Follow me @Linda Derrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
I mentioned in my previous blog that I finally got a copy of some advice I had been requesting from Hughenden Parish for years (albeit in rather uncomfortable circumstances).
This advice purports to be legal advice from Queen’s Counsel given in 2014 to Hughenden Parish Council; it is said to contain legal advice that:-
- HPC does not own six pieces of land, including allotments in Widmer End, Great Kingshill, and Naphill and Walter’s Ash;
- that the land is owned instead by a charity called Hughenden Community Support Trust; and
- that the Council should transfer the land to HCST. (You might ask how he could advise HPC to transfer land it did not own but I have no idea).
In short, this advice is frequently cited as containing the legal case for the giving away of some valuable Council land.
I have undertaken to respect the confidentiality of the advice and not release it into the public domain. However, like other councillors, I can tell you what I think it says - and what it doesn’t say.
Perhaps I should first mention that the legal advice was not provided by a Queen’s Counsel. It was provided by a barrister who in 2014 was a junior counsel; he was not, and is not, a Queen’s Counsel.
I should also add that the advice is actually a transcript of a meeting between the barrister, the then Clerk of HPC and two councillors. I, and others, have found that transcript confused and confusing.
I already knew that the barrister was NOT asked by HPC to advise on the ownership of the land. Instead, he was instructed by the Clerk in 2014 that HPC would “readily agree” to the transfer of the land. The barrister’s starting point was that the land was to be transferred. This was not true; at this stage Council had not even discussed the transfer, let alone agreed it.
The barrister was actually asked to advise on a compensation issue and how HPC should transfer the land, not whether it should do so.
So, I was not surprised when I read the transcript. As I expected, the barrister does NOT advise:-
- the Council did not own the six pieces of land (quite the reverse);
- that the land was owned instead by HCST; and
- that the Council should transfer the land to HCST.
The transcript does NOT contain the legal case for the giving away of some valuable Council land.
Perhaps I should explain what I mean by the legal case.
For example, I and my husband own an area of land on which our house is built. The title to the land is registered to us with the Land Registry. If someone else claimed that the land belonged to them, we would say, as any land owner would, the title of the land is registered to us, it is ours, and if you think otherwise, prove it; we would ask for the legal case for supporting their ownership.
If a case was produced by those claiming ownership, we would then seek legal advice on the case.
Similarly, the absolute titles of the six pieces of land in question are registered to HPC with the Land Registry. They have been so since 1958 and the Land Registry confirmed this in 2013. HCST claims ownership of the land but, as far as I am aware, has never provided a legal case for their ownership.
This is the legal case I have been seeking and have yet to find.
The closest HPC has got to asking for the legal case was last year when the Clerk asked HCST for any documentation which would prove their ownership of the land. HCST was unable to do so.
I have e-mailed fellow councillors and the Clerk about my and other residents’ concerns repeatedly. I did so again after I read the transcript. I have had no response.
So I continue to ask why is the council giving this land away? And, as I believe, giving it away unlawfully?
You might think that the transfer does not matter. But it does.
First, the Council is giving away assets which are worth about £100k as agricultural land and about £15 million with approval for development. In doing so, it has to comply with the law.
Second, it intends to lease back the land for thousands of pounds a year on a 99- year lease. This means a hit on the taxpayer.
And third, and perhaps most importantly, the land will become more vulnerable to development. The Charities Commission has already said in writing to HCST that it expects it to sell some of the land and use the proceeds for the purposes of the charity. The purpose of the charity is the relief of the poor and not the provision of allotments.
The transfer documents have now been sent to the Land Registry under Council’s instructions.
If you wish, you can formally object to the transfer. Let me know if you would like to do so.
Comments