Quote: Inflatable_Armadillo "The Inspector said, in his report, that he was prepared to accept a UU S106, as opposed to a Multi-Party S106 in this case. However, although the SoS was prepared to accept a UU it is not his job to agree the conditions within the UU. As long as it, in his opinion, will ultimately deliver a stadium and meet the principle conditions they told him during the inquiry, which it should have, he will make (and did make) his recommendation to approve the application. So, although it is a UU and therefore Yorkcourt prepare it and give it to WMDC, it is the responsibilities of those party to the contract to negotiate it's condition's. In this case Yorkcourt, their Bank (Yorkshire), the landowner and WMDC. We know that WMDC did ask for a change to be made to the UU around their £2m contribution in that it originally said that it would come from then, but it was amended to say from either them or the Trust. Finally, the SoS does not grant planning permission. The final decision actually comes from WMDC. He makes a recommendation and then WMDC either pass or don't pass it. Now, given there had been a PI then of course they would have to have some really damming reason not to grant it, but if they were not happy with the UU at this point then they could have said that and not granted PP until they found the S106 satisfactory.
Now, the reality is that no one at the time thought the S106 was quite as loose as hindsight now proves. However... the big point and problem is what happened next, when Newcold came along. Why did WMDC knowingly accept, recommend for approval and pass a planning application that circumvented the S106? It is their job to enforce S106 agreements, not the SoS! They claimed to have took LEGAL advice, but they lied of course, they hadn't and have since claimed they took internal 'legal' advice, but it is not written down and they don't know who gave it. So, no one has any idea what that 'advice' actually was! That is of course because it is probably total bull and it never happened!
But what did happen, why did they excluded it?'"
And what part did Sir Rodney Walker play in this process and how did he influence or was influenced in his role as trust member???
It will be interesting to see if this comes out in court! Certainly hope so!
