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.

Looks a complete eyesore looking over from Altofts.

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

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.

OK cheers.

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.

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.

and what was the answer ?

You know,I have been lamb-basted on here for being a Mr Negative..and I am not a negative person. I am naively positive at times, but the frequent disappointment that has brought me in life has taught me one thing: if it looks, sounds and smells too good to be true, it almost certainly is. YorkCourt putting us up a lovely new stadium more or less bang smack on the Motorway confluences of M1 and M62 for more or less nothing, so they can build a great big business development...always sounded like a political smoke screen to me. Stank all the time. OF COURSE YOU/ WE HAVE BEEN HOODWINKED. NOTHING WILL EVER COME OF THIS!!! Sorry to those of you still working on this in some way but I reckon you are being made fools of. This all has the stinking, putrid, turgid and nasty stench and feel of corruption driven through it like the Blackpool in the rock