothing else.'"
I'm just speculating TRB, not making any aligations?
I'm thinking of writing a book based on a fictional community and the sleazy goings on in the halls of power, this is just research! |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 10926 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2021 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Avenger"I'm just speculating TRB, not making any aligations?
I'm thinking of writing a book based on a fictional community and the sleazy goings on in the halls of power, this is just research!'"
 |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 3192 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2022 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Avenger"Even if it was explained, surely the WMDC Planning Officers would have to contact the SoS to get their permission to ignore the clause their office had expressly insisted upon, even if just as a matter of courtesy?
If not then is that not suspicious? Surely you can't have a 6 month Public Inquiry with an officer from the SoS Office ruling over it then not even show them the professional courtesy of informing them of changes you want to make to the resulting contract?
If the SoS wasn't informed, why not?'"
Not sure but don't think they have to inform the SoS on local planning matters once he has granted consent, that's for the Council to administer.
Whether they should have or indeed can disaggregate is another matter. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4163 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2021 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
IMO the legal advice line is pure fantasy. There is no way a firm of lawyers would not confirm their advice in writing and there should be no way a Council Planning Committee should make such an important decision without seeing some written evidence of the legal advice which is fundamental to the potential justification of their decision.
Its no wonder the Council have hardly mentioned it again and instead are trying to make out it is a Trinity issue rather than a wider community facilities one, no doubt in the hope that this will prevent the wider Wakefield public of taking an interest in what's gone on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
