WBC put a six month termination notice in their two year lease, sneakey bleeders Options

[Andy Capp]

You've got to keep your eye's open when you deal with slippery organisations like the West Berkshire Council it seems.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/18...aday-road-.html

[On the edge]

You've got to keep your eye's open when you deal with slippery organisations like the West Berkshire Council it seems.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/18...aday-road-.html

Quite incredible really, particularly as if this was done to anyone by a commercial organisation, their very own consumer protection people would have something to say about it!

[Andy Capp]

Yes. If what I read is true, then that is simply bent. It is a long way from Mr Carter's promise not to make them homeless.

[blackdog]

Surely termination terms are commonplace elements of leases? Seems to me that the football club is a bit over paranoid (with some justufication perhaps).

If the club could see a two year delay resolving their situation then they should sign the lease; if not they might as well fold up now.

[Andy Capp]

Surely termination terms are commonplace elements of leases? Seems to me that the football club is a bit over paranoid (with some justufication perhaps).

If the club could see a two year delay resolving their situation then they should sign the lease; if not they might as well fold up now.

'...a bit over paranoid with some justification?'

[On the edge]

'...a bit over paranoid with some justification?'

Yes, very much so!

It's really quite sad. The Football Club is really a voluntary service, sure operated by enthusiasts, but they are mainly volunteers and doing something for the community. Just what 'local government' is supposed to be promoting. It's a pretty poor Council that can't see a way of working with the club and achieving a positive outcome - surely a far easier task than trying to persuade the neighbouring businesses. But no, as usual, local government in Newbury is 'do what we tell you - we know best'.

[user23]

Surely termination terms are commonplace elements of leases? Seems to me that the football club is a bit over paranoid (with some justufication perhaps).

If the club could see a two year delay resolving their situation then they should sign the lease; if not they might as well fold up now.

Yes it is, in most leases or tenancy agreements there's a termination clause which both parties can trigger.

What's strange is, wasn't the two year extension with the six month termination clause the same terms as their existing lease?

[user23]

*duplicate post*

[On the edge]

Yes it is, in most leases or tenancy agreements there's a termination clause which both parties can trigger.

What's strange is, wasn't the two year extension with the six month termination clause the same terms as their existing lease?

Quite, so one can understand them being a tad upset. Essentially 'no change', just carry on for a few months. Surely there must be a couple of Councillors with enough about them to facilitate a proper solution? Apparently there is even a department looking after recreation to back them up.

[Andy Capp]

What's strange is, wasn't the two year extension with the six month termination clause the same terms as their existing lease?

I don't know; do you?

What I find strange is that there is such a thing as a two year agreement that can be torn up with 6 months notice. Perhaps the question should be: what are the grounds for terminating the contract?

[user23]

Quite, so one can understand them being a tad upset. Essentially 'no change', just carry on for a few months. Surely there must be a couple of Councillors with enough about them to facilitate a proper solution? Apparently there is even a department looking after recreation to back them up.

Don't they want "no change", to stay at Faraday Road though?

Seems a bit strange to try to negotiate better terms than you were already on through the courts.

[Andy Capp]

Don't they want "no change", to stay at Faraday Road though?

Seems a bit strange to try to negotiate better terms than you were already on through the courts.

Not if you thought the original contract was prejudice.

[user23]

Not if you thought the original contract was prejudice.

Did they though?

I haven't see that they felt that way mentioned in any news article, until now.

[Andy Capp]

Did they though?

I don't know, but I still don't think it strange to not want to improve a contract you felt compromised ones position.

[Andy Capp]

It seems there is no 6 month eviction notice in the contract.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/18...iction-row.html

[On the edge]

It seems there is no 6 month eviction notice in the contract.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/18...iction-row.html

Facinating, this one! Would one way out of the present war of words be to simply publish the contract? It can hardly be a commercial secret.

[Simon Kirby]

The club does appear to have been given a good opportunity to rebut the council's assertion, and it would be a simple matter for them to publish the break clause, so it looks to me at the moment like the club have misread the agreement and gone running to the local paper rather than clarifying the thing with the council.

However, I'm not clear on why the council are going to the trouble of applying for a possession order if they don't particularly want the club out now because unless the club are refusing to pay rent the implied terms of a periodic tenancy would protect the council's position quite well enough and all the council need to do is accept a regular payment of rent and there'd be no question that the club is anything but their tenant and if it came to it they could end the tenancy without difficulty.

I'm also pretty sure that a tenancy agreement is covered by the Environmental Information Regulations and that if the Newbury Weekly asked for it the Council would be obliged to publish it, and that would seem to be the thing to do here so that we can see for ourselves.

[Andy Capp]

Yes it does seem odd the council would say 'sign this or get out', but it would also be daft for the council to say something that could easily be rebutted.

[Simon Kirby]

Yes it does seem odd the council would say 'sign this or get out', but it would also be daft for the council to say something that could easily be rebutted.

Indeed, on both counts.

[Lolly]

Indeed, on both counts.

My gut feeling is that WBC didn't plan their development very well and/or thought that they could get around the NPPF policy regarding protection of playing fields without providing reasonable alternative provision.

https://www.sportengland.org/facilities-pla...ning-for-sport/

Otherwise there's a time limit on commencing development on land that is being used ( or has previously been used) as a playing field and I think that's the crux of the issue here - I don't imagine the developers will want any timing restrictions on how they implement their planning permission. I imagine this would be highlighted in the agreement between the developer & WBC.

My personal opinion is that it's a real shame that redevelopment of the Football club, perhaps with additional sports facilities couldn't have been built into the development plans. It seems like a wasted opportunity - I'm sure on site sports facilities would be a selling point to residents of the proposed new flats & employees at the new business/retail facilities.