A Short Submission from - opposing the intention to sell  public parkland and seek change of use at Watling Gate, Leys Rd.  WA14 by Trafford MBC under reference L/WP/2405530.

1.         The sale of this public parkland is inconsistent with the trust given to the Council through the Charity Commission in a Deed dated 3rd October 1939 when the Council obtained the land from the estate of  Charles Edward Newton.  The Trust expressly states that the land is given to the Council

  “....upon trust for the perpetual use thereof by the public for the purposes of a park or pleasure grounds and for the purpose of exercise and recreation.... “

            I submit that the Council is not free to change the purpose for which the land was given.

2.         The Council intention is to sell both the land and the house known as Watling Gate to a private developer.  This again is in breach of the original intention of the donors who gave the property.  I quote from the Deed;

     “...the Council should hold the property upon trust to use the same or permit the same to be used for any civic purpose. . . . . and the said dwelling house should not be sold let or occupied by a private individual. . . .”

            I submit that the Council’s intention violates that trust.

• The purpose of the developer is to use the building for business purposes.  Such purposes are expressly forbidden, not just for Watling Gate but for all properties in the Leys Road area where it is situated. The Deed says                               

“ ... would not use the said land or any building or erection thereon for the purpose of  any trade business or  manufacture whatsoever. . .”

This proscription is placed on all the dwellings in Leys Road and is germain to current conditions in that the last parcel of land conveyed as recently as 2005 contained exactly the same provision.  Earlier in the year the Council denied permission for a large house at the entrance to Leys Road to be changed for business purposes.

            I submit that the Council is not free to sell to a private developer for business purposes, nor is it being consistent with with its own recent practice, in its current intention

4.         The same Deed, dated 18th September 1903, [with earlier references to Schedules dated 31st July 1877,   1st August 1877 and 6th September 1889] is consistent in emphasising that the buildings

   “... may not be used or occupied for any purpose which should be a nuisance or annoyance to the inhabitants of any adjoining or neighbouring...dwellinghouses...”

The intention of the Council is certain to increase traffic volume in the cul-de-sac which is Leys Road and  will result in great nuisance and annoyance to local residents.  Traffic problems in the area are already noted by the Council as they seek to alleviate great congestion on Park Road and the extra volume can only put at risk the local children attending the primary school.  Traffic congestion has not been helped by the up to 1,000 new flats built in the area many of which are built opposite the Leys Road junction. Nuisance and annoyance of local residents are certain to be exacerbated by the intention of the Council

            I submit that the intention of the Council will encourage what their Trust forbids and is wholly unacceptable to the residents of Leys Road, Banbury Road, et.al.

5.         The Trust Deed encourages “the full and free right and liberty of access at all times”.  This has been a right for local residents which is not only specifically enshrined in the Deed but has been actively participated in by the local community from time immemorial. This right of way is not only an historic right, it may be further safeguarded by contemporary ‘Right to roam’ legislation as well as current thinking on ‘open access’. 

            I submit that the intention of the Council to remove this right of way is unacceptable and should be resisted.

This short submission outlines some, but not all, of the objections to the intention of the Council.  At this stage, both environmental and alternative use issues are irrelevent.  However, should they persist in their declared intention, may I request that you inform me so that a longer and more detailed submission may be made to the Charity Commissioners.   An acknowledgement of safe receipt would be appreciated.