Unless they just fence it off, leave it for god knows how many years, then apply for change of use once the fuss dies down. Whilst in the meantime living off the lovely profits garnered from all the separate 'one-off' builds. And the councils legal 'experts' missed this?

It depends who's holding the shotgun!

Sorry for being cryptic.

No problem.

Yes - that is a possibility. I'm no lawyer, planner or expert (unless you need some major landscaping undertaking), and we have relied on others to carry out the spirit of what we agreed. They haven't achieved that as yet, but the spirit of the agreement is still there in our minds and in the mind of the Inspector who granted permission. All of this means we either tackle the issue head on, or we negotiate to a position which we think fairly reflects what we agreed and worked towards. Both options remain on the table at this time.

Cant do that - the land is earmarked by the agreement for use as a community sports facility end of and cannot be re-assigned without another enquiry. I know we Brits like to paint the whole system as corrupt when in fact it isn't. In this case we are protected by the law and national level policies and thankfully not the local authority.

However they could do as you say IF they offer and alternative site i.e. BV and a much much smaller lump of NM. Which if NM in general is a success and it will be IMHO a few million fob off to the trust will seem a great investment.

PS: I'm no more an expert than you though I am probably a bit more in the loop but only just

Correct, I look at it this way - the trust effectively have a covenant on that part of NM for ever unless they relinquish it - and they would only do that if……..

Also it is a huge piece of land in the best part of the development, ideal for almost anything.

Notice Radio Yorkshire online.
May be interested in taking issue up on air ?

Many posters have expressed incredulity that the council have missed this loophole (which to be honest sounds like something that any competent lawyer should have found and remedied in short order). But I would like to know how the trusts own lawyers missed this - who were the lawyers for the trust anyway? In an earlier post it was stated that all parties signed the flawed agreement - I assume, of course, that the trust were one of these parties - so our own legal team has also messed up badly, not just the council. If you sign an agreement without properly scrutinising it, the results can be unpredictable and disappointing. Not looking to have a go at anyone, just pointing out that we can't just blame the council or everyone else when things go pear shaped...the Trust have also failed to spot this "loophole" in the agreement...

It would be nice to hear the SOS view on this.

It would, I'd like to know if this loophole can be retrospectively closed so that the cold store unit currently being built is the only thing YCP can build up there. After that aid like to see the SOSs Office flex it's muscles and severely reprimand YCP for their scurrilous behaviour. Since the S106 isn't fit for purpose, I'd like the SoS to tell YCP that no other units can be built until either a deal for Belle Vue is agreed and signed with a 1st payment due prior to any further construction at Newmarket or a coterminous build of the stadium and the next unit at Newmarket. YCP are the ones who've acted outside both the legal and the the spirit of the PI so let them worry about how they get themselves out of the tish to achieve this.

The Stadium Trust is NOT party to the Section 106 Agreement. The 106 Agreement is a UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING given by 3 Parties (Yorkcourt, Yorkcourts Bank (as morgagee) and another landowner to a single party which is WAKEFIELD MDC who are the beneficiary of the Agreement.

As the Stadium Trust is not party to the agreement they would not have seen the agreement nor be expected to have it checked by Lawyers. That is the responsibility of whom the unilateral undertaking is given to and that responsibly falls squarely on the shoulders of the Council.

By the way if you wish to read the Section 106 Agreement it's on the Council's Planning Portal, that is where I read it.

What is Sir Rodney Walker's involvement in all this ?

Chair of the Stadium Trust.

Thanks for that Sandal Cat.

Appears to me Sir Rodney has been very quiet about any developments which is unusual for him.

He's quiet as you put it because he's in negotiations and has nothing to say - when or if he has I'm sure he will waste no time.