The Wakefield & District Community Trust has today lodged it's formal objection to the Kitwave planning application submitted by Henry Boot Developments & Yorkcourt at Newmarket - the full text of the objections follows.
I refer to the recently validated planning application (18/01169/FUL) for the erection of a warehouse unit at Newmarket Lane, Stanley and feel that under the current circumstances that I must strongly object for and on behalf of the Wakefield & District Community Trust.
Yorkcourt Properties Limited were granted outline consent (10/00225/OUT) on land adjacent to Newmarket Lane, Wakefield on 5th December 2012 following a Public Inquiry. The permission was for a mixed use development comprising a community stadium (with details of the access, landscaping, layout and scale of the stadium submitted for approval), multiuse games area, B8 warehousing and distribution units, B1b and B1c business units, an hotel, an A3 unit, roads, infrastructure and landscaping.
The Community Stadium was clearly an integral part of the consent and the consent was conditional that no more than 60,000m2 of the B8 development should be occupied unless and until the stadium is completed to its design capacity of 12,000 so as to be capable of staging a Rugby Super League match attended by the public and the stadium and its ancillary elements have received all necessary safety and other certificates to allow it to be used for that purpose.
The Secretary of State, before granting the consent required to see a signed Section 106 Agreement that ensured the delivery of the Community Stadium. He said that he would prefer a Multi-Party Agreement but would be prepared to accept a Unilateral Undertaking. Councillor Peter Box has gone on public record as saying that he and Wakefield MDC wanted a Multi-Party Agreement but the Secretary of State accepted a Unilateral Undertaking. We are at a loss to understand why the Council were prepared to accept a Unilateral Undertaking when both the Council and the Secretary of State both had a preference for a Multi-Party Agreement.
The Unilateral Undertaking dated 26th October 2012 was given by Yorkcourt (2008) Limited to Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and the document names the Wakefield & District Community Trust as the Trust whose purpose is to act all times as a facilitator to the delivery of the Stadium.
Councillor Box and Senior Council Officers have repeatedly said publicly that they are not party to the Unilateral Undertaking and that it is nothing to do with the Council and it's a matter between the Trust, Club and Yorkcourt. They have also repeated that it was their desire to have a Multi-Party Agreement and it was a failing on the part of the Secretary of State that such an agreement was not provided.
Despite the Council's view that this matter is nothing to do with them they are clearly wrong. They are party to the Unilateral Undertaking as it was given by Yorkcourt to Wakefield MDC. The W&DCT and the Club are not party to the Unilateral Undertaking so the Council cannot pass the responsibly for its delivery on to anyone else.
The Trust believe that the Unilateral Undertaking is weak and vague and in particularly has no end date by which the Stadium should be constructed. We agree with the Council that a Multi-Party Agreement involving all parties, including the W&DCT and the Club would have been a much more preferred vehicle to ensure the delivery of the Stadium.
Despite there been a buoyant market in the distribution sector evidenced by numerous developments in the Wakefield District most notably at Normanton and Knottingley, and Newmarket in our opinion being one of the best located sites in the North of England, there has been very little marketing of the site and consequently very little development other than the Newcold Cold Store which also causes us a great deal of concern.
The Newcold Cold Store is 43m high and therefore was outside the parameters of the Outline Consent and the application for its consent was a "stand alone" application rather than a reserved Matters Application. We understand this but what we have difficulty and serious concerns with is the fact that you specifically excluded the floor area of the building from the obligations laid down in the planning consent and the Unilateral Undertaking and the way in which you dealt with the application.
It was only when the application had been approved and the period for legal challenge had passed that we noticed that the Newcold building had specifically been excluded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking. We are at a loss to understand why you excluded it and have investigated the background of the application.
We have looked on your Planning Portal and cannot see any reference to the Newcold Building being excluded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking other than the Case Officers Report. As the Case Officers Report is issued to Planning Cabinet Members around a week before the Planning Meeting any objections would have been out of time. Also the reference to the application being "stand alone" and not contributing to the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking was contained in a single line in the report and could have easily been missed by Members of the Planning Board - it should have been made far clearer to Members so they were clear what they were voting for and the consequences.
Even more disturbing is why you allowed it to be excluded. The Planning Inspectors Report was clear that disaggregation of planning applications on the site should not be allowed if the stadium was to be delivered as promised and you seem to have ignored this. We challenged you on this and you claimed that the decision was taken only after seeking Legal Advice.
Numerous Freedom of Information requests to you to see the Legal Advice you had obtained have failed to reveal anything other than your claims of "not holding" the advice and we understand that you have now confirmed that it was internal verbal advice but are not prepared to give us the information regarding who provided the advice and their professional background and expertise. On a matter of such importance of this we are amazed that advice was not obtained from Counsel or a Specialist Planning Lawyer and we believe that you may have acted outside your authority in not doing this.
Another matter of concern was that the decision to exclude Newcold apparently was discussed and agreed between Joanne Roney and Andrew Wallhead of the Council and Sir Rodney Walker, the then Chair of the W&DCT rather that the full Trust Board. Sir Rodney kept the matter to himself and failed to disclose it to any Trust members and even denied to the Trust Board any knowledge of the Newcold exclusion which further raises our concerns. However that is not a matter for the Council but something the Trust may have to take further with Sir Rodney.
Nothing has happened on the Newmarket site other than Newcold since Outline Consent was granted on 5th December 2012 despite development taking place on other sites in the Wakefield District. The consent would have expired last year but for a Reserved Matters Application being submitted on 1st December 2017 which was also validated the same day. However 9 months on the application is yet to be determined.
We now have the current application (18/01169/FUL) for the erection of a warehouse unit for Kitwave. We note that this is a full application and not part of the Reserved Matters application so must be outside the Outline Consent and therefore is a new application in accordance with the Local Development Framework.
This new application is the perfect opportunity for the Council to fulfil its obligations as Local Planning Authority and ensure that what Yorkcourt promised HM Planning Inspector at the Public Inquiry and the Secretary of State is finally delivered and that they are not allowed to renege on their obligations.
We therefore object to the granting of planning consent for this application on the grounds that we believe the previous consent granted by the Council to Newcold was at best flawed and at worst outside the power of the Council and that the possible errors made in granting Newcold consent could be repeated again with granting consent to this application.
We would be prepared to remove our objection if approval of the application is conditional upon Yorkcourt (2008) Limited entering into a new Multi-Party Agreement or similar Legally Binding Agreement involving the Council, the Club and the Trust that will ensure the delivery of the Community Stadium to the Wakefield & District Community Trust at Newmarket or some other approved site and on the same terms outlined in the Outline Consent and by a defined date.
Should the Council approve the application without taking notice of this objection then we give notice that we will seek a Legal Challenge to the decision and seek a Judicial Review of the whole planning process at Newmarket.
For and on behalf of the Wakefield & District Community Trust Ltd.
Yours Sincerely,
Jonathan Stone - Chairman
Wakefield & District Community Trust Ltd.
