What do you think of the news, that with change of Council steps are being taken to
overturn the covenants of the Upton Court Park land ?

Please contact me as I am most interested in the Covenant Movement and the alleged restrictive covenants on the Town Hall.

Thank you.

Paul Janik
http://www.contact.slough.info
or via the usual email addresses

Perhaps they can save the Town Hall from Dexter then…..although English Heritage are probably the best bet.

The Covenant Movement, which is helping residents in Slough, stopped Bellway Homes developing the Epsom & Ewell Rugby Club, even though Bellway had purchased options on adjoining street frontage houses for the purpose of creating an access road. Before that, they prevented Ealing Council performing a similar trick in Hanwell.

When the Covenant Movement arrives on the scene, developers are best advised to cut their losses and move on.

I am aware of what you say. What I am saying is there may not be restrictive covenants of the sort you envisage. I have them on my land in Slough, they say I may not keep pigs or structures to house wounded soldiers, nothing more than that. These properties were built on spec. not a philanthropic gift to a town.

Restrictive covenants run with the LAND. See Tulk v Moxhay. The developer would have to buy the whole estate to be free of the covenants.

As Lord Sid says there are many possibilities open to the developers. There may be covenants on the houses, but equally there may not be and probably are not as they have already purchased a number of the properties.

Also, those plots may well be protected by restrictive convenants that occupiers on the other side of the road can enforce.

With the £7 million saved, buy nos 2-20 (evens only) Castleview road. As the houses are mostly worth about £400,000, offering £700,000 each would see people queueing to sell. The developers could then build a dual carriageway if they wished.

Another blue sky alternative. The developers currently own number 36 (?) Blenheim. Buy 8ft off the front gardens of numbers 2-34 (evens only), for say £300,000 or so each. Total £5.1 million, and access through a widened Blenheim Road is then well feasible. As the houses are worth say £350,000 on average (see sale prices on Upmystreet.com), everyone on that side gets their mortgage paid off, so they count the cash and sell. These are only examples, there are lots of other ways it could be done. Of course there would then be no £7million to spend on the A4 junction and other infrastructure, so I think these are bad ideas, but that is the sort of thing that would eventually happen.

It is not a question of punishing Tory voters, Labour has the third councillor in this ward !. The candidate needing to keep her voters sweet is a Tory The land as I understand it is for the benefit of the people of Slough. After 1st May it is likely that the cabinet will not comprise those out to appease their voters in Upton and also those hangers-on in the BILLD camp who independently are no more than minority parties or area protection groups such as the Independent Britwell Residents and Wexham Independednts. The latter two defending their areas of social housing (built on real greenfields) surrounding Slough in the fifties.Cippenham, which has had mass building in recent years had even more approved last year…by those who cannot accept that the pain should be evenly spread.

There is a limit on the amount of building in gardens that can be sustained. providing endless small flats, with no larger acommodation for families.

Your problem Sesenco is that you are not local and are wearing blinkers.My family have lived in Slough for generations and were here before it was a town. We live here you do not !

At least you are honest enough to admit that your motivation in supporting this proposed development is to punish Tory voters.

Slough will not end up paying legal costs as long as it acts lawfully. Slough Unitary Authority is entitled to obey the covenant which prevents Upton Court Park being used as an access road. Slough will only end up embroiled in litigation if it makes decisions based on errors of law. Richmond did this in a planning case, and an affected resident sought judicial review and won. The reason I mention this is because the Richmond resident in question was advised by the Covenant Movement, which is also helping residents in Blenheim Road and Castle View Road.

Lord Sid of Slough:

The development is NOT inevitable. To go ahead, Kelobridge requires an access road, and there are only two possibilities: the first is protected by a covenant, while the second is still Green Belt (and a public inquiry would be required to take it out).

Do I sense that all would be OK if the properties were large properties then ?

As Lord Sid says, the development will go ahead, but if proper access is not allowed, then heavy traffic will end up going through roads that are residential and not intended for such use.

Logic dictates that access away from settled areas is the correct way to go, not just to stick your head in the ground and try and make out that permission has not been given.

Slough needs new family homes, and there arn’t many sites suitable. Even 3 of the ruling alliance connissioners, including the only conservative councillor to actually live in the affected ward, consider the development inevitable, and that it is best to choose the best access route rather than end up with one that would put traffic through local residential roads such as Blenheim, Marlborough and Castleview. The development will happen, whoever wins the May election., simply because there are so many possible access routes. If the current ones fail, and I certainly oppose the current applications through Castleview and Blenheim roads, there are many alternatives. Sooner or later one will be successful, and I hope its not a bad one.