Land Status Ruling - The Verdict

[Nervous_Tic]

i'd definitely include most of those, barring the soldiers

 

Interesting that you've exempted the soldiers from your brush of :censored:wit tar, can I ask why that is?

[Diego_Sideburns]

from a relative who lives near to where the new allotments will be...the group originally wasnt happy because they wasnt getting like for like...nbow there getting more so there happy with that....but like i say council arent pushing because of time of year...will all start again by end of jan..then both club and council need to get there finger out with planning permission....getting the go ahead to swap the land and thus commence building will be of benefit as investors will be wanting a piece of it....

 

If you're saying that the FRAG has changed its view and is happy with the land swap proposals, then the FRAG needs to get in touch with the Charity Commission immediately to save the Commission a lot of work weighing up the Failsworth Trust Committee's application against the residents' objections, if those objections no longer apply.

 

Seriously, this could be the missing link to expedite the Commission's decision and ultimately save the Club.

 

On the other hand, if your relative is only talking about the allotment holders, then it's as you were.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Diego_Sideburns

[singe]

Yes, and then there's the Express' "99% of our readership demand kneejerk irrational action. And here's a picture of Diana". What a funny world we live in Singe.

Don;t even get me started on the Guardian

[jimsleftfoot]

If you're saying that the FRAG has changed its view and is happy with the land swap proposals, then the FRAG needs to get in touch with the Charity Commission immediately to save the Commission a lot of work weighing up the Failsworth Trust Committee's application against the residents' objections, if those objections no longer apply.

 

Seriously, this could be the missing link to expedite the Commission's decision and ultimately save the Club.

 

On the other hand, if your relative is only talking about the allotment holders, then it's as you were.

 

Did a bit more research and there aren't many hoops that the council have to jump through to get the land swapped as its not a planning issue and the majority of FRAGs complaints are to do with planning (so they will still come up).

 

I think that this is what the council needs to do (Section 36 Subsection 3 Charities Act 1993)

 

(a)obtain and consider a written report on the proposed disposition from a qualified surveyor instructed by the trustees and acting exclusively for the charity;

(b)advertise the proposed disposition for such period and in such manner as the surveyor has advised in his report (unless he has there advised that it would not be in the best interests of the charity to advertise the proposed disposition); and

©decide that they are satisfied, having considered the surveyor’s report, that the terms on which the disposition is proposed to be made are the best that can reasonably be obtained for the charity.

 

 

As far as the Council Meetings/Sub Comittee Minutes state, the Surveyor agrees that the land swap benefits the charity and so the council have swapped the land. Hopefully now the CC can just give us the required order to go ahead. In regards to the comments from FRAG/ Green Party about the sub-commitee not being independent enough, this seems contrary to the advice given by legal Counsel (a specialist Lawyer who deals in charity/land law) who believes that the boxes have been ticked and so 'hopefully' it should go ahead.

Edited December 22, 2010 by jimsleftfoot

[Diego_Sideburns]

Did a bit more research and there aren't many hoops that the council have to jump through to get the land swapped as its not a planning issue and the majority of FRAGs complaints are to do with planning (so they will still come up).

 

I think that this is what the council needs to do (Section 36 Subsection 3 Charities Act 1993)

 

(a)obtain and consider a written report on the proposed disposition from a qualified surveyor instructed by the trustees and acting exclusively for the charity;

(b)advertise the proposed disposition for such period and in such manner as the surveyor has advised in his report (unless he has there advised that it would not be in the best interests of the charity to advertise the proposed disposition); and

©decide that they are satisfied, having considered the surveyor’s report, that the terms on which the disposition is proposed to be made are the best that can reasonably be obtained for the charity.

 

 

As far as the Council Meetings/Sub Comittee Minutes state, the Surveyor agrees that the land swap benefits the charity and so the council have swapped the land. Hopefully now the CC can just give us the required order to go ahead. In regards to the comments from FRAG/ Green Party about the sub-commitee not being independent enough, this seems contrary to the advice given by legal Counsel (a specialist Lawyer who deals in charity/land law) who believes that the boxes have been ticked and so 'hopefully' it should go ahead.

 

If it was as simple as that, the CC would have dealt with both issues in the report already issued.

 

The CC has already said it needs to consider whether the decision taken by the Failsworth Trust Committee is a fully informed decision, taking into account all relevant factors, and whether the Council has taken sufficient steps to manage the various conflicts of interest affecting the proposed transaction.

 

From what I've read, these boxes have not been ticked, but I hope you're correct.

[Diego_Sideburns]

The Charity Commission’s Case Summary of its Review Decision referred to at the start of this thread has now been published.

 

Land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park

 

The Commission was asked to review its conclusions that land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park is held by Oldham Metropolitan Council (the Council) as charity trustee and to enter the land in the register of charities.

 

The review considered whether the land is held on charitable trusts (and is therefore entitled to remain on the register of charities) or whether the Commission is obliged to removed it from the register under section 3(4) and 4(2) of the Charities Act 1993 (as amended by the Charities Act 2006).

 

Having examined the evidence before it, the Commission concluded that the land is held by the Council on trust to hold it as a public recreation ground for ever. It concluded that the decision is finely balanced, but the balance of probability points towards charity because the land was purchased with money raised by charitable appeal and the intention was clearly that it be held as a public recreation ground as a war memorial for generations to come.

 

In consequence, subject to the income qualification, it is entitled to remain on the register of charities. As the Commission has exercised its discretion to waive the income requirement, the application that it be removed from the register should be refused.

 

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Our_re.../fdcase.aspx#37

 

I have received another email from the Charity Commission today, pointing out where I could find the above Case Summary, and stating:

 

There is no fixed timescale for the entirely separate decision on whether to authorise the land swap. We are working to reach that decision as soon as possible, however. The decision on registration has no direct bearing on the outcome of the swap decision, except to confirm that we have the jurisdiction and responsibility to make that decision.

[BP1960]

Funny that, I can see a lot of Daily Mirror defending of poeple working to process rather than decision making and action.

 

Perhaps Murdoch will be allowed to buy the Mirror too if he asks.

[singe]

Perhaps Murdoch will be allowed to buy the Mirror too if he asks.

I would find that highly amusing!

As I would if the Mirror bought the Sun.

[BP1960]

The Charity Commission’s Case Summary of its Review Decision referred to at the start of this thread has now been published.

 

Land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park

 

The Commission was asked to review its conclusions that land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park is held by Oldham Metropolitan Council (the Council) as charity trustee and to enter the land in the register of charities.

 

The review considered whether the land is held on charitable trusts (and is therefore entitled to remain on the register of charities) or whether the Commission is obliged to removed it from the register under section 3(4) and 4(2) of the Charities Act 1993 (as amended by the Charities Act 2006).

 

Having examined the evidence before it, the Commission concluded that the land is held by the Council on trust to hold it as a public recreation ground for ever. It concluded that the decision is finely balanced, but the balance of probability points towards charity because the land was purchased with money raised by charitable appeal and the intention was clearly that it be held as a public recreation ground as a war memorial for generations to come.

 

In consequence, subject to the income qualification, it is entitled to remain on the register of charities. As the Commission has exercised its discretion to waive the income requirement, the application that it be removed from the register should be refused.

 

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Our_re.../fdcase.aspx#37

 

I have received another email from the Charity Commission today, pointing out where I could find the above Case Summary, and stating:

 

There is no fixed timescale for the entirely separate decision on whether to authorise the land swap. We are working to reach that decision as soon as possible, however. The decision on registration has no direct bearing on the outcome of the swap decision, except to confirm that we have the jurisdiction and responsibility to make that decision.

 

I would like to ask them how long is piece of string and can string be given charitable status ?

Edited December 22, 2010 by BP1960

[Diego_Sideburns]

I would like to ask them how long is piece of string red tape and can it be given charitable status ?

 

[BP1960]

QUOTE (BP1960 @ Dec 22 2010, 18:08 PM)

I would like to ask them how long is piece of red tape and can it be given charitable status ?

 

HELP !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HarryBosch]

Interesting that you've exempted the soldiers from your brush of :censored:wit tar, can I ask why that is?

 

because i'm yet to encounter a workshy, pisstaking squaddy

[GlossopLatic]

because i'm yet to encounter a workshy, pisstaking squaddy

 

Their not all saintly you know despite the recent media bandwagon that seems to be the in thing at the moment thats why alot of them end up in prison. Don't get me wrong its great that they are getting respect from the wider public but it just seems to be very fashionable at the moment to "support our troops" they have actually been out in Afghan for 9 years now. It can be a pretty good career in the army and can be well paid another common misconception we have in this country aswell.

[HarryBosch]

Their not all saintly you know despite the recent media bandwagon that seems to be the in thing at the moment thats why alot of them end up in prison. Don't get me wrong its great that they are getting respect from the wider public but it just seems to be very fashionable at the moment to "support our troops" they have actually been out in Afghan for 9 years now. It can be a pretty good career in the army and can be well paid another common misconception we have in this country aswell.

 

what's any of that got to do with what I posted?

[GlossopLatic]

what's any of that got to do with what I posted?

 

Just pointing out that the squaddies aren't perfect either

[OldhamSheridan]

Just pointing out that the squaddies aren't perfect either

 

Do we need to chase this up really? He's now said nurses, teachers, care workers and gritterererers are 'stealing a wage'.

 

Anyone that knows people in these professions knows this is a load of garbage. The end. Do we need to bother with further discussion?

[Nervous_Tic]

what's any of that got to do with what I posted?

 

By a similar token, what have any of your points about teachers & nurses got to do with the Charities Commission's ruling on whether we can get our flashy new stadium?

 

Anyway, as has been pointed out many squaddies are far from perfect either. But they're all heroes right? Give em footballers wages...

[HarryBosch]

By a similar token, what have any of your points about teachers & nurses got to do with the Charities Commission's ruling on whether we can get our flashy new stadium?

 

we were talking about how these parasites couldn't get away with such lack of action if they worked in the real word and we digressed to this being a problem in the public sector in general

 

it's all out there

[Lukers1]

Is the ruling good or bad news for the proposed move to Failsworth?

 

What happens now?

[Fyldelatic]

Is the ruling good or bad news for the proposed move to Failsworth?

 

What happens now?

 

Good in that it's a step in the right direction. Charity Commissioners have now ruled that the land lying north of Lancaster Club is indeed a charitable land. What they need to do now is to approve the land-swap agreed by Oldham Council through its sub-committee. Once that goes through, the Council can then sell the land to Latics for redevelopment.

[TheBigDog]

Good in that it's a step in the right direction. Charity Commissioners have now ruled that the land lying north of Lancaster Club is indeed a charitable land. What they need to do now is to approve the land-swap agreed by Oldham Council through its sub-committee. Once that goes through, the Council can then sell the land to Latics for redevelopment.

 

Sums it up nicely - it's one step on what is proving to be a long slow journey - but it is in the right direction

[mikeroyboy]

Sums it up nicely - it's one step on what is proving to be a long slow journey - but it is in the right direction

 

While negotiating more diversions than Oldham’s roads an informed and generally positive view has been arrived at. Should we now worry that was the easy part and getting planning permission could be an even bigger minefield, via opposition?

[BP1960]

While negotiating more diversions than Oldham’s roads an informed and generally positive view has been arrived at. Should we now worry that was the easy part and getting planning permission could be an even bigger minefield, via opposition?

 

There's more barriers to this than ever seen on Huddersfield Road.

[Prendy_1984]

we were talking about how these parasites couldn't get away with such lack of action if they worked in the real word and we digressed to this being a problem in the public sector in general

 

it's all out there

Being a teacher I obviously think you chat :censored:!

[GlossopLatic]

Do we need to chase this up really? He's now said nurses, teachers, care workers and gritterererers are 'stealing a wage'.

 

Anyone that knows people in these professions knows this is a load of garbage. The end. Do we need to bother with further discussion?

 

No we can leave it there now its come to its natrual conclusion I think its fair to say.

 

Back on track somewhat we are inching towards planning permission and looking how long it took Brighton to get their new ground 13 years? shrewsbury 10years? these things are never simple