With my above post in mind, Council Officers knew full well of the existence of a S106 within the UU.
They knew that the S106 placed on the land in question was "non aggregatable" meaning that the S106 was enforceable on this or any other subsequent planning permission involving that piece of land.
Yet
When Yorkcourt changed the planning application for the Newcold building the WMDC Officers failed to adhere to the legally binding S106 ruling placed on the land by the Secretary of State. They allowed the build to fall outside the S106 ruling and therefore aggregated the land against the express ruling of the Secretary of States wishes.
The behaviour of certain Council Officers when questioned on this is suspicious to say the least and leads one to believe that they knew they had acted wrongly if not before the fact then after.
However, it matters not in cases of Breaches of Duty as laid out in my previous post.
Interestingly enough (or not for those who aren't bothered) Michael Carter has asked Gary Neville about the contractor who is constructing the new stand at Salford City football club.
Whether it's for BV or Dewsbury, well only one man knows.
Interestingly enough (or not for those who aren't bothered) Michael Carter has asked Gary Neville about the contractor who is constructing the new stand at Salford City football club.
Quote: Khlav Kalash "Interestingly enough (or not for those who aren't bothered) Michael Carter has asked Gary Neville about the contractor who is constructing the new stand at Salford City football club.
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.