Deadlock over Bath Rugby's proposals to expand at the city's Recreation Ground could soon be broken through a new plan from the board of councillors in charge of the land.

A framework to allow the building of a 15,000-seater stadium at the site was dismissed by the Charity Commission, which has the final say over the land, in January.

The Government watchdog turned down the proposal on the grounds that the benefits of Bath Rugby expanding its footprint at the site would be outweighed by what are called the detriments to the charitable status of the Rec.

But this week Cllr Chris Watt, chair of the Rec trustees, who administer the site from day to day, said they had been in discussion with a number of third parties over possible land deals.

The Rec Trust is looking for land which could be passed into its control in order to compensate for the area of open ground that would be lost by the development of a larger stadium at the site.

Cllr Watt told a meeting of the trustees: "The contribution that such a scheme could make would be very significant in the tipping of the scales.

"The core detriment is created by the land available to the trust being lost.

"The opportunities to replace that with land of the equivalent value, size and scale would be more significant than any other benefits either directly from the rugby club or via third parties.

"We have had useful discussions with the rugby club about the basis by which detriments could be reduced and we have to proceed on that basis."

One possible piece of land could be part of the Lambridge plot which is owned by the trustees of the rugby club's forerunner, Bath Football Club. Most of this land is used as Bath Rugby's training ground, and the club now has more certainty about the site because plans to build a park and ride car park have been scrapped.

But Bath Rugby chief executive Bob Calleja said the club had plans for an improved training centre at Lambridge.

He said: "We have waited a long time for the threat of a park and ride to be lifted from Lambridge.

"We are not considering giving Lambridge as part of any land deal unless the Charity Commission want to consider a land swap - which we would be interested in if it meant having a greater hold of the Rec."

Mr Calleja also defended Bath Rugby's contribution to the city at this week's meeting.

The club has asked the commission to grant a two-year extension to the lease for its existing temporary stand - a request the body has rejected - to tide it over the credit crunch.

Mr Calleja said: "Commercially we help this city to thrive, ask the retailers, publicans and hoteliers on match days.

"In the current financial climate we ask the Charity Commission to consider a reasonable request for an extension to the short term lease so that we can continue to try and find a legal and practical solution."

Cllr Watt said the Rec was currently being under-used during the week and the trustees are proposing to offer discounted rates for organisers of not-for-profit events, a standard rate for commercial organisations running activities making a contribution to charitable objectives and a higher rate for events organised by commercial entities that do not have charitable objectives.

The Rec trustees are now working with Bath Rugby to draft a response to the commission's decision, which has to be in by April 9.

Peter Downey, chair of pressure group The Real Friends of the Rec, said he was convinced his organisation of 4,211 members could lend weight to promoting the benefits of Bath Rugby's plans to expand.

He said: "There is a set of scales with benefits on one side and detriments on the other.

"We would dearly love to help balance those scales but no-one will say publicly which of those detriments is tipping the scales the wrong way.

"No-one will say which of the benefits that has been offered might tip the scales the right way."

Cllr Watt outlined the four main detriments to Bath Rugby's expansion in the eyes of the commission.

He said these were the view that the existing lease was a breach of charitable trust, the club's desire to increase its footprint at the Rec, its request for a longer lease at the site and the legal protection offered by the current lease.