12.10.2012 Views

Res.Update9

Res.Update9

Res.Update9

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Proposed changes to the <strong>Res</strong>trictive Covenant<br />

The Council has given us constant assurances<br />

that they need “less than 300 sqm” to expand<br />

the school and the rest of the Rec will continue<br />

to be protected. The Council’s application to<br />

the Upper Tribunal shows these assurances to<br />

be worthless.<br />

The application documents refer to an area<br />

“coloured green” but do not specify its size.<br />

The accompanying maps show a “green” area<br />

of some 2,422 sqm (including the new school<br />

playground, the school building and the<br />

MUGA). But the Council insists it refers to the<br />

296 sqm which is to be a school playground.<br />

Why has the Council not applied for the piece<br />

of land on which they intend to build the<br />

school? Council Official Tom Proctor has said<br />

that the application is “in principle”: the new<br />

wording of the Covenant proposed by the<br />

Council says:<br />

“ …no building or other erection not reasonably<br />

required for use in connection with<br />

a pleasure ground and/or the adjoining<br />

Dundonald Primary School shall at any<br />

time be erected or made upon the said<br />

piece or parcel of land …”<br />

Other “public benefit” open space at risk too<br />

The Rec is “public benefit” but the Council is trying<br />

to stifle opposition at the Upper Tribunal by<br />

claiming that objectors have failed to identify an<br />

enforceable legal entitlement to the benefit of the<br />

restrictive covenant. Are they saying the Rec is<br />

NOT for public benefit, or are they saying local<br />

people are not the “public”?<br />

winc hes ter white<br />

E S T A T E A G E N T S<br />

Page 6<br />

If Merton residents are prevented from defending<br />

a public benefit covenant then ALL other open<br />

spaces “protected” by such agreements are at risk.<br />

John Innes Park and Church Fields in Merton Park<br />

have similar agreements. Will they be in<br />

jeopardy when the Council decides to expand<br />

Rutlish School or Merton Park Primary?<br />

Wimbledon’s Award Winning<br />

Lettings Specialist<br />

T: 020 3195 0768 • E: alexw@winchester-white.co.uk • W: www.winchester-white.co.uk<br />

Landlords: We are a young and exciting company with a hyper-talented team who<br />

will achieve you the very best results for your rental property. Alex Winchester has<br />

over 10 years experience in the Wimbledon lettings market so please call him<br />

directly on 07919 055 001 if you would like to<br />

discuss the possibility of renting your property<br />

Proposed new<br />

wording puts<br />

entire Rec at risk<br />

This amendment would allow the school<br />

to be built anywhere on the Rec, subject<br />

only to planning permission which as we<br />

know is easily forced through. So much for<br />

“principles”.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!