That’s what I wondered, he’d have had to have known Trb since he was 12 and IA similar, Rodders on the other hand!

Hi Ted

Thanks SC,

I hope you’re right about the prevention of dirty tactics because without a doubt Yorkcourt will attempt anything to wriggle out of their responsibility.

Question, with regard to the Yorkcourt/Kitcost letter on the planning portal. Surely their stance is in complete contravention of the SoSs “disagregation” clause?

With the shenanigans surrounding the Newcold precedent, like the non existant legal advice, late notification & poorly explained/hidden information about its trigger point exclusion, then their assertion that they have a legal route through the planning process will be shot to pieces.

We think so as well but they are claiming that as the approved LDF took the land out of greenbelt then the obligations set out in the SoS consent are no longer valid. I cannot believe that the 2 planning inspectors when conducting the respective PI's would have though this but I feel its going to take the High Court or Planning Inspectorate to sort this.

It will also be interesting to see what a Judge's view is on Newcold.

The hardest part is going to be getting this to Law as you can bet your bottom dollar there will be some political manouvering to prevent this.

On the surface, one can see a Judge looking favourably on a volunteer led CT taking on the combined shenanigans of a property developer and an incompetent (at best) LA; particularly if the stated aim is to secure a community facility rather than a gift for a private business. Ducking and diving to avoid meeting the requirements of a s106 agreement is likely to draw the ire of a crusty judge - particularly if counsel can demonstrate that HM's Inspector had a clear intent in his report and recommendations, which has subsequently not been adhered to either in letter or in spirit.

As you say however, actually getting it before the court will be difficult - YC and WMDC will use every dirty trick in the book to avoid being held to account for their actions, or lack of; probably because they understand the above likelihood just as much as we do.

Even so - if it does eventually get to court and his Honour were to order that the stadium be provided as per the original agreement, you can guarantee that YC and WMDC would employ all possible means to delay and obfuscate, such that there could still be years of expensive legal wrangling before anything was delivered.

It's very depressing.

Political pressure may also help, Mary Creagh only had a 2176 majority at the last election.
Not much swing needed to lose it but maybe votes to gain for positive action for the city, and I know, don't hold your breath.

I can beat that.

I might know you too then?

I doubt it. I never lived in Outwood or Newton Hill. I lived in Flanshaw for a couple years then moved to Leeds. Funny how I remained the Wakey fan and he ended up supporting Leeds.

www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/Visi ... 5fa732b-ds Another borough/council set to show our sorry lot up. Hark the difference in attitude.

www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/Visi ... 5fa732b-ds Another borough/council set to show our sorry lot up. Hark the difference in attitude.