Major step forward for Bath Rugby's Rec scheme

“@DariusMehta: Well I'm afraid your take is wrong. The Leisure Centre is B&NES's, not the Trust's and the Trust is not responsible for any of its running costs. As the Charity Commission has made clear, any future agreement must include a requirement that, should the Council at any time decide not to continue to use its building as a Leisure Centre, it is to be B&NES's responsibility to demolish the building and return it to open space.

@bath1946:"The land swap proposed is intended to satisfy the Commissioners' requirement for public availability."

The land swap is one part of a proposed deal that includes Bath Rugby surrendering its existing lease and accepting, for a larger area, a new lease that includes a requirement for improved
public shared use. And I can't see any reason why the rugby club would want either to take on the cost of demolishing and rebuilding the Leisure Centre or of incorporating into its new stadium a loss-making business that a future council might decide it no longer wishes to fund.

.”

“This whole saga is in danger of rivaling Bleak House's Jarndyce and Jarndyce for longevity.

A plot of land sold to a City and cursed with a (probably) unintended consequences covenant is deemed to be Charitable and is placed in limbo. Winners - legal guys; losers - everyone else.”

“The land belongs to the Trust but the Leisure Centre belongs to B&NES. The Council has been prepared to subsidise it, regarding it correctly as a social asset to Bath, particularly the low paid. There has never been any suggestion that B&NES would withdraw their funding and would have no difficulty in guaranteeing the payment of a peppercorn rent. That is why i think the Cy-Pres doctrine is not applicable.

The land swap proposed is intended to satisfy the Commissioners' requirement for public availability. I don't think access to a flood plain some distance from the centre is a fair swap, even if Rugby intend to reverse their recent open-access policy.

Nor Roger, do i think that the expense of the Leisure Centre would be a limiting factor if it enabled a more appropriate stadium to be developed. Is expense the source of your conviction that the Leisure Club does not figure in Mr. Craig's intentions or wishes ?”

“The land on which the Leisure Centre is built belongs to the Charity Trust therefore the building (built in 1975 in good faith but consequently adjudged illegal) is therefore the property of the landlord (the Trust). The change of use if accepted by the CC will ensure that the indoor recreation will be allowed on the land. The Leisure Centre and associated car park lose money and the Council have to subsidise this although legally it is the responsibility of the Trust. The cy-pres doctrine takes the onus of the funding out of the Trust into the hands of B&NES. That is my take on it. I very much doubt in the circumstances that B&NES will want to add to their losses on the Leisure Centre by entering into a rent with the Trust. Yes a peppercorn Rent of £10 a year maybe on the cards!

However, in essence the issue is that despite the fact that the rugby club's existence on the Rec is a detriment, they have a legal right to stay there for the the next 58 years albeit on the original footprint which will deprive users of that part of the Rec. To unlock the deadlock the Rec Trust gets land considerably in excess of the land that they are giving up at the Rec, the Town gets an arena that can be used not only for rugby for free getting rid of the mess that is there at the moment, the Trust has larger land to use for charitable pursuits and everyone should be happy except a few NIMBYs. What is there to debate? Bring on the consultation.”

“I think the rugby club only (briefly) considered including the Leisure Centre in their plans because it was seen as a means to an end, i.e. of building a larger stadium. As it's now clear it would not benefit them in that way they're not going to be interested in the added expense of including it in their scheme.

"Darius is providing us or most of us with considerable informed comment based not only upon documentation, but also verbal exchanges with the Trustees and the Developers."

Not sure why you think that. He's just quoting from published documents. And there are, as yet, no developers.

.”

“I totally agree with bath1946's last comment.

Go on, red arrow this. You know you want to!”

“Roger, i never said the Trust was responsible for improving the Leisure Centre; i pointed out that the Council had allocated £10millions to be spent on the Leisure Centre but nothing had been spent. I agree that because the submitted accounts of the Trustees say "The Trustees propose to regularise the continued provision of the Leisure Centre" this could imply that they are responsible for financial support and capital expenditure, but i have never said nor implied that. It does however imply that there will be no change of use.

Because the changed objects would regularise indoor activities, this change in objects which to date have not been necessary and could have been made anytime, could be to the advantage of the developers if the Leisure Centre is incorporated within the stadium. I think the confusion has arisen because of the introduction unnecesarily by Darius of the cy-pres doctrine and suggestions of demolition.

Darius is providing us or most of us with considerable informed comment based not only upon documentation, but also verbal exchanges with the Trustees and the Developers. I respect and am grateful for that since the Trustees in particular have shrouded themselves in secrecy. I have not taken his comments as spin, but worthy of deep probing.”

“Because they don't own the freehold of the site. The Charity Commission has suggested that once the objects have been revised the Trust should offer B&NES a long lease on the Leisure Centre. For this there will be a rent charged (although it could just be a peppercorn one).”

“Rogerh3 - "The Leisure Centre belongs to B&NES, not the Trust. .......The only income the Trust will ever receive from the Leisure Centre is whatever rental is paid by B&NES once a proper lease can be negotiated."

Don't understand this, why should B&NES pay a rent to the Trust on a property they already own?

I have no inside knowledge, Rogerh3 is correct all my information is in the public domain, where he is wrong is that there is no spin!”

“The agreement to change the objects of the Charity not only will regularise the status quo existing for forty years, but also could benefit the Developers."

No, it makes no difference. The change in the objects will allow the Trust legitimately to lease part of the Rec. to B&NES (or anyone else) for indoor sports. It has no bearing on whether or not the rugby club can have an extra slice for their own use.

.”