Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:28 am  

I've driven past the new Cold Store at the Newmarket site a few times recently and cant but help thinking the following.

Why does this building look nothing like the site models and artist impressions that were doing the rounds at the time.

Am I correct the square footage of this building is not part of the 106 agreement and therefore does not count towards triggering the stadium development. And if not why not?

Based on the above I'm quite frankly embarrassed to say I was in full support of this whole development.

Re: Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:31 am  

Jason wrote:

I've driven past the new Cold Store at the Newmarket site a few times recently and cant but help thinking the following.

Why does this building look nothing like the site models and artist impressions that were doing the rounds at the time.

Am I correct the square footage of this building is not part of the 106 agreement and therefore does not count towards triggering the stadium development. And if not why not?

Based on the above I'm quite frankly embarrassed to say I was in full support of this whole development.

Jason - there are numerous threads which attempt to detail how/why we have ended up here.

I'm not going to repeat it all here, but I do agree that it is embarrassing to see it and have nothing - yet- to show for it.

We remain positive that this position will change.

Re: Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:00 pm  

Looks a complete eyesore looking over from Altofts.

Re: Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:29 pm  

senoj wrote:

Looks a complete eyesore looking over from Altofts.

It will look better when the cladding goes on - but still mahoosive!

Re: Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:42 pm  

if the square footage of the Newcold building is not part of the 106 agreement and doesn't count towards triggering the stadium development it must have been built on land not included in the original plans. Is that right TRB ?

Re: Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:57 pm  

Tigerade wrote:

if the square footage of the Newcold building is not part of the 106 agreement and doesn't count towards triggering the stadium development it must have been built on land not included in the original plans. Is that right TRB ?

No - it was submitted on land that is within the NM area, but has now been removed from GB, as a separate application.

WMDC say they took legal advice and were unable to apply the 106 to this separate application and hence let it go through without contributing.

We were NOT aware of this at the time and are angry that this was allowed to happen in the way it has - but there may be little we can do about it now. It doesn't mean we can't have a say in future applications - which we will.

Re: Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:00 pm  

OK cheers.

Re: Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:51 pm  

Try leaving opposite it! I remember having a meeting at Stanley church in the words of York court. "I can assure you the ground will take priority before any other develpoments". Absolute guff! Been filled with guff from the start. Absolute joke how this has happened.

Re: Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:56 pm  

TRB wrote:

No - it was submitted on land that is within the NM area, but has now been removed from GB, as a separate application.

WMDC say they took legal advice and were unable to apply the 106 to this separate application and hence let it go through without contributing.

We were NOT aware of this at the time and are angry that this was allowed to happen in the way it has - but there may be little we can do about it now. It doesn't mean we can't have a say in future applications - which we will.

Did WMDC not have a duty to inform all interested party's on the application, knowing there was something not quite right (by taking legal advice). To me it is bordering on negligence.

Re: Hoodwinked! : Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:51 pm  

lifelongfan wrote:

Did WMDC not have a duty to inform all interested party's on the application, knowing there was something not quite right (by taking legal advice). To me it is bordering on negligence.

The question has been asked.