Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:15 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

Well one last question, still speculating, what inducements would be required for an individual with such authority and influence to act in such a way?

Slow down a little there. No-one is suggesting any individuals have proceeded for an individual gain. If there have been rules stretched, then the likelihood is that it would be for corporate gain and nothing else.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:17 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

You are correct. If the question was put to them about disaggregation would they have understood it if it was not explained to them in layman terms, they will have no knowledge of planning procedures.

Even if it was explained, surely the WMDC Planning Officers would have to contact the SoS to get their permission to ignore the clause their office had expressly insisted upon, even if just as a matter of courtesy?

If not then is that not suspicious? Surely you can't have a 6 month Public Inquiry with an officer from the SoS Office ruling over it then not even show them the professional courtesy of informing them of changes you want to make to the resulting contract?

If the SoS wasn't informed, why not?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:19 pm  

TRB wrote:

Slow down a little there. No-one is suggesting any individuals have proceeded for an individual gain. If there have been rules stretched, then the likelihood is that it would be for corporate gain and nothing else.

I'm just speculating TRB, not making any aligations?

I'm thinking of writing a book based on a fictional community and the sleazy goings on in the halls of power, this is just research!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:37 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

I'm just speculating TRB, not making any aligations?

I'm thinking of writing a book based on a fictional community and the sleazy goings on in the halls of power, this is just research!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:49 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

Even if it was explained, surely the WMDC Planning Officers would have to contact the SoS to get their permission to ignore the clause their office had expressly insisted upon, even if just as a matter of courtesy?

If not then is that not suspicious? Surely you can't have a 6 month Public Inquiry with an officer from the SoS Office ruling over it then not even show them the professional courtesy of informing them of changes you want to make to the resulting contract?

If the SoS wasn't informed, why not?

Not sure but don't think they have to inform the SoS on local planning matters once he has granted consent, that's for the Council to administer.

Whether they should have or indeed can disaggregate is another matter.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 5:57 pm  

IMO the legal advice line is pure fantasy. There is no way a firm of lawyers would not confirm their advice in writing and there should be no way a Council Planning Committee should make such an important decision without seeing some written evidence of the legal advice which is fundamental to the potential justification of their decision.

Its no wonder the Council have hardly mentioned it again and instead are trying to make out it is a Trinity issue rather than a wider community facilities one, no doubt in the hope that this will prevent the wider Wakefield public of taking an interest in what's gone on.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 7:23 pm  

I'm puzzled by the time line here. When did "the Trust" actually find out that the Newcold build was a stand alone application? (What Date)

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 7:33 pm  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

I'm puzzled by the time line here. When did "the Trust" actually find out that the Newcold build was a stand alone application? (What Date)

A stand alone application is not the issue, it had to be because of the building height. The gripe is that the Council specifically excluded the development from the obligations of the S106 Agreement, apparantly after seeking legal advice, the advice which they state "they do not hold"

We can see nowhere in the papers on the planning portal that states that the development is excluded from the S106 until the Case Officers report which was made available after the period to object had passed.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 7:42 pm  

So what was the deadline date for objections?

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Fri May 01, 2015 7:54 pm  

If they don't hold a copy of the legal advice they have received, then' without doubt, the legal firm giving the advice will have a record of it.

Maybe WMDC could just ask for another copy?

Or was legal advice never actually sought and received?