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.

We have a top planning Lawyer working with us and we will be advised by him.

In my opinion our route is to the High Court rather than the Ombudsman if the Council don't resolve this but as I say we will be advised by our Lawyer.

Just like Sept Blatter , Boxes chickens will come home to roost , they always do

Looks a bit like a dogs dinner. Those not telling the truth will be found out as one lie leads to another to cover the previous one.

Would that be a BOXer dog ??????

I'll get my coat.............

Any plans for a mass demonstration against the Council outside the town hall during a council sitting??

No plans for any mass show of support - at this time!

See our 'esteemed leader' has just been on Look North. Had to turn the sound down and seethe in silence.

Could we be right in assuming sandal cat,that if we went down the high court route, that this might jolt the council into back tracking and sorting their mess out before the lawyers bills started dropping on boxes table? .. Providing there is a water tight case..

Watched it my self WT,could've kicked the Telly round the the room,the lying,weasel faced piece of,any way the Telly survived,just.

Same here BL'sM. There could have been a big pile of broken telly's down at Denby Dale Road tip tomorrow morning.

John Foster

Quite often once legal proceedings are instigated it can indeed jolt the other party into settling before the matter gets to the High Court. However you need to have the cash to commence the proceedings and be prepared to take your case all the way.

No Lawyer will ever tell you that you have a watertight case and there is always a risk that however much you are confident of your case the Judge may not see it your way.

The problem is the cost of instigating proceedings. The Stadium Trust will need to raise a substantial amount of money but the Council will just use the Council Taxpayers money to fund a defence. The Supporters Trust has investigated and found a crowdfunding web site who will allow us to raise money to fund such a legal challenge if it comes to it.

No one wants to take this to the High Court, we want to see the Council enforce the Section 106 Agreement/UU and the Developer to deliver what they promised the citizens of Wakefield at the Public Inquiry, however if they are not prepared to deliver on that promise we are prepared to take the matter to the High Court by way of a Judicial Review.

When JFK came to power, the CIA noted that things just didn't get done as JFK and those after him started to employ lawyers rather than military men as advisers. If told to do something, a military person would work out how to do it, whereas a lawyer would merely work out a way to weasel out of it. By the way, I'm a lawyer.

From Sandal's earlier post, reading it as a lawyer, I'm assuming the problem is that the council won't stump up the 2 million. Yorkcourt can say that the unilateral undertaking is dependent on the council paying 2 million. The phrase "unilateral undertaking" means a promise by one party acting alone. So I'm guessing that the council are saying that they are not obligated to pay anything as they haven't undertaken to pay anything.

So there is an impasse, a stalemate, the council refusing to pay 2 million, and Yorkcourt saying that was the precondition as part of the undertaking.

Assuming I've read it right.

My take the council don't want to enforce Yorkcourt to do anything as WMDC are complicit with the whole front of using the stadium/community facilities to deliver Newcold. I have my own theory why certain public servants don't want to delve into the shady dealings and it doesn't smell great. I cant think of any other reason as to their reluctance to due their duty and the trotting out the faux legal advice claim.

I hope TRB, IA, Sandal Cat can be the catalysts that bring this rotten borough council down.