Council under attack over deal for new stadium

Authority ‘could find itself in court’

WAKEFIELD AND District Community Trust member Chris Brereton believes the city council could find itself in court over the circumstances surrounding the reclassification of 200 acres of green belt land at Newmarket.

In an exclusive interview with The Yorkshire Post, he has questioned the council’s inability to enforce a Section 106 agreement, in relation to the proposed new 12,000-seat community stadium on that site.

Planning consent was granted in 2009 but so far there are still no signs of development.

Back then, after a public enquiry, the Secretary of State determined the green belt land could be reclassified for development, only if the developer – Yorkcourt Properties – handed 35 acres to the Community Trust and contributed £9m towards the cost of building the new stadium and other facilities.

However, Wakefield Council accepted a Section 106 made by ‘unilateral undertaking’ rather than the more common ‘multiparty agreement’.

It means the developer does not have to pay out for the stadium – where Super League club Wakefield Trinity hope to be anchor tenants – until 60,000 square metres of space which can be occupied, is on the land.

At that point, the council, which spent £150,000 on detailed plans for the ground, would also have to fund £2m towards the project. Wakefield Council did, though, later grant planning permission for a 40,000 square metres cold store facility on the same site but, crucially, that did not count towards the trigger point due to it being too high to be included within the initial planning agreement.

The Community Trust argues the Section 106 should have been enforced at that juncture and, as it has not, they are no nearer the end goal. They fear the developer could, in future, submit separate applications for the site without ever reaching the trigger point.

Mr Brereton, who also co-owns Trinity, said: “The council say they took legal advice before they allowed planning consent (for the cold store) at Newmarket yet can’t produce evidence of this legal advice, so who did they get it from?

“Solicitors don’t tend to work for free. They’ve asked for this legal advice from some person unknown, they can’t provide the identity of who it is, and can’t provide the advice that was given as they claim they don’t hold it.

“Subsequently, they then told us it was verbal advice from their own in-house lawyer. It beggars belief they are prepared to bat us off with ‘we took legal advice’ yet they don’t hold it.

“I’ve said to them, in the fullness of time, we are actually going to finish up in a court, in front of two judges having a judicial review.

“And if they think saying they took legal advice but can’t now find it – and it was verbal and from their own in-house lawyer – will cut it with a pair of judges, then good luck to them.

“But it isn’t good enough, is it? Why don’t they stop messing around, just come to the party and admit they have made an absolutely catastrophic mess of this effort to deliver a community stadium?”

Trinity say they will have to leave the city and current home Belle Vue – where they have played since 1895 – at the end of this season as the ground is no longer fit for purpose.

This may result in them losing their Super League licence.

Wakefield Council was contacted for a comment but by last night had not responded.

It beggars belief they are prepared to bat us off Chris Brereton