What is the legal recourse to failure to meet a FOI request?

Ultimately the Information Commisioner can force them to hand-over the information. If they really don't have any, they will have to admit this publicaly to the Information Commisioner. I don't know what he then does and if their powers go beyond forcing information to be released, for abuses of the system & law etc?

I have some questions because all I read is that it's everybody's fault but what are we bringing to the table. We had a ground but sold it so no contribution there, our support is declining and if it's for the community why can't that also relate to the Castleford project.
We are threatening the council with legal action but all we keep reading is that we have no money, so whose going to pay. If I am being honest we are an embarrassment both on and off the field. We cannot even get the Wigan flag the right way up for the TV game.
We have been in similar positions before and only survived because of the players commitment. We do not have this there is so much negativity from the chairman down that it is bound to affect the team, most of them know they only have one year contracts so I expect a mass exodus with players agreeing new contracts with other clubs before the season ends. The name Wakefield Trinity is now associated with failure and uncertainty so who would want to stay.
If I was the council or even the developers I know that time is not on our side because a championship team does not need a new stadium so let's stop trying to blame others. We have for years failed to invest and are now looking to be bailed out by others.

Trinity's failures over the last 30 years or so are well documented, but that's not the point here.

There’s a lot of information to digest in that memo, but am I right in thinking the Council have used the Freedom of Information Act to refuse to show any proof of an alleged meeting between themselves, Y.C & the Trust?

I always thought they were incompetent, that's par for the course with any council, but if they have used a piece of legislation to basically bury a lie – I find that scurrilous & they should be taken to task.

They using it to hide the fact they probably didn't take legal advice when stating they couldn't refuse planning permission for the Newcold development which was outside of the 106 agreement because said advice.

If that is ever proved accurate then a whole can of worms could open bigger than the issue that directly affects the community stadium.

I have no doubt this will not be a popular stance but regarding the 2m that wmdc had committed to the project I really don't think we can be seen to be throwing the teddy out of the cot now this appears to have been taken off the table.
We are all well aware of how the austerity cuts are hitting people in the public sector and its my felling that the 2m would be better served in saving peoples jobs.
But it does seem to be academic at this moment in time anyway as even if newcold came under the s106we would still be a hell of a long way from the trigger point anyway. But who knows in a couple of years time things may pic up the trigger point could be reached and funds may become available again, just have to keep hoping we still have a club to put in there if it is built.

The Trust offered to accept an 8k stadium rather than 12k which I'm sure would mitigate the withdrawal of the £2m contribution from WMDC.

And do you think that you are being positive?

We have and had no money, but we did have a value, both socially and numerically. We were not included in the NM plans for no reason, the developer and council saw an opportunity to tap into that value and we delivered, in spades. We offered hard work in obtaining a petition and the moral and technical arguments as to why a piece of GB land could be taken out of its protected status to allow a developer to build sheds for profit. He is making a lot of profit, at our expense! The council will rake in £m's in rates etc, at our expense!

Please take this nicely, but go give your head a shake! We brought a lot to the table, but have been dispensed with when they think they have what they need from us! The FB page says "Used!" for a reason!

If you think that the name of Wakefield Trinity is worthless, then so be it, but I don't!

Yes TRB thank you

I'm assuming that Glover & Elston have been asked about this meeting?

Did this offer include the rest of the community facilties planned for the site or just a stadium?

No idea.

We believe that we can get the Community facilities over the line using other means, but only if we can get to a deal over the Stadium first. The Stadium itself is part of those facilities as we want to see it use for more than 15 days a year!

Well some one saw it. The fact that it was "stand alone" and wouldn't count towards the s106 was posted on the Cas Tigers forum on July the 9th last year.

I think some people on here need a dose of reality, I note that we are asking who took legal advise therefore being part of the proposal did we or the Trust. I am sorry but I am beginning to believe that the developers took advantage of our need to move and the council's need to stimulate development within Wakefield. I would guess if they had not it would have gone to Leeds and a different group of people would be complaining about the council.
I was not privy to any of the meetings but some of you were, did anyone stop and think this is a little too good or even studied the developer's proposal. Did anyone raise any questions regarding the current scenario if not then we have only ourselves to blame.
I accepted long ago that we were no longer the force we were many years ago, but we survived more by luck but together with the team.
This season it is no longer the case and if you believe like our chairman that Wakefield is begging for an a community stadium then why can this not now be the Castleford project. The council could agree and say that in order to fulfill this request we are backing the Castleford stadium.
I also would remind some on here that to get elected a politician will say anything. I read the leaflet from the Conservative party it stated he was a Leeds United fan but only a follower of WT which would suggest this was added in an hope to boost his numbers. We do not even have enough supporters left to make a great deal of different to the outcome in Wakefield because how many still live in this constituency. With regards Box I believe he is the councillor for Castleford but I will stand corrected but if so how are you going to unseat him if he is so pro Castleford.

That was around the time when it became apparent to the wider populace, they've been building the thing for a while now.

I know that Khlav but it says on the post that it is stand alone, I thought the trust said they had not been able to find that condition any where in any portal.

If my understanding is correct they couldn't until after it was too late to lodge an objection.

Thats why I asked earlier in the thread what date the dead line was for objections.

Again - very helpful! Who do you think we are? I work in Landscaping, but it hasn't stopped me trying to apply myself to try and get a resolution. Others clearly have more foresight than me, or is that hindsight?

Put it this way, we need a dose of reality as much as we need supporters who know how it should have been done better than we did!

NB - you don't have to be a die hard supporter to understand that a massive injustice has occurred, in fact I would suggest that is exactly what we are looking for, rather than just being disgruntled RL supporters!

As for Box, no, we cant touch him, but we can make life difficult for him if he remains stubbornly unreasonable.

Everyone knew it was a stand alone application, it had to be because of the height of the building. What we did not know was the development had explicitly been excluded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking - why would we, we thought the development would contribute to the 60,000 m2 trigger, and we thought that the Council were going to enforce the UU but apparently it's nothing to do with them

Dates for objections were irrelevant if it was not made clear that the development had been excluded from the UU, why would anyone object to a development that it was believed was contributing to the UU.

What is relevant and crucial is that the Council have stated that they had no choice but to exclude the development because they took legal advice which confirmed that but claim that they do not hold the advice. They either took advice or they did not and I believe that will be crucial if or when Lawyers are instructed.

I've just been back to the casforum to read it again. The post is on a thread entitled "Newmarket" and is towards the bottom of the 5th page. It says in the words of the planning application "The application is a stand alone and is in no way tied to the extant outline consent to the site". The big mistake I made when reading it the first time was getting the year wrong,. This was posted July 9th 2013 not 2014 2 days after the application went live. I don't know if "tied to the extant outline consent" means the same as a s106 but the info would seem to have been in the public domain for some time. Sorry but I don't know how to do a link to this. "The nutjob forum" I mean.

Tha's a watered down Vinniedog thee !!

Firstly I don't read the Cas Forum but all that is saying is that it is a stand alone application rather than a reserve matters application.

The S106, in my opinion relates to the site and not the outline consent granted by the SoS and applications, even stand alone applications should be caught by the S106. The Council think differently and even took legal advice - oh how we would love to see that advice, but as they have said they don't hold it.