Thats correct, Section 106 monies have to spent as a result of the development and in the vacinity of the development.

Still cannot use Section 106 monies generated as a result of development at Newmarket to cross subsidise a development in Glasshoughton. The gain as a result of the pain has to be in the vacinity of where the pain is inflicted if that makes sense.

Glasshoughton is going to be a privately owned Stadium according to Richard Wright. He certainly implied that in his letter to the Public Inquiry as he said he would be happy to allow a tenant to play at Glasshoughton subject to them paying a suitable rent. There was no reference in his letter to a Community Trust. I guess it could be co-owned by Castleford and a Community Trust with each receiving a proportion of any income and sharing costs but as said early it could not receive a cross subsidy from Newmarket.

If they want the £2million from the council it can't be owned by CT at all. It has to be an independent trust.

Didn't Cas set up a trust, after thinking they already had one and didnt have?
I'm sure i recall reading something along those lines on here, some time last summer(ish).

Before anyone says it, i am aware not everything on here is true or (even real)!!!

Spot on!

The case that tested and set this legal precedent was Sainsbury v Wolverhampton Council from 2009/2010. The case is generally known as the Sainsbury v Tesco case because it was decision by Wolverhmapton Council to choose to enter a deal with Tesco & not Sainsbury for the same site that led Sainsbury to challenge Wolverhampton over their decision... and Sainsbury won!

The general gist is that both Tesco & Sainsbury got planning for effectively the same site and were fighting for the right to build theirs ahead of the other. Both schemes required the Local Authority (Wolverhampton) to use it compulsory purchase powers to purchase some of the available land as part of a planned regeneration scheme. Wolverhampton chose to back Tesco because they entered into and signed a 106 agreement for Tesco to develop another unconnected site, which was still only 800m away, but was clearly another site, even if quite close.

The High Court ruled, among lots of other things, that section 106 agreements could only be used to fund planning gain on the same or a substantially connected site and that therefore the section 106 was unlawful.

So, as pointed out, this means even if Yorkcourt wished to fund GH, which they don't, they actually can't do that anyway because the site is unconnected to the site they are seeking planning permission for and any section 106 agreement would be unlawful.

As you point out, this also does raise questions about how Cas, if they do a deal with Opus, will fund GH from the Nestle site and the sale of WR. I actually think that a section 106 agreement will not be signed and that Opus will pay over the actual value for both sites and therefore it will be a legitimate commercial deal which will give Cas the money to fund the majority of GH from the proceeds, in cash. This is another problem I understand Cas and Opus are looking into because unlike a section 106 agreement where building work is being directly undertaken by a developer, the cash sale will mean the HMRC will want it's share, and much work is been done to try and work out how to avoid HMRC taking a big chunck out of RW's GH's funding money!

As as also been pointed out by Sandal, GH is currently still planned to be a private development owed by a commercial private ltd company, so that also a problem for any section 106 agreement and the council stepping in to fund the building of GH over one at Newmarket!

They want to use the tigers trust i believe. This although a registered chatity is adminstered by cas themselves and as such isn't independent so i'm not sure if it is feasible. If so wakey could have just used the wildcats trust rather than having to be tennants to an independent community trust.

This was the problem, and the reason they were looking into an independent trust, as i recall it.

But Opus are not a charity and like any other business will only pay over the odds for something if they get a pay back from somewhere else. I am really interested how they intend to achieve this. Could there be the smell of corruption in the air ?

I'm no expert but I think providing all funds from a sale of the ground are put into the new build then capital gains tax can be avoided. But if any of it is used for paying off debts or Jack Fulton loans (as has been suggested by one shareholder) then part of the proceeds are taxable.

That confused me also. I cannot understand how Castleford can get anything but the OMV for Wheldon Road. How can they get any value from the Nestle site.

Opus can, if they wish give them £15m for Wheldon Road but they as you say are a business and will not pay over the odds.

I'm sure it will all be above board.

D-61 (sigh) and counting! #newmarketnewopportunity

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Out of interest I_A, have you been given a deadline to file 'further written representations'?