Maybe the trust as a whole didn't because they didn't know, maybe just one person did?

You'd think this was obvious by now wouldn't you

Even if that one person did, and didn't object, surely the council have the authority to turn the application down? I'd like to know the reason why the council passed the PP, what do they benefit?

Sorry but i'm not sure how the trust didn't know the Newcold build didn't count? It was there for all to see on the planning portal 5 days after the the application went in and 3 months before the decision was made. And the Cas fan that used to come on here told us all several times! It clearly states the following....

[iRecent Planning History
The proposed site is set within a planned large mixed use development where Outline Planning consent has already been previously granted by the Secretary of State. The outline approval consists of a community stadium, multi-use games area, B8 warehousing and distribution units, B1b and B1c business units, a hotel and an A3 unit, roads infrastructure and landscaping.
Details of the extant outline consent are filed under Wakefield District Council refThis detailed application is a standalone application and in no way legally ties it to the extant outline consent mentioned above. The outline approval has however been carefully considered to ensure the proposed scheme integrates with it and in no way prejudices the implementation of any development controlled by that consent. [/i

Now whether you agree that this should have been the case is a different argument altogether (and i believe it should have been) but i find it difficult to believe the trust members didn't look up the application themselves and if they didn't how is that the councils fault, especially when they reiterated it in a meeting with the trust chairman? I'm not sure we can blame the council for that one.

Increased business rates income & around 150 new jobs created.

Would that still not occur if the newcold shed was part of the original agreement?

Not a WT Supporter, but have followed this shambles for years wishing you all well, so forgive my quick thought.

The selective quoting of minutes is a typical government tactic as it will be picked to make the point they want, while not telling us what was said before or after (which might be the opposite).

However WMBC have now admitted they DO have minutes of those meetings, so someone needs to enter a FOI request for them and if they refuse (for whatever reason) appeal to the Information Commissioner who can (and often does) order their release.

Good Luck All.

Here we have the reply from WMDC (stolen from the VT) www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/p ... ty-stadium I think that someone "in the know" needs to be looking at this.

Here we have the reply from WMDC (stolen from the VT) www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/p ... ty-stadium I think that someone "in the know" needs to be looking at this.

If anyone any doubts about the Wakefield Express loyalties just look at what Armadillo says about the timeline of the statement been released. Just at the right moment as to not give the chance of reply before going to press.

Where is this?

i understand how Yorkcourt managed to get the Newcold to not count against the trigger point, by putting in new a PA because it was going to be so much higher than planned. But I still can't get my head around why the Council didn't make it part of the initial agreement. Ateotd they wouldn't have been building the thing if it wasn't for the 15000 signatures and the Community side of things anyway, so why did they let them basically circumvent the original S106 agreement.

Facebook on the fans page

This bit has got to make you cringe a bit.
'Since planning permission was granted, Wakefield Council has been actively working to attract private sector investment and development at Newmarket to help achieve the 60,000 square metres of B8 Warehousing and distribution floor space identified in the Unilateral Undertaking.'
Yes WMDC by the looks of things you're dong a stand up job.

Thank you.

It will also be good to see the audit trail on this too