Looks as if they want outsiders put in stocks

“Since 1894 a lease has permitted work to be carried out on the land for cricket, archery, tennis, football and other outdoor sports which included rugby. For example, a cricket pavilion was constructed and the North Parade land included a building used as an ice rink. In 1933 a 50 year lease in favour of Bath Football Club (Rugby) allowed the construction of a new west stand which added to the north stand and the pavilion constructed six years earlier. In 1956 the land was conveyed to the Mayor Alderman and the Citizens of Bath as represented by "the Corporation".

In 1973 Bath football club surrendered their lease for a new 75 year lease which in 1995 was extended for a further 75 years. In the interim, in 1974 both the recreation ground and the North Parade land were transferred to Bath City Council who constructed a Sports and Leisure Centre.

In 2002 the High Court declared the land to be a charitable trust with the council as the sole Trustee and charged with MAINTAINING the Rec. as an open space and recreational facility "with no undue preference to or in favour of any particular game or sport". And, as Roger has continually emphasised, Bath Rugby's use of the Rec. for professional rugby was also inconsistent with the objects of the charity.

The advent of professional rugby in 1996 introduced the requirement for more land to satisfy the increased terracing and facilities for the spectators which has necessitated on a short term basis annual authorisations from the Charity Commissioners who now consider that the sport not only is run commercially (professional) but also predominates all other activities. Because in 2005 Bath Council renewed the temporary lease for the land for the spectators without obtaining CC permission in 2007 they issued a Protective Order vesting all of the Rec. in the Official Custodian for Charities pending a definitive proposal by April 2011 but delayed and in December 2012 visible to all.”

“The 2002 judgement states that the RC had a 50 year lease for "the football ground" from 1933. It also states that there was "an Agreement and Assignment dated 16 August 1954 related to the erection of a recreational hut and club room on the land comprised in the 1933 lease. In other words the RC have had continuous use of the football ground so it is not true to say that that part of the Rec was open to all. Likewise the tennis courts since 1954.

The football ground could only be used by the Company owning the Rec from 18th April to the second Saturday in September.”

“Until the 1995 lease and rugby becoming professional the rec.was open to all and maintained for the benefit of all with no one sport dominating. I don't think anyone, not even the fanatics can claim that just over 4,000 "votes" in a dubious "consultation which even the Trustees conceded could permit multiple voting can justify a land swap with Lambridge and the construction of an 18,000 seat stadium with retail units.”

“The fact you are ignoring is that the Rec is a charitable trust and a charity can promote only amateur sport. Discussions on an earlier scheme failed because the Rugby Club was not prepared to allow sufficient charitable use of a proposed stadium to satisfy he Charity Commission.

The whole point of a land swap is to take a sufficient chunk of the Rec. out of the Charity's jurisdiction. The covenants will then be irrelevant as they won't apply to that area.

.”

“bath1946: So who exactly are you saying the beneficiaries are?

Is it now only those who responded to the survey???

My recollection from the original 1922 conveyance (sorry Darius, I meant conveyance rather than covenant in my earlier post) was that the Rec was left in trust for the "people of Bath and beyond" and that is reinforced by the 2002 High Court case which ruled that it was "for the benefit of the public at large". Therefore not only those living in the vicinity or even in Bath as a whole but everyone.


by bath1946
"If the beneficiaries are the public at large why did the Trustees have to repeat the 2011 consultation ?"

That is the very point I'm trying to make. Everyone has a right to have their voice heard not just those with a BA postcode.”

“Darius, nowhere did i mention the 2007 survey. The Trustees repeated the 2011 "consultation" which attracted 4515 replies because it did not require any email nor home names and addresses. The RFOTR requested that its members provide that information. 1150 did from which the TRUSTEES concluded that 86% of the total vote were from the Bath area and this has been used as the definition of beneficiaries.”

“Alongside the covenants is the not unimportant fact that the High Court has decided that the Rec. is a charitable trust, so placing a legal restriction on the type of activities permitted.

http://tinyurl.com/3kq52x

.”

“The Objects of the Recreation Ground Charity do not allow professional rugby to take place on the Rec. However the Rugby Club's current tenancy has legal force (even though it should never have been agreed); it can't be force to leave the Rec. and the Charity has no control over what it chooses to do with its existing site.

In order to allow a stadium for professional rugby to be built on the Rec the land it will occupy has to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Charity. The proposed means to do this is to exchange its site for the Lambridge ground. This will also regularise the existing lease. The Lambridge ground will then fall under the Objects of the Charity while the area of the Rec. proposed for the stadium will not.

The difficulty is reaching a solution (whether or not you agree with that proposed) really has nothing to do either with any so-called 'antis' that the letter writer goes on about or with any 'Nimbys'. It's entirely a matter of the solution complying with charity law as interpreted by the Charity Commissioners and then being able to survive a legal challenge.

.”

“Here is the1922 covenant quoted in the 2002 HC case, trikidiki.

"The 1956 Conveyance was expressed to be subject to a number of matters: first, the covenants and conditions (so far as subsisting and capable of being enforced) contained in a Conveyance dated 6 April 1922 made between Francis William Forester (as life tenant under a strict settlement) (1) his Settled Land Act Trustees (2) and the Company (3). That was the conveyance under which the Company had acquired title to the Recreation Ground and other land for a consideration of £6050, and in it the Company had covenanted with Captain Forester that
"no workshops, warehouses, factories or other buildings for the purpose of any trade or business which may be or grow to be a nuisance annoyance or disturbance or otherwise prejudicially affect the adjoining premises or neighbourhood shall at any time hereafter be erected upon the said hereditaments or premises except the part thereof now in the occupation of Bath Artcraft Limited and that nothing shall be hereafter erected placed built or done upon the said hereditaments and premises including such part thereof as last aforesaid which may be or grow to be a nuisance annoyance or disturbance or otherwise prejudicially affect the adjoining premises or neighbourhood provided always that no factory chimney shall be erected on the portion of the said hereditaments now in the occupation of Bath Artcraft Limited."”

“Darius: I also believe the 1922 covenant had something along the lines of the Rec being left to the people of Bath and beyond. I can't for the life of me find a copy of it anywhere, do you have a link?”