So taking this to the next stage then...if we do take this matter to court and we do win the case, then what is the likely outcome ??
If the council is found to be negligent/complicit, can they be fined or made to contribute their promised £2 million towards the stadium build ??
Can the existing Newcold development be made to count towards the 60,000 sq m trigger point ??
Could Yorkcourt just walk away with their tail between their legs and make do with the tidy profit they have no doubt made from the Newcold development and leave us back at square 1 ??

To be honest I don't really know. I could speculate but remember we have been threatened with being sued for libel so I have to be careful.

As I have said before I have never seen anyone disaggregate a S106 Agreement before and in my opinion, and I'm not a Lawyer, it does not seem right. The Council say they took legal advice which meant that Newcold was excluded from the Unilateral Undertaking (S106) but when asked to see the advice say that they do not hold it so are unable to supply it. That's strange isn't it.

I would imagine they are, there is still a great deal of land to develop and profit to be made.

I'm afraid that's the $64,000 question. No one can ever predict the outcome of legal action. One thing is certain, if we do nothing we'll get nothing.

As I've said before I'd rather go down fighting, I'd much rather die like a lion than live like a lamb but you never know justice may prevail.

I'd say only if there isn't a stadium built. £12 million would cut into their profits somewhat and i've a feeling that was their plan all along.

That's the nub of it.

Do they even know who gave this apparent legal advice? Surely they have the name of the firm, if not an official record of what was said. A record of payment for this advice perhaps. Or was it a in house lawyer?

Who was the guy Yorkcourt used at the inquiry? Andrew somebody? Probably him.

I more or less agree with every thing that is being said on here about the club being shafted but at the time of the PI the residents of Newmarket were being portrayed as NIMBY's and a certain lady was getting the dogs abuse on here for objecting.

They do not hold it. You'll have to draw your own conclusions.

I conclude they never got any legal advice because if they did, the firm in question would hold professional indemnity insurance to a minimum of 2m and a potential claim could be made against them for negligent advice.

In addition, the fact they refused to provide some of the info requested under freedom of information and have threatened the people involved with a libel suit speaks volumes, as does the fact they can't produce any evidence that the fact Newcold would not count to the s106 was readily available before it was too late to object.

At a time when government cuts are biting deep, the suggestion they would spend money on a libel suit is testimony to the despicable character of the senior people within Wdmc who definitely care more about themselves then the people they are elected to serve

is this not a good reason to get a formal inquiry going or are we afraid of burning some kind of bridge here, stinks to high heaven

And Mr Cubbage.

It's true, they fought for what they believed and so did we. Turns out we didn't understand the bigger picture - perhaps!

Surely this is worth taking to the Local Government Ombudsman Scheme as part of a complaint then the whole issue may possibly be reviewed at no legal cost to any party?

Developer wants to develop on greenbelt. Local authority proposes developer uses community facilities as a tool of greasing the planning wheels whilst advising they don't need to worry about providing them with the use of a loophole. Planning is approved with a S106 not worth the paper it's written on. Developer submits application using loophole highlighted earlier. Council say they can't refuse it due to some conjured up legal advice. Separate planning application approved outside of the 106. S##t hits the fan. Developer cracks on with his shed, council stay it's nothing to do with them.

As Smew said it's hard not to conclude this was a cleverly orchestrated long term plan rather than incompetence. It may have gone unnoticed if not for the tiny detail of the legal aid faux pas.