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.

Thanks for the very informative post Trin.

I’m not a farmer but I can recognize manure when I smell it and that is what I smelt when I read Gaitleys letter. I’m also not a Planning expert but the letter seems like a load of flannel designed to bamboozle the reader and in particular the Council who don’t seem to understand planning law going on their past antics.

Don’t get confused between a UU and a S106 Agreement, they are the same thing. A UU is a Unilateral Undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 so it is a Section 106 Agreement. It is given by one party (Yorkcourt) to another party (WMDC) as opposed to a Multi-Party Agreement. Contrary to the Councils much stated opinion they are party to the UU as the beneficiary and they can enforce it as they are the Planning Authority.

I don’t believe the case law Gaitleys quote is relevant to our case which I believe in legal terms may be unique but as I say I’m no planning expert but I know a man who is and he is having a good look at it.

Thanks for the update Sandal Cat.

Letter from WMDC to Yorkcourt.
Associated documents-interim assessment letter 01-10-18

Application will be determined by full planning committee rather than delegated powers and the Trust, or more likely the Trusts Lawyer, should be able to speak.

Council are noting Gaitleys letter and reviewing. Will be interesting how they react to this. Maybe they will seek independent legal advice from a planning expert or Counsel.

I see we finally have objections from Andrea Jenkyns and Antony Calvert now.

Where can you see the objection letters?

Andrea Jenkyns letter is in Associated Documents and Anthony Calvert's in the Public Comments section.

finally they get a wake up call

they are pathetic

It is not a legal authority that a unilateral agreement is enforceable, as far as I can tell, but merely states that it is (ie, it is beyond doubt) whilst going on to determine other things.

The crucial difference is that Wokingham Borough Council sought to enforce it and the developer challenged it. Here, WMDC haven't sought to enforce it at all. And that is the crux of everything. A council that does not have any interest in enforcing a promise.

Point taken slugger, but the main point is that the, the - council can, could & should have enforced it, I accept your point of view they were not interested,knowingly or un'knowingly. That does not excuse a local authorities duty in carrying out its duties correctly & with due dilligance. Our leader has not made one mistake on/to a similar scheme namely in Castleford. i am not crowing against that scheme, only wanting parity.
Therefore draw your own conclusions, however, the day of reckoning may be upon the leader & the council, they only have a slight chance of a way out & redemption if they can get another scheme to a successful conclusion.