I would think you're the last person on this forum anybody would want to divulge any pro-Wakefied information to.

Guys be careful when you start throwing phrases like 'back handers' around.
Can't go accusing people of illegal things without evidence. And if you have evidence, go to the police.

You're right about the trigger point, but the fact Newcold was permitted outside of the 106 is a start. Plus the phoney legal advice apparently provided to the council. Still any challenge will at best prevent any more development, it won't deliver a new stadium. There is no money to build one.

Do you mean the corrupt police or the one you just imagined exists?

I would imagine that would be the basis for any action; the decision to allow Newcold outside the UU was bizarre, and seems to suggest that WMDC were at best stupidly naïve, or at worst, colluded with the developer to swerve the responsibility HM Inspector placed upon them - to the detriment of the community.

let me rephrase then

Take it somewhere so that something can be done about it.

Some interesting reading on the CPS.GOV website, pertaining to the Actions and Duties of Council Officers

Now let me make this clear, I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing, that is not my call.
Whether anyone has or hasn't will no doubt be revealed in the fullness of time and through the proper legal channels.

Breaches of duty
Some of the most difficult cases involve breaches of public duty that do not involve dishonesty or corruption.

In all cases, however, the following matters should be addressed:
Was there a breach of a duty owed to the public (not merely an employment duty or a general duty of care)?
Was the breach more than merely negligent or attributable to incompetence or a mistake (even a serious one)?
Did the defendant have a subjective awareness of a duty to act or subjective recklessness as to the existence of a duty?
Did the defendant have a subjective awareness that the action or omission might be unlawful?
Did the defendant have a subjective awareness of the likely consequences of the action or omission.
Did the officer realise (subjective test) that there was a risk not only that his or her conduct was unlawful but also a risk that the consequences of that behaviour would occur?
Were those consequences 'likely' as viewed subjectively by the defendant? Did the officer realise that those consequences were 'likely' and yet went on to take the risk?
Regard must be had to motive.

Dishonesty or corrupt behaviour are not essential elements of the offence of misconduct or dereliction of duty in public office.

Presumably there is a connection between the above comment and your username?

With my above post in mind, Council Officers knew full well of the existence of a S106 within the UU.

They knew that the S106 placed on the land in question was "non aggregatable" meaning that the S106 was enforceable on this or any other subsequent planning permission involving that piece of land.

Yet

When Yorkcourt changed the planning application for the Newcold building the WMDC Officers failed to adhere to the legally binding S106 ruling placed on the land by the Secretary of State. They allowed the build to fall outside the S106 ruling and therefore aggregated the land against the express ruling of the Secretary of States wishes.

The behaviour of certain Council Officers when questioned on this is suspicious to say the least and leads one to believe that they knew they had acted wrongly if not before the fact then after.

However, it matters not in cases of Breaches of Duty as laid out in my previous post.

Interestingly enough (or not for those who aren't bothered) Michael Carter has asked Gary Neville about the contractor who is constructing the new stand at Salford City football club. It happens to be these guys. https://m.facebook.com/pjsteel.co.uk/?locale2=en_GB Whether it's for BV or Dewsbury, well only one man knows.

Interestingly enough (or not for those who aren't bothered) Michael Carter has asked Gary Neville about the contractor who is constructing the new stand at Salford City football club. It happens to be these guys. https://m.facebook.com/pjsteel.co.uk/?locale2=en_GB Whether it's for BV or Dewsbury, well only one man knows.

I have just looked this company up.

They appear to be a contracting company that erect temporarary stands just like what Vastman was talking about a few weeks ago on here.

Was looking at some of the pictures and the stands look quite tidy.

I think these are more than temporary. However I guess they are transferable.

Mmm. I wonder how long the temporary arrangement would be.

Temporary until Newmarket is built or Belle Vue re vamped.

Could there even be another venue that is being earmarked as a potential development site.