Thanks for the very informative post Trin.

I’m not a farmer but I can recognize manure when I smell it and that is what I smelt when I read Gaitleys letter. I’m also not a Planning expert but the letter seems like a load of flannel designed to bamboozle the reader and in particular the Council who don’t seem to understand planning law going on their past antics.

Don’t get confused between a UU and a S106 Agreement, they are the same thing. A UU is a Unilateral Undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 so it is a Section 106 Agreement. It is given by one party (Yorkcourt) to another party (WMDC) as opposed to a Multi-Party Agreement. Contrary to the Councils much stated opinion they are party to the UU as the beneficiary and they can enforce it as they are the Planning Authority.

I don’t believe the case law Gaitleys quote is relevant to our case which I believe in legal terms may be unique but as I say I’m no planning expert but I know a man who is and he is having a good look at it.

Thanks for the update Sandal Cat.

Letter from WMDC to Yorkcourt.
Associated documents-interim assessment letter 01-10-18

Application will be determined by full planning committee rather than delegated powers and the Trust, or more likely the Trusts Lawyer, should be able to speak.

Council are noting Gaitleys letter and reviewing. Will be interesting how they react to this. Maybe they will seek independent legal advice from a planning expert or Counsel.

I see we finally have objections from Andrea Jenkyns and Antony Calvert now.

Where can you see the objection letters?

Andrea Jenkyns letter is in Associated Documents and Anthony Calvert's in the Public Comments section.

finally they get a wake up call

they are pathetic

It is not a legal authority that a unilateral agreement is enforceable, as far as I can tell, but merely states that it is (ie, it is beyond doubt) whilst going on to determine other things.

The crucial difference is that Wokingham Borough Council sought to enforce it and the developer challenged it. Here, WMDC haven't sought to enforce it at all. And that is the crux of everything. A council that does not have any interest in enforcing a promise.

Point taken slugger, but the main point is that the, the - council can, could & should have enforced it, I accept your point of view they were not interested,knowingly or un'knowingly. That does not excuse a local authorities duty in carrying out its duties correctly & with due dilligance. Our leader has not made one mistake on/to a similar scheme namely in Castleford. i am not crowing against that scheme, only wanting parity.
Therefore draw your own conclusions, however, the day of reckoning may be upon the leader & the council, they only have a slight chance of a way out & redemption if they can get another scheme to a successful conclusion.