Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:11 pm  

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

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:16 pm  

cosmicat wrote:

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.

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:38 pm  

Big lads mate wrote:

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

Tha rate, gud lug oiling

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:15 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

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.

"WE JUST DON'T" is the sort of answer you give slugger.....when things are starting to spiral out of control!!!

Re: Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:18 pm  

bren2k wrote:

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.

Did the council ever offer to stump up money in the first place.either verbally or written?

Re: Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:49 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

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!

Firstly mate think you and the others on the trust are doing a fantastic job. It surely is a tangled web!!
The only answer I see coming back from the council bods to the questions the lawyer has asked will be a lot of blah blah blah! Saying very little.
They seem to be dug in waiting for us to up the anti. And we seem to have bugger all money to up the anti and they know it!
What other options are there,other than going down the high court route?

Re: Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:53 pm  

Think its time for new ideas cos its just rolling on year after year ,how long do we go on waiting, waiting, waiting, for ....its time to give us some positive news

Re: Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:01 pm  

cosmicat wrote:

Think its time for new ideas cos its just rolling on year after year ,how long do we go on waiting, waiting, waiting, for ....its time to give us some positive news

I see where your coming from.but I think we need to be patient and get behind SC,IA and the trust.
Reading IAs post I things are going to come to head shortly

Re: Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:14 pm  

No sorry its time now to give news yes or no b4 the new year!!

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Sat Nov 28, 2015 4:22 am  

I know this as dragged on for years, but we need to be patient with the people who are putting in the time and effort - IA is even a Rhinos fan!

I know from personal experience one thing politicians are adept at, and there ain't many, is avoiding telling the truth and showing them for the incompetents they really are!