Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:42 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Just a small point of order here.

Although the access at Salford is horrendous, they have just about doubled their attendances at their new ground.
Ok' there are other factors as to why their crowds have grown but, although a new ground would take some getting used to,
it would be a massive improvement on what we currently have at BV.

Salford attendances have not really shot up over the last two seasons since leaving The Willows and early indications suggest they will fall in 2015. A train of thought over the hill is that their electrician owner is prepared to take the club on the road for a full season and sever links with the AJ Bell Stadium altogether. Imagine trying to find the best place to play where there is the best chance of finding a new supporter base and more importantly for him a base where supporters appreciate his spending.

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:39 pm  

Seen a few pictures of fc United of Manchester's new stadium getting built and looks very impressive. If a non league fan owned club in an area overflowing with top class stadia and sports facilities can do it then surely we can do it. Come on lets get it sorted.

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:02 pm  

M62 J30 TRINITY wrote:

Seen a few pictures of fc United of Manchester's new stadium getting built and looks very impressive. [u] If a non league fan owned club in an area overflowing with top class stadia and sports facilities can do it then surely we can do it[/u]. Come on lets get it sorted.

I think the difference is the influence of some of the fans' what own it, fans such as Paul Scholes,Ryan Giggs,Nicky Butt and others. If we had the likes of them on our side anything could be possible.

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:05 pm  

chissitt wrote:

I think the difference is the influence of some of the fans' what own it, fans such as Paul Scholes,Ryan Giggs,Nicky Butt and others. If we had the likes of them on our side anything could be possible.

They own Salford City FC, not FC United.

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:13 pm  

imwakefieldtillidie wrote:

They own Salford City FC, not FC United.

Sorry my mistake

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:20 pm  

I was looking through the Governments Planning Advisory Service website and came across this paragraph.

S106 Obligations
Legislation

Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism which make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable. They are focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development. S106 agreements are often referred to as 'developer contributions' along with highway contributions and the Community Infrastructure Levy.

It was the words "Site Specific" that caught my eye!

Surely under whatever planning application YCP went for the "Site" is the same and there is an argument therefore that the "mitigation" agreed upon is still applicable!

YCP, WMDC and the SoS Office can't simply ignore it just because the Developer chose to submit a new application for the same site.

It is the same building, the same development on the same site therefore the "mitigation" required is still required in order to make the development "acceptable" irrespective of the new application.

Remember the determination, "SITE SPECIFIC" not Developer specific, not application specific, the mitigation required is "SITE SPECIFIC" !

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:16 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

I was looking through the Governments Planning Advisory Service website and came across this paragraph.

It was the words "Site Specific" that caught my eye!

Surely under whatever planning application YCP went for the "Site" is the same and there is an argument therefore that the "mitigation" agreed upon is still applicable!

YCP, WMDC and the SoS Office can't simply ignore it just because the Developer chose to submit a new application for the same site.

It is the same building, the same development on the same site therefore the "mitigation" required is still required in order to make the development "acceptable" irrespective of the new application.

Remember the determination, "SITE SPECIFIC" not Developer specific, not application specific, the mitigation required is "SITE SPECIFIC" !

I think you're taking the meaning too literal. I read it as though the mitigation will vary dependant upon the site.

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:20 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

I think you're taking the meaning too literal. I read it as though the mitigation will vary dependant upon the site.

No the level of mitigation was dependent upon the size and shape of the development, if a totally new development which was less intrusive was proposed then pro rata the size and shape of the mitigation would reduce.

However, this building is exactly the same one proposed in the original application therefore the mitigation required should also be as the original.

The "Site Specific" requirement should have been applied by the WMDCs Planning Department when the 'backdoor' planning application came in from YCD. They missed it and granted planning permission, there should be a review of that decision despite construction having commenced.

The fact that YCP had agreed to the original mitigation should negate any counter argument that they do not now have enough funds to meet their obligation, their numbers stacked up when it suited them during the PI so why would they be so different now, unless of course they were lying to the SoS Officer during the Inquiry and never intended to pay for the mitigation.

YCP would need to be very very careful about their statements because they're likely to be damned one way or the other.

What we need is the political will to revisit this whole shambles and force YCP to meet their obligations or offer a substantial alternative!

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:38 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

I think you're taking the meaning too literal. I read it as though the mitigation will vary dependant upon the site.

Funny how people interpret things. My reading of it was that the mitigation was "site specific" ie had to be applied at that site - in other words a redevelopment of Belle Vue would not be possible under this agreement. I'm not sure that makes sense thinking about it but just proves how things can be interpreted differently.

I'm not a lawyer, or a planner, or a developer so don't know, but that was my initial thought.

Re: The City of Wakefield Community Stadium : Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:40 pm  

Didn't the change in land classifcation after the inquiry due to the LDF have something to do with it all hence the Newcold build?

Anyway i read it to mean that it is just explaining what a section 106 agreement is, i.e. a site specific mitigation document making a planning application that wouldn't normally be passed, passable . After that it is all about what is in the 106 document itself and it seems the one for Newmarket is worded badly enough to give the developer a get out clause.