OT "For Sale" sign in front of Walker Museum site - Rothbiz?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTMilller

Many thanks, Rothbiz. Very helpful.

I do like the way we can tap into all kinds of expertise on this site (as well as share views on football and current affairs.)

---

I think we need a seperate tab for each subject....:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTMilller

Many thanks, Rothbiz. Very helpful.

I do like the way we can tap into all kinds of expertise on this site (as well as share views on football and current affairs.)

---

It's just a pity we don't have any football expertise apart from gwru

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pattylallacks2

It's just a pity we don't have any football expertise apart from gwru

---

Surely that's enough? What more needs to be said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millmoormagic

I think we need a seperate tab for each subject....:D

---

Nah - I like the way it all runs seamlessly together with just the magic "OT" nomenclature separating reality from fiction!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rothbiz

The land up for sale is the site of the former chapel that did indeed burn down. It was last used as a carpet shop.

I understand that there is a covenent that prevents development on the burial site.

I also understand that rmbc stands in line for money it was forced to spend on clearing the site and making it safe when the owner wouldn't pay up.

The new roundabout scheme will also come close to the remaining mausoleum.

---

Rothbiz, I've just looked at the website of the agent selling the property, Lambert Smith Hampton, and, while the Mausoleum site is clearly excluded from the area of land designated on their map as being for sale, this is not the case for the graveyard which is, very evidently, included.

This seemed a little surprising. However, given that the graveyard is protected by a covenant, it may well be entirely logical. The buyer acquires the parcel of land including the graveyard and, on the face of it, would not be able to develop the protected area.

My concern would be with determining how easily a purchaser might be able to overturn the covenant, have the graves transferred elsewhere and then develop the land commercially. A quick look on Google Maps satellite view suggests that the graves occupy perhaps 30-35% of the land area and are inconveniently in the centre of the available space.

At the risk of expecting too much of you, could you comment on the likelihood of agreement being given to overturning the covenant and consent being granted to develop the whole site - especially in view of RMBC's vested interest as a creditor in getting some reimbursement for what they've spent to clear the land after the fire?

If I was a predatory developer, this is what I would be looking to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTMilller

Rothbiz, I've just looked at the website of the agent selling the property, Lambert Smith Hampton, and, while the Mausoleum site is clearly excluded from the area of land designated on their map as being for sale, this is not the case for the graveyard which is, very evidently, included.

This seemed a little surprising. However, given that the graveyard is protected by a covenant, it may well be entirely logical. The buyer acquires the parcel of land including the graveyard and, on the face of it, would not be able to develop the protected area.

My concern would be with determining how easily a purchaser might be able to overturn the covenant, have the graves transferred elsewhere and then develop the land commercially. A quick look on Google Maps satellite view suggests that the graves occupy perhaps 30-35% of the land area and are inconveniently in the centre of the available space.

At the risk of expecting too much of you, could you comment on the likelihood of agreement being given to overturning the covenant and consent being granted to develop the whole site - especially in view of RMBC's vested interest as a creditor in getting some reimbursement for what they've spent to clear the land after the fire?

If I was a predatory developer, this is what I would be looking to do.

---

Interesting, but why would a developer want a piece of land that carries so many restrictions when there’s so many other plots in the area with little or no problems?

Maybe Historic England/ English Heritage could acquire it “ in the public good”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTMilller

At the risk of expecting too much of you, could you comment on the likelihood of agreement being given to overturning the covenant and consent being granted to develop the whole site .

---

If I may interject - that's impossible to answer with any certainly.

If land is subject to a restrictive covenant the terms of that covenant has to indicate who has the benefit of it and, in consequence, the standing in law to be able to take action to enforce it.

Even where the person or body that has the right to enforce the covenant can be readily identified (which isn't always the case if the covenant has been round for a while) they would have to be willing to go to the trouble to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill

Interesting, but why would a developer want a piece of land that carries so many restrictions when there’s so many other plots in the area with little or no problems?

Maybe Historic England/ English Heritage could acquire it “ in the public good”

---

k

That's a very relevant question, Grist. It's a fairly central location with good access and previous use for retail already established but even if the covenant can be circumvented its a lot of work and expense. I assume the drawbacks will be reflected in the price. The preservation/heritage angle was the one I was thinking of, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

If I may interject - that's impossible to answer with any certainly.

If land is subject to a restrictive covenant the terms of that covenant has to indicate who has the benefit of it and, in consequence, the standing in law to be able to take action to enforce it.

Even where the person or body that has the right to enforce the covenant can be readily identified (which isn't always the case if the covenant has been round for a while) they would have to be willing to go to the trouble to do so.

---

Thanks, Kerr Avon. Very helpful input. Would the covenant document protecting a graveyard like this be in the public domain and if so where might one look? Presumably one option would be to start with the commercial prperty agent handling the sale. Might a copy be held by RMBC in which case it may be possible to ask to see it under Freedom of Information legislation. (I have already approached them though a proxy using this method to ask about the war memorial mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTMilller

Thanks, Kerr Avon. Very helpful input. Would the covenant document protecting a graveyard like this be in the public domain and if so where might one look? Presumably one option would be to start with the commercial prperty agent handling the sale. Might a copy be held by RMBC in which case it may be possible to ask to see it under Freedom of Information legislation. (I have already approached them though a proxy using this method to ask about the war memorial mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.)

---

If there are Christian burials there wouldn’t the site come under the domain of some diocese somewhere?

Must admit I’m not the most religious of people so my knowledge of the church is severely limited.