Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:35 am  

Theboyem wrote:

Bit more.

BTW, this was sent on the 11th September so no clutching at straws here:

From: Michael Taylor
Sent: 11 September 2012 14:29
To: ***
Cc: ***
Subject: Called-in planning application - Land adjacent to Newmarket Colliery, Rothwell, Wakefield

Like I said, I haven't got this e-mail/letter yet and suspect that TRB hasn't either or he would have phoned me.

I have just e-mailed Michael Taylor explaining that someone has posted and e-mail, supposedly from him, on a public forum and asked him to confirm the nature of this e-mail and whom it has been sent to.

I will let you know when I get a reply.

Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:26 am  

Reply e-mail from Michael Taylor

Mr Stone

Thank you for this e-mail. A copy of my e-mail of 11 September was sent to the appellant's agents (Gateley LLP), Leeds City Council, Wakefield Council and Methley Residents Association.

All other parties will be notified of the decision once it is issued. I apologise for the delay in reaching a decision.

Michael Taylor
Planning Casework Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
1/H1, Eland House
Bressenden Place
London, SW1E 5DU

So it was only sent to those parties. Not sure why Methley Residents Association got sent a copy, as all the rest are rule 6 parties. I wonder if they have been chasing Michael Taylor for information.

Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:42 am  

Ok so if that was issued yesterday, the next email needs to be sent to Yorkcourt???

Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:43 am  

financialtimes wrote:

The section 106 has been submitted, it just hadn't been submitted at the time of the initial letter (20th June) the 106 was submited on time and completed it just wasn't submitted at the time of the SoS inital approval of planning permision (which was subject to a full section 106 being submitted) so nowt to worry about here, just a straw cluching moment from cas fans

No for some reason Yorkcourt have yet to sign an agreed s106. As to why that is, its a question Mr Mackie needs to answer pdq. There is no reason not to have had this sorted by now other than they are unhappy with the terms of it, but without it the development cannot proceed. I think a little honesty is in order from Yorkcourt on this over why people were lead to believe all documents had been submitted when clearly that isn't the case.

[PopTart]

Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:53 am  

IA

I've just got an email saying something similar I assume because I attended the hearing as well.
So the email is out there.

Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:03 pm  

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to Pamela Robert's letter of 20 June on the above, you will wish to know that the Secretary of State will not issue a decision on this case on the previously notified date of 13 September. This is because we have yet to receive a completed copy of a s106 planning obligation from the appellants. We are however assured by the appellants that a completed document will be sent to us very soon. We will allow further time for taking a final decision to allow for receipt of that document.

We will issue a decision as soon as possible. Please accept our apologies for the delay in deciding this case.

Michael Taylor
Planning Casework Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
1/H1, Eland House
Bressenden Place
London, SW1E 5DU

Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:06 pm  

I spoke at the Inquiry and I've just received the following e-mail:

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to Pamela Robert's letter of 20 June on the above, you will wish to know that the Secretary of State will not issue a decision on this case on the previously notified date of 13 September. This is because we have yet to receive a completed copy of a s106 planning obligation from the appellants. We are however assured by the appellants that a completed document will be sent to us very soon. We will allow further time for taking a final decision to allow for receipt of that document.

We will issue a decision as soon as possible. Please accept our apologies for the delay in deciding this case.

Michael Taylor
Planning Casework Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
1/H1, Eland House
Bressenden Place
London, SW1E 5DU



It looks like IA's e-mail has prompted all who spoke or asked to be informed to have the above sent to them.

I would not get unduly worried. Delays are common in development and the e-mail states that they have been assured that they will receive the completed document shortly.

If some people are hoping that Newmarket will not receive consent then they are clutching at straws, its just going to be a bit longer.

Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:06 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

We were told exactly what I posted, that all documentation has been submitted to the SoS to deadline. I think we need to be a little careful here, because we never asked directly if the section 106 had been submitted signed or either told directly that it had. I actually expected that they would have submitted all their paperwork, which they said they did, and that would have included their proposed section 106 document for discussion and then further discussions will have taken place between the SoS officers and Yorkcourt to get the agreement signed and finalised prior to 13th September.

Bit of a politicians answer from YC, after all it is the S106 that the develop hangs on. If it’s not been sorted after nearly 2 years then I find that worrying.

Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:11 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

I spoke at the Inquiry and I've just received the following e-mail:

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to Pamela Robert's letter of 20 June on the above, you will wish to know that the Secretary of State will not issue a decision on this case on the previously notified date of 13 September. This is because we have yet to receive a completed copy of a s106 planning obligation from the appellants. We are however assured by the appellants that a completed document will be sent to us very soon. We will allow further time for taking a final decision to allow for receipt of that document.

We will issue a decision as soon as possible. Please accept our apologies for the delay in deciding this case.

Michael Taylor
Planning Casework Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
1/H1, Eland House
Bressenden Place
London, SW1E 5DU



It looks like IA's e-mail has prompted all who spoke or asked to be informed to have the above sent to them.

I would not get unduly worried. Delays are common in development and the e-mail states that they have been assured that they will receive the completed document shortly.

If some people are hoping that Newmarket will not receive consent then they are clutching at straws, its just going to be a bit longer.

I’ve no doubt the development will get consent, my concern is when the stadium will get built. There can’t be too much to negotiate between the Council and the Developer other than when the stadium construction commences.

Re: Tick Tock : Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:12 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

Bit of a politicians answer from YC, after all it is the S106 that the develop hangs on. If it’s not been sorted after nearly 2 years then I find that worrying.

Section 106 Agreements are often the subject of negotiation. The Council want it "gold plated" the appellant wants to "bronze plate" it and after negotiations agreement is reached to "silver plate" it. Happens all the time.

Please people, don't panic, just have a bit more patience.