Status of Rec already decided
In short it's a case of naked self interest – Bath Rugby v The Rec.
The Recreation Ground, had its legal status confirmed in a judicial ruling by the high court ten years ago, leaving local council tax payers to pickup the rather hefty bill.
The high court ruled that this central green open space be left in trust for Bath residents to enjoy and participate in a multitude of sports and leisure activities, It's that simple.
To construct a commercially dominated rugby stadium which will have a capacity of three times that of the Royal Albert Hall with all the appropriate infrastructure in this highly sensitive location, quite frankly beggar's belief.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
The Recreation Ground trust must and should start to focus and abide by the terms and objectives of the original legal covenant, to represent the interests of the beneficiaries namely, the residents of Bath.
MICK RINGHAM Bath
5 Comments
by Ilovespaniels
Friday, January 25 2013, 4:53PM
“Sorry the link doesn't work but search for "Conveyance of 1 Feb.1956 as interpreted by Mr Justice Hart, judgment 31 July 2002"”
by Ilovespaniels
Friday, January 25 2013, 4:34PM
“Is this the original covenant ?
http://tinyurl.com/af5erme]_EWHC_1623_(Ch).html”
by mcupis
Friday, January 25 2013, 4:08PM
“"Citizens of Bath".
Do they not mean "the Queen's subjects of Bath?"”
by 1MVBR
Friday, January 25 2013, 1:35PM
“What's the Albert Hall got to do with it?”
by DariusMehta
Thursday, January 24 2013, 5:46PM
“The beneficiaries, Mr Ringham, as adjudged by Justice Hart in the High Court case in 2002 are "the citizens of Bath and residents of the surrounding area". Not as you say "the residents of Bath". He also went on to say that the conveyance to Bath Corporation was "to maintain the same as a recreational facility available for the benefit of the public at large". So please if you quote from the judgement please do not misquote to make a misleading point.”