Wakefield & District Community Trust : Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:49 pm
Wakefield & District Community Stadium TrustResponse to Wakefield Council’s Position Statement April 2017
Firstly it is very disappointing to see that despite being told before, the Council still persist in referring to the Wakefield & District Community Stadium as the Wakefield Trinity Stadium. The Wakefield & District Community Trust (the Trust) was established to be the facilitator of the community stadium that was promised to the citizens of Wakefield by the Developer, Yorkcourt (2008) Ltd following a Public Inquiry when a substantial tranche of land was taken out of Green Belt and turned over to commercial development. The Planning Inspector was clear in that there would have been no consent without the promise by the Developer to deliver the community stadium for the citizens of Wakefield and not Wakefield Trinity. Wakefield Trinity will indeed be the anchor tenant but will not be the owner, that will be the Wakefield & District Community Trust who will take the stadium on a 99 year lease from the Developer.
The Council refer to providing financial assistance to Wakefield Trinity RLFC (the Club) in excess of £1.6m. The Trust is not disputing this as this was a matter between Wakefield Trinity RLFC Ltd who no longer exist and not the Trust but would be interested to see a breakdown of this figure. As far as the Trust is aware there has been no financial assistance provided to Wakefield Trinity’s current holding company Spirit of 1873 Ltd who will lease the community stadium from the Trust.
The Council’s offer of £2m in financial assistance was indeed to upgrade facilities to meet Rugby Football League criteria and the Council claim that they removed the offer of assistance in July 2011 as the criteria had not been met. As the provision of the new community stadium was needed to meet the RFL’s criteria and that was called in by the Secretary of State for a Public Inquiry which did not commence until December 2011 it’s not surprising that the criteria could not be met. It’s interesting to note that despite claiming that the offer of £2m in assistance had been removed by the Council in July 2011 they, in their evidence to the Public Inquiry in December 2011 some months later, promised the Planning Inspector that they would make a financial contribution of £2m towards the cost of the community stadium.
The Council’s claim that they asked for, and would have preferred a multi-party Section 106 Agreement, signed by a number of parties including the Council is difficult to understand. On 20th June 2012, Pamela Roberts on behalf of the Secretary of State wrote to the applicants (Yorkcourt) Solicitor (Andrew Piatt of Gateley LLP) a copy of which would have been sent to the Council and stated,
“The Secretary of State is minded to approve your client’s application, but he proposes to defer his final decision on the proposed development to enable parties to provide him with a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the construction of the community stadium and traffic regulation order. The Secretary of State considers that it would be preferable for the planning obligation to be made by agreement between the applicant and the Council. Nevertheless, he is prepared to consider a planning obligation given by unilateral undertaking.”
So the Council asked for a multi-party agreement. Who did they ask because they wanted one and so did the Secretary of State so why did they not insist, as is their wont as Planning Authority on a multi-party agreement. How did they end up with a Unilateral Undertaking which it would appear that neither they nor the Secretary of State wanted?
Also it’s worth noting that if the Council were so desperate for a multi-party agreement, why, when the Newcold application came in, didn’t they insist on a new multi-party party agreement that replaced the Unilateral Undertaking. We were advised by the Trust’s specialist planning lawyer that as Planning Authority this was and still is within their power.
The Councils claim that they are not a party to or a beneficiary of the Unilateral Undertaking is utter nonsense. The UU is a legally binding contract and for a contract to be made there has to be at least 2 parties one of which gives something and the other party receives something. In the case of the UU it is given by Oldroyd (Landowner), Clydesdale Bank (Mortgagee) and Yorkcourt (Developer) and is GIVEN to Wakefield MDC. The Council are therefore without doubt a party to and are the beneficiary of the UU. Furthermore the UU is listed on a Council schedule of 106 Agreements they are party to.
The Council are correct, none of the trigger points referred to in the UU have yet been reached and it is indeed up to the developer how quick he brings forward development and it is encouraging to hear that once the triggers have been met the Council are fully Committed to ensure that the UU is fulfilled.
The UU does indeed state that the Wakefield & District Community Trust are facilitators for the delivery of the stadium. However the Trust is not the beneficiary nor a party to the UU so has no authority whatsoever in enforcing it. Only the beneficiary and Local Planning Authority have to authority to enforce it and that is clearly the Council and not the Trust.
The Council state that they have been actively working to attract private sector investment and development to Newmarket which is encouraging. However it is disappointing that despite all this effort only one development has been successfully attracted to what has to be one of the best distribution sites in the North of England whilst other development sites in the district seem to be thriving.
We recall the Council offering advice on the drafting of a contract between the Trust and the Developer and we seem to recall they offered to pay for the legal work as well as providing advice. We seem to recall that we did indeed state that we would like to have our own independent legal advice but the Council then withdrew their offer to pay the legal fees and no contract ever manifested itself.
We totally agree with the Council and accept that the Newcold application had by law to be a standalone application rather than a reserve matters application due to the height of the building. However the Council have been silent on the fact that the application specifically excluded the floorspace from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking. The Council claim this was communicated to the Trust at a meeting with the Chief Executive and the Corporate Director for Regeneration and Economic Growth. We know that the meeting only involved Sir Rodney Walker, the then Chair of the Trust and for whatever reason only known to himself he failed to inform any other member of the Trust Board. It is therefore hardly surprising that no objections to the Newcold planning application were submitted from the Trust, community pressure groups or the public when, except for Sir Rodney Walker, all were oblivious to the fact that the large Newcold development contributed absolutely nothing to the 60,000 m2 trigger. Had they been made aware we feel sure that objections would have been raised.
In any event as far as we are aware there was no mention of Newcold being excluded from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking in any of the papers on the planning portal or public consultations until the final papers for the Planning Meeting which were issued a week before the meeting which was after the period for comments and objections had passed.
Furthermore when questioned about Newcold’s exclusion from the obligations of the Unilateral Undertaking the Council informed the Trust that they did so after taking legal advice. The Trust requested a copy of said legal advice but the Council claim “not to hold” the advice and were unable to provide a copy of the advice that led to such an important and fundamental decision being made. Subsequently Neil Rodgers, the Council’s Service Director for Planning, Transportation & Highways made a statement on Newmarket and the Newcold planning application in which he stated that legal advice was sought from the Council’s own planning lawyer. A request was submitted asking to know whom gave the advice and to see a copy of said advice but the response remained “we do not hold the advice”.
We can only assume that the advice therefore must have been verbal and we are amazed that legal advice was taken verbally and internally rather than advice being sought from a Queens Council or Barrister with expertise in planning matters.
The Council’s statement refers to a full planning application for the 22,300m2 Newcold development and had it have contributed to the 60,000m2 trigger we would still be short of the trigger. Unless we are mistaken the Newcold application was for twice the size actually constructed which was approved and Newcold have recently commenced construction on the extension that will bring the total floorspace constructed to around 44,600m2. When completed there would only remain around 15,400m2 or a little over 25% of the 60,000m2 trigger remaining. Therefore the exclusion of Newcold has serious implications on the delivery of the community stadium.
We find it encouraging that the Council refer that during informal conversation with the Trust that they are prepared to make a similar contribution to the offer made in 2009 and by that we take it the £2m could be back on the table and the Trust will be more than happy to discuss this further with the Council.
We are most disappointed with the recent actions of the former Trust Chair, Sir Rodney Walker. Relationships between Sir Rodney and the other Trust Member had become increasing strained due to Sir Rodney having meetings with the Council and the Developer without inviting other Trust Members to attend so much so that the Board resolved that no meetings could take place without there being at least two Trust Members present. Matters clearly came to a head at the Trust Board Meeting on 23rd February 2017 when Sir Rodney announced that as of 2.00pm he would resign from the Trust and that he was in the process of establishing another Trust with 4 new Trustees which would deliver the community stadium rather than the Wakefield & District Community Trust. There was much anger expressed by the remaining Board Members and Sir Rodney was asked to leave the meeting prior to his 2.00pm resignation.
The Council have claimed that this further compromises progress. The Trust cannot see how this has any consequence at all. Firstly the Wakefield & District Community Trust is named in the Planning Consent, Inspectors Report and the Unilateral Undertaking so is clearly the facilitator of the Community Stadium and secondly who would want to negotiate with the man who kept the rest of the board in the dark over the fundamental issue of the Newcold planning application – certainly not Spirit of 1873 Ltd who are to be the anchor tenant of the stadium and have made it clear that they will not have any further dealings with Sir Rodney Walker.
Finally the Council have stated that rugby is part of the DNA of this district and accept the historical and cultural importance of the game. They remain committed to continuing to work with the Trust and the club to progress the delivery of the community stadium promised to the citizens of Wakefield. The Trust is equally committed to working with the Council and feels that there is a simple solution that has already been eluded to in conversations with Council Officers and Trust Members.
If a new multi-party agreement is drawn up and signed that recognises that the floorspace of Newcold contributes towards the 60,000m2 trigger and the Council are prepared to reinstate the £2m financial contribution then this whole matter can be resolved amicably.
The Trust looks forward to continuing dialogue with the Council with this aim in mind.
Wakefield & District Community Trust
7th April 2017
