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.
Just out of curiosity which Trust and Chairman have you been a friend of for over 40 years.
Reputation Points: 221 Rep Position: 130th / 77,951 Quiz Score: 0 Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:15 pm Posts: 1043
Doesn't take much imagination to begin to open up to the possibility that the screwups just aren't screwups at all. I mean, its an incredible sequence of on the bounce failures....its almost as though they had a purpose.
Reputation Points: 167 Rep Position: 166th / 77,951 Quiz Score: 0 Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:09 am Posts: 3935
Sandal Cat wrote:
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.
Thanks SC,
I hope you’re right about the prevention of dirty tactics because without a doubt Yorkcourt will attempt anything to wriggle out of their responsibility.
Question, with regard to the Yorkcourt/Kitcost letter on the planning portal. Surely their stance is in complete contravention of the SoSs “disagregation” clause?
With the shenanigans surrounding the Newcold precedent, like the non existant legal advice, late notification & poorly explained/hidden information about its trigger point exclusion, then their assertion that they have a legal route through the planning process will be shot to pieces.
I hope you’re right about the prevention of dirty tactics because without a doubt Yorkcourt will attempt anything to wriggle out of their responsibility.
Question, with regard to the Yorkcourt/Kitcost letter on the planning portal. Surely their stance is in complete contravention of the SoSs “disagregation” clause?
With the shenanigans surrounding the Newcold precedent, like the non existant legal advice, late notification & poorly explained/hidden information about its trigger point exclusion, then their assertion that they have a legal route through the planning process will be shot to pieces.
We think so as well but they are claiming that as the approved LDF took the land out of greenbelt then the obligations set out in the SoS consent are no longer valid. I cannot believe that the 2 planning inspectors when conducting the respective PI's would have though this but I feel its going to take the High Court or Planning Inspectorate to sort this.
It will also be interesting to see what a Judge's view is on Newcold.
The hardest part is going to be getting this to Law as you can bet your bottom dollar there will be some political manouvering to prevent this.
We think so as well but they are claiming that as the approved LDF took the land out of greenbelt then the obligations set out in the SoS consent are no longer valid. I cannot believe that the 2 planning inspectors when conducting the respective PI's would have though this but I feel its going to take the High Court or Planning Inspectorate to sort this.
It will also be interesting to see what a Judge's view is on Newcold.
The hardest part is going to be getting this to Law as you can bet your bottom dollar there will be some political manouvering to prevent this.
On the surface, one can see a Judge looking favourably on a volunteer led CT taking on the combined shenanigans of a property developer and an incompetent (at best) LA; particularly if the stated aim is to secure a community facility rather than a gift for a private business. Ducking and diving to avoid meeting the requirements of a s106 agreement is likely to draw the ire of a crusty judge - particularly if counsel can demonstrate that HM's Inspector had a clear intent in his report and recommendations, which has subsequently not been adhered to either in letter or in spirit.
As you say however, actually getting it before the court will be difficult - YC and WMDC will use every dirty trick in the book to avoid being held to account for their actions, or lack of; probably because they understand the above likelihood just as much as we do.
Even so - if it does eventually get to court and his Honour were to order that the stadium be provided as per the original agreement, you can guarantee that YC and WMDC would employ all possible means to delay and obfuscate, such that there could still be years of expensive legal wrangling before anything was delivered.
Political pressure may also help, Mary Creagh only had a 2176 majority at the last election. Not much swing needed to lose it but maybe votes to gain for positive action for the city, and I know, don't hold your breath.
Login
Register
