Theboyem wrote:
It doesn't say it isn't excluded either! That is the point, to me is shouts it out loud, obviously to others it doesn't. It should have been questioned by those who attended the meetings and was part of the trust at that time. Sorry but its a cock up by rodders & co who were guys on watch.
You are probably right we have two choices. We go to court and lose and we get nothing. Result = club dies. We could to court and win and in all likelihood Yorkcourt walk away before the trigger point as the profit isn't there and we get nothing. Result = club dies. Does anybody really think they are going to build it whatever the result? Yes we have been used by the developer, yes we should have had more support in making this work from the council and yes there were things we should have done better ourselves. And quite obviously yes i'm negative right now because quite honestly i see no positive result possible. For me the only very faint hope is strong political pressure after the election, and that is highly unlikely whoever gets in. Or maybe a reduced deal that might save the club but it been made quite obvious that it isn't an option. So good luck in hoping Colun Mackie and co suddendly develop a consious.
Although I still think that large mob with big sticks outside the yorkcourt offices might be the last hope.
The point that Sandal Cat is trying to get over and what you and others (bigalf inc.) are missing is this. It does not essentially matter what was written down or not, the fundamental point is that as a s106 is land charge then you can't simply avoid it by banging in another application and using some words in the application documentation to get you around planning law. Simple as that!
The discussion around what was and was not written down at the time has only come about from WMDC claiming they took legal advice & that they 'told' certain people and that no objections were received. The counter point we have been making it was not at all clear (certainly to the public and layman) and as much as Bigalf is banging on about it being clear because they wrote it was legal seperate, then that is just bull, because we are still arguing about it and if that is what they wanted to convey then it should have been written large and made ultra-clear from the outset. So why wasn't it?
However, if and when it comes to having this in front if a high court judge, then what matters is did WMDC act unlawfully or ultra-varies in granting permission for Newcold outside of the UU? We believe, as does our lawyer, that they probably did and therefore it is this upon this which we expect any ruling to hinge, the discussion around how they may or may not have tried to justify or alert the general public that this was their intention, is purely just mitigation.
You can write what the hell you like trying to justify (or not) what you may (or may not) be intending to do, but if it is ultimately an unlawfully act, it changes absolutely nothing and certainly does not change the law or absolve you from being lawful in your actions.
Hopefully, this clears that up?
