All of them, but only when they want your vote.

I have heard from TRB , IA and Sandal that We have a good friend in Andrea Jenkins who has done more to help in her short time in office than Balls etc have done in past several years. Understand that she working hard for us behind the scene, ie she is not trying to make political gain and have photo opportunity. So that's one friend at least.

Hi Bren - We have discussed the Local Government Ombudsman with our lawyer and while it is an option that remains open to us and is still very much on the table, it is not something we are currently going to pursue for now. The time and energy required to go down this route is considerable and although the LGO does have some teeth, they are not able to make legal binding and enforceable judgements like the High Court!

The point is of course, we don't want to go to court, it is costly and while we have a very, very strong case, as Sandal Cat has said, there is always a risk the result will not go our way.

We are waiting for a formal response from WMDC to the most recent correspondence from our lawyer to them. How they choose to respond to the very direct points put to them will probably give us a good indication of their future position and then of course which ways things start to head going forward! It is very much down to them, what happens next!

Putting aside Peter Box's recent comments and the semantics around S106 'agreements' or 'unalterable undertakings' they are both the only two legitimate forms of planning obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning act... and which body is responsible for the enforcement of ALL planning obligations in the UK? It is the LPA (Local Planning Authority) which, is of course in this case, WMDC. Peter Box, Joanne Roney, Andy Wallhead, Denise Jeffery et al cannot escape this simple unarguable clear fact!

So, the question remains, why did the LPA (WMDC) fail in their statutory and legal duty to either enforce the existing planning obligation or, as they are also at full liberty to do, insist on a new planning obligation (essentially the same as the previous) when Newcold came forward and was given planning permission?

Peter Box says that the agreement was nothing to do with Wakefield Council, that they neither agreed with, signed or are even party to the existing planning obligation. He is sort of right on one, they wanted a multi-party agreement but they did ask for and got the UU amended during the PI and it was the decision of the inspector that a UU was adequate. He is totally right on one, they didn't sign it, but they never sign UU's of course, by definition! But they are 'party' to it, because they are the beneficiary (as all local authorities have to be to planning obligations).

So, the next question is, given that Peter Box is using this spurious UU argument to absolve WMDC from any responsibility what-so-ever, in that, it is nothing to do with us because of the UU, why, when Newcold came along, did WMDC not insist on a new planning obligation by Multi-party agreement pursuant to Section 106? They have full power and control to do so and SHOULD have done so, according to the Town and Country Planning Act! You either enter into a new S106 agreement, or we don't give you planning permission, it is that simple!

They are the enforcing authority, and they have solely failed to do so and when asked why they did not do so, they first said they took legal advice, which we have proof they did not, and still, despite being asked again, and again, and again, they are now just refusing to give any answer to this straight forward question!

The 'experts' on Cas Forum can write anything they like about me, or this, but I think they should be asking themselves this fundamental question, what if Lateral put in a new stand-alone planning application on the Five Towns site and WMDC pass it, building-out a large part of the site and in doing so just avoid their original planning obligation, because WMDC do not insist on a new planning obligation reflecting the existing one?

The next question they need to ask themselves is, who is the only body that can stop that happening and what happens if that is exactly what they do... I wonder what they will think of Peter Box and WMDC then!

To be fair, Mary Creagh has also been very helpful too since we sent up the balloon just before the election, although it is more difficult for her to do what Andrea Jenkyns can do at a central government level, she is working hard, and just because she belongs to the same political party as the the controlling party in Wakefield, she is clearly not in the same mind as them on this issue!

David Hinchcliffe. where is he these days ?

He is retired as an MP but he is a Director on the Trust... he is doing his bit too!

I'm not a planning lawyer, don't know much about it, but I anticipate that it isn't any different from any other area of law, in that if something is to be enforced, someone has got to want to enforce it.

It is surely correct that WMDC are not "bound" by the unilateral undertaking, because that is what it is, an undertaking by one party to another that binds only the party giving it. So there is only ever one question: why doesn't WMDC want to enforce it? They are the party to whom it was given. They can choose to enforce it, or not enforce it. So why don't they want to? That is the only question. Is it just money? Or is there some other reason?

The response of WMDC just seems to be, "we don't want to. Nothing to do with us. We are not obliged to." I'm struggling to see how "nothing to do with us" has any credibility, so we get back to the "why don't you want to?". That is the question, and the answer, "we just don't" is the kind of answer a five year old gives.

I would suggest there are 2 possible reasons they don't want to, and neither excludes the other being the case; firstly, they don't want to stump up the 2 million quid - that's straightforward. Secondly, they've come to some other arrangement with YCP that means they get something else that they want more than a Community Stadium.

The first reason is understandable, but still wrong; the second is just plain bent.

Well I messaged her the other day, as one of her constituents, on Twitter re the Box situation and she has not replied so I guess her interest may be declining now it's getting down to the nitty gritty

True, and it is only the Local Authorities that can enforce planning obligations (in the primary instance) so Peter Box deflecting this to the SoS and Eric Pickles is plain wrong and inexcusable. It is NOT central governments job to enforce local planning obligations, the act is clear on this, it is the LPA.



Well, you are sort of right, in that they can choose to enforce it, or not enforce it, but the reality is that if they don't enforce it, then unless they are able to fully demonstrate and justify their decision & reasoning not to enforce (because, why would you not if you get something for your community as planning gain?) then at the very least they are potentially guilty of maladministration, followed by incompetence, followed finally by collusion and corruption!

They have not (after their ill-advised "we took legal advice" line, which they didn't) been able or willing to provide and answer as to why they did not insist on a new S106 agreement for Newcold!

Why don't we rattle the SOS cage or bang on his office door ,bloody tell him the whole fiascos

It's his lug oils that want rattling,with a base ball bat.