Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:21 pm  

Smew wrote:

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.

That's the nub of it.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:23 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

To be honest I don't really know. I could speculate but remember we have been threatened with being sued for libel so I have to be careful.

As I have said before I have never seen anyone disaggregate a S106 Agreement before and in my opinion, and I'm not a Lawyer, it does not seem right. The Council say they took legal advice which meant that Newcold was excluded from the Unilateral Undertaking (S106) but when asked to see the advice say that they do not hold it so are unable to supply it. That's strange isn't it.

Do they even know who gave this apparent legal advice? Surely they have the name of the firm, if not an official record of what was said. A record of payment for this advice perhaps. Or was it a in house lawyer?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:29 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

Do they even know who gave this apparent legal advice? Surely they have the name of the firm, if not an official record of what was said. A record of payment for this advice perhaps. Or was it a in house lawyer?

Who was the guy Yorkcourt used at the inquiry? Andrew somebody? Probably him.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:32 pm  

Smew wrote:

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.

I more or less agree with every thing that is being said on here about the club being shafted but at the time of the PI the residents of Newmarket were being portrayed as NIMBY's and a certain lady was getting the dogs abuse on here for objecting.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:03 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

Do they even know who gave this apparent legal advice? Surely they have the name of the firm, if not an official record of what was said. A record of payment for this advice perhaps. Or was it a in house lawyer?

They do not hold it. You'll have to draw your own conclusions.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:20 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

They do not hold it. You'll have to draw your own conclusions.

I conclude they never got any legal advice because if they did, the firm in question would hold professional indemnity insurance to a minimum of 2m and a potential claim could be made against them for negligent advice.

In addition, the fact they refused to provide some of the info requested under freedom of information and have threatened the people involved with a libel suit speaks volumes, as does the fact they can't produce any evidence that the fact Newcold would not count to the s106 was readily available before it was too late to object.

At a time when government cuts are biting deep, the suggestion they would spend money on a libel suit is testimony to the despicable character of the senior people within Wdmc who definitely care more about themselves then the people they are elected to serve

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:00 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

To be honest I don't really know. I could speculate but remember we have been threatened with being sued for libel so I have to be careful.

As I have said before I have never seen anyone disaggregate a S106 Agreement before and in my opinion, and I'm not a Lawyer, it does not seem right. The Council say they took legal advice which meant that Newcold was excluded from the Unilateral Undertaking (S106) but when asked to see the advice say that they do not hold it so are unable to supply it. That's strange isn't it.

is this not a good reason to get a formal inquiry going or are we afraid of burning some kind of bridge here, stinks to high heaven

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:47 am  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

I more or less agree with every thing that is being said on here about the club being shafted but at the time of the PI the residents of Newmarket were being portrayed as NIMBY's and a certain lady was getting the dogs abuse on here for objecting.

And Mr Cubbage.

It's true, they fought for what they believed and so did we. Turns out we didn't understand the bigger picture - perhaps!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed Apr 29, 2015 7:18 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

As I have said before I have never seen anyone disaggregate a S106 Agreement before and in my opinion, and I'm not a Lawyer, it does not seem right. The Council say they took legal advice which meant that Newcold was excluded from the Unilateral Undertaking (S106) but when asked to see the advice say that they do not hold it so are unable to supply it. That's strange isn't it.

Surely this is worth taking to the Local Government Ombudsman Scheme as part of a complaint then the whole issue may possibly be reviewed at no legal cost to any party?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed Apr 29, 2015 7:39 am  

Developer wants to develop on greenbelt. Local authority proposes developer uses community facilities as a tool of greasing the planning wheels whilst advising they don't need to worry about providing them with the use of a loophole. Planning is approved with a S106 not worth the paper it's written on. Developer submits application using loophole highlighted earlier. Council say they can't refuse it due to some conjured up legal advice. Separate planning application approved outside of the 106. S##t hits the fan. Developer cracks on with his shed, council stay it's nothing to do with them.

As Smew said it's hard not to conclude this was a cleverly orchestrated long term plan rather than incompetence. It may have gone unnoticed if not for the tiny detail of the legal aid faux pas.