There appears to be a lot of contradiction in the 'official' responses previously issued. I can only see Box coming out with a statement similar to the email posted by Joanne Roney OBE.

One of the vagaries of the 106 agreement appears to be around the alleged 60,000m2 'trigger point' however, in the e-mail from Joanne Roney it states;



'No more than' can be interpreted, as it seems to have been by the council as - there must be 60,000m2 of occupied space before the Stadium is to be built. The nature of the planning condition issued by the Secretary of States to me reads that as a condition of the planning approval for the undertaking of any works on the site, a Stadium is to be built. This however does not have to be complete and fit for purpose until 60,000m2 of space is occupied. It could however be completed at any point if the developer so wished.

The argument that the Newcold Ltd development is from a separate planning application may be factually correct, however, would this application have ever been approved in isolation, if not backed off the original planning application, and subsequent approval from the Secretary of States? And has any of the services roads, power, plumbing etc... required for the access/operation of the Newcold Ltd development fallen within the original development site?

The proposition seemingly implied by the council that they have no responsibility in enforcing the 106 agreement, and that this is "principally a matter for the Trust, not the Council" seems incorrect and inaccurate based on a quick check on the Government website for S106 ObligationsIf the s106 is not complied with, it is enforceable against the person that entered into the obligation and any subsequent owner. The s106 can be enforced by injunction.

The planning obligation is a formal document, a deed, which states that it is an obligation for planning purposes, identifies the relevant land, the person entering the obligation and their interest and the relevant local authority that would enforce the obligation. The obligation can be a unitary obligation or multi party agreement. '"

I am hoping to be able to get there. Could do with someone from the Community Trust togo and see what is said.

I've just had the same email, I'm hoping to make it down as it's half-term so I'm off Uni

My comprehensive reply from Cllr Ahmed, Conservative, Wakefield (South):

I support the community stadium bid. There is a council meeting this wednesday at 2. In the county hall. Hope to see you there

Best wishes

Nadeem

Sent from my Windows Phone

Good response.

He and all Labour Councillors now have a full copy of the Trust Statement issued on Friday 7th April so cannot claim not to have seen it particularly before Wednesday's Council Meeting.