CHANGE OF LAND USE STATUS

I might need a little more information on this question.

I. Do you know if any covenants were imposed on the land by the 1936 conveyance. If so do we have the exact wording?

2. Since the purported lease of 1980 has the public continued to exercise rights over the piece of land eg walking the dog, general recreation etc?

Thankyou for your reply. I am off to London for a couple of days and back again on Wednesday evening.

I will get the information you require when I return.

Regards,

Davey Boy.

Ian,

     Regarding your question 2.

People have continued to walk through the recreation ground on a regular basis since 1980 via the main gate at the top end and exiting the bottom gate, or vice-versa.

Just over a year ago, one side of the recreation ground wall was rebuilt because the road past it had been widened, but this time it included a small pedestrian un-gated entrance next to the main gate which was not there before.

I was informed by the council highways department who were responsible for the new wall being built, that it was put there for public access, so people could still continue to walk through if the main gate was shut. I also saw the construction plan of the wall rebuild, and the pedestrian entrance could be clearly seen.

Why build a new ungated pedestian entrance if the council are now claiming that the sports club who lease the ground have the rights to shut the main gates and stop all the public from using the new pedestian entrance who use it as a walk through if they so wish?

Re question 1. I will source the correct wording of the original 1936 conveyance regarding the "public walks and pleasure grounds" part.

I also believe that the conditions of the original loan agreement is very important, when it clearly states in the terms of the loan that it cannot be granted unless it was for public use, and to be held for the public.

I have sourced a copy of the original conveyance which states that it was "purchased for the purposes of public walks and pleasure grounds or such other purposes as the corporation may determine", which means such other purposes connected to public walks and pleasure grounds.

I have checked out the word "such" in the Oxford Dictionary, and what it actually means. It clearly states "of the type previously mentioned", ie. "public walks and pleasure grounds. Another dictionary used the words "simular to that stated".

To the best of my knowledge there are no covenants on the ground, just the original loan agreement, and conveyance terms of sale in 1936.

But going back to my original question,"What legal procedures must councils carry out before they can change the land status from "public use to private use", and do they have to produce documentary evidence to prove that the correct procedures were carried out when the supposed change took place, if asked by the public?

I will need to carry out some research on this question.

I will post as soon as I can.

Unfortunately I do not agree with your interpretation of the words "all such other purposes as the Corporation may determine". 

I do not think these words are linked in any way to the previous words relating to public walks and pleasure grounds. 

I understand your argument but I do not think it is correct.

Therefore the basis on which the land was sold enabled the Council to change the use to whatever purpose it determined.

The Council could change the use but this could only be effected by a decision of the full Council.  Such a resolution to change the use should have been advertised on the Council's notice board.  Normally the meeting to discuss the resolution would also be advertised in the local newspapers and, if applicable, on the internet.

If the land had been designated in the local plan as public open space then again the Council can dispose of that land but only after advertising and hearing representations from those who object.  This is contained in Section 123 of the Local Government Act of 1972

Ian,

     Thankyou for your reply.

Are you saying that the terms of the original loan agreement in 1936,( see previous postings) stating that it could only be granted providing it was for public use and once purchased through the loan the ground had to be held for the public as the original documents clearly show, that this counts for nothing in our fight against the council to prove the grounds status as "public"?

If the council did not put the revelent notices in the local press etc ,about the proposed change of status from public to private, which they say happened when they granted the sports club a 50 year lease on the ground in 1980, and no public notices could be found in the press from 1978-1980 after extensive searching, are they in serious breach of the procedures which have to be carried out regarding the above, and if so what can be done to address the situation?

Can we as the public demand to see the minutes of all the meetings from start to finish of how the council came about to change the grounds status, and granting the sports club a 50 year lease?

I have a gut feeling that the correct procedures were not carried out involving public notices, and that the decision was made by a committee within the council, and not by full council.

So until hard facts and documents are shown by the council that they carried out the correct procedures, we can only assume that it is totally illegal what they have done, and needs to be re-addressed.

Do we still have grounds to still carry on the fight, unless proved otherwise, and does the council have to show the evidence that the correct procedures were followed?

I do believe that the Council had the power to change the use of the land but my enquiries, as I said, suggest that this could only be by a resolution of the full council.

Minutes of council meetings are available to the public.Indeed I was only this morning reading the minutes of the latest meeting of Warwickshire County Council in connection with HS2. You should therefore be able to see all the minutes.

Council decisions are open to Judicial Review in certain circumstances

I have explained this process here.

http://www.thelawforum.co.uk/high-speed-2-rail-link-london-birmingham#comment-512

However there are 2 immediate problems.

Firstly the aplication has to brought within 3 months of the decision complained of. The Court does have power to extend the time but if in this case we are talking about something that happened many years ago then there may be difficulties.

Secondly the costs will be immense.

See if there are any records first.

Thanks for your advice. We are on the case.

Will let you know how we progress.