This comment was recieved to the last entry about the car park at Budleigh Salterton. Recall that EDDC has told the town council that they should either pay massively more rent for this asset or it EDDC will take it back under its control. The car park originally belonged to the earlier urban district council and Budleigh Salterton Town Council has maintained it so that parking in it can be without charge to motorists parking there:
The comment is from Angela Yarwood, a local resident and businesswoman:
“As far as we are aware, the points in the attached excerpt (and others in the deed) from title no DN349560 pertaining to the land including the Station Road ‘FREE’ carpark are as follows. This doesn’t appear to bear any resemblance to that sited from EDDC in response to the FOI request from Mr Freeman regarding the same…(section (c) below)
Could we hope that somebody informed, unbiased and in authority from EDDC would explain here to the posts above, rather than us having to pick up pieces from the press, blogs, uninformed councillors, rumour etc..
…and bear in mind that although ‘owned’ by EDDC, the vast majority of the upkeep of the Station Road carpark has been paid for by the Town, and not from EDDC funds.
Schedule of restrictive covenants
1 The following are details of the covenants contained in the Conveyance dated 22 April 1947 referred to in the Charges Register:-
“The Council on behalf of itself and its successors in title owner or owners for the time being of the land hereby conveyed hereby covenants with the Grantor his successors in title owner or owners for the time being of the adjoining lands of the Grantor and as a separate covenant with the Grantor henceforth to observe and perform the covenants and conditions particulars whereof are set forth in the Second and Third Schedules hereto respectively.
THE SECOND SCHEDULE
COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE LAND FIRSTLY DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE
(a) The Council shall keep the hereditaments hereby in the First part of the First Schedule hereto described save such part thereof as shall be laid out and kept for the playing of bowls tennis croquet putting or any other game for which space shall be provided by the Council requiring the provision of a special court lawn or green in good order as public playing fields or open space park and pleasure ground for the free use and enjoyment of the public and to keep in good repair and condition all fences stiles and gates upon or about the land and to keep all such courts lawns or greens as aforesaid in good order and to permit members of the public to have access thereto for the purpose of playing games upon payment of a reasonable charge to be fixed from time to time by the Council.
(b) The Council shall keep the grass land and the paths in good order and condition and shall keep all trees now or hereafter grown upon any part of the land affected hereby protected against injury.
(c) The said land or any part thereof shall not at any time be used for any trade or business whatsoever or otherwise than as a properly ordered Public Recreation Ground for the use of inhabitants of and visitors to Budleigh Salterton only without the consent in writing of the Company first obtained and that the said land shall be daily open to the public on such conditions and subject to such Byelaws and Regulations as shall from time to time be laid down by the Council but this clause shall not preclude the Council from charging a fee for the playing of games as in Condition (a) hereof.
(d) School children shall not be permitted to resort to the land in such numbers as to be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the General Public and the Council shall if necessary and practicable make byelaws to prevent such occurence but this condition shall not render it incumbent on the Council to provide a full time attendant to exclude children should other means prove ineffective to this end.
(e) The Council will not do or permit to be done anything upon the land which may be a nuisance or annoyance to the Grantor or the Company or any of his or its lessees or tenant.
East Devon Watch 
Covenants can be lifted. Look at what happened with Exmouth Seafront.
LikeLike
As I understand it, covenants can only be lifted either by agreement with the original landowner who made the restriction (in this case CDE) or (if the original landowners cannot be traced??) by a court.
I reread the FoI response and it does not refer to the other car park, but is in fact an answer to another similar question about Restrictive Covenants on The Knowle.
The key point about the covenants quoted above by Angela Yarwood is that it clearly states that, with the exception of the playing of games (e.g. bowls / tennis / croquet / putting which can be charged) the land has been provided “for the free use and enjoyment of the public”.
So, neither EDDC nor BTC can charge people to park there unless they get this restriction removed. If they do so, then they are open to legal challenge by CDE and possibly by BTC. It is even possible that members of the public will try to park there for free, receive a penalty charge, dispute its validity, be taken to court and for the court to rule whether the original car parking fees or the penalty charge is valid.
So if EDDC cannot charge if they run it themselves, their justification for the huge lease increase doesn’t hold water.
LikeLike
No problem for EDDC – they just pay CDE lots of moolah to lift the covenant like they did in Exmouth.
LikeLike
Is this another example of District Councillors showing more allegiance to their “Party” than to their electorate (who, according to guidance recently posted on this blog, they have a duty to represent)?
When this subject came up in July, Ian Thomas, economy portfolio holder, wrote:
“For the record, the EDDC Cabinet listened to local residents, businesses and leisure providers, plus the local Members Cllrs Dent and Wright. After open and transparent discussion, then adopted the compromise solution – as suggested, to change to a long term car park, with no charging after 6pm”
We now see that the land is indeed covered by a well-intentioned and generous covenant reflecting the way in which Clinton Devon Estate did not profit from their endowment of the of the land for the enjoyment of the people of Budleigh Salterton and did not wish anyone else to profit from it either.
There can be no compromise – the EDDC proposal is legally flawed. So why did Cllrs Dent and Wright even contemplate one and not follow Margaret Thatcher’s example and say “No, No, No”? Are they looking for promotion?
The consequence of voter apathy is the ceding power to the likes of Ian Thomas and his ilk to ignore the electorate.
As so many recent letters to the Journal have said, this will be the death knell of the High Street.
LikeLike