I can confirm that there was no Section 106 Agreement to link this development with the funding of a community stadium as the size of development (22,300sqm) is below the 60,000sqm threshold for contributing toward the stadium that was set out in the original outline application issued by the Secretary of State.
]

Maybe I have missed something, it wouldn't be the first time. But this reads to me that only structures above 60,000sqm contribute to the trigger point, and this was the original agreement with the SOS, so allowed outside the 106.
However, it was my belief that the trigger was a total of 60,000sqm available for occupancy, and that 20,000 plus (seen figures of 40,000 quoted) would indeed be a significant contribution.
Please can anyone clarify, or perhaps I have mis-interpreted the quote?
As a side point, if Newcold, which is visible from both the Great Wall of China and space, is too small to contribute to the stadium trigger point, someone is going to have to plan and construct something akin to a couple of death stars in Methley for us to see progress.

Exactly what I was wondering

Latest reply from One of my councillors;

As mentioned before councillors across Wakefield are receiving similarly worded letters often through automated systems.

To avoid confusion the Council is sending an official response to everyone who writes/emails in to their councillor.

It would seem they are certainly getting rattled, no surprise he's a Labour Councillor ....

"To avoid confusion..." - otherwise known as covering your tracks; and it's shameful that he can order all Labour councillors to tow the line, and they immediately fall into step. The best course might be to pursue the Tory Councillors - and I hope someone from the Trust/Club have been in touch with Mr Dews, who appears ready and willing to ask Mr Box some very pointed and embarrassing questions on our behalf?

I've contacted Sajid Javid too - to highlight the failure of WMDC to enforce the UU - and to point out that Mr Box has at the same time, presided over a similar arrangement in Castleford that will benefit a private company he owns shares in, to the tune of £10 million.

I will today be contacting the Local Government Ombudsman, and I'm seeing my planning lawyer later today - so I'll draw him into a conversation over coffee and try to get some free advice...

To which my response was;
So do I assume I shall be receiving an automated reply to this email address from the Council shortly?

Maybe we can all just apply to build huge retail parks and stadiums on green belt land then once we get planning permission, we can just build whatever we feel like there

Quote: MANTAMAN "I can confirm that there was no Section 106 Agreement to link this development with the funding of a community stadium as the size of development (22,300sqm) is below the 60,000sqm threshold for contributing toward the stadium that was set out in the original outline application issued by the Secretary of State. Maybe I have missed something, it wouldn't be the first time. But this reads to me that only structures above 60,000sqm contribute to the trigger point, and this was the original agreement with the SOS, so allowed outside the 106. However, it was my belief that the trigger was a total of 60,000sqm available for occupancy, and that 20,000 plus (seen figures of 40,000 quoted) would indeed be a significant contribution. Please can anyone clarify, or perhaps I have mis-interpreted the quote? As a side point, if Newcold, which is visible from both the Great Wall of China and space, is too small to contribute to the stadium trigger point, someone is going to have to plan and construct something akin to a couple of death stars in Methley for us to see progress.'" reminded me of this: dailycaller.com/2017/03/15/truck ... ing-comma/

Quote: MANTAMAN "I can confirm that there was no Section 106 Agreement to link this development with the funding of a community stadium as the size of development (22,300sqm) is below the 60,000sqm threshold for contributing toward the stadium that was set out in the original outline application issued by the Secretary of State. Maybe I have missed something, it wouldn't be the first time. But this reads to me that only structures above 60,000sqm contribute to the trigger point, and this was the original agreement with the SOS, so allowed outside the 106. However, it was my belief that the trigger was a total of 60,000sqm available for occupancy, and that 20,000 plus (seen figures of 40,000 quoted) would indeed be a significant contribution. Please can anyone clarify, or perhaps I have mis-interpreted the quote? As a side point, if Newcold, which is visible from both the Great Wall of China and space, is too small to contribute to the stadium trigger point, someone is going to have to plan and construct something akin to a couple of death stars in Methley for us to see progress.'" reminded me of this: dailycaller.com/2017/03/15/truck ... ing-comma/

E mails sent 3 days ago Cll Margaret Holwell (Conservative) No reply Cll Darren Byford (Labour) No Reply Cll Janet Holmes (Labour) a very brief reply but a complete waist of time, totaly missed the point. List of all WMDC councillors if anyone missed it. mg.wakefield.gov.uk/mgMemberInde ... LIST&PIC=0

E mails sent 3 days ago Cll Margaret Holwell (Conservative) No reply Cll Darren Byford (Labour) No Reply Cll Janet Holmes (Labour) a very brief reply but a complete waist of time, totaly missed the point. List of all WMDC councillors if anyone missed it. mg.wakefield.gov.uk/mgMemberInde ... LIST&PIC=0

There appears to be a lot of contradiction in the 'official' responses previously issued. I can only see Box coming out with a statement similar to the email posted by Joanne Roney OBE.

One of the vagaries of the 106 agreement appears to be around the alleged 60,000m2 'trigger point' however, in the e-mail from Joanne Roney it states;



'No more than' can be interpreted, as it seems to have been by the council as - there must be 60,000m2 of occupied space before the Stadium is to be built. The nature of the planning condition issued by the Secretary of States to me reads that as a condition of the planning approval for the undertaking of any works on the site, a Stadium is to be built. This however does not have to be complete and fit for purpose until 60,000m2 of space is occupied. It could however be completed at any point if the developer so wished.

The argument that the Newcold Ltd development is from a separate planning application may be factually correct, however, would this application have ever been approved in isolation, if not backed off the original planning application, and subsequent approval from the Secretary of States? And has any of the services roads, power, plumbing etc... required for the access/operation of the Newcold Ltd development fallen within the original development site?

The proposition seemingly implied by the council that they have no responsibility in enforcing the 106 agreement, and that this is "principally a matter for the Trust, not the Council" seems incorrect and inaccurate based on a quick check on the Government website for S106 ObligationsIf the s106 is not complied with, it is enforceable against the person that entered into the obligation and any subsequent owner. The s106 can be enforced by injunction.

The planning obligation is a formal document, a deed, which states that it is an obligation for planning purposes, identifies the relevant land, the person entering the obligation and their interest and the relevant local authority that would enforce the obligation. The obligation can be a unitary obligation or multi party agreement. '"

Excellent post - and exactly the way I see it; well said.

Thats a well thought out and constructed post this exactly where problems andcresponsibilities can be identified

An oldie but always makes me smile.

Let see say Newcold counts towards the stadium build, isn't it still short of th trigger point? If so, wouldn't they simply just stop building?

And has anyone contacted Rodney Walker? If he was given the power to act on behalf of the Trust, can't they just argue that each party agreed to it?

There's still plenty of money to be made from that site at some point, I just doubt Yorkcourt have enough cash to build a ground after 60,000 sq m.