Re: Ground : Wed Aug 17, 2016 4:21 pm  

Fordy wrote:

As a Wakefield ratepayer I don't think that the council should spend any money on us, however I do believe they have a legal obligation to actually do their jobs and enforce the s106 agreement that was signed, allowing the development on greenbelt land.

It does appear that Yorkcourt have well and truly shafted us, but in a way that is no surprise, as a private developer their primary concern is making money and keeping their shareholders happy.
The real scandal here is that the local council have the responsibility to enforce the planning laws, and given the lengthy and costly public inquiry that took place, and the resulting approval for the development on the proviso that community facilities were provided under the s106 agreement, then it is their complete shirking of that responsibility that is bordering on criminal.

Apologies if this has been asked and answered before but why is the Office of the Secretary of State not kicking up a stink - What was the point of that public inquiry if nobody then enforces the decisions it makes???

Well said.

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:26 pm  

Sacred Cow wrote:

Seriously mate, your intentions are honourable but if you think anything written on this thread are particularly vile then you need to get out into the real world more often. You hear worse popping down the shops.

^ This.

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:31 pm  

Does the covenant that said that we had to be found a new ground still exist or has that gone by the wayside?

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:31 pm  

JINJER wrote:

Does the covenant that said that we had to be found a new ground still exist or has that gone by the wayside?

I'm might be wrong, but isn't that why we're in discussions with Dewsbury, and not Featherstone or, worse still, Cas? I'm sure we had to have suitable facilities within the Wakefield District, and moving to Dewsbury still gives us some leverage which would disappear the minute we moving in with either of the other two?

Re: Ground : Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:12 pm  

JINJER wrote:

Does the covenant that said that we had to be found a new ground still exist or has that gone by the wayside?

It was a planning condition rather than a covenant, so it can be applied to be removed which has happened and failed previously. From memory it was worded to be specifically linked to Newmarket and at the time it was felt by the planning dept that that was still within a reasonable timeframe for the condition to remain in force. A few years further on with no progress then this is likely to be looked at differently. Since that rejection though the planning application it was attached to for housing has expired so it technically doesn't exist as such but it could be requested to be added to any new application. Trouble is though once we are perceived to have cut our lease early to and moved out of the area then it weakens any case for that to happen, something i recall Sandal Cat (who is the main man in these matters) admitting to in a previous thread. Sport England also has a say (pitch for a pitch if you like) but with us agreeing a move to a new home out of the district they are likely to be satisfied with a small sports pitch, five-a-side probably, somewhere around the area. And lets be honest, given it will be up to the council what gets waved through or not i think we all know what the outcome will be.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:05 am  

Didn't we get the protection thing off the council the other year as belle vue been listed and it was a asset to Wakefield? So nobody could build on it?

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:43 am  

this is a complete schmooze!!!!


championship beckons in 2018 so we can play at sandal rugby club it wont matter

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:16 am  

BOJ04 wrote:

this is a complete schmooze!!!!


championship beckons in 2018 so we can play at sandal rugby club it wont matter

Time for you to go, you are yet to post anything in support of Wakefield or the Club.
Perhaps you should close your black and amber curtains and go back to bed.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:10 am  

Sacred Cow wrote:

It was a planning condition rather than a covenant, so it can be applied to be removed which has happened and failed previously. From memory it was worded to be specifically linked to Newmarket and at the time it was felt by the planning dept that that was still within a reasonable timeframe for the condition to remain in force. A few years further on with no progress then this is likely to be looked at differently. Since that rejection though the planning application it was attached to for housing has expired so it technically doesn't exist as such but it could be requested to be added to any new application. Trouble is though once we are perceived to have cut our lease early to and moved out of the area then it weakens any case for that to happen, something i recall Sandal Cat (who is the main man in these matters) admitting to in a previous thread. Sport England also has a say (pitch for a pitch if you like) but with us agreeing a move to a new home out of the district they are likely to be satisfied with a small sports pitch, five-a-side probably, somewhere around the area. And lets be honest, given it will be up to the council what gets waved through or not i think we all know what the outcome will be.

Yes, it was a planning condition. There is no covenant on Belle Vue regarding playing rugby on it. The planning condition was on the housing consent but as you say that expired in February so there is no current planning consent on Belle Vue.

The Council could reinsert the planning condition on any new consent it may grant and I will object to any planning consent being granted unless the condition is included on any consent and will also seek Sport England's support as well. I dont think moving out of Wakefield weakens the position as we will want to come back to Wakefield and paly in a new/refurbished stadium. If we were to move to paly at Featherstone then I feel that would weaken our position considerably as we would be playing in Wakefield.

Also the ACV applies to any new owner and the fact that its listed is a material consideration in considering any planning application and indeed the Council could refuse consent and even utilise its CPO powers if it wished.

The Council is key to all this and you will I'm sure have your own opinions as to whether they will assist us or not.

Re: Ground : Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:38 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Yes, it was a planning condition. There is no covenant on Belle Vue regarding playing rugby on it. The planning condition was on the housing consent but as you say that expired in February so there is no current planning consent on Belle Vue.

The Council could reinsert the planning condition on any new consent it may grant and I will object to any planning consent being granted unless the condition is included on any consent and will also seek Sport England's support as well. I dont think moving out of Wakefield weakens the position as we will want to come back to Wakefield and paly in a new/refurbished stadium. If we were to move to paly at Featherstone then I feel that would weaken our position considerably as we would be playing in Wakefield.

Also the ACV applies to any new owner and the fact that its listed is a material consideration in considering any planning application and indeed the Council could refuse consent and even utilise its CPO powers if it wished.

Thanks for that Sandal but, what are "it's CPO powers" ?

The Council is key to all this and you will I'm sure have your own opinions as to whether they will assist us or not.

Thanks for that Sandal but, what are "it's CPO powers"