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?

All of them, but only when they want your vote.

I have heard from TRB , IA and Sandal that We have a good friend in Andrea Jenkins who has done more to help in her short time in office than Balls etc have done in past several years. Understand that she working hard for us behind the scene, ie she is not trying to make political gain and have photo opportunity. So that's one friend at least.

Hi Bren - We have discussed the Local Government Ombudsman with our lawyer and while it is an option that remains open to us and is still very much on the table, it is not something we are currently going to pursue for now. The time and energy required to go down this route is considerable and although the LGO does have some teeth, they are not able to make legal binding and enforceable judgements like the High Court!

The point is of course, we don't want to go to court, it is costly and while we have a very, very strong case, as Sandal Cat has said, there is always a risk the result will not go our way.

We are waiting for a formal response from WMDC to the most recent correspondence from our lawyer to them. How they choose to respond to the very direct points put to them will probably give us a good indication of their future position and then of course which ways things start to head going forward! It is very much down to them, what happens next!

Putting aside Peter Box's recent comments and the semantics around S106 'agreements' or 'unalterable undertakings' they are both the only two legitimate forms of planning obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning act... and which body is responsible for the enforcement of ALL planning obligations in the UK? It is the LPA (Local Planning Authority) which, is of course in this case, WMDC. Peter Box, Joanne Roney, Andy Wallhead, Denise Jeffery et al cannot escape this simple unarguable clear fact!

So, the question remains, why did the LPA (WMDC) fail in their statutory and legal duty to either enforce the existing planning obligation or, as they are also at full liberty to do, insist on a new planning obligation (essentially the same as the previous) when Newcold came forward and was given planning permission?

Peter Box says that the agreement was nothing to do with Wakefield Council, that they neither agreed with, signed or are even party to the existing planning obligation. He is sort of right on one, they wanted a multi-party agreement but they did ask for and got the UU amended during the PI and it was the decision of the inspector that a UU was adequate. He is totally right on one, they didn't sign it, but they never sign UU's of course, by definition! But they are 'party' to it, because they are the beneficiary (as all local authorities have to be to planning obligations).

So, the next question is, given that Peter Box is using this spurious UU argument to absolve WMDC from any responsibility what-so-ever, in that, it is nothing to do with us because of the UU, why, when Newcold came along, did WMDC not insist on a new planning obligation by Multi-party agreement pursuant to Section 106? They have full power and control to do so and SHOULD have done so, according to the Town and Country Planning Act! You either enter into a new S106 agreement, or we don't give you planning permission, it is that simple!

They are the enforcing authority, and they have solely failed to do so and when asked why they did not do so, they first said they took legal advice, which we have proof they did not, and still, despite being asked again, and again, and again, they are now just refusing to give any answer to this straight forward question!

The 'experts' on Cas Forum can write anything they like about me, or this, but I think they should be asking themselves this fundamental question, what if Lateral put in a new stand-alone planning application on the Five Towns site and WMDC pass it, building-out a large part of the site and in doing so just avoid their original planning obligation, because WMDC do not insist on a new planning obligation reflecting the existing one?

The next question they need to ask themselves is, who is the only body that can stop that happening and what happens if that is exactly what they do... I wonder what they will think of Peter Box and WMDC then!

To be fair, Mary Creagh has also been very helpful too since we sent up the balloon just before the election, although it is more difficult for her to do what Andrea Jenkyns can do at a central government level, she is working hard, and just because she belongs to the same political party as the the controlling party in Wakefield, she is clearly not in the same mind as them on this issue!

David Hinchcliffe. where is he these days ?

He is retired as an MP but he is a Director on the Trust... he is doing his bit too!

I'm not a planning lawyer, don't know much about it, but I anticipate that it isn't any different from any other area of law, in that if something is to be enforced, someone has got to want to enforce it.

It is surely correct that WMDC are not "bound" by the unilateral undertaking, because that is what it is, an undertaking by one party to another that binds only the party giving it. So there is only ever one question: why doesn't WMDC want to enforce it? They are the party to whom it was given. They can choose to enforce it, or not enforce it. So why don't they want to? That is the only question. Is it just money? Or is there some other reason?

The response of WMDC just seems to be, "we don't want to. Nothing to do with us. We are not obliged to." I'm struggling to see how "nothing to do with us" has any credibility, so we get back to the "why don't you want to?". That is the question, and the answer, "we just don't" is the kind of answer a five year old gives.

I would suggest there are 2 possible reasons they don't want to, and neither excludes the other being the case; firstly, they don't want to stump up the 2 million quid - that's straightforward. Secondly, they've come to some other arrangement with YCP that means they get something else that they want more than a Community Stadium.

The first reason is understandable, but still wrong; the second is just plain bent.

Well I messaged her the other day, as one of her constituents, on Twitter re the Box situation and she has not replied so I guess her interest may be declining now it's getting down to the nitty gritty

True, and it is only the Local Authorities that can enforce planning obligations (in the primary instance) so Peter Box deflecting this to the SoS and Eric Pickles is plain wrong and inexcusable. It is NOT central governments job to enforce local planning obligations, the act is clear on this, it is the LPA.



Well, you are sort of right, in that they can choose to enforce it, or not enforce it, but the reality is that if they don't enforce it, then unless they are able to fully demonstrate and justify their decision & reasoning not to enforce (because, why would you not if you get something for your community as planning gain?) then at the very least they are potentially guilty of maladministration, followed by incompetence, followed finally by collusion and corruption!

They have not (after their ill-advised "we took legal advice" line, which they didn't) been able or willing to provide and answer as to why they did not insist on a new S106 agreement for Newcold!

Why don't we rattle the SOS cage or bang on his office door ,bloody tell him the whole fiascos