Are we going down the wrong avenue like i posted on FB Try to informed the S.O.S. of what is going on ie email every MP as possible the rough details what this council are trying to get out of and the link to BOX'S council meeting speech where he lies about the 106 agreement and also the Press every national newspaper lets make this national news name and shame them what have we got to lose lets get some pressure put on them.

You've just saved me from having to write the same post!

I can't see any legitimate reason why the Council wouldn't want to enforce the S106!

The statements from Box just make me think he's desperate to strangle this at birth, his aledged threat of legal action against the Trust makes me very suspicious of what they're desperately trying to hide.
"He doth protest too much meethinks"

I can (albeit you can question the legitimacy of it): they don't want to hand over two million quid.

I was trying to think of an analogy to explain the difference between a unilateral undertaking and an agreement, and this is the best I can come up with.

If I come to an agreement with Michael Carter that I will drive him to the Magic weekend for £200 and he isn't at the pre-arranged meeting spot, he owes me £200. We had an agreement, I have consideration for the agreement by driving to the meeting spot, and I am £200 down.

If, however, I give him a unilateral undertaking that if he is at the pre-arranged meeting spot, I will drive him to the Magic weekend for £200, he owes me nothing if he isn't there and hopped on the team bus. I have promised to do something if he does something in return, but he isn't bound by it. He could turn round and say that he wanted to save £200.

Applying my reasoning to what I presume is the case, Yorkcourt aren't bound by the undertaking until the Council cough up two million, and I'm presuming the Council have decided they don't want to spend the money. That allows Yorkcourt the get-out.

Except there is a S106 in place!

S106? You're having a laugh if you think these cut any ice these days. They're widely unenforced and disregarded by councils throughout Britain, not just yours. In many cases they were included as conditions merely to give councils the wriggle room they needed to let various contentious developments to proceed. Nowadays councils simply don't have the resources or the desire to police them all - in fact it's unlikely they ever did.

That only binds Yorkcourt if the council hand over £2 million. The planning obligation is triggered by the council handing over the money. If the council choose not to hand it over, Yorkcourt aren't bound. Yorkcourt can hardly be bound to do something by the planning authority when that obligation is only triggered when that planning authority does something too.

I may be wrong, because I am going on what I read on here, but the sequence is surely this:
1. Yorkcourt sells so many leases, thus triggering their obligations under the unilateral undertaking they freely gave.
2. Yorkcourt say to the council, 'we've done our bit, we are bound by that undertaking, but of course our undertaking was on the proviso that you'd also stump up two million quid. Here are our bank details.'
3. The council say, 'what, you want two million quid? Where's it say that?'
4. 'There, in our undertaking. We've agreed to stump up the cash when you do. We're ready. Cash please.'
5. Council say, 'We're not bound by that undertaking. It's unilateral, by you alone, doesn't bind us. No cash. Soz.'
6. Yorkcourt say, 'Looks like no new stadium then, because our undertaking was conditional.'
7. Council say, 'Lolz. Never mind. Hey, at least Cas get a new stadium. Some mug here decided to bind the council with a two-way agreement so that there was no way round it. PMSL.'
8. Peter Box strolls past the room in a a Cas shirt, whistling contentedly.

Or something.

Sounds about right does that Slugger to me. The only bit I cannot see is where the council are going to magic 2 million quid from though.

It's not my understanding that the S106 is triggered by the £2M payment that's a summation you've made from what you know.

It's always been portrayed that the S106 was in force from day 1 and needed enforcing by the WMDC. The 60,000m2 clause was the trigger for the funding of the stadium to be released along with the £2M from the council.

Out of interest, I know £2m was initially promised to the Cas stadium. Is this still the case?

AFAIK - it was promised for the Glasshoughton project (Waystone) but nothing for the new one (Lateral). The 5 Towns Stadium funding plan doesn't rely on government funding.

HuddsTiger gives a good explanation of the complications here on Casforum:- www.casforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 6&start=45

HuddsTiger gives a good explanation of the complications here on Casforum:- www.casforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 6&start=45

Quote ="Tigerade"HuddsTiger gives a good explanation of the complications here on Casforum:- www.casforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 6&start=45'" Apart from the fact that he is wrong when he says that the Council are not party to the UU. They are indeed not a signatory as they have not signed it but if you read it the Council are the beneficiary and the UU is given by the Developer to the Council. Also the Council have said that the UU is between the developer and the Government and has been signed by the SoS - WRONG AGAIN - there is no signature on the UU from the Government or the SoS. The Council say its nothing to do with them and its between the Developer and the Club - WRONG AGAIN. The Stadium will be owned by the Stadium Trust and the Club will be a tenant. The matter is between the Developer and the Stadium Trust and the Council. As the UU was GIVEN to Wakefield MDC then the responsibilty for enforcing the UU lies with the Council as beneficiarty and the Local Planning Authority.

Quote ="Tigerade"HuddsTiger gives a good explanation of the complications here on Casforum:- www.casforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 6&start=45'" Apart from the fact that he is wrong when he says that the Council are not party to the UU. They are indeed not a signatory as they have not signed it but if you read it the Council are the beneficiary and the UU is given by the Developer to the Council. Also the Council have said that the UU is between the developer and the Government and has been signed by the SoS - WRONG AGAIN - there is no signature on the UU from the Government or the SoS. The Council say its nothing to do with them and its between the Developer and the Club - WRONG AGAIN. The Stadium will be owned by the Stadium Trust and the Club will be a tenant. The matter is between the Developer and the Stadium Trust and the Council. As the UU was GIVEN to Wakefield MDC then the responsibilty for enforcing the UU lies with the Council as beneficiarty and the Local Planning Authority.

What I can’t understand is why Box is doing nothing to achieve a community facility, but as done everything possible to secure a 12million pound asset for a private company , Cas Tigers

You really can't understand why?!

Ok so what are we going to do about the whole bloody mess to me the softly, softly approach isn't working its time to start shouting from the hilltop ,media papers, etc

Don't disagee and that may well come. We also may end up with a Judicial Review in the High Court which will be interesting when a High Court Judge starts "digging" but in the meantime as I said earlier we have a top Planning Lawyer working with us and we will proceed with this on his advice.

Thanks for that sandal cat
So from the posts I have read today it would appear that some pressure needs to be applied to the council to get things moving!
The crowd funding website sounds like an idea...what would be a ball park figure for that particular avenue to be persued?
i think it maybe a while before the money could be scrapped together.
This is going to sound like a dumb question......but what if the money (2 million)was obtained from elsewhere.. Then given to the council on the condition that they use it to kick start the project?

I also agree that I dont think box will want a court judge on the councils case!

We believe a Judicial Review would require the Stadium Trust to have at least £50,000 at its disposal. If the case was won costs could be awarded so it could get its costs back. Conversely if the case was lost they may have to pay the other parties costs so legal action will not be taken lightly and we will need a great deal of support. As I say we do not wish to go down the legal route but it's an option we will hold on to.


The matter of the £2m is interesting and I cannot answer it diffinitively. It all depends on whether you feel the developer wishes to deliver his promise made at the Public Inquiry or is looking to get out of his obligation. You will have to form your opinion, I have mine but I'll keep that to myself rather than post it on a public forum.

I think you are right about it being for the Waystone site. Not sure but as I recall it was not actually cash but land (Bevan huts site on Aketon Road Castleford) to be used as security against a loan. This also had a 2 year time limit on it which will have run out now. Long time ago now so I may be wrong on the detail.

Wakefield is a historic Cathedral city and the council should be doing all it can to keep the name of Wakefield in the worldwide press & public eye. what professional top class sport has Wakefield left to promote its name nationally and worldwide on the news,in top class televised sport and in national newspaper reports, only one and that is Wakefield Trinity Wildcats; Wakefield Rugby union club has gone,we do not have a top class professional football club even though we are a large metropolitan area with a population of around 331,379 [2014 i would have thought that a purpose built stadium in the Wakefield City boundary and a top class team,Wakefield Trinity playing in Super League would be a priority. they didn't mess around on the Barbara Hepworth gallery which i happen to think is a first class asset for Wakefield. its time the council got its finger out and made sure there is a City of Wakefield Community Stadium built in the not too distant future and for WTW to be playing in the stadium and carrying on their proud 142 years history.

The last leader of the Wakefield council to give a toss about Wakefield and it's sporting facilities was Colin Croxall, the representative for the Eastmoor ward, for those who have never heard of him, he was the man who was responsible in trying to bring about Wakefield Trinity and Yorkshire CC to Denby Dale road, alas thanks to two individuals' to no avail.

I'll post mine on a public forum; WMDC have colluded with Colin Mackie to help YCP avoid their obligations under the s106 agreement - plain and simple. It's in neither parties interest to stump up for the community stadium, but in both their interests to get the site up and running - so they worked out a cunning plan to get Newcold into play without triggering it.

I have no doubt they'll pull the same stunt again, unless the Trust ups the ante sufficiently so that they're less comfortable about playing fast and loose with the ruling of HM Inspector.

I'm glad I asked the question of Mr Box on Twitter the other day - his decision to lie in a public meeting in response may well come back to bite him on the backside; slightly baffling though that the Wakefield Express appear to be wilfully ignoring this scandal - has anyone even spoken to them?

I would completely agree with your summary. It's scandalous and I've said before were the community facilities a school or a hospital so many more people would be disgusted by this than just the few hundred or so Wakefield Trinity supporters who currently are.

I've just spoken to my own planning specialist on another matter, so I mentioned this debacle to him, in an attempt to get some free advice; his take is that s106 agreements are a planning black hole and are routinely allowed to slip by LA's all over the country. His advice was that the thing most likely to get the LA's attention is a complaint to the Ombudsman - as a former senior planning bod, he recalls the Ombudsman coming in to rummage through the knicker drawer, and no LA wants that to happen; so a complaint will often focus the minds.

Also - do we have a single councillor or MP who is supportive of the development?