Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:51 am  

Ok guys. The links below are public links to a PDF copy of the three PowerPoint presentation shown at last nights meeting. Please feel free to share these links in fact, PLEASE DO share these links as widely as possible. Phil T - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Pur6TjyOf5WDRmcXBhUk5RMUE/view?usp=sharing Ian B - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Pur6TjyOf5dE80OVdPQ243MXc/view?usp=sharing Jonathan S - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Pur6TjyOf5SmVkenQ3X3VJZG8/view?usp=sharing Enjoy!

Ok guys. The links below are public links to a PDF copy of the three PowerPoint presentation shown at last nights meeting. Please feel free to share these links in fact, PLEASE DO share these links as widely as possible. Phil T - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Pur6TjyOf5WDRmcXBhUk5RMUE/view?usp=sharing Ian B - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Pur6TjyOf5dE80OVdPQ243MXc/view?usp=sharing Jonathan S - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Pur6TjyOf5SmVkenQ3X3VJZG8/view?usp=sharing Enjoy!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:55 am  

Theboyem wrote:

Out of interest has it been decided that a revamp of Belle Vue is a non-starter now and it's a build of some description at Newmarket or nothing? What is the current state of play with the sale of the superbowl & oasis centre and have the bank being trying to push the sale of BV along!

Belle Vue has not been ruled out but given the cash Newmarket is the most cost effective solution. As you have mentioned the Trust will have to buy back Belle Vue and Super Bowl and oasis which makes a big dent into any cash available before you start. Belle Vue is "shot" and needs a lot spending on it to make it fit for purpose and comply with Super League minimum standards.

To answer your other question I don't know how much land exactly is left after Newcold but it's a lot. Plenty to enable Yorkcourt to comply with the Section 106 Agreement if they would like to.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:57 am  

Tricky2309 wrote:

So if I am interpreting the information provided on here correctly the council cocked up (possibly deliberately), their leader lied about it and said it was nothing to do with the council yet clearly it is and then to add insult to injury they remove the 2m land for support?

Do we know if the council are still offering the money via land option to Cas?

What I haven't seen on here is what Yorkcourt have actuallly said to justify their position if anything.

Surely the DCLG have an interest in this and could do something about it?

For the record, and as we were threatened with potential libel action before yesterdays meeting, and avoidance of all doubt now this is in writing. We have not said anyone has lied or anything was done deliberately, all we have done is present facts and we consider them to be indisputable.

You of course Tricky are fully entitled to voice your own opinion and reach your own conclusions on the evidence and factual information we have presented.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:12 am  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

Firstly, illegal is a strong word and the words potentially unlawful are a better way of describing what might have happened, although that is only an opinion and would need to be tested in court.

So, in summary we cannot find anywhere in the publicaly available documentation for Newcold where it was said that it would not count towards the S106 agreement. The first time it is ever mentioned in any official documentation is in the agenda pack and planning officers report issued a week before the meeting! Meaning that the first time it became publicaly known is was outside the 106 is when it was too late to object and even then, we would argue that it is not made very clear in the report... I will post a link so you can make up your own mind!

Also, the council have not explained why the officer recommended the application for approval. Initial Cllr Peter Box said is was because they had taken legal advice and as it was a standalone application and not a resevered matters one under the original application, they could not enforce the 106. It did need to be a standalone application, as it was taller than 18m high, but we could not understand why it was still not caught by the 106. So we submitted a FOI request and asked the council what legal advice they asked for (the questioned they asked a lawyer being important), what the answer was and who gave (which lawyers) the advice. After much too'ing and frowing the council told us that they had in fact no record of any legal advice. They still have not explained why the officer recommended approval of the scheme outside of the S106 agreement?

So our informal legal advice would suggest that maybe (and only maybe) the council have acted unlawfully or outside their power, but equally that is still only a matter of opinion and would have to be tested in court.

Have been digging around on the planning portal and found this. It is in a part mentioning the original planning permission..


The proposed building height is above that identified on the current outline approval, therefore an application for All Matters reserved was not deemed appropriate. This detailed application is a standalone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above. The outline approval has however been carefully considered to ensure the proposed scheme integrates with it and in no way prejudices the implementation of any development controlled by that consent.

Thats in the design and access statement posted online on the 08/07/2013, right at the beginning of the planning process? Seems to state there that it wouldn't count. Also interestingly in there is this...

Meeting with Mick McKigney of Wakefield MDC and Phil Cole of Leeds City Council on Wednesday 15th May, also with James Elston and Andrew
Glover of Wakefield Wildcats on Wednesday 15th May.

That implies that the club and trust as then were involved even before the the application went in. Were they told the full picture, not understand the implications or otherwise?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:17 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Belle Vue has not been ruled out but given the cash Newmarket is the most cost effective solution. As you have mentioned the Trust will have to buy back Belle Vue and Super Bowl and oasis which makes a big dent into any cash available before you start. Belle Vue is "shot" and needs a lot spending on it to make it fit for purpose and comply with Super League minimum standards.

To answer your other question I don't know how much land exactly is left after Newcold but it's a lot. Plenty to enable Yorkcourt to comply with the Section 106 Agreement if they would like to.

Thanks for that. I had a look on the portal and amended my post on the land amounts, plenty of space available.

Whether the change in the LDF and the land classifications have any effect on this situation regarding other planning permissions now I have no idea. Maybe come renewal date?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:02 am  

Theboyem wrote:

Have been digging around on the planning portal and found this. It is in a part mentioning the original planning permission..


The proposed building height is above that identified on the current outline approval, therefore an application for All Matters reserved was not deemed appropriate. This detailed application is a standalone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above. The outline approval has however been carefully considered to ensure the proposed scheme integrates with it and in no way prejudices the implementation of any development controlled by that consent.

Thats in the design and access statement posted online on the 08/07/2013, right at the beginning of the planning process? Seems to state there that it wouldn't count. Also interestingly in there is this...

Meeting with Mick McKigney of Wakefield MDC and Phil Cole of Leeds City Council on Wednesday 15th May, also with James Elston and Andrew
Glover of Wakefield Wildcats on Wednesday 15th May.

We were aware that the application was a "stand alone". It had to be because the height of the building at 42m was outside that approved in the Outline Consent. We cannot see anywhere where it makes it clear however that the development would not contribute to the Section 106 Agreement until the Agenda papers were issued a week before the planning meeting and outside the period to object.

If anyone, including the Council can point out where there is reference to Newcold not contributing to the S106 other than the Case Officers Report then please do so.

With regard to meetings with The Stadium Trust and the Club we have asked to see minutes of those meetings but the Council cannot supply them. Make of that what you will.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:22 am  

I suppose that phrase is all in the interpretation. With the phrase 'in no way' i read it straightway as a seperate application with no legal binding to the original application and as such won't count towards the s106. Other may read if differently. I guess thats why it would be a legal minefield.

As for the second part that certainly sounds rather convenient on the councils part. Although in any meetings i attend all departments represented usually get a copy of the minutes. Glover and Elston should gave chased this up on the trusts behalf. That said they were too busy spending money we didn't have to bother with that.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:11 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Belle Vue has not been ruled out but given the cash Newmarket is the most cost effective solution. As you have mentioned the Trust will have to buy back Belle Vue and Super Bowl and oasis which makes a big dent into any cash available before you start. Belle Vue is "shot" and needs a lot spending on it to make it fit for purpose and comply with Super League minimum standards.

To answer your other question I don't know how much land exactly is left after Newcold but it's a lot. Plenty to enable Yorkcourt to comply with the Section 106 Agreement if they would like to.

It's a shame as i for one would much prefer to stay at Belle Vue if possible. I have always thought that Newmarket was a poor location for a stadium and could turn out to become a costly white elephant. All that said it doesn't alter the fact that we seem to have been shafted good and proper.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:19 pm  

Theboyem wrote:

I suppose that phrase is all in the interpretation. With the phrase 'in no way' i read it straightway as a seperate application with no legal binding to the original application and as such won't count towards the s106. Other may read if differently. I guess thats why it would be a legal minefield.

As for the second part that certainly sounds rather convenient on the councils part. Although in any meetings i attend all departments represented usually get a copy of the minutes. Glover and Elston should gave chased this up on the trusts behalf. That said they were too busy spending money we didn't have to bother with that.

Ok, that is how you 'read' it but you are, I know, a reasonably intelligent guy but equally I read it differently because I also knew that S106 agreements are land charges, so while they might have written that, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act clearly takes precedent and as such, they can write what they like because they cant avoid the S106... well, we thought not (because they have) and we think this may be unlawful, but equally I am sure WMDC's opinion is different and a such while that is my opinion it remains that until tested in law.

Now, lets take the legal argument out of it. Lets ask people here, as laypeople, what do they think? Has it been made clear that this did not count towards the trigger areas in the S106 agreement? The first time they actually state that this will NOT count towards the unilateral undertaking is in the planning officers report, when it was no longer possible to object?

Also, when Peter Box was asked in a letter about this, he said, and I quote verbatim "At the time that the application [Newcold] was received, we took legal advice which confirmed that as a separate application, it could not be subject automatically to the same conditions as those applied by the ones granted by the Secretary of State."

When we asked about this and his contention that he told the Trust and the Club about this too, this is, verbatim, what we got back from WMDC.

Thank you for your request for information about the issues raised in the letter from Council Leader Peter Box dated 28/8/14 Ref PB/KES concerning Newcold development at Newmarket. Namely the request asked for
 
1.      In what form were both parties [the club and the trust] 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.

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.

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.

You can make of that what you will.

I can also add that both Sir Rodney and James Elston have both acknowledged that meetings took place but they have also said that they do not recall being informed that the Newcold development would NOT count towards the S106. Sir Rodney can not recall (not surprisingly, given how long ago this was) whether any meeting minutes where taken and having looked back through his and the trusts records, no minutes have been found.

So, the above are just facts, we have put them out there and you guys have to decide what you think and what you might like to do about it. We have made it clear that feel an injustice has been done and the ultimately, we might have to go to the High Court to test this in law. In our opinion we have a case, and I am sure they will say the same, so that at the moment is that!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:25 pm  

Theboyem wrote:

The proposed building height is above that identified on the current outline approval, therefore an application for All Matters reserved was not deemed appropriate. This detailed application is a standalone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above. The outline approval has however been carefully considered to ensure the proposed scheme integrates with it and in no way prejudices the implementation of any development controlled by that consent.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, and sometimes with these things you immerse yourself so deep in the lingo that you lose sight of what's actually been said, but to me the purpose of that statement is to legally exonerate the Newcold application from the previous planning application and subsequently the 106 agreement. I can't read it in any other way.

I don't profess to know anything about planning regulations, which is why I might come to that conclusion, perhaps someone can enlighten me...

Does explicit reference to the 106 agreement have to be provided in this context?
Can you have a 106 agreement without "extant outline consent"?
If you can't are the two not intrinsically linked?
Is the purpose of the 106 agreement to set out the planning terms included in granting "extant outline consent"?
If yes, are the 2 separate things or does one inform the other?