Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:22 pm  

Who’s going to fund the legal battle?

Yorkcourt & possibly the Council have very deep pockets

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:24 pm  

JINJER wrote:

I'm assuming the information given wasn't deemed to be confidential, if not tell us what info you have that our trust haven't conveyed to us. It appears from this post that you're suggesting our trust have been deceitful? Am I reading this wrong?

Please don’t try and cause a fall out - who said that I was suggesting the trust been deceitful?? The trust chairman has been a true friend for over 40 years so please don’t go there!!! What I said was the guy from planning I considered to be open with what he told us & put what I considered factual information forwards.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:28 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

Who’s going to fund the legal battle?

Yorkcourt & possibly the Council have very deep pockets

Crowd Funding.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:45 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

Crowd Funding.

I know it’s tough to give an estimate but have you got a figure in mind.

A protracted legal challenge could run for many hearings and last for years, as I’m sure you will already know. Yorkcourt are likely to use tactics that are designed to drain your finite financial resources

A couple of years ago Mike Carter said he would fund the costs of a legal challenge, has he gone back on that promise?

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:51 pm  

I would suggest the crowd funding is to fund against the council rather than Yorkcourt? From what I was told by the wmdc planning guy the big screw up is from wmdc not getting the right document signed originally? The planning guy said that wmdc made a mess when the original agreement was only signed by YC and the SOS?

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:55 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

I know it’s tough to give an estimate but have you got a figure in mind.

A protracted legal challenge could run for many hearings and last yearsfor as I’m sure you will already know. Yorkcourt are likely to use tactics that are designed to drain your finite financial resources

A couple of years ago Mike Carter said he would fund the costs of a legal challenge, has he gone back on that promise?

Michael did say he would fund it but the Trust does not wish to put the burden on him but would rather raise the money.

We have a good idea of how much will be needed and that will be confirmed by our Lawyers and announced when we launch the crowd funding.

If we end up with a Judicial Review or appeal to the Planning Inspectorate Yorkcourt will not I believe be able to use tactics designed to frustrate our case, that will be in the control of the Judge or Inspector.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:02 pm  

lad13 wrote:

I would suggest the crowd funding is to fund against the council rather than Yorkcourt? From what I was told by the wmdc planning guy the big screw up is from wmdc not getting the right document signed originally? The planning guy said that wmdc made a mess when the original agreement was only signed by YC and the SOS?

That’s strange because the SoS did not sign the UU. He is not required to sign the UU or any 106 Agreement, the signatories are those party to the Agreement.

He is right when he said WMDC had screwed up the Agreement, I’m surprised he said that as his boss maintains that it’s nothing to do with them and blames the SOS.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:11 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

That’s strange because the SoS did not sign the UU. He is not required to sign the UU or any 106 Agreement, the signatories are those party to the Agreement.

He is right when he said WMDC had screwed up the Agreement, I’m surprised he said that as his boss maintains that it’s nothing to do with them and blames the SOS.

He said it directly when I asked him - also said it was prior to his handling. Confirmed that wmdc didn’t sign when they should have (I am unsure what document they refer to as there was a lot of planning terms discussed.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:20 pm  

JINJER wrote:

I'm assuming the information given wasn't deemed to be confidential, if not tell us what info you have that our trust haven't conveyed to us. It appears from this post that you're suggesting our trust have been deceitful? Am I reading this wrong?

Please see nm thread - I’ve added in some of the parts that Phil didn’t include.

Re: Box`s knew pet poodle : Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:36 pm  

lad13 wrote:

He said it directly when I asked him - also said it was prior to his handling. Confirmed that wmdc didn’t sign when they should have (I am unsure what document they refer to as there was a lot of planning terms discussed.

He was not Director of Planning at the time the UU was signed or employed by WMDC.

The agreement would have been better if had been a Multi-Party Section 106 Agreement with the Trust, Club, Council, Developer all party to it and signing it. It would have spelled out exactly who did what and when and how much etc. and pretty much left no wriggle room.

Peter Box claims that the Council wanted a Multi-Party Agreement but the SoS wanted a UU. If you read the Palnning Inspectors Report /Consent it states that the SoS would prefer a Multi-Party Agreement but would be prepared to accept a UU. What I can't figure out is if the Council and the SoS both wanted a Multi-Party Agreement why did the Council not insist on such an agreement. So yes Neil Rodgers is right, the Council screwed up.

I would also say they screwed up Newcold as well by allowing it to sit outside the UU and not taking proper legal advice from a specialist Planning Lawyer or Counsel.