Youd never guess what this post is about ? Yes it's about Newmarket, we are all by now aware of Yorkcourt & the Council led by the leader, Peter Box, in particular their behaviour to create failure by both parties, one could argue collusion or separate agendas suiting each other's purpose & outcome.
Our trust is planning to possibly use legal action.
After my last post explaining Yorkcourts faith in a certain case law, that is only one sides position, it looks strong but can be broken.
I love my club deeply as others do, I will not stand by when deceit is prevalent in particular when it seems to be prospering. I have been searching through law reports regarding this saga by/from the council's actions, statements and behaviour. I am sure you know that the Newmarket site was in part Greenbelt & the objections, whereby the planning application was called in for a public hearing by Sec/State. Yorkcourt needed the community on side to make weight of persuasion to win the judgement decision. As we now know in part of winning the decision, the developer - yorkcourt gave an undertaking of a unilateral 106 agreement, which the Sec of State accepted thinking it shows their intent. We also know in judgement about the building of the stadium.
Now to the council & the leader, cllr Box always stated it is a unilateral 106 agreement & therefore the council cannot enforce compliance. Remember much later he said he had agreed with the developer to change the unilateral 106 to a full council 106 agreement ! So he still maintained his stance on the unilateral 106 position.
Now to reveal the truth, High court ruling, case law, " Millgate developments Ltd. V Wokingham borough council 2011" Quote, " local authorities can enforce a unilateral agreement " which it goes on to explain is a section 106 agreement & ties in the developer to not only meet requirements agreed but also a sum of money, in this case for 14 house they had to provide cash of £170, 500 case upheld and goes on to explain this means case law for the future. It has not been removed. More importantly, copies of case law in particular planning issues are sent to ALL Local Authorities for distribution and to take note & act on. This is a major issue & will have been known by the council's solicitor & chief planning officer who delegates important information to their senior officers. Chief planning officers have regular meetings with councillors over planning issues, they offer professional advice to councillors who are political people - not professionals of the subject matter.
Therefore make your own judgement on this issue & why would you behave the way he did when local authorities have & hold statutory powers which = enforcement, it is one of their duties.
Further deceit, if the leader & the council were genuine then they had a further option open to them within the planning period, especially once the developer miss-behaves on several occasions. The council could have put a " Stop notice" on, especially as they were playing for time.
Once again form your own judgement, what outcome did the council want.
On the + side the council, via the leader may have a verbal agreement with the developer to use funds agreed from Newmarket for use @ Belle Vue - the council did send a letter requesting a payment but on what basis ?
We await their answer
Over now to our trust, to act in the near future, just as a note, the trust can also go to the ombudsmen on all issues, especially now the council have not been diligent in carrying out their duties. I await where we go next on this terrible journey.

Thanks for the very informative post Trin.

I’m not a farmer but I can recognize manure when I smell it and that is what I smelt when I read Gaitleys letter. I’m also not a Planning expert but the letter seems like a load of flannel designed to bamboozle the reader and in particular the Council who don’t seem to understand planning law going on their past antics.

Don’t get confused between a UU and a S106 Agreement, they are the same thing. A UU is a Unilateral Undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 so it is a Section 106 Agreement. It is given by one party (Yorkcourt) to another party (WMDC) as opposed to a Multi-Party Agreement. Contrary to the Councils much stated opinion they are party to the UU as the beneficiary and they can enforce it as they are the Planning Authority.

I don’t believe the case law Gaitleys quote is relevant to our case which I believe in legal terms may be unique but as I say I’m no planning expert but I know a man who is and he is having a good look at it.

Thanks for the update Sandal Cat.

Letter from WMDC to Yorkcourt.
Associated documents-interim assessment letter 01-10-18

Application will be determined by full planning committee rather than delegated powers and the Trust, or more likely the Trusts Lawyer, should be able to speak.

Council are noting Gaitleys letter and reviewing. Will be interesting how they react to this. Maybe they will seek independent legal advice from a planning expert or Counsel.

I see we finally have objections from Andrea Jenkyns and Antony Calvert now.

Where can you see the objection letters?

Andrea Jenkyns letter is in Associated Documents and Anthony Calvert's in the Public Comments section.

finally they get a wake up call they are pathetic

It is not a legal authority that a unilateral agreement is enforceable, as far as I can tell, but merely states that it is (ie, it is beyond doubt) whilst going on to determine other things.

The crucial difference is that Wokingham Borough Council sought to enforce it and the developer challenged it. Here, WMDC haven't sought to enforce it at all. And that is the crux of everything. A council that does not have any interest in enforcing a promise.

Point taken slugger, but the main point is that the, the - council can, could & should have enforced it, I accept your point of view they were not interested,knowingly or un'knowingly. That does not excuse a local authorities duty in carrying out its duties correctly & with due dilligance. Our leader has not made one mistake on/to a similar scheme namely in Castleford. i am not crowing against that scheme, only wanting parity.
Therefore draw your own conclusions, however, the day of reckoning may be upon the leader & the council, they only have a slight chance of a way out & redemption if they can get another scheme to a successful conclusion.

The issue is not the fact that they have not enforced the UU because there is nothing to enforce yet as the 60,000 sq ft trigger is still at zero.

The issue is whether they were correct in allowing Newcold not to contribute to the trigger as a stand alone application which leads to the current application. Gaitleys letter basically says because the land was taken out of green belt in the LDF then the PI for Newmarket with the condition to build a stadium no longer applies.

The Trust thinks differently and it may take a High Court Judge to decide.

No stadium = no planning permission in the first place...surely it's as simple as that. Or doesn't common sense apply in a court of law?

Sandal cat is right about the trigger size but misses the point, cllr Box allowed Yorkcourt to dodge the trigger size by building above scale to a height obtrusive to the whole area & it's residents. Only when it was just about built did the facts become know'n. When questioned about permitting this his stance was he could not stop it and the area cover was under the trigger point, even had they have built over the sized trigger point - the council could not enforce the unilateral 106 agreement.
As my previous post, that was simply not true ! The council could have placed a stop notice that the Newcold scheme was not correct & to the original scheme aggregated as per Sec of State permission had understood & granted. Then Yorkcourt faced with that stop notice have a choice - to appeal which the council would have turned down leaving them to apply to the Secretary of state. BINGO, sorted one way or the other.
Newcold wanted the floor space & so could have agreed to build past the figure stated. Quite rightly Yorkcourt could have said no deal to Newcold but then the situation - message sent out to anyone interested there is a problem to this site. Not something Yorkcourt would have wanted when trying to develop a site & maintain cashflow.
The whole problem comes back to our so called council leader having an agenda to not deliver - something now recognized by our MP.
As I have stated, either there is collusion to not deliver or it - the situation has suited both parties, let's not make excuses for them, the two parties.
They are dis-in-genuine, if you are genuine, then you would get on with things - deliver & let your good name bring in more business.
R.I.BA. Have a plan of work document that runs from Quote, " inception to completion, completion = feedback "
Feedback is interesting reading, it's how best parties can learn from the whole process to enable future schemes to be undertaken not only for a smoother overall operation & delivery of the process as a whole, but to benefit society as a whole. Therefore, surely it's not naive to think that Yorkcourt are not aware of this ! I am as a full professional person in these processes, so they must be.