Note : Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:06 pm
Youd never guess what this post is about ? Yes it's about Newmarket, we are all by now aware of Yorkcourt & the Council led by the leader, Peter Box, in particular their behaviour to create failure by both parties, one could argue collusion or separate agendas suiting each other's purpose & outcome. Our trust is planning to possibly use legal action.
After my last post explaining Yorkcourts faith in a certain case law, that is only one sides position, it looks strong but can be broken.
I love my club deeply as others do, I will not stand by when deceit is prevalent in particular when it seems to be prospering. I have been searching through law reports regarding this saga by/from the council's actions, statements and behaviour. I am sure you know that the Newmarket site was in part Greenbelt & the objections, whereby the planning application was called in for a public hearing by Sec/State. Yorkcourt needed the community on side to make weight of persuasion to win the judgement decision. As we now know in part of winning the decision, the developer - yorkcourt gave an undertaking of a unilateral 106 agreement, which the Sec of State accepted thinking it shows their intent. We also know in judgement about the building of the stadium.
Now to the council & the leader, cllr Box always stated it is a unilateral 106 agreement & therefore the council cannot enforce compliance. Remember much later he said he had agreed with the developer to change the unilateral 106 to a full council 106 agreement ! So he still maintained his stance on the unilateral 106 position.
Now to reveal the truth, High court ruling, case law, " Millgate developments Ltd. V Wokingham borough council 2011" Quote, " local authorities can enforce a unilateral agreement " which it goes on to explain is a section 106 agreement & ties in the developer to not only meet requirements agreed but also a sum of money, in this case for 14 house they had to provide cash of £170, 500 case upheld and goes on to explain this means case law for the future. It has not been removed. More importantly, copies of case law in particular planning issues are sent to ALL Local Authorities for distribution and to take note & act on. This is a major issue & will have been known by the council's solicitor & chief planning officer who delegates important information to their senior officers. Chief planning officers have regular meetings with councillors over planning issues, they offer professional advice to councillors who are political people - not professionals of the subject matter.
Therefore make your own judgement on this issue & why would you behave the way he did when local authorities have & hold statutory powers which = enforcement, it is one of their duties.
Further deceit, if the leader & the council were genuine then they had a further option open to them within the planning period, especially once the developer miss-behaves on several occasions. The council could have put a " Stop notice" on, especially as they were playing for time.
Once again form your own judgement, what outcome did the council want.
On the + side the council, via the leader may have a verbal agreement with the developer to use funds agreed from Newmarket for use @ Belle Vue - the council did send a letter requesting a payment but on what basis ?
We await their answer
Over now to our trust, to act in the near future, just as a note, the trust can also go to the ombudsmen on all issues, especially now the council have not been diligent in carrying out their duties. I await where we go next on this terrible journey.
they are pathetic
