That's a lot of caravans per acre (only kidding your majesty). Seriously, that does seem like a lot of money too much I'd say as I'd guess at £0.5m per acre tops and you aren't on 28 acres?

You could probably buy the whole of St Helens for £14 million

Where is that from? The stadium as a whole is valued at around £30m but I've not seen a formal split between land/buildings (in fact not sure Saints even technically own the land as the stadium is long leasehold)?

AFAIK, even if the controversial cold store is included, the development hasn't reached the trigger point for the stadium build so how do they enforce the S106? Also, I can't understand why Wake haven't had them in court by now - surely the threat would have been enough if they have a cast iron case...

You are correct that the developer has done nothing illegal. Morally and ethically somewhat questionable, but legally OK.
I would think any court proceedings (judicial review ) would be against the local authority and its role in all this rather than the developer.

I would think that any court would look at facts of law and judge on that rather than morality no matter how morally wrong 1 party has been. Ateotd if no one has broken a legally binding contract or broken any law then morals don't come into it. There would be no case to answer for anyone.

The audited accounts state the land & buildings were valued by a chartered surveyor. It came up at a public meeting that of that, the land was valued at £14million. The issue that I have is that what chartered surveyor in their right mind would value a sports stadium? I have trouble finding a surveyor who will put their name to a stadium valuation on sports clubs bigger than St Helens, because they know its worthless, but St Helens RLFC can find one???? Not saying anything untoward is happening because the audit opinion is clean and unqualified but still!!

Regards

King James

I think the issue is how the developer was enabled to use a legal loophole to renege on their obligations under a s106 Agreement that was adjudicated by HM Inspector - and WMDC's continued intransigence in enforcing said Agreement. This is not a court case in the way you might imagine - a judicial review is somewhat different.

"Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached."

Because they are valuing the land & not a sports stadium? Presumably the value is how much a developer can recoup from developing the land for its most lucrative legal purpose - probably housing - less the cost of site clearance, build costs, legal fees etc.

For the purposes of insurance would be a pretty obvious reason.......

What?? You don't need a professional valuation to insure a sports stadium at all.

Regards

King James

Insurance against loss is not related to value of land.