THURROCK Council has issued a robust defence of putting land it wants to sell on the market – even though it may end up not selling the sites and paying legal, commission and possibly even compensation fees because of covenants and directives on the properties that may affect future use.

The issue had been highlighted following the announcement that two parcels of land in Grays put on the market by the council are 'under offer'.

One is the site of the former Adult Community College in Richmond Road, which Thurrock Nub News recently reported had been the subject of a deal with a potential developer. The site has been the centre of local controversy ever since the council decided to dispose of it and then closed and demolished it.

The other is land adjacent to Orsett Road and Dell Road, which was the subject of publicity from the agents handling its sale – saying a sale had been agreed. Last Monday Thurrock Council said: "That land has been approved for disposal and is in the process of being sold. Legal work ahead of the final exchange of contracts is currently taking place."

Thurrock Nub News reported on the sale of the land – another site that has been dogged in delay and controversy over several years. However, today (Tuesday, 21 February) the council told Nub News: "The site has not been sold and there is no contract for sale in place."

What Thurrock Nub News has uncovered through recent investigations is that both plots of land appear covered by covenant and designation which restrict their use.

Selling – and then developing them – appears nowhere as clear and simple as the council appears to have been trying to make out.

The Richmond Road site, which has been split into two parcels – one of which may be given to Thurrock Scouts where it currently leases the Alf Lowne Scout Centre – appears covered by a valid covenant still recorded at the Land Registry which restricts use of the site.

It goes back to 1897 and has been retained as part of several transfers of ownership that has followed. The wording – included in the latest documents at the Land Registry – says the land and buildings 'will at all times for ever heareafter use the same and any erection or building which may hereafter be erected or built thereon as and for a School and playground and residence for the Employees of the purchasers and a place for public meetings and entertainments or for other literary or educational purposes and as and for no other purpose'.

The legal covenant, ratified as recently as July 2008, covering land on Richmond Road.

The site was transferred to public ownership in 1897 and subsequently the site housed the Grays Park School which later became used in part as a sports centre – and latterly as the Adult Community College.

The council made the decision to close the college building, stop its use as a leisure and education centre and demolish the buildings in preparation for sale. The covenent does stop a sale, but buyers wanting to build houses on it would appear to face a direct contravention of the covenant.

Similarly, the land at Orsett Road remains designated as allotment land and that designation can only be removed by the Secretary of State. It is believed that the reason a previous deal to sell the land to the Keepmoat development company fell through, in part because of the restrictions and the company's concern it might no be able to use the land as it wished – though there were also significant issues with the scale and size of the planned development and access issues. It has also been reported to Nub News that there may be contamination issues with the land, which was cleared (with many mature trees removed) ready for the sale by the council at its own expense. The site is now overgrown again.

The whole debate about the latest sites rekindles the long-running saga of the sale and development of former allotment land adjacent to Belmont Road where a proposed housing development ground to a halt in the wake of residents' protests and concerns that the council had not carried out due process. It certainly failed to give adequate consideration to access issues in its rush to build houses.

Another controversial site - the former allotment field on Belmont Road.

Plans to build on the site were managed by the council's wholly-owned Thurrock Regeneration Limited which was pressing ahead with its plans to build homes for sale on the land - but then called a 'strategic pause' in the development.

The site remains an undeveloped plot and is likely to be among the many assets currently being rushed to market in the council's fire-sale of land to drag cash into the beleaguered authority.

Last week Thurrock Nub News put a series of question to the council – suggesting the authority had not carried out sufficient diligence on the ownership and restrictions on its land and had rushed to a sale process in a bid to give an impression to the government and commissioners currently overseeing the council's finances that it was further ahead in the sales process than it actually is.

The council denies it has done anything untoward – even though it has conceded it is now approaching the government in a bid to get the allotments designation removed on Orsett Road.

It has refused to say specifically if it will support or oppose any subsequent bid by new owners to remove the covenant on Richmond Road, or it if will attempt to remove it itself. It does say: "If land is declared surplus by the Council it will not normally stand in the way of an application by a third party to release covenants that impede the appropriate repurposing of land."

The full statement to Thurrock Nub News, which includes the statement that officers were acting on the instruction of the ruling Conservative councillors, is:

"All asset disposals are agreed by Cabinet before any marketing or negotiations can proceed.

"The sale of land at Richmond Road was agreed by Cabinet in July 2021. The appendix to the Cabinet paper clearly sets out the title numbers of the land and describes the method of disposal as 'Release for Housing Development'.

"The decision and appendix are published on the Council's website and there has been no lack of transparency about the Council's intentions. Officers are simply implementing a decision of Cabinet.

Documents indicate the land on which the now demolished school building stood is restricted for education and leisure use?

"Covenants on land are very common and can be imposed for a variety of reasons relevant at the time, but that may no longer be relevant many years later. In essence a covenant is a rule which states what can and cannot be done on the land. They are usually created in a deed between two parties, with one party agreeing to restrict the use of its land in a certain way for the benefit of another's land. It is important to recognise that the covenant benefits land not individuals and can only be enforced by the owner of the land to which the benefit accrues.

"Covenants can be removed by agreement with the beneficiary or by application to the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal (although this may not apply in the case of a covenant where the restriction was imposed on the occasion of a disposition made gratuitously for a nominal consideration for public purposes, which might be deemed the case here)

"If the covenants are old and the beneficiary cannot be identified insurance can be taken out to protect the purchaser and or developer.

"If land is declared surplus by the Council it will not normally stand in the way of an application by a third party to release covenants that impede the appropriate repurposing of land.

"Marketing particulars are not intended to provide every detail about a property but to attract interest from potential purchasers.

"Details of covenants are set out in Title Documents on the publicly accessible Land Registry. As the decision report from July 2021 makes clear reference to the relevant Title Numbers it is therefore not correct to say that no mention of the title documents has been made.

"The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations require that Material information should be provided before any transactional decision is made. Our property team, working with our lawyers and our agents, will carry out due diligence prior to the marketing of property.

"Typically a purchaser will ask questions of the vendor, the local planning authority and the land registry prior to making an offer and if an offer is accepted further due diligence will be undertaken before Heads of Terms are agreed. If the property is being sold by tender or auction a legal pack will be provided. Further due diligence will then be carried out by the purchaser's solicitors prior to an exchange of contracts. In some cases contracts may be conditional on certain things occurring (the grant of planning consent for example) prior to completion. This approach is standard practice and compliant with the regulations.

"It was agreed some time ago that the Orsett Road/Dell Road should be sold and the site was cleared. There is some uncertainty, as is often the case, whether the site benefits from protection of the Allotment Act 1925 so for the avoidance of doubt it has now been agreed that an application will be made to the Secretary of State to agree its disposal. There are statutory criteria and policy criteria that the Secretary of State will take into account before reaching a decision.

"The site has not been sold and there is no contract for sale in place.

"It will be for the planning process to determine what community facilities or other contributions are required in response to any planning application in accordance with planning legislation and policy. Purchasers will take appropriate planning advice before submitting bids.

"Our asset disposal programme and strategy is agreed, monitored and challenged by commissioners and DLUHC and the approach is the subject of regular reports to the Finance Recovery Board (FRB). Where agreed with the board, marketing approaches and projected realisable values are confirmed with third party advisors before properties are marketed and if appropriate third party valuations are sought before a contract is entered into.

"We now have a dedicated, with the agreement of the FRB, a specialist team including experienced property professionals, property solicitors and land charges officers handling the asset disposals programme, working with support from outside agencies with the agreement of the FRB."

EDITOR'S COMMENT:

During the last few years when the media and opposition were mocked and pilloried by the Conservative administration at Thurrock Council, Conservative councillors frequenlty made reference to the colloquialism 'could you trust them to run a whelk stall' when referring to two failing Labour-led councils in Croyden and Slough. They denied failures in diligence within Thurrock and denied any failings or wrongdoing.

"We're fixing the council while the sun is shine" was another common proclamation, while they boldy proclaimed 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant' in what has proved to be a calamitously ill-founded boast about the openess, transparency and honesty of the dealing between officers and ruling councillors.

It's now proven beyond any doubt that there were lies, deception and catastrophic failures of leadership. The government has declared that officers in the top three tiers of the administration could be dismissed - those same officers today continued to bleat, we were only doing what we were told to do.

One man rapidly emerging as the axeman of Thurrock is the Director of Place Mark Bradbury. He's aleady trying to chip away the foundation stone of the Thameside complex and he's rubber-stamping the fire-sale of other assets. 'Once more into the breach' appears to be the latest rallying call as thorough, detailed and due diligence is cast aside.

Thurrock Nub News considers there may still be subterfuge afoot, even after the many declaration of openess, transparency and honesty. We may well be wrong in our belief that the council - and by that we mean some officers and some ruling councillors alike - is trying to hoodwink the government, even in its dying thrashings.

What does appear certain is that residents of the borough - the ones left to pick up the tab for years of incompetence and political bickering and posturing - are nowhere near the first thing that comes into consideration by the decision-makers.

The council has today openly admitted it is prepared to disrespect years of history and legacy in order to make a fast buck.

Consider this statement: "If land is declared surplus by the council, it will not normally stand in the way of an application by a third party to release covenants that impede the appropriate repurposing of land."

In other words, 'sod history, sod the good intentions of people who gave legacy to future generations and sod Thurrock'. Is there no shame?