1956 covenant key to safeguarding Rec

Your article on Bath Rugby’s “victory” in the High Court (Chronicle, 30th December) should not pass without comment, more especially since the Chronicle has changed its position from earlier editorials lauding the value of the open space of Bath’s Recreation Ground.

The “victory” was gained not over the principle of the restrictive covenant but that the benefitting properties were insufficiently defined, arguably making the restrictions unenforceable.

Against today’s precise cadastral GPS system of the digital age, the 1922 terms were challenged on “a very narrow point of law”.

However when in 1956 the Rec was conveyed to the mayor, aldermen and citizens of Bath, the Corporation not only took on the 1922 liability but created a further covenant that the Rec would remain open space, not giving preference to any single sport or organisation, forever thereafter.

The Corporation is cited trustee to uphold these terms - that is what the 1956 agreement signed by the then town clerk says.

Bath Rugby’s own logic suggests there are over 80,000 identifiable citizens, council tax payers, with the right of enforcement.

Moreover the property was conveyed at a peppercorn sum to reflect the new restrictive covenant - had it been conveyed as a site for development, the sale value would have been very greatly inflated.

In 2002 a High Court decision clarified that the Rec was not council property but that the Corporation was custodian of the 1956 terms, and that the property should be managed as a charity separate from the council.

Both the 1922 appellants rely on 1956 for their legitimacy and reading the subsequent land registry titles held by Bath Rugby as leasee, and Bath Recreation Ltd now acting for the charity, one sees that the register of charges for both titles is explicitly conditional on the terms of the 1956 conveyance.

Citizens have no objection to Bath Rugby playing on the Rec.

They do have objection to the company’s present “temporary” stands and it building a massive and permanent stadium in their front yard.

It must also be said that the developer’s “Stadium for Bath” project on charity property, is not for citizens of Bath but is for private profit from a narrow group of users.

If Bath Rugby wishes to build on the Rec, they must first come to terms with present and future generations of the Corporation, and the terms of the 1956 covenant.

The wished for “permanent long term home of Bath Rugby” would be better served on the site owned by the company, one which is capable of taking a full size Premiership stadium with more than adequate parking and which could also serve as an eastern park and ride for the city.

A great city is recognised not just by its distinguished buildings but essentially by great spaces between and around them.

Where would a world city like London be without St James’ Park, Hampstead Heath or Richmond Park on the river, or even Bath without the green sward in front of the Crescent, Queen Square and so on.

Which is why I’ve never hidden my opposition to building over Bath’s Recreation Ground, the setting for our tudor Abbey, the city’s lung and an iconic feature at the centre of our World Heritage Site. Steve Osgood and Jack Sparrow Bath