RLFANS.COM - The World's Most Popular Rugby League Website

Quote: The Avenger "Rodney Walker is a sideline issue thrown in by WMDC to distract attention away from the truth. Rodney may have some questions to answer

The quoting of "No Objections" is also irrelevant as it too is a distraction from the WMDCs possibly illegal failure to enforce the SOSs ruling. There's also some very suspicious and questionable anomalies surrounding the timing, wording and transparency of WMDCs planning documents pertaining to the Newcold build.

The main question is why did WMDC choose to allow the Newcold build to fall outside the UU (which IS a S106) when they have a legal obligation to to enforce The SoSs ruling.

That ruling stated that the land involved would only be lifted out of the Green Belt on the express provision that the developer built Community Sports facilities and a Community Stadium once 60,000sqm of warehousing was built out.

The SoSs Officer clearly ruled that this was a legal condition and that the land in question could not be disaggregated. What that means is that the ruling is on the land and not any particular planning application. Therefore any planning application is subject to this condition and it is the legal obligation of the ruling Planning Authority (WMDC) to ensure its enforcement!

There seems to be no logical reason whatsoever for WMDC not to enforce the SoSs ruling, indeed they have brought suspicion and possible legal action against themselves by not enforcing it.

The subsequent intransigence, evasiveness and failure to answer the charge against them further increases a feeling of complete distrust in WMDC and in particular its Leader, Peter Box.

Obtuse statements that the WMDC did not sign the UU and it therefore has nothing to do with them, that WMDC are not beneficiaries of the UU which they clearly are and that they are not responsible for enforcing a planning application ruling for a huge development IN WAKEFIELD are so crazy and illogical as to invite suspicion.

Refusing Freedom of Information requests and eventually admitting that legal advice fundamental to their position hasn't been kept on record is at best incompetent and at worst. . . we'll make your own mind up!'"

Good post, with well reasoned points. The thing that I still can't 'get my head around' is their argument that the height of a building 'disaggregates' the footprint. I understand that the original planning application contained a hotel, if they put a few storeys on this building, would WMDC then see that as being 'disaggregated'?