Observations : Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:05 pm
Hi guys, all the things/issues our fans/supporters have raised are good & valid. I decided to read the letter that Yorkcourt sent to the council. It is a little misleading on its reading on its own, it implies mainly on buying planning permission.So I went on to read the whole of the quoted "" Case Law'' Thakeham village v Horsham DC.
This equals objections v Local Council.
First thing to bare in mind council's cannot act in Ultra viries ie, outside their bounds of jurisdiction - all reasonable issues raised or known has to be considered & evaluated and not dismissed as not impacting on the planning application just to pass it. Also as well as planning Law there is policy, the latter being local issues & any other issues needing to be considered, e.g. Retailing impact policy, locally.
Thakeham v Horsham is in an all England Law report, every case is recorded in its entirety including other supporting case law.I
The important thing in case law is a term called '' All Four Square'' which in legal terms is it a current case fits the previous case judgement on all points. Then a claim is made for fitting the previous judgement & therefore like for like saving the court judgement hearing time etc, this has to be in the judges opinion to be granted & must be bang on. Sometimes the judge can give permission '' leave to apply to a higher court until you reach the house of lords where three judges sit & are bound by English statute law, common law & European law.
Therefore issues can take years ! + very expensive time + money -- as each side seeks their outcome.
Thakeham v Horsham has 5 issues of objection/s, basicallly, the objections were ruled in & out but Thakeham won, the council lost, because the council failed to observe all issues in their summing up of granting permission,
a). Greenbelt land. b).demolition of listed building. c). Failure to take due consideration of policy. d). Consideration of retailing within the scheme local & national. & finally aggregate sizing in m2 as a guidance only having no legal bearing regarding a fixed figure.
Clearly Yorkcourt & it's solicitor/s feel that the case meets all " four square " in that wakefield council have had an incredulity scheme in that the applicant cannot follow as stated in the summing up of this case.
Remember that the public hearing, Sec of state ruled the scheme on part Greenbelt could proceed. Also the legislation changed backing up the LA 's ability to build on Greenbelt land if it falls within the planning local framework, which it does, so no further hearings on the subject can be opposed.
The council sent a request for first payment sum to Yorkcourt, as per the letter there is no legal requirement on them & the case law they say applies, all as detailed above. They also point out you cannot buy -------:: as in their letter.
Now you can make your own thoughts on a). The council & their procedures & due considerations/diligence or lack of & who did it suit was it poor ability of inability to lead the project correctly ( which they have done with the Castleford scheme ) b). Yorkcourt using trinity & sport to get a yes vote in the public hearing & then deliberately frustrating the council which suited the leader whilst also employing an agent to frustrate the trust & trinity/ club.
Time for the planning process restrictions has elapsed & therefore cannot be enforced.Yorkcourt can now apply for new permission/s whole or in part which they feel free to do so.
The council have to find a way forward now, that is for another discussion when they declare what they intend to do legally &/or morally for the people of wakefield, don't hold your breath on this as they hide behind lack of funds.
This as I have read it, you may well differ which is called an opinion, everything can be challenged in law, opinions & outcomes can differ, it won't be the first time case law has been challenged & changed.
Over to our trust body. Finally please forgive any typing errors.
