Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 4:33 pm  

I think some people on here need a dose of reality, I note that we are asking who took legal advise therefore being part of the proposal did we or the Trust. I am sorry but I am beginning to believe that the developers took advantage of our need to move and the council's need to stimulate development within Wakefield. I would guess if they had not it would have gone to Leeds and a different group of people would be complaining about the council.
I was not privy to any of the meetings but some of you were, did anyone stop and think this is a little too good or even studied the developer's proposal. Did anyone raise any questions regarding the current scenario if not then we have only ourselves to blame.
I accepted long ago that we were no longer the force we were many years ago, but we survived more by luck but together with the team.
This season it is no longer the case and if you believe like our chairman that Wakefield is begging for an a community stadium then why can this not now be the Castleford project. The council could agree and say that in order to fulfill this request we are backing the Castleford stadium.
I also would remind some on here that to get elected a politician will say anything. I read the leaflet from the Conservative party it stated he was a Leeds United fan but only a follower of WT which would suggest this was added in an hope to boost his numbers. We do not even have enough supporters left to make a great deal of different to the outcome in Wakefield because how many still live in this constituency. With regards Box I believe he is the councillor for Castleford but I will stand corrected but if so how are you going to unseat him if he is so pro Castleford.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 4:38 pm  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

Well some one saw it. The fact that it was "stand alone" and wouldn't count towards the s106 was posted on the Cas Tigers forum on July the 9th last year.

That was around the time when it became apparent to the wider populace, they've been building the thing for a while now.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 4:44 pm  

I know that Khlav but it says on the post that it is stand alone, I thought the trust said they had not been able to find that condition any where in any portal.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 4:47 pm  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

I know that Khlav but it says on the post that it is stand alone, I thought the trust said they had not been able to find that condition any where in any portal.

If my understanding is correct they couldn't until after it was too late to lodge an objection.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 4:59 pm  

Thats why I asked earlier in the thread what date the dead line was for objections.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 5:31 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

I think some people on here need a dose of reality, I note that we are asking who took legal advise therefore being part of the proposal did we or the Trust. I am sorry but I am beginning to believe that the developers took advantage of our need to move and the council's need to stimulate development within Wakefield. I would guess if they had not it would have gone to Leeds and a different group of people would be complaining about the council.
I was not privy to any of the meetings but some of you were, did anyone stop and think this is a little too good or even studied the developer's proposal. Did anyone raise any questions regarding the current scenario if not then we have only ourselves to blame.
I accepted long ago that we were no longer the force we were many years ago, but we survived more by luck but together with the team.
This season it is no longer the case and if you believe like our chairman that Wakefield is begging for an a community stadium then why can this not now be the Castleford project. The council could agree and say that in order to fulfill this request we are backing the Castleford stadium.
I also would remind some on here that to get elected a politician will say anything. I read the leaflet from the Conservative party it stated he was a Leeds United fan but only a follower of WT which would suggest this was added in an hope to boost his numbers. We do not even have enough supporters left to make a great deal of different to the outcome in Wakefield because how many still live in this constituency. With regards Box I believe he is the councillor for Castleford but I will stand corrected but if so how are you going to unseat him if he is so pro Castleford.

Again - very helpful! Who do you think we are? I work in Landscaping, but it hasn't stopped me trying to apply myself to try and get a resolution. Others clearly have more foresight than me, or is that hindsight?

Put it this way, we need a dose of reality as much as we need supporters who know how it should have been done better than we did!

NB - you don't have to be a die hard supporter to understand that a massive injustice has occurred, in fact I would suggest that is exactly what we are looking for, rather than just being disgruntled RL supporters!

As for Box, no, we cant touch him, but we can make life difficult for him if he remains stubbornly unreasonable.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 5:58 pm  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

I know that Khlav but it says on the post that it is stand alone, I thought the trust said they had not been able to find that condition any where in any portal.

Everyone knew it was a stand alone application, it had to be because of the height of the building. What we did not know was the development had explicitly been excluded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking - why would we, we thought the development would contribute to the 60,000 m2 trigger, and we thought that the Council were going to enforce the UU but apparently it's nothing to do with them

Dates for objections were irrelevant if it was not made clear that the development had been excluded from the UU, why would anyone object to a development that it was believed was contributing to the UU.

What is relevant and crucial is that the Council have stated that they had no choice but to exclude the development because they took legal advice which confirmed that but claim that they do not hold the advice. They either took advice or they did not and I believe that will be crucial if or when Lawyers are instructed.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 7:15 pm  

I've just been back to the casforum to read it again. The post is on a thread entitled "Newmarket" and is towards the bottom of the 5th page. It says in the words of the planning application "The application is a stand alone and is in no way tied to the extant outline consent to the site". The big mistake I made when reading it the first time was getting the year wrong,. This was posted July 9th 2013 not 2014 2 days after the application went live. I don't know if "tied to the extant outline consent" means the same as a s106 but the info would seem to have been in the public domain for some time. Sorry but I don't know how to do a link to this. "The nutjob forum" I mean.

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 7:26 pm  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

I've just been back to the casforum to read it again. The post is on a thread entitled "Newmarket" and is towards the bottom of the 5th page. It says in the words of the planning application "The application is a stand alone and is in no way tied to the extant outline consent to the site". The big mistake I made when reading it the first time was getting the year wrong,. This was posted July 9th 2013 not 2014 2 days after the application went live. I don't know if "tied to the extant outline consent" means the same as a s106 but the info would seem to have been in the public domain for some time. Sorry but I don't know how to do a link to this. "The nutjob forum" I mean.

Tha's a watered down Vinniedog thee !!

Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Sat May 02, 2015 7:27 pm  

newgroundb4wakey wrote:

I've just been back to the casforum to read it again. The post is on a thread entitled "Newmarket" and is towards the bottom of the 5th page. It says in the words of the planning application "The application is a stand alone and is in no way tied to the extant outline consent to the site". The big mistake I made when reading it the first time was getting the year wrong,. This was posted July 9th 2013 not 2014 2 days after the application went live. I don't know if "tied to the extant outline consent" means the same as a s106 but the info would seem to have been in the public domain for some time. Sorry but I don't know how to do a link to this. "The nutjob forum" I mean.

Firstly I don't read the Cas Forum but all that is saying is that it is a stand alone application rather than a reserve matters application.

The S106, in my opinion relates to the site and not the outline consent granted by the SoS and applications, even stand alone applications should be caught by the S106. The Council think differently and even took legal advice - oh how we would love to see that advice, but as they have said they don't hold it.