As I said before it is still not enough to reach the trigger point

Where does it say this? If true it blows Box's argument out of the water about not being able to enforce anything

It states it in the 106 as usual the devil is in the detail.

So that begs another question, why was Box saying at the meeting that there is no 106 just a UU...more lies?

It says 'FOLLOWING' 60,000 square metres having being built out and occupied e.g, 60,000 sq.m has to be built and occupied first. So it is a minimum.

As for the question regarding Section 106 and UU, TRB and IA will correct me but there are varying forms of S106 agreements. Yours is a Unilateral Undertaking which is entered into by those with a stake in the site (Trust, landowner, Yorkcourt and the bank). It isn't a Multi-lateral agreement like is at Five Towns Park for Cas.

Sorry for being pedantic but you have just described a multi-lateral agreement as all those have entered into it. A unilateral undertaking is a promise by one party alone to the other, which can be enforced if not carried through. Or seemingly ignored ....

I'm talking about the SOS findings... which guides the UU (which is still a 106!).. that clearly states the maximum... and suggests 'as soon as possible) ... given the seeming acceptance by the developer (smoothed beautifully by the acting chair of the trust) to move forward and act honourably.. the UU used the figure as a trigger point to assist funding streams...

We all know what happened to their honourable position after that!!!

They threw a dummy to their team mate the council ... used big Rodders as a foil and left the Trinity defence for dead ... rounding the community full back for a sweet victory!

Thank god for the video ref as the defence have claimed an obstruction... we are all staring at the screen ... waiting for the ruling!!! While Box and Hussain are screaming in the referees face... the try scorer (Yorkcourt) slink off to the substitutes bench winking at their support staff!

I actually thought I'd seen some wording to do with building to the maximum of 60k square meters when I was looking for the Peppercorn agreement.
Under the bit where it says

It also says

So there has been room left for it to be built earlier, but I suppose that's on Yorkcourts toes, which obviously was never going to happen.

Not that I am expert but this is the reply by the decision officer for the Secretary of State as shown in Annexe B of the proposed conditions as at paragraph 51.

51. No more than 60,000m2 of the B8 development shall be occupied prior to the completion of the stadium, MUGA and related infrastructure within the area shown on drawing 2009– 039/834B – Stadium Site Plan.

MUGA Multi Use Games Area.

It's a complete minefield trying to find the correct form on that portal tbh. I couldn't find the one that RWB found, which is the one I was looking for which I'd read before. Mine was from Yorkcourt themselves I believe.

The link: https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... CT8QQ04200 look under associated documents. What's always struck me as strange is the director and director/secretary of Yorkcourt (200icon_cool.gif resigned from their positions on the 25th October 2012 but signed the UU agreement on the 26th October 2012. Would this make the UU null and void?

The link: https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/onlin ... CT8QQ04200 look under associated documents. What's always struck me as strange is the director and director/secretary of Yorkcourt (200icon_cool.gif resigned from their positions on the 25th October 2012 but signed the UU agreement on the 26th October 2012. Would this make the UU null and void?

There won't be any minutes! We have long since given up on the council taking minutes of meetings and now just take our own notes. There were four Trust members in the room when Wallhead stated £500k and Peter Box wasn't there, although he was supposed to be and we didn't get an advance apology, we were just told as we walked into the meeting.