Troll.

Just so long as MC and CB don't follow this business model.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-34750400

Just so long as MC and CB don't follow this business model.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-34750400

Quote ="FIL"Just so long as MC and CB don't follow this business model.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-34750400'" Perfect example of why SWAG, the Trust and the Club play their cards close to their chest and want every thing in writing before making any statements. All this is big money stuff filled with danger and attracting every kind of shark and low life. People need to wise up when they moan about not getting info - we are not talking monopoly money here it's big bucks and big risks.

Quote ="FIL"Just so long as MC and CB don't follow this business model.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-34750400'" Perfect example of why SWAG, the Trust and the Club play their cards close to their chest and want every thing in writing before making any statements. All this is big money stuff filled with danger and attracting every kind of shark and low life. People need to wise up when they moan about not getting info - we are not talking monopoly money here it's big bucks and big risks.

There is no 106 agreement in place according to today's council meeting & council awaiting update from club and developer? Thought it would be the stadium trust and developer

Sorry if I'm being thick (usually the case ) but I don't understand how it can be said that there isn't one in place. As far as I'm aware it's been there from the beginning or else how could it be held that Newcold was outside it? If it didn't exist then there was nothing to be outside of, and certainly no reason to seek a legal opinion.

Without claiming to be in the know or to understand how these things work, because quite frankly I don't, I seem to remember reading that what is in place is a Unilateral Undertaking and not a Section 106 agreement.
Now that might be me getting it wrong and they may be the same thing, but I thought I heard that this was the issue. That the SOS wanted a 106 but that was not what was drawn up, which also explains the "wriggle" room.

I'm sure someone who understands this better than me will be along shortly to explain....



Please feel free to delete all of this if I'm talking garbage - my memory is shocking at the best of times and this saga has completely removed any semblance of sense regards what has happened.

Once again proven as a right set of anchors....

There is a Unilateral Undertaking in place. It is a Unilateral Undertaking persuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. So you can call it what you will but its the same thing.

I understand that the Council have today said that the UU is between the Developor and the Government. WRONG the UU is GIVEN by Yorkcourt TO Wakefield MDC so I don't get how it can be nothing to do with the Council and everthing to do with the Government.

The Council can say what they will but they are as the Local Planning Authority responsible for enforcing the UU - something they are not prepared to accept.

Hi ho hi ho
It's off to work I go!

It's still there on their website...under s106 agreements...

I don't what's happening now but after tweeting @mywakefield with this information, I go to where it says s106 agreements on the planning website, scroll down to Newmarket Lane development page 21 and click on LINK and it comes up with a s106 agreement for a development at CUTSYKE . Funny that eh?

Sorry for the question, but if somebody ITK could answer I would be grateful.

Box said today that he and his chief executive have "spoken with a firm trying to get them to relocate onto that site knowing it will help the club". Given the Newcold development of which his team passed "helped the club" to the tune of zilch, where is it written that any other development will have a positive outcome?

And more importantly, he also said that with the council help and more parties building on more of the site this will unlock funding to build a stadium. If this is the case and he's so keen to stress this as fact, as well as state outright the UU was created by the Developer and the Government and that it's for the Developer and Club to sort a stadium out, then whose responsibility does he believe it is to keep to that belief? that what is built down there does in fact unlock stadium funding? Because from where I'm sitting if it's not the responsibility of his setup and by proxy the planning department (as evidenced by Newcold), and it's not the responsibility of the Club or Trust, and it's not the responsibility of the Developer as they've already demonstrated it's not as they built Newcold and it counted null towards unlocking that money, then who does he believe will be the one ensuring that site build is equal to stadium funding?

Forgetting all the intricacies, ill feeling and 106/UI controversy. If he genuinely believes this is what is going to happen who does he believe is going to make it happen? Given all involved parties have demonstrated there's nobody responsible for making this so. Where is his take on this outcome coming from?

That's the thing with double dealing, lying and manipulating, it eventually becomes too complex to conceal.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave: When first we practise to deceive!

Exposed as a liar and not fit for office!

At last someone who speaks the truth.

I'm just an ordinary working/retired rugby league supporter (Cas) who has been trying but failing to keep up with all this. You've just put it in a nutshell.

Peter Box Wakefield WMDC equivalent to Sepp Blatter

Spot on

Can you spot the difference? Peter Box is claiming one of these IS a Section 106 agreement and one is NOT?

:1be6z9jw

Forgive me, but the difference in text is...

AGREEMENT
vs.
PLANNING OBLIGATION BY UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING

What bearing (if any) does that have on proceedings?

I don't know about planning law but in general laymans terms and standard English they are virtually the same. If by definition either term were stronger than the other then an "Obligation" is stronger than an "agreement" IMO

They are BOTH Planning Obligations that are pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning act. The common parlance for such agreements is "Section 106 agreements".

If you read Section 106 of the Act it is clear that an obligation can be done in two ways, either by Unilateral Undertaking (where one party, in this case Yorkcourt, gives something to Local Authority, in this case WMDC) or by Multi-Party agreement, which is used in more complex situations, where more than one party is obligated, but the result is still the same, that the beneficiary is WMDC.

The reality is that there is no difference whatsoever, the wording is only slightly different because they were drawn up by two different sets of lawyers.

The final piece of this jigsaw is one that Peter Box and WMDC cannot get away from... it is their job as Local Planning Authority to enforce all planning obligations!

So, the question is why do they even deny one exists? Could it be that if they do admit one exists that then they are of course also admitting that they have failed to enforce it, to date?

Our thanks are due to TRB, IA and the rest of the SWAG team. Their perseverance throughout this whole episode has now put Box in a place completely out of his comfort zone. His lies are stacking up against him and he is faced with an opposition that cannot be cowed by his henchmen and will not be bought off for anything less than delivery of the Community Stadium that is the due of every citzen of Wakefield.

Just to add to IA's post above.

The reason why Newmarket is a Unilateral Undertaking rather than a multi party agreement is that following the Public Inquiry it was believed by the Secretary of State and his Planning Inspector that Newmarket was simple and a UU would be sufficient.

In their evidence given at the PI the Council stated that they would make £2m available towards the Community Stadium and the Developer said that with the £2m from the Council they would build the stadium as soon as they had built and occupied 60,000 m2 of floorspace. So a simple agreement would be sufficient provided both parties honoured their promises given to HM Planning Inspector.

The Council claim to have had nothing to do with the drafting of the UU as its nothing to do with them and that they are not party to it but they changed the clause relating to the £2m contribution.

Its time that the Council accepted that as Local Planning Authority it is THEIR responsibilityand not the CLUB to sort this and enforce the UU.

Has anyone lodged a formal complaint with the Council? I think that's the step you have to take before you can go to the Ombudsman, which seems like the logical place for this to be dealt with.

Nothing will change while ever the good people of Wakefield keep voting Labour in the local elections. Many people have indicated in strong terms on here that they would never ever ever ever ever not vote Labour and that's their prerogative and fair play to them. Wakefield is the only council that has never changed its party in power. Safe in this knowledge Box has built his fiefdom of lies, scheming and deceit surrounding himself with lackeys, sycophants and yes men who do his bidding, chief sycophant been Jeffries who can`t lie straight in bed, who Box controls by putting her in a safe Cas seat. The privately educated, highly paid, mansion living Labour leader Box`s worst trait is that he is a Bully, a sickening Bully. His hold on power is absolute and is unchallenged, the last person to stand up to him Robin Foster was sacked from his position as Chief Exec I think , costing the tax payer in the region of half a million pounds, ( Box happy to pay this to get rid of the dissenter ) and filled the position with his lap dog Joane Rooney who is happy to do Box`s` bidding as she is paid in excess of £ 120,000 p.a. We have a rotten Borough a rotten council and a rotten council leadership.