lockleazer
Tarki Micalleff
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 411
|
Post by lockleazer on Jan 21, 2016 16:52:36 GMT
Apologies if this isn't suitable in the rovers section , here is a story of amazingly similar issues between land owner and sainsburys ... Shows Sainsbury have much to lose .. seems Rovers could be a test case for a lot of future cases www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/sainsbury_s_come_clean_and_admit_they_have_pulled_the_plug_for_good_on_a_new_store_at_whittlesey_1_4375007 The main bit of the article explains sainsburys pull out of a deal to build despite having PP This extract is where rovers issues are similar "After a long protracted battle – that included a judicial review when a rival scheme championed by Tesco was in the frame- Sainsbury’s twice emerged victorious. In 2015 it finally won consent but then immediately re-applied with various changes including access and a request to use the store as a home delivery base through the night. Many felt these were superficial objections intent on stalling their commitment – a view likely now to be shared by those who had supported their bid throughout. Ironically Fenland Council approved their amended application with just hours to spare before contractual arrangements with Mr Smith and the land owners expired. Sainsbury’s will now face having to settle their contractual arrangements privately or face a court battle."
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 21, 2016 17:02:05 GMT
Interesting, but even if other people are waiting on us, every case is different.
Obviously only going on what is reported there, I can see one fundamental difference
Many felt these were superficial objections intent on stalling their commitment – a view likely now to be shared by those who had supported their bid throughout. Ironically Fenland Council approved their amended application with just hours to spare before contractual arrangements with Mr Smith and the land owners expired.
Our contractual arrangements as per the original case that we lost had expired, and then we are in to the debate of best endeavours etc.
In this Whittlesey case it would appear their hand is slightly stronger on that one point (again without knowing most of the details)
|
|
lockleazer
Tarki Micalleff
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 411
|
Post by lockleazer on Jan 21, 2016 17:53:47 GMT
Interesting, but even if other people are waiting on us, every case is different.
Obviously only going on what is reported there, I can see one fundamental difference
Many felt these were superficial objections intent on stalling their commitment – a view likely now to be shared by those who had supported their bid throughout. Ironically Fenland Council approved their amended application with just hours to spare before contractual arrangements with Mr Smith and the land owners expired.
Our contractual arrangements as per the original case that we lost had expired, and then we are in to the debate of best endeavours etc.
In this Whittlesey case it would appear their hand is slightly stronger on that one point (again without knowing most of the details)
Agreed that that highlighted point is very big difference , however isn't Rivers claim that sainsburys delayed on purpose? So rovers missed the deadline , seems they tried exactly the same tactic but were beaten on that occasion ... Interesting stuff
|
|