| Topic: | A reply from a Conservator.... | |
| Posted by: | John Cameron | |
| Date/Time: | 29/07/16 11:52:00 |
| @ Nick Mike Bright WBC's Interim Head of Planning and Capital Delivery is incorrect on a number of points in his reply. The school / flats cannot be occupied until the outstanding planning conditions are met. The Access Plan (to prevent parking on the common and so on) is one of the outstanding planning conditions, (and put in place by Mr Bright's planning department). At present there is no planning application made by the developer to discharge the condition, as the Access Plan is not yet agreed with the Conservators. Mr Bright says, incorrectly "The Easement Agreement does not, in fact, require the explicit approval of the Conservators as such...." The is utter nonsense, the Easement Agreement is contractual legal document with enforeable covenants, put in place to protect the commons. The covenants need the explicit agreement of the Conservators in respect of two specific covenants. The first is the Access Plan, the latest draft of which not only contradicts the covenants, but is is also unlawful. Assuming the Access Plan was agreed (and it is not even close to being agreed), it then requires a planning application to be made, followed by three weeks of public consultation. In terms of timing alone, it is impossible for planning to be granted before Septemeber. In terms of the second covenant, Mr Bright is again "mistaken". The Covenant could not be clearer. Wandsworth Council have given an unconditional legal obligation to "NOT PERMIT THE OCCUPATION OR OPERATION" of either the school or flats until the common is cleared and restored to the reasonable satisfaction of the Conservators. Again that cannot happen while Durkan are still on common land, which they currently are. The Conservators management in respect of under Chairman Prue Whyte and CE Simon Lee has been "underwhelming". Some three weeks ago I alerted them, and the rest of the board to the issues of the Covenants and my firm view that WBC would breach them. Unfortunately the Trustees have learned little from their past experiences and decided to ignore my warnings that we need to grip the issue. As the Trustees have an absolute duty of trust to the charity (and common) we have a legal obligation to ensure that the Easement and Covenants are enforced. As of yesterday the board seemed to come to its senses and is taking detailed legal advice on the Access Plan, public consultation, enforcement of the Covenants, their exposure to personal liability of Trustees if they wilfully allow the Covenants (to protect the common) to be breached and so on. Any Conservator who refuses to enforce the Covenant or allow the Covenants to be willfully ignored will be potentially liable to claims of misconduct. In summary, the Access Plan contradicts the Covenants and is unlawful. The Conservators are taking legal advice, but that is several days away. The Conservators will need a full board meeting, (the next is in October) to formally approve the Access Plan and so on. The school / flats cannot be occupied or operate until planning conditions are met, and until the Covenants are satisfied. If the Covenants are breached, the Conservators have no choice but to enforce them, through the the courts if necessary. Mr Bright will be aware of this, but seeks to put a WBC spin that all is well. It's not. Residents who care about protecting the commons should be concerned about the Trustees ambivalence to the issue. Royal Wimbledon Golf Club car park was common, it's now a private car park. WBC now control the Bowls Club, and won't engage on handing it back, it's common. The road to the private flats and school was common., it now a tarmaced road with bollard, lighting and artificial landscaping. The Spencer beer garden benches is common, now a commercial beer garden on a particularly soft rent. |