Torquay United Fans Forum

[quote="Plainmoor78"]

"Conducive to the full and unrestricted enjoyment.....as public recreation or pleasure grounds". I would say that having an enclosed football stadium with the pitch restricted to the use of the first team only is not conducive to the full and unrestricted enjoyment of the public. So if such a covenant did exist, it has probably been amended out of all recognition of the original document. I also would have thought the building of boots and laces would infringe the limitation on the types of structures that could be built.

Anyway the whole issue of covenants is messy and imprecise. For an example read the Wikipedia article on 'Recreation Ground (Bath)'.[/quote]

As far as I'm aware B&L would come under "leisure."

[quote="Baegull"]Found this in a book about the town history (can find the name of the book later if it helps !).....
QUOTE FROM BOOK ...
Plainmoor stands on land which once belonged to the Cary Estates. In the deed of Conveyance, dated 14 February 1911, it states "The purchasers shall not erect....any building or erection other than shelters, kiosks, conservatories, grandstands, bandstands, dressing rooms, gymnasia, swimming baths, skating rinks, ornamental fountains...conducive to the full and unrestricted and enjoyment...as public recreation or pleasure grounds."
obviously even this has been abridged but it seems to preclude housing ![/quote]

"Conducive to the full and unrestricted enjoyment.....as public recreation or pleasure grounds". I would say that having an enclosed football stadium with the pitch restricted to the use of the first team only is not conducive to the full and unrestricted enjoyment of the public. So if such a covenant did exist, it has probably been amended out of all recognition of the original document. I also would have thought the building of boots and laces would infringe the limitation on the types of structures that could be built.

Anyway the whole issue of covenants is messy and imprecise. For an example read the Wikipedia article on 'Recreation Ground (Bath)'.

[quote="portugull"]

From memory, and I could be wrong, the Carey Family gifted the Land for the good people of Torquay to use for "leisure purposes"

The Council cannot release the Covenant.[/quote]

The Cary family did not gift the land to the people of Torquay. Torquay council wanted to buy the existing football pitch and the adjacent homelands field to build a school and retain the football pitch established by the Reverend Baker for sporting purposes.
The Cary family were keen to sell to house builders who offered a better price for the land, and said if Torquay Council wanted the land they would have to match the market price. The council couldn't afford this but the Reverend Baker, who formed the first club to play at Plainmoor ie Ellacombe FC, raised £500 by public subscription to cover the council's shortfall.
If a covenant exists either Torquay Council created it, since the public raised some of the money to purchase the land, or the Cary Estate created it to prevent the council profiting from the land at a later date (a profit that the Cary Estate probably thought should be theirs).

[quote="TUST_Member_Rob"]Isnt that why the beleif is that the ground could he sold to Spires (previously westlands) thus keeping sporting facilities on Plainmoor[/quote]

Remember that the GI's original plan was to swap Spires sports fields at Quinta Road for Plainmoor. Spires then get sports fields next door to the school instead of bussing up to Quinta where GI then build houses.

I have posted the information below before but I think its worth repeating as its important for supporters to realise what we are up against. There is something afoot here. When my councillor tells me that there has been no approach by GI to the Council but then within days there is a meeting about the sale of Plainmoor I think someone has been telling porkies - and I'm bloody sure its not my councillor.

The fact is that the Council will observe or ride roughshod over covenants to suit themselves.

The Italian Garden where the balloon was sited on the sea front had a covenant on it but the Council knew that the Carey Estate did not have the financial resources to fight a legal battle over it so went ahead and obliterated it. When the balloon was destroyed in a storm it turned out that the operators were £30k behind with the rent (but I'm not sure if this was ever recovered or not).

On the other hand, the Council cited covenants on Torbay Park as the reason for not building the Geo Play-park there but built it on Paignton Green instead, which also has covenants on it. The covenants on the Green state that it should only be used for pleasure and recreation, so it's easy to argue that the Geo Play-park should have been allowed. However, charging for parking on the promenade almost certainly does break the covenant.

If the Council can make a fast buck from the sale of Plainmoor I think it will be gone before you can say "106 years of history". Its important therefore that as many fans as possible, far and wide, lobby the Council and its members, especially those on the Policy Development and Decision Group (Joint Operations Team) by letter, email and in person.

We also, somehow, need to get the message about what is happening out to the general public who I suspect have no knowledge of what is going on.[b][color=#FF4000] Dave Thomas, Richard Hughs and Guy Henderson are you listening?[/color][/b]

There is some good work being done on this forum, well done baegull - what a debut. We must make sure the councillors are aware on 18th.

Isnt that why the beleif is that the ground could he sold to Spires (previously westlands) thus keeping sporting facilities on Plainmoor

Found this in a book about the town history (can find the name of the book later if it helps !).....
QUOTE FROM BOOK ...
Plainmoor stands on land which once belonged to the Cary Estates. In the deed of Conveyance, dated 14 February 1911, it states "The purchasers shall not erect....any building or erection other than shelters, kiosks, conservatories, grandstands, bandstands, dressing rooms, gymnasia, swimming baths, skating rinks, ornamental fountains...conducive to the full and unrestricted and enjoyment...as public recreation or pleasure grounds."
obviously even this has been abridged but it seems to preclude housing !

I believe the Council would be duty bound to include a covenant as part of any deal;such a covenant would have to include the existing restricted user clause.

Aside from 'We are where we are' I just hope the Council have strength in character to stipulate that a new Stadium must be in place before any development of Plainmoor can begin. I fear the worst in that it will just be a GI promise to build a new ground which like there previous new stada projects does not materialise. I think in truth we all know that GI have no interest in the future of the club. RIP.

I believe I'm right in thinking that the convenant can only be lifted by the Cary Estate.

knightmaregull I did explain that the covenant `runs with the land` and not the parties.

I have not read the terms of the covenant but if it is a restrictive covenant in the full sense the Council do NOT have the benefit we do!!

From memory, and I could be wrong, the Carey Family gifted the Land for the good people of Torquay to use for "leisure purposes"

The Council cannot release the Covenant.

I think it comes down to who has the benefit of the covenant. If it just the Council (which is quite likely) then they can simply release the covenant as part of the sale. If the covenant is simply referred to in the lease alone then by acquiring the freehold GI would effectively get rid of the covenant as they would own both freehold and leasehold interest and could merge the two. There's no doubt GI have this one covered off as part of their grand plans. Let's just hope there are enough councillors not already in their pockets to stand up against their now clear for all to see agenda.

It is my understanding that the land on which Plainmoor sits has a restrictive covenant which basically means that the land can only be used for leisure purposes.

A restrictive covenant binds the land and not the parties personally. In other words the restrictive covenant `runs with the land`. This means that the covenant continues even when the original parties to the covenant sell the land on to other people. Such covenants continue to have effect even though they were made many years ago and appear to be obsolete. I am not an expert by any means on this subject but I do know that the Lands Tribunal has powers under Section 86 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to dissolve or relax covenants that appear to be out of date or unreasonable.

I thought I would start this thread because GI are clearly aware of the covenant and obviously feel confident that they could succeed in getting the covenant either dissolved or relaxed.

I wonder if any of the fans who use this site might have a knowledge of the subject particularly if they work or have worked in the legal profession.