Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:41 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Know a bit about planning but certainly would not claim to be an expert but I don't think the SoS/Inspector can do what Slugger is fearing.

The Public Inquiry was about the Planning Application as submitted which included a Community Stadium. The enquiry discussed a Section 106 Agreement and Conditions which would be imposed if the planning was to be approved. The 106 and Conditions relate to the application including the Stadium, indeed the 106 is specific on how much distribution can be developed before the Stadium has to be built and no further development can be undertaken until the Stadium has been built.

I don't think the SoS could approve the application subject to their being a contribution towards a Stadium at Glasshoughton which is to be owned by Castleford, a Private Company as I believe this is against the law. Section 106 contributions cannot be used to support Private Sector ventures they have to benefit the Public at large. Newmarket is not a Private Venture, it is a Community Stadium which will be owned by a Trust whose aims will benefit the community and not a Private Company.

What about the scenario of Glasshoughton been the community stadium and not been solely owned by CT ?

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:56 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Know a bit about planning but certainly would not claim to be an expert but I don't think the SoS/Inspector can do what Slugger is fearing.

The Public Inquiry was about the Planning Application as submitted which included a Community Stadium. The enquiry discussed a Section 106 Agreement and Conditions which would be imposed if the planning was to be approved. The 106 and Conditions relate to the application including the Stadium, indeed the 106 is specific on how much distribution can be developed before the Stadium has to be built and no further development can be undertaken until the Stadium has been built.

I don't think the SoS could approve the application subject to their being a contribution towards a Stadium at Glasshoughton which is to be owned by Castleford, a Private Company as I believe this is against the law. Section 106 contributions cannot be used to support Private Sector ventures they have to benefit the Public at large. Newmarket is not a Private Venture, it is a Community Stadium which will be owned by a Trust whose aims will benefit the community and not a Private Company.

There is also a bit more to add, that is any planning gain must be used for developments in the site in question and it is not transferable. So basically the council can't say if we allow you to develop Newmarket build us a stadium at Glasshoughton.

This also has further implications. I can't see how any planning gain that may be obtained for any of the developments that are being proposed in and around the Cas ground can be transfered up to Glasshoughton. It will be intereresting to see how they get around that one.

My money is still on us getting the green light up at Newmarket and then the council putting pressure on Cas to join in up there, albeit on an initial short term arrangment. The worst case scenario would be to have half the stadium with black and ginger seats.

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:57 am  

jack in the box wrote:

There is also a bit more to add, that is any planning gain must be used for developments in the site in question and it is not transferable. So basically the council can't say if we allow you to develop Newmarket build us a stadium at Glasshoughton.

This also has further implications. I can't see how any planning gain that may be obtained for any of the developments that are being proposed in and around the Cas ground can be transfered up to Glasshoughton. It will be intereresting to see how they get around that one.

My money is still on us getting the green light up at Newmarket and then the council putting pressure on Cas to join in up there, albeit on an initial short term arrangment. The worst case scenario would be to have half the stadium with black and ginger seats.

+1

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:35 am  

D-41 #newmarketnewopportunity
Jobs for all sport for all

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:44 am  

jack in the box wrote:

There is also a bit more to add, that is any planning gain must be used for developments in the site in question and it is not transferable. So basically the council can't say if we allow you to develop Newmarket build us a stadium at Glasshoughton.

This also has further implications. I can't see how any planning gain that may be obtained for any of the developments that are being proposed in and around the Cas ground can be transfered up to Glasshoughton. It will be intereresting to see how they get around that one.

My money is still on us getting the green light up at Newmarket and then the council putting pressure on Cas to join in up there, albeit on an initial short term arrangment. The worst case scenario would be to have half the stadium with black and ginger seats.

Dont you mean the north east corner and part of the north stand

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:46 am  

jack in the box wrote:

There is also a bit more to add, that is any planning gain must be used for developments in the site in question and it is not transferable. So basically the council can't say if we allow you to develop Newmarket build us a stadium at Glasshoughton.

This also has further implications. I can't see how any planning gain that may be obtained for any of the developments that are being proposed in and around the Cas ground can be transfered up to Glasshoughton. It will be intereresting to see how they get around that one.

My money is still on us getting the green light up at Newmarket and then the council putting pressure on Cas to join in up there, albeit on an initial short term arrangment. The worst case scenario would be to have half the stadium with black and ginger seats.

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

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:56 am  

Tigerade wrote:

What about the scenario of Glasshoughton been the community stadium and not been solely owned by CT ?

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.

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:07 am  

Sandal Cat wrote:

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.

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:23 am  

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)!!!

Re: Tick Tock : Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:30 am  

jack in the box wrote:

There is also a bit more to add, that is any planning gain must be used for developments in the site in question and it is not transferable. So basically the council can't say if we allow you to develop Newmarket build us a stadium at Glasshoughton.

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!