Re: Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace
The original property developer would stretch back to 1920 or so if not before
The council are not just taking things they are trying to secure quiet enjoyment of one of their leasehold interests that the current reversion holder seized in January in breach of lease covenent depriving the local residents of their amenity space.
The City Council in 1987 and 1988 invested significant sums in coverting this plot from a muddy field surrounded by rusting railings to one of the best kept secrets in the City in amenity terms.
Any discussion of development at this location is premature as the leaseholder has an automatic right of lease renewal which it is up to the reversion owner to acquire prior to any attempt to develop same. Given the reversion holders past behaviour it is strongly felt that this urban park should be acquired by compulsory purchase order to protect DCC from protracted and repeated breaches of the lease by this individual who has not complied with either his responsibilities under the terms of the lease or common sense.
I don’t blame DCC for not acquiring the freehold if it is seriously flawed they have protected the ratepayers interest by not purchasing an unworkable interest. DCC should however recover the costs of this process as it is a direct result of the individual in questions serious breach of the lease which forms an implied contract on the same terms as the original lease until possession is surendered.