Author Topic: croft sportsfield..  (Read 3991 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Phil Chitty

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
  • Gender: Male
  • The user formerly ph1lc
Re: croft sportsfield..
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2014, 12:52:58 PM »
In the case of the Centres for sure - the "bank" could potentially take over the leasehold interest - the value of doing that would depend on the terms of the lease.
That is where Des Morgan was so correct yesterday - can we trust the officers to protect our interests in that type of situation, recent history seems to suggest not.

In the case of the Oasis, I await Richards comments, but surely not even Swindon Borough Clownschool are that stupid are they??

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: croft sportsfield..
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2014, 03:53:23 PM »
Erm..... yes. I believe they are.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk


Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
Re: croft sportsfield..
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2014, 04:45:22 PM »
If SBC give a 99 year lease, surely that is with a signed agreement about what they want to happen on the land. So unless it's in the lease,  how can it be built on? 

Up here, the Royal British Legion closed in debt a few years back - the RBL and/or SBC had the building it placed with a letting agency. No one has come forward, and the Borough will be demolishing it and no doubt building on the land.  If my info is correct, the debt has been covered by the RBL - it's their debts entered into by them, not by SBC, if the money went walkabout, it will be them that will have to take action to recover it - not SBC. 

Had the Legion tried to knock it down/build etc., even with half the lease still to run, I doubt SBC would have let them.

At John Moulton Hall we had a 'Tenancy at will' had we tried to knock it down and build on it, we wouldn't have got very far.  In JMH the lease was to provide a learning  centre and social hall etc. if we had wanted to add to the building or the activities we would have needed a new agreement.

If we tried to do that with the Orchard - well it just wouldn't happen.  The lease on that is to provide a Community Orchard and an horticultural activity. 

In other words had we tried to do anything other that what the places had been leased to us to do, we would have broken our lease and it would have been snatched back in double quick time. 

Just lets hope that those that are making up the lease know what they are doing!

I've wondered it before, but I'll repeat it.  Many years ago - back when they first brought in Compulsive Competitive Tendering (must have been late 80's early 90's)  we were told by a community development worker who knew his stuff - (actually Barry Thompson, who later became a councillor) at the time he was head of the community centres team. He warned us that we needed 'to get our feet under the tables' of local community centres, to go for local management of them and get our leases on them, because Swindon couldn't hide from that bit of legislation - being the 5th highest in the country, owners of Leisure facilities.  He said that sooner or later - and at that point he felt it was very close to happening, the government would lean very heavily on SBC to get shot of them.

What slowed that process then, I don't know - a change of government perhaps?   

I think for a while SBC - or Thamesdown as it was then - felt they needed to (but didn't want to) get rid, because the threat of the taking away or not being given funding for other things whilst they still owned them, was very real.

I wonder if now, there is really is no hiding place.  As you know, as we write, that other items of Leisure, not just the Oasis and Croft, but all across the spectrum,  are being packaged up in the hope that they can be leased out. 

it would be easier for SBC to manage them themselves, than to manage the myriad of organisations that will be managing them.  I predict a nightmare of litigation over the coming years and all the blame being shoved onto SBC.
Oi! Listen mush. Old eyes, remember? I’ve been around the block a few times. More than a few. They’ve knocked down the blocks I’ve been around and rebuilt them as bigger blocks. Super blocks. And I’ve been round them as well.  The Doctor (Night Terrors)

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: croft sportsfield..
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2014, 08:38:16 PM »
Quote
In the case of the Oasis, under the 'renewed' lease agreement variation document, the council gave up the right to get the site back at the end of the lease didn't they,

Terry, I think you will find that if Moirai default on its loan with the bank the unexpired portion of the lease can be seized by the bank and sold to the highest bidder.

However, the terms of the lease would still apply and at the expiry of the lease term the property would revert to the Council.  Regrettably I doubt you and I will be alive in 99 years to see if I am right!!!

What is a matter for concern is the apparent ease with which Forward Swindon and officers of the Council roll over in the face of a perceived problem

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2721
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: croft sportsfield..
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2014, 09:55:40 PM »
Again I may be wrong but all these leasehold agreements come with a fall out period, for instance with the Milton road baths its five years, some of them have 10 year leases and others like the golf course have 25 year notice, at that point, the new leaseholder can say that the 'centre' is not viable, and so apply for other uses of the sites...
Have just spoken to Richard, who has PC troubles so he cant post at the moment, he hopes to be on line in the morning.. but also have just reread the variation agreement, and the buy back clause for the oasis, is gone, so presume that if the you know what hits the fan then, its lost..

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: croft sportsfield..
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2014, 08:29:38 AM »
 
Quote
the buy back clause for the oasis, is gone

The clause was specific - SBC had the option to buy back if no development takes place. Ergo, if development did take place, and allegedly it will, the clause would not be applicable.

Back to my concerns about supine officers and a very flaky Forward Swindon - the 22 January Cabinet paper contained 3 variations, of which 2.1.3 was a deferral of the refurbishment of the Oasis Pool roof and we changing room facilities from 31 May 2013 to the 31 December 2013.

According to 3.6 the reason given for the deferment was 'so that GLL have time to take over the running of the centre properly' - it should be noted that any impediment to obtaining funding was removed the moment clauses 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 were agreed ie. the removal of the conditions which were said to be '"affecting their ability to secure main bank funding for them to carry out the refurbishment of the leisure centre" and at 3.3.3 "for the minimum development of 25,000 sq ft on the Oasis site"

What this confirms is that Moirai did not have ready access to funds at the time the deal was negotiated and signed, moreover and more importantly Moirai needed the Council more than the Council needed Moirai as the Council could well have borrowed the money to refurbish the Oasis and develop the site while at the same time engaging GLL to run the facility.

After all SBC was not slow in borrowing to build a car park!