The Covenants
|
--- This fact sheet has been prepared by the Broomfield House Task Force --- Membership is made up of representatives from The Federation of Residents’ and Allied Associations; The Broomfield House Trust; The Conservation Advisory Group; The Broomfield Historic Buildings Trust; S Twigg (Chair); Cllr A Zinkin; Cllr B Charalambous; and council officers The Task Force is a voluntary partnership that is committed to seeking the full restoration of Broomfield House and to finding a way to give the house a community based future FACT SHEET ON THE APPLICATION MADE TO THE LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR THE MODIFICATION OF COVENANTS BROOMFIELD HOUSE AND PARK 1. BackgroundCovenants may be said to be legally enforceable promises and it is common for land to be subject to covenants that, in some way or other, regulate the use of the land. Broomfield House and Park are affected by such covenants. The owner of the land, which is restricted, bears the “burden” of the covenant. In this case the owner of the land is the Council and the “burdened” land is Broomfield House and Park. Any nearby land detailed when the covenant was imposed will be likely to have the benefit of the covenant. In the present case this is the remainder of the Broomfield estate (when the covenant was imposed in 1903) upon which houses have subsequently been built. The estate is generally now recognised as most of those houses to the south of the park towards the Borough boundary and from the railway line west towards Telford Road and Wilmer Way. 2. Why change the covenants affecting Broomfield House and Park?At present the use of Broomfield House and nearby buildings within the park is restricted to Town Hall, Library or other public buildings. In addition the buildings are not to be used for any trade or business. These covenants were imposed in 1903. Since then, circumstances have changed a great deal and in particular the house has largely been destroyed by fire. If it is to be restored with the support of the Council and local people it will be necessary to raise a large sum of money from a variety of sources. It is imperative that the long-term future of the buildings is safeguarded. This is achieved by ensuring that a self-financing scheme can be produced from their use. It will not be feasible to attract investment with the covenants as they are currently written. 3. Why does the change have to go through a formal process?Even if in general local people support the scheme proposed for the future use of the buildings, the risk of any challenge to the effect that there has been a breach of the covenants will discourage investors. In particular, a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund is proposed and that Body has made clear that it will need to be satisfied that the future use of the buildings is safe from legal challenge. Other potential funding providers will share this requirement e.g. someone seeking a bank loan to invest into a Park Café enterprise will need to satisfy the bank that having borrowed to install kitchen facilities, fittings, etc that their trade will not be stopped by an objector seeking an injunction prohibiting the “commercial” activity. Insurance protection is insufficient as a mechanism to stop injunctions being sought against the “commercial” activity in contravention of the covenant. Also, it is inappropriate for a local Authority to condone the action of creating a business funding scheme in full knowledge that e.g the Heritage Lottery Fund, other funders and bank loan funding patrons will rely on the contravention of the covenant to be sustainable. It is accepted by the Task Force representatives and council officers that it is unlikely that anyone would wish to instigate action to deprive the community from enjoying café facilities in the park despite the commercial undertones of such a use. A café was previously operating in the park before the fire in 1984 albeit on the basis of a low key/seasonal provision at the time. The Task Force remit to generate sufficient funds to cover the running costs of the House necessitates extended activities other than just park café provision. The planning consent that has been obtained anticipates uses in the House and proposed new rear extension that would increase the “commercial” impact – e.g. wedding receptions, business reception functions, concerts, etc sufficient only to subsidise community events & functions.
| |
