Cllrme box just again washed his hands of anything to do with the community stadium - it's all Eric pickles fault that it ain't built as he screwed up the 106 agreement and he's having nowt to do with it. Great to know how my taxes are spent on him doing such a sterling job for the city!!!

Pretty much what I said he'd say on the "Ask Box" thread, that's why I did not call in again.

The Council is a party to the Section 106 Agreement, the undertaking is GIVEN to Wakefield MDC but as it is a Unilateral Undertaking they are not signatories.

Cllr Box claims it is nothing to do with the Council, it's between the Trust and the Developer but the Trust are NOT a party to the Unilateral Undertaking so how can the Trust benefit from it when it is GIVEN to the Council.

The Council are the planning authority and therefore have the obligation to enforce the Section 106 Agreement and can if they wish insist on a new Section 106 Agreement that ensures that they and the Developer delivers to the citizens of Wakefield what was promised at the Public Inquiry.

Reading between the lines they know they can get away with lying because a rugby league club doesn't have the bank balance to take them to court?

He's just said the Secretary of State refused the 106 agreement ? Which Wakefield council insisted upon ?

Well, that would be a grave mistake on WMDC's part and it would be them 'in the dock' because as Sandal Cat has pointed out, they are LPA (Local Planning Authority) and it is their job to enforce the S106! So, Peter Box can spout all the rubbish he likes on the radio but they continue to be unable to answer why they allowed the Newcold development to go ahead without insisting on a new or additional complimentary S106? It matter not one jot what the SoS did or did not do, when it comes to Newcold, they had the power and indeed should have enforced the original principal of the S106 and they didn't!

He said last time he was on the radio, they took legal advice, but that is untrue because they have been asked to produce a copy of the legal advice under two FOI requests and WMDC have confirmed, twice, that they no record of any legal advice!

In the original public inquiry report WMDC said that they would prefer a Multi-party agreement to a UU, but the SoS (HM Inspector) said he was willing to accept a UU. So the draft UU was presented to the inquiry, which WMDC then had AMENDED by the developer but still claim was not up to them, it was all the SoS fault!

So, when Newcold came along as a standalone application then WMDC had an opportunity to insist on a new S106 agreement and they could have got exactly what they wanted and asked for at the inquiry, a new Multi-party agreement! So, why didn't they?

There are only two possible answers to this question, firstly, they took an active decision to exclude Newcold and not insist on a new S106 and while that is not strictly illegal or even unlawful, as the LPA it is there job to ENFORCE S106 agreements, so a clear failure to do so would mean that they acted outside of their powers and are guilty of maladministration! Or they have dropped a huge clanger and are just guilty of pure professional incompetence!

There are not other answers, without any legal advice, which they don't have, so what is the answer Peter?

Perhaps we should have not asked any questions and left it to those in the know IA,TRB to quiz him and give the facts and listen to him slither and slide like a good one

I quized him last time he was on Radio Leeds in September last year and I did not see any point calling in again as I felt all that he would do was say the same things again and he did.

You cannot get him to slither and slide. I pushed him on Newcold and when I was about to start talking about the non existent legal advice that he claimed to have taken the shows presenter dragged me off and moved on to bin collections.

Radio Leeds is not to medium to question him. Who knows, maybe the High Court is the place to ask questions should the Council not fulfill its obligations as Planning Authority and ensure that the citizens of Wakefield get what was promised them.

So taking that view, whether they did it on purpose or through maladmin, is there a way back from that (or forward depending on your outlook). Can the council correct the error or is that now done and a different solution needs to be found?

The council don't want to rectify it. They, as much as YC, are complicit with the duping of the SOS and the Wakefield public in my view. For what reason? I have my own thoughts on that, I'm sure other will have similar suspicions.

So whats Andrea Jenkyns take on all this? Has she knocked on the door of the SOS yet?

Personally,if they said night followed day I wouldn't believe any politician ,they're all as bent as a bottle of chips

Just say it like it is. Peter Box is a snake with black and amber skin!