Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:08 pm  

Droopy wrote:

Great to see our legal representation has now been put forward IA! Im looking forward to see how the subject is addressed by the Planning Committee.

One thing i would like to ask, and this is not a criticism or dig in anyway, just a genuine question. You say that morals, intent and promises are at the heart of our legal argument but do you believe we have a good legal argument? The letter from Yorkcourts representatives strongly argue there is no legal case for them to answer. Im worried the council may see this as an easy route of escape. They have already shown that morals and promises mean very little to them...

Great question and happy to, sort of, answer.

If I can rephrase slightly, I think it will help. We haven't got to the stage where we need to publicly set-out a legal argument which will be complicated and might not be easy for people to understand (including us). If and when we get there, we will deal with that as clearly and concisely as we can There is no point showing our hand now (for hopefully obvious reasons) because prior to that we have a planning committee made up of local politicians who need to make a decision, and they are not (bless them) lawyers and judges! I won't lie to you, this situation as far as us and Walton and Co are aware, is totally unique. A developer(s) and their client seeking to exploit one public inquiry to avoid doing what they promised in another public inquiry hasn't really happened before! We also need to genuinely see what happens next, because legal arguments and positions will have to shift and adapt depending on whether the planning committee pass or rejects the application... assuming of course the Developers don't produce a new S106 agreement in the mean time! Unlikely it would seem, but another possibility.

We have been advised by Walton & Co to go all out to get the WMDC planning committee to turn down this application. They have also said that in their vast experience of the local stage of the planning process that local members generally don't take too well to lawyers lecturing them on points of planning law. At this stage this application is about a group or local elected members deciding whether they pass or reject this application. They can either take the correct and moral decision and quite simply turn down this application, or they can allow two developers & their client to crap all over them and the citizens of Wakefield while laughing all the way to the bank counting even more money, because their already considerable profit just got £15m bigger!

Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:28 pm  

Well I think its a great letter but I am not too optimistic regarding a response. The reason being ,I have been looking at the list of councillors on the planning committee. I will list them by their respective wards then make a comment afterwards.

Hemsworth Chair
Normanton Dep chair
Airedale/Fryston Dep chair
Knottingley
knottingley

Wakefield Rural....Tory


Altofts/whitwood
Pontefract South
Pontefract South

Wakefield West.....Labour

Ossett.....Tory

Featherstone
Castleford Central
Normanton
South Elmsall

Stanley....Labour


There are only 2 tory representitives and both from Wakefield so thats a plus.
The other two Wakefield representitives from Wakefield are both labour.
The rest of them are all labour and I bet the vast majority don't give two hoots about our City.

I do not know what the out come would be but if you ever wanted to see a list of councillors who is not representitive of our City then this is it.
If they are controlled by Box I can't say, but look where the vast majority come from and leave it up to you to decide.
Last but not least, there are around at least 9 wards (3 councillors each) that one could argue represent Wakefield, So why is there such a negative anti wakefield representation on the planning process, surely such a large committee should be representitive of the overall district, not just the 'Bad Lands' of Box.

Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:38 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

Keep it in your pocket for now mate... we don't know how deep we need you to dig yet... it depends on the WMDC planning committee!

Why....how much do they charge ?????

Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:05 pm  

FIL wrote:

Why....how much do they charge ?????

It's not peanuts FIL I can tell you!

Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:59 pm  

I meant the planning committee ???

Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:17 pm  

Prince Buster, I didn't want to copy and paste your whole reply as I think this makes the threads scruffy!

I have a lot of sympathy with the overall view you express in this post but don't think the individual Labour councillors are wholly a lost cause. What makes this more interesting is the present precarious position of Box. I strongly suspect his iron rule by fear and patronage may be coming to an end. If this is so then the timid Labour councillors may be persuaded to actually voice genuine opinions which we may find somewhat closer to what this group is hoping for. I think a flavour of this was shown in the recent unsuccessful coupe. I really don't think his deputy would have anything like the same sort of authority as she has always hung onto others coat tails. I'm not by any means suggesting that these councillors may come riding over the hill to rescue a stadium for Trinity but they could well be more receptive to lobbying and public opinion. We shall see.

Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:24 pm  

Been over a year since Mr Box told Yorkcourt to 'walk away from Wakefield'. Let's see if he means it when considering the latest application http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Pages/News/PR8610.aspx

Been over a year since Mr Box told Yorkcourt to 'walk away from Wakefield'. Let's see if he means it when considering the latest application http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Pages/News/PR8610.aspx

Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:15 pm  

It's good to see some action and I hope it gets the desired response.
I just don't get why this matter went all the way to the SoS, who made a ruling and YC and WMDC can totally ignore this; is there no way the SoS can become again involved to see the two fingers YC are sticking up to him also?

Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:46 pm  

Fortunately for us Yorkcourts reps have made their position very clear, they have no intention of building any community facilites at Newmarket and probably never did! Once the Planning Committee Meeting has finished we will also finally have a very clear view of how the Council view things and whether they have their community at heart or not!

I agree with IA that we should play on the morals and broken promises at Newmarket. The only reason Newmarket was taken out of green belt was because sporting facilities were to be provided for the community, it was central to the application and the only reason such a decision was approved by the council and SoS! Yorkcourt have made it clear they will not provide those facilities. The Council should have no other option but to say jog on Yorkcourt and dont come back!

Re: Letter from the Trusts Lawyers to WMDC : Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:29 pm  

Prince Buster wrote:

Well I think its a great letter but I am not too optimistic regarding a response. The reason being ,I have been looking at the list of councillors on the planning committee. I will list them by their respective wards then make a comment afterwards.

Hemsworth Chair
Normanton Dep chair
Airedale/Fryston Dep chair
Knottingley
knottingley

Wakefield Rural....Tory


Altofts/whitwood
Pontefract South
Pontefract South

Wakefield West.....Labour

Ossett.....Tory

Featherstone
Castleford Central
Normanton
South Elmsall

Stanley....Labour


There are only 2 tory representitives and both from Wakefield so thats a plus.
The other two Wakefield representitives from Wakefield are both labour.
The rest of them are all labour and I bet the vast majority don't give two hoots about our City.

I do not know what the out come would be but if you ever wanted to see a list of councillors who is not representitive of our City then this is it.
If they are controlled by Box I can't say, but look where the vast majority come from and leave it up to you to decide.
Last but not least, there are around at least 9 wards (3 councillors each) that one could argue represent Wakefield, So why is there such a negative anti wakefield representation on the planning process, surely such a large committee should be representitive of the overall district, not just the 'Bad Lands' of Box.

Please don’t take this the wrong way buster as I get the feeling from your posts your a decent person, but it’s this kind of narrow view that re-inforces the belief, in some parts of the public, that the support for this scheme is purely about the club & I’ve said before that the trust & supporters could do more in this area & should be trying to unite the district in its anger, rather than divide it. It’s exactly what dodgy salesmen want. The “community facilities” promised; were for the residents of the whole district, not simply fans of Wakefield Trinity & we’ve all been wronged by this development so far - this should be the fighting stance.

I, like a lot of people outside of wakefied trinity live less than 4 miles away from Newmarket Lane. Me & my children would make use of genuine community leisure facilities - the kids of our district are crying out for them to be honest. The trust has to appeal to the ‘every person’ to gain support not simply rely on the fans of the club.

I genuinely wish the trust well in this fight, I hate the thought of private business robbing local residents to line their own, already bulging pockets.