Transfer of Traditional Rights to New Land Wardman Meadows
Ancient Rights (Customary Law)
The Freemen of Sudbury had, for centuries, held rights to graze, after harvest; most arable and grass lands throughout the Borough. Land subject to these rights was referred to as 'Shack' land. Other traditional rights included those over wasteland and flood meadows specifically designated for the Freemen.
Sudbury Town-Lands Act 1838 (Statutory Law)
Grazing rights over Sudbury shack lands were an impediment to the development of the Town. By an Act of Parliament the rights over the Shack--Lands were extinguished in exchange for replacement lands (with rights over) including Sudbury North Meadow and Harp Close Meadow.
Suspended Rights (Not surrendered)
Freemen's grazing rights, due to the sale of Harp Close Meadow by the Trustees, have been suspended. The Freemen of Sudbury have not actively surrendered their legal rights and have anticipated an exchange of their rights to new land - ultimately Wardman Meadows.
Modern Times (Participation)
The Freemen would accept an argument that financial benefit should not be gained (specifically over Wardman Meadows) by any privileged position of the few remaining Freemen, However, it is essential that the ongoing tradition of legitimate inherited rights be maintained.
Conclusion
It would seem reasonable for the Trustees and the Freemen to arrive at an agreement to extend the rights over Wardman Meadows but that this be conditional that the 'rights' are not actively exercised.
Alan Shelley Freeman of Sudbury 6 October 2008
NOTES:123
1 Harp Close Meadow 16 acres of grazing land purchased in 1880's under the 1838 Act sold 1987 to NHS £850,000. The land was not registered common land under 1965 Commons Registration Act. Freemen's Grazing Rights were suspended (awaiting transfer). 2 Wardman Meadows (formerly Barleyman Meadows) 39.29 acres of grazing land aquired 1998 and subsequently purchased. The land has not been registered as Common Land. 3 Friars Meadow 25 acres of grazing land (now recreational) which Freemen had half-yearly 'shackage' rights. The land was sold to the Borough in 1960's (with the possible exception of Lady's Island)- Freemen's Grazing Rights suspended? Common Rights over Replacement Land- Wardman Meadows Customary Tradition at Sudbury Suffolk
• The Common Lands; John Wardman published a pamphlet in May 1991 entitled "Sudbury Common Lands - The Position as Viewed by the Chairman of Trustees".
In his introduction he stated "I consider it unfortunate that the generally accepted name for the meadows is the Common Lands; the more historical name - The Freemen's Lands - is slightly more accurate".
The lands have been grazed 'of customary right' by the Freemen of Sudbury over many centuries.
• The Commonalty of Sudbury; 'Commonalty' as employed within Charters is often mistranslated. The correct expression is used to describe the commoners who have legitimate right over the use of something.
This does not describe the 'general public' or even the 'general' inhabitants of a neighbourhood. In Land Law, the 'commonalty' describes a tract of land with right holders over it.
• Transfer of Rights; Sudbury has a traditional history of grazing rights, held by Freemen, over lands throughout the Borough/Town. Lands redeemed and or rights extinguished have determined the transfer of rights over to replacement land.
Inclosed (or sold off) land removed from commoning- the rights over which cannot be automatically extinguished without the agreement of right holders. Rights are 'real property' in as much as the land itself. Property cannot be confiscated, by law, without compensation.
• It is widely accepted and approved of that the Freemen's connections with the 'Common Lands' have safeguarded their longevity and have retained much of their independence from central government interference.
• The Charity Commission (ruling body) is an overarching authority nation-wide, it does not participate in the individual arrangements of 'local' organisations.
Local Schemes - are set up to meet the charitable requirements approved by the Commission. Any decision can be made locally (by Trustees) providing it does not contravene the charitable intentions set out within a Scheme.
Opinion
The fraught outcome over the sale of Harp Close Meadow has resulted in an unfair loss, by the Freemen of Sudbury, of rights (previously held, real property) without any form of comparative compensation.
It appears to me that a decision, by the Trustees of Sudbury Common Lands, can be reasonably made to transfer rights (in principle) previously held over Harp Close Meadow to Wardman Meadows.
This could be carried out on the understanding that the Freemen do not request payment for grazing rights, nor practice fishing rights over the new land, and agree to make no interference with existing management plans over Wardman Meadows. The Freemen's rights over Wardman meadows would be reserved and unexercised. In this way the long held traditions and association with the Freemen's attachment with the lands can be maintained. Alan Shelley BA DLA FRSA, Sudbury Freeman. 6 Oct. 2008 Wardman Meadows - Action Trustees
• Scheme- Update the Schedule (if not already done so) to replace cancelled Harp Close Meadow with Wardman Meadows 39.29 acres.
The new land, as with Harp Close, would remain unregistered as 'common land' under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and the subsequent Commons Act 2006.
• Freemen's traditional rights, permitted in law and dictated within sections 21 (2) and 25 (5) of the governing scheme dated 14 May 1987
• Management- If Wardman Meadows is specifically dedicated as 'protected wildlife reserve', perhaps the Freemen may agree that their share of any income from that specific land, for the foreseeable future, is reinvested into the management of that specific area of land.
NB - Attention of the Freemen and all concerned should be drawn to the ten years delay in resolving this matter. The subject of which could be amicably brought to a close without need for any legal proceedings.
Alan Shelley 4 November 2008 -c:-~__.,c--,_--~-=:;--=-
i •• :1 ·2'.(•·-. \ ..-; ~':. ::.• () IT -~l -~-:-"'-- 7~ir r- --rr~j ~- -~- c·,~~,: ~$~};<~t:6 )<' .. .. I ~. - 'l ~·', ., ,_ I I -:I \"1 .·' . ..;,:S''. 0 ·"''".-:-~ 0 c [11.. I ...... _··:·· ._1.:::__1..:. .. -.: i ···- .•. '· I , :.~·::~. ~~·:'·:": /-""': ·... · "~'::.2 -~? _._.-0~*''i·:;f::_<;:;;~~:~~,~~:,(''=-,,-; .. ~,,,;;,~'"'""'" .. \ .,_ .... ,I0 / .. -- II o' { ... ,._,,_ . . .. -__ .. ,,,. .3 I I '''•/!ffll'f•~. ~~ I \~ ~-....~-4..-)•''-- '\\';\\\,: • ,,·~!!_::.:...--• • , ,., --~- ''·it.,..,._ . \ . f I l - ~ \- t -::... , .. , '\ ,\ ~ --~~!--- )\!. - ''':,,:---... J •I,J{/f"r/.7' -.\ \ - -r ------::-- - -~ - - _l-· ,.....- ...... -::::: ~:-- ,.,.. l < ---J'il/t"fii,~;;; .·:_~~1/ff{llJJJC'" --. 0 L \ \- --- - rlu.c r - l,...j ~-=-).: ~ :.--c.~~~~!o--~- ~---<;:- ••• ·:.~~i t~lo)p }:~:_,_:~~~~--- -'-~~ ~~ OQ ~'- ·q 0.,~ 0 q ~~'- .< 'c;c- .'":· .. < " . ,._! / 7 oW q ~"_._. ~:~~~:~~~:i2}~~i~~~~~:~:~~~:~;~~'t~7~:~0j~~~~":\~~'~'\ ~c'cj.'"" ~ - )'i10 ''-''::_ 6.11 wow 1 ~.,~~... a q C!. :JC.----~-- ~~- . ..:8----~ ... '•\- ()"Jl,,. (J ~-- 0 ~ 01_.. _''' \ C! 0 Q .. \ ~c; ('~~- ,.____ / .. ~ ·· ------.:£ f( i ; e Q Cl () 0 ,q oO Q ~' \1_.;/ '-' Oitr Q "' !.. I
~--· C.l U 0 c51.k_f'"y=::/,_c.:. ..---;:;-- ' '-.._..-' _..,.,-_:' '"~lll{., 3 ...... 4 ', Cli/J~ c·
c;~R· 2 9.26 6 .. 81 ,•"''" ~\ ..-..:-~ •; 5.51 /-''_./""- --~------. \...'. (• -- ______?,.;.:::::______C!"""! c ~ l .\~ ~ c l.'c~ . ...-/ ~7/ 0. o0 C:> e- w- c,'C:•Cl .. '.,.,.,-,() 1 :.: ~·-~,- ,· .- _ ... ______-/ .,q i_ ., .. \1 q;..--7 KEY I ..,. / .. l. (\ l . _.. ./-_• _..- ./\;;!::./__.....- ~ '1. .1' !'+IJ ~ c ' i \:: ,..,.:;::.--7 ~; ·, ' •,, ...... ,/~-/ -~0«• a q_ """'.. ,, • ' l(.Jo'- Cl ,<-· : ·-.;y . _ J'-- ..... a .,. ..m __ <' --<-___. ,j """' . ol~ , 0 , • _.:· • ··,;-/' THE WARDMAN MEADOWS • ,r ' ' . ', '--•••• ' ~.--; . / "\ '' oo" l : 0 '' -· (:\ 0 ~· ,,,.. / ,·,·~-...... ::-·-." '~L5--: .... ___..- ,, IO>• ..r- o- ·a'O i_ c, t?·;" ______0 ------_. __ , ----· --- --..,. •- Right of Way '!fi}>··.-'-:::,___. -:o--&- '<>~:--: -~.; ~""" ·~-~- .. "'"''""{: ~------___ ::___ . ----- 0 • .#·::-·~fl (;,·0:,~ ~ s ~-c; -~"" ~f\~"····: r .::;. .. , :;?~/ --~.-c-··." __ / =~-" - ··>z::_:~ " ,,, o ''~o i· ___ ,~,~,. - .. -: · e , o e - ..-----; 1, 1. ARCHES MEADOW :0 Q c • ~ . . >-. / ; ,\ _., - : o "·--·~ ... =: ·\ "--
' ''-"' - _?.-: -\,\ \ .·.•. ·-. ....~··''•~:1"'•~•·. \ ·. U·.' -:·.·'\ ------,rn~""~n\\\\')l:#~"""'" 11l1111U!tiJ~:·:"-~-.,- ..~:---.._ I L /t~/\-- _, -..«~;(:-;', ____ ....-// /_.)~-~ _/\)\;_ . ~ ------1
~-:---... ,....,-.. 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Glos. GL51 3AH
26 September2008
Dear Andy Wardman Meadows
When last I saw you, at the Sudbury Freemen's Committee Meeting, 8 September, we briefly discussed the Freemen's relationship with W ardman Meadows.
I raised within AOB the personal view that we should pursue our connection with that land. To do so would necessitate a friendly approach to the Trustees avoiding any. form of confrontation. It would not be our intentions to seek financial gain but to establish the personal (property) 'rights' of Freemen over that land.
It would appear that the transfer of Freemen's rights from Harp Close Meadow were previously rejected, somewhat spuriously, on the grounds that HCM was never registered nor subject to the 1965 Commons Registration Act. Our case pre-empts and excludes the need to defer to such legislation.
The Statute ofMerton 1285 ofEdward I, 46.13, the initial 'freedom of commons' Act, was brought about to ensure the ongoing transfer of rights over replacement lands. Quite simply the situation should be viewed as follows: 1. The sale of Harp Close Meadow enabled the purchase ofWardman Meadows. Rights of pasturage previously held over HCM were not carried to the subsequently obtained land. Such transfers, as had been the case with fonner 'shack' lands traditionally carry their rights to the replacement lands. This is the customary practice at Sudbury.
2. There appears to be nothing preventing the Trustees of the Common Lands, in all fairness, allowing the Freemen similar 'transferred' rights over the Wardman Meadows as those enjoyed within the existing Scheme - section 21 (2) 14 May 1987- "The Trustees when letting rights of grazing and sporting rights over land belonging to the Charity shall give preference to applicants for such rights who are Freemen or the Widows of Freemen ... "
3. The Charity Commission (Hd Office) have indicated they see no reason to obstruct this arrangement and will allow this decision to be made by the Trustees (See copy of Charity Commission letter to A.W. Berny of 18 December 2002. l1;1 my opinion we, the Freemen, should recommend that the land remains unregistered as far as the Commons Act, in order that it should not become 'open' to the general public and can remain a sanctuary to wildlife. It should also be devoid of general fishing rights to the public at large. If the rights can be established, we could agree that for the foreseeable future they would remain 'unexercised'. This would establish the principle connection required by the Sudbury Freemen.
Should the question of sufficient rights over the additional acreage of Wardman meadows arise, the,perhaps we could call upon those possibly unextinguished rights over Friars Meadow.
Hope this all makes sense to you, the 'facts' you requested are within the wording of the Charity Commission's letter to A WB in effect telling the Freemen to organise it with the Trustees. The last thing I would want, would be to fall out with Adrian who regards the Wardman Meadows like his back yard. This correction of the record would not affect any physical changes and he should be made to rest assured that we have everybody's best interest at heart.
Yours sincerely
Alan Shelley WyckenEnd 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL513AH
31 October 2008
Dear Chris
Further to your telephone call and our conversation about the benefits or otherwise of registering the Common Lands. I am enclosing a few notes, the first regarding registration and the other two sheets concerning the transfer of our rights from Harp Close Meadow to the Wardman Meadows.
There are very good grounds for the rights to be transferred and for them to be included into the Schedule without any need for the involvement of the Charity Commission. The Head Office has already said that this is a matter to be handled locally, providing it does not contravene the charitable intentions of the Scheme.
Surely a friendly discussion between the Freemen and the Trustees could resolve an agreement for the 'rights' to be included and for the Freemen to allow (for the foreseeable future) grazing payments to be absorbed by the Trustees. In this way, the historical rights are endorsed and the Freemen can recognise some connections with the new land. Adrian can continue to manage that land independently as wildlife reserve without any recording or controls under registration as 'Common' open to the public at large.
If you feel so inclined I hope you and Andy can present the case at your next meeting of the Trustees. I am readily available for any further discussion.
Kindest regards,
Yours sincerely
Alan Shelley
Ps. Andy has a copy of the Charity Commission letter suggesting the matter is a decision to be made locally and refers to the Scheme- section 21 (2). 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Glos. GL51 3AH
6 October 2008
Dear Andy Wardman Meadows
Further to my letter of 28 September last, I enclose a discussion note in the way of an 'Opinion' over the request to attach the Freemen's interest to Wardman meadows. I hope you can find time to discuss this with your Dad, along with my previous letter.
Best wishes and looking forward to hearing from you
Yours sincerely
Alan Shelley
16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL51 3AH
6 October 2008 Dear Allan
Sorry if this is too soon since my last letter but I shall keep it brief.
I have just re-read your excellent account of "The Awkward Apprentice" and it prompts me to enquire, as I previously intended, about the Corporation's treasures concealed in the attempt to foil full payment of the fine. The Loving Cup and the Maces were recovered, but mention was also made (by Hamilton Roche poem) to the sword of Justice. Was this simply an expression appertaining to actions or was there, as in most Boroughs, a physical 'sword of Justice' to lead civil processions? If so I wonder if it ever came back to light!
Further to my suggestions regarding a Freemen's connection to Wardman Meadows I enclose some discussion notes in the way of an opinion, perhaps it could be useful.
All the best 'Keep People's Park grassland' say Sudbury campaigners
by Barbara Eeles
PLANS to split a much~ loved meadow into open space and homes if moves to save it as a public green are defeated would wreck its character, it is claimed. Grass areas in the masterplan for the possible development of People's Park, Sudbury, look too much like an urban park, said campaigner Jill Fisher.
The plan has been produced for owners West Suffolk Hospital Trust who fought bids to register it as a green at a four-day inquiry last week. The future of the land- also known as Harpclose Meadow- now hangs in the balance while Suffolk County Council waits for the recommendation of barrister Edwin Simpson, who heard the inquiry on their behalf.
Mrs Fisher, a leading member of the People's Park Preservation Association, atttacked the proposal to plant trees and hedges and put paved and mown pathways on what has been open grassland. She also criticised the plan to have a strip of public open space alongside the main road, with the houses built further back on the site.
"This is more like an urban park than a meadow. What happened to the idea of country walks in wellies," said Mrs Fisher who lives close to People's Park. "If you plant trees the grass won't grow, ifthere is no long grass there will be no insects, and if there are no insects there will be no birds. The skylarks won't nest there. "And they are planning to build the houses just where the wild flowers grow. They should be built fronting W aldingfield Road instead."
The hospital trust commissioned KLH Architects and the Landscape Partnership to draw up the development blueprint which leaves 44 per cent of the land with public access as opposed to the 40 per cent required under Babergh District Council's Local Plan. Chris Bown, chief executive of the hospital trust, says attention has been given to both landscape and visual issues, and to wildlife and nature conservation. "The intention is that the new park would become more intimate and offer a greater network of utilisable footpaths, habitats and play areas than currently exist or were previously indicated," he said in a letter to PPPA chainnan Derek Wells.
He also says the trust was keen to learn the views of the wider population of Sudbury and would be embarking on infonnal consultations over the coming weeks. Mrs Fisher said: "To me, the use of the word 'intimate' to descril?e the park sounds like estate agents' jargon for small."
barbara. eeles@sudburytoday. co. uk 02 October 2008, Suffolk Free Press Sudbury Sudbury - Legal hitch in land saga Barbara Eeles
Uncertainty still surrounds the fate of Sudbury's People's Park after plans to hold a public inquiry were dropped. A battle to stop the land being sold for housing, by registering it as a public green, has been going on for well over a year. Suffolk County Council now says unless objectors to the registration application pay the extra cost of an inquiry it will make a decision based on written evidence and the advice of a barrister. But the issue could be heading for a legal quagmire following moves to withdraw the original applications ... which the county council says it will go ahead and determine anyway,
Meanwhile, a dedicated environmental campaigner is trying to set up a support group to ensure the fight goes on.
Jill Fisher lives near People's Park, which is owned by West Suffolk Hospital Trust and was once earmarked for a new Sudbury hospital. Some of the land offWaldingfield Road has already been built on and the trust hopes to make around £2 million from selling the rest.
"We will battle on," said Mrs Fisher. "If People's Park goes we will have no green land at all in this part of the town.
"fm hoping we can arrange a public meeting for interested people."
First application to register the land as a green was made by former Sudbury councillor Albert Pearce, who has now moved to Sussex. He persisted despite threats of High Court action from the hospital trust.
Retired lawyer Barry Pamplin took on the campaign from Mr Pearce and put in his own application.
But he now wants to withdraw it because he believes complex registration laws mean the county council's decision would not be the end of the matter.
He says he may apply for a judicial review of the county's refusal to accept the withdrawal and is taking counsel's advice.
Mr Pearce, whose application is also still being pursued by the county council, was recently told by senior legal officer Jane Stevenson that no i nquiry would be held unless the objectors -the hospital trust - paid the extra cost.
A county council spokesman said solicitors for the trust had lodged a formal objection to both applications.
"The solicitors would prefer this matter to be dealt with by way of a public inquiry because they feel it is the best way of testing the evidence.
"Mr Pearce and Mr Pamplin both wish to withdraw their applicaitons with a view to one application being re-submitted in due course.
"The county council is minded not to accept the purported withdrawal and is minded to pursue determination by referring the papers to an independent barrister for advice."
Managers at West Suffolk Hospital Trust would only say that they were closely following the process as set out by the county council, and were awaiting the outcome with interest.
To join Jill Fisher's campaign, call her on 01787 373776.
The full article contains 488 words and appears in Suffolk Free Press newspaper. Last Updated: 17 January 2008 11:51 AM 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL51 3AH
21 October 2008 Dear Allan
Thank you for your valuable comments, much appreciated. However, while I understand your cautions, I cannot agree to outright abandon the case.
The Trustees appear to have determined not to allow the Freemen rights over Wardman Meadows. To take no action would be unsatisfactory. Ten years have already expired since the land was acquired and further delays may damage any chance of recovering our position. In reply to your numbered points:
1. Agreement (if possible?) to the application of rights, 'unexercised for the foreseeable future' would provide documentary proof that the rights exist and will continue into the future. 2. I agree with your view that this delicate situation could lead to 'ideas in the heads of some Trustees'. However, it seems to me that we must find a 'meeting position' in order to gain any headway. 3. I understand your concern regarding the apparent attitude of the Charity Commission toward our grazing rights in general and do applaud your fighting action in 1987-8. 4. Indeed, the proposal put to the Freemen must surely be that any form of connecting the Freemen with Wardman Meadows appears to be through negotiation and not by demand. The Freemen may concede that by the inclusion of Wardman Meadows onto the Schedule, at least the connection with the Freemen is maintained.
This would mean that we will not have forgone our rights over the new land, merely be allowing the Trustees to reinvest, for the time being, any income from that specific land for wildlife sanctuary.
My sympathies are entirely with you regarding the delicate nature of the situation and also with your mistrust of the Charity Commission. I have not your 'up front' experience of the Trustees, other than the resolute manner of the Clerk (who I endeavour to keep on good terms). Any suggestion of registering the new land as Common (under the Act) would meet with such retaliation from Adrian that I fear could never be repaired.
Please forgive me for boring you and bear with me if I continue to look for a way of recovering our lost rights, without I hope, upsetting the equilibrium. That also includes, again I hope, my not upsetting the Society's Committee! [ 01 0/i/1 19.10.08 Dear Alan, While I am most appreciative of your excellent intentions, I fear your plan has dangers that make it best abandoned. 1. It would mean the permanent loss of any possible future claim to actual rights over Wardman meadows. 2. It could, probably would, sooner or later put ideas into the heads of some Trustees that the same principle could be applied to the Common Lands as a whole. 3. As I suggested previously, the Charity Commission could one day see it as a precedent for watering down or abolishing our grazing rights, as they nearly did at the time of the new scheme. They would, I am sure, dearly love to do so. Our rignts survived because we put up a fight in 1987-8. 4. Such a proposal would require the consent of all the freemen, which would be hardly likely. Remember, too, that the Commons Registration Commissioner ruled that the freemen had no rights other than what the Scheme allowed. One answer might be to apply for Wardman meadows to be registered under the Commons Registration Act, something that Adrian Walters hopes to avoid, and a move that would alienate the Trustees, and which the Freemen's Committee would no doubt be reluctant to embark on. I don't trust the Charity Commission (would-be empire builders), or indeed some of the Trustees! Your interest should at least do something to invigorate the Society's Committee.
/) l- ; l,k ,Ll I ~ 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL51 3AH
14 October 2008 Dear Allan
Many thanks for your letter of the 8th last. I can see how you were confused by my argument for Wardman Meadows,.
I should have more clearly stated the purpose, and that it is directed only at those that fully understand the normal practise regarding the exercise of Freemen's rights under the Scheme.
The subject of transferred rights from Harp Close Meadow to Wardman Meadows had reached an impasse and been 'shelved'. I felt personally concerned that it should not be finalised in such a way. Simonie and Tony have expressed somewhat negative opinions but I feel that we should not simply capitulate without trying another tack. Perhaps by accommodating the wishes of the Trustees we can compromise to at least gain something rather than nothing!
I am looking, at least, to retain a connection by the Freemen with the new land. Here is the background, as I see it: A) The application for transferred rights from Harp Close Meadow has been discussed by the Trustees and rejected. B) The Chairman, I understand, has been given to conclude (somewhat spuriously) that because HCM had not been 'registered' under the 1965 commons Act, the rights were not transferable. C) Adrian Walters clearly wishes the new land to be 'independent' and defines WM's as wildlife 'sanctuary' managed by "the Charity" (his common expression of independence). D) Simonie and Tony clearly do not themselves wish to pursue the potential subject of these transferable rights.
I hoped you could see the nuance in my developing argument and 'opinion' on the subject.
1) To deter a possible wish to subdue the historical "Freedom" of the Commons [detected in comments by the Ranger] 2) Expressions of "Commonalty" have incorrectly been applied to support public association with the lands. 3) Transfer by ancient tradition need not (it seems to me) to necessarily rely only on legal definition. 4) The Charity Commission do not need to dictate at local level 5) Actions, such as the transfer of rights, if not materially (financially) benefiting the Freemen, would not contravene the charitable principles of the Scheme. 6) Endorsement would simply require that Wardman meadows be added to the schedule with a condition that the rights would be 'unexercised (no rent)for the foreseeable future'.
I believe that point 6 can avoid the 'awkward precedent' that you suggest. Harking back to earlier days - we shall never know whether it would have been better had you not registered the lands under the 1965 Act and remained independent. Similarly, I agree, it may have been better to have awaited compulsory purchase of HCM- sadly "What if'- we shall never know!. 8.10.08 Dear Alan, No sooner do I contemplate replying to your first letter than a second one arrives, with its well reasoned argument re Wardman me adows. I fully agree, except for the last paragraph. It ip!'s not a question of freemen requesting payment for grazing rights; the position is that the freemen own any grazing rights, and the income from the exercise of them, and pay half the income to the Common Lands Trustees as the fee they are required to pay, under the Scheme, for the exercise of those rights. It is not clear what the point would be of a nominal transfer from Harp Close meadow to Wardman meadows if it did not include the rights which certainly existed over Harp Close. It might provide an awkward precedent next time the Charity Commission wants a new Scheme. If only the NHS had acquired Harp Close by compulsory purchase there would have been a legal case for the rights to transfer to replacement land. What a pity we didn't know more about the law at the time! The inquiry into Harp Close has been held, both the NHS and the Sudbury Committee being represented by barristers. There is no trace of Sudbury's sword of justice. When one ex service freeman died, his widow offered his sword to the freemen. I suggested offer it to the Council, but heard no more. Turning to your first letter, I am sorry to hear of your car misfortunes, but hope that the theft of petrol and damage to the tank will not put you off going to Sudbury. Can there be a more secure place to park? We have to be so careful nowadays. Even with my little scooter - whenever going to the local shop I chain it to a post, as it doesn't need a key to start it, as the ones I use in town do. You may know about tho Babergh plan to sell part of Belle Vue for housing, with possible demolition of the house. Sudbury is not happy. Adrian Walters is organising a training course for volunteers. Our granddaughter Sarah is now at Brighton university, on its Eastbourne campus. We have a new gas boiler, more complicated than the old, condemned one. It cost more than the house did! At least we have it in time for the worst of the winter. 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Glos. GL51 3AH
26 September 2008
Dear Allan
I trust you are both reasonably well as we are in Cheltenham. We have just returned from a delightful holiday (lots of walking and cycling) in Jersey.
I was a little overtaken by activities within the few days following the Sudbury Committee Meeting and our flight to the Channel Islands, hence this late communication.
Unfortunately our visit to Sudbury was marred by a most unpleasant experience on the Tuesday when we attempted to return home. Our car, parked overnight at the rear of'West House' Ballingdon Street, had the fuel tank 'drilled' and about £40 of petrol removed. Following a visit by the AA and notifying the police (it turns out there were 8 other cars that had met the same fate) we were temporarily 'plugged-up' and able to leave in the by then pouring rain, slowly limping home. The cost of the tank replacement c £500!
However, that's life in these days. The meeting in Sudbury was a little disjointed. Simonie, unable to attend had advised Jean Moscrop to run the meeting in assistance to Barry Ribble. Roy Alston, resplendent in pinstripe suit¢, was clearly under the assumption that Simonie had appointed him to deputise. Tony Wheeler insisted that RA should chair. You might imagine the somewhat tmtuous and protracted proceedings, it was a little chaotic.
I hope you will not be too disappointed in my raising, in AOB, the subject of rights over Wardman Meadows. Having further considered the fonnal attitude of the Charity Commission, they had implied that the subject should be resolved by the Trustees. In view of some of the Freemen's ongoing unhappiness over the HCM outcome, we might at least pursue the transfer of rights. Tony Wheeler is not in favour of any such further actions. However, I have proposed that we request but not demand consideration to allow the traditional practice of transferred rights, from Harp Close Meadow and possibly any unextinguished rights over Friars Meadow previously not transferred onto Wardman Meadows.
Of course we would not anticipate Wardman Meadows becoming 'Common Land' as under the Registration Act, but that it may remain 'closed' as existing Nature Reserve: It may be undesireable that it could become open to the general public or exposed to the general fishing etc carried out elsewhere. It seems to me fair and reasonable that the Freemen should, by right, have some small and 'ongoing' interest in that land.
Our best wishes to Margaret was originally bought to site a replacement hospital
You reported (Free Press, April 5) that councillor Albert Pearce asks for information on the history of the land in Waldingfield Road often referred to as People's Park.
This land, comprising about 15 acres, was bought by the Freemen of Sudbury for £1 ,628 from Mr Grover, in 1876, as winter grazing when they had to move their cattle off the river pastures.
The land was subsequently conveyed to Sudbury Common Lands Charity in 1897, to be administered under the terms of a scheme approved by the High Court.
During the summer, the charity occasionally let the land for use by the fair or circus, or allowed it to be used with permission for community fetes and events, without charge.
When the hospital authorities were looking for a site for the new Sudbury Hospital in the 1980s, they approached the charity trustees to acquire the land for this purpose.
Details of the negotiations at the time are well recorded in the late John Wardman's book Sudbury Common Lands. In summary, following professional advice received and with the possibility of compulsory purchase hanging over them, the charity trustees sold the land for £750,000.
Much of these funds have since been used by the Charity Trustees for the benefit of the town, with significant grant aid to the Scout Group, River Stour Trust and Tennis Club, with their development on the former gasworks site in the 1990s; acquisition of the Christopher Centre and purchase of land on the other side of the river to Friars Meadow, as well as support for numerous smaller charitable projects.
At the time of sale, approval and funding were in place for the health authority to build the much-needed replacement hospital facility, but a challenge by the Steed brothers that the land should be regarded as a "town green" open to all, resulted in much delay, a High Court review and costs of many thousands of pounds to the Steeds and the health authority. More importantly, due to the delay and a reversal in policy the building of the hospital on this site was scuppered.
As was found by lawyers involved in the original sale, the Sudbury Co.mmon Lands Charity had good title to sell the land in question, confirmed by the subsequent High Court review. While access to the site has always been restricted, fencing erected has been cut and broken down. Spending more time and funds again on this aspect again must be questionable.
Sudbury has a fantastic record of individuals and organisations getting together with the local councils and grant-making bodies providing facilities for the public benefit (Friars Street sports ground, football club, theatre, Mill Acre, and Gainsborough's House, together with those mentioned above, among others.)
Surely a better way forward would be to look for means of acquiring the land, to be held by the town council and properly managed as a recreational amenity.
After all, the PCT or its predecessor must have recovered all or most of its original outlay on the land already, sold for housing, and would hopefully welcome a positive response from Sudbury for a change. Some offer of cash and resolution of this long-running saga might even promote a move to provision of those much-needed health facilities we have looked forward to for so long, and truly give us a People's Park. Philip Richardson Chairman Sudbury Common Lands Charity z Mr A. Berry 1 0 Blackheath Colchester Essex C02 OAA FREEMAN OF SUDBURY ?.9 .1. 03
Dear Alan, I had in mind to i nc lu 'e the 1922 Counsel ' s Opinion as an appendix t o the work now progressing, very slowly , but hopefully towards completion this yenr - a history of Lhe 20th centur y freeclof!l. You r interest has prompted rne l:o do a copy now. It was the Trustees who sought, the opinion . Al present ' Sudbury on S ow ' is the preoccupation. Various hands have had a shot at jmproving my draft leaflet, and we c'on ' t all a ,eactow . 1i!here we slipped up wi t h IICI ·'i was in not waiti n ~J for comp ulsory purchase, when there would have been an argument for trR nsfe~ of rights under the Compulsory Purchase Act . l haven ' t heard fvhe t her Simonie has mPde up her mind 8bout send in~: the letter I drafted to the Common Lands . I 1 suggested a 1 ter ing it to • • correspondence be l:ween a freeman and the Custoclian .. ' l:o save her embarrassment abou r. reopening the question. Enclosed leaflet is a draft , at Chris Wheeler ' s request, v1hich Si111on i.e has in mi nd to issue at 1 S . on Show ' . Phone:01206577003 for England and Wales Harrnsworth House 13 - 15 Bouverie Street London EC4Y 8DP Mr Allan W Berry Direct Line: 020 7674 2364 10 Blackheath Fax: 020 7674 2301 Colchester General Enquiries: 0870 3330123 (Voice) Essex 0870 3330125 (Minicom) C020AA Email : Your Ref: Our Re f: CG-0319879-CD (Ldn) Date: 18 December 2002 Dear Mr Berry, Sudbury Common Lands Charity (212222) Thank you for your letter dated gth December regarding your query over grazing rights. In answer to your question, the Official Custodian cannot take part in managing land vested in him. The charity trustees (who are the people responsible under the charity's governing document for controlling the management and administration of the charity) keep all the powers and duties of management. They will still, for example, have to: • decide how the land should be let (if the governing document of the charity states that the land may or must be let); • arrange for rents to be collected; • ensure that where the land is held on trust for a particular purpose, it is used for that purpose and no other; • inspect the condition of the land to make sure that it is not being misused; and • arrange for its upkeep, maintenance and, if necessary, improvements. Further to this, if I could draw your attention to section 21 (2) of the governing scheme dated 14th May 1987 where it states that "The Trustees when letting rights of grazing and sporting rights over the land belonging to the Charity shall give preference to applicants for such rights who are Freemen or the widowers of Freemen, and subject thereto to applicants who are inhabitants of the Town of Sudbury." I trust that this is helpful and satisfactory. Yours sincerely, c H;I KL o '?1- f_ ,.: 1 <' _ ::: Filed your accounts and returns yet? Defaulters are shown on the register at: www.charitycommission.gov .uk Il\'VESTOR lN PEOPLE 20 Nov. 2002 Dear Alan, Th anks for yours of the 17th. Yl hat a relief to hear that l ( re s o en :- itled. nu , one ·r the ancien' q L o he Freemen u y ' Comrno n L.a n ~'s ' . 1as been s uoc;:e ecJ od"'"'-.oy a harj SG: h~ me . Clause 2L! of the 1987 Scheme expressly directs that the proceeds of any sale of land shall be invested ' in t rust for the Charity '. This is a general prov j sj on. Likewise, Clouse 21 ( 1) directs the mode of application of ' the income of the Charity ' . Clause 27(2) gives a power to the Trustees to make rules regarding the income of t he Charj ty but there is an express provision thaL such rules are to be ' in accordance with sub clause ('!)'." To t he best of my knovdeclge the \'/ardrnan meadows are owned by lhe trustees. Th ey were formerly referred to as Bar leym an meadows, I believe, being owned by executors of a !:larleyman . John ~lardma n has now resignee! as Chairman of the trustees through iJJ health. vJhether his successor, whoever he ( oe she may be, v1il1 be favourable or hostile to the freemen remains to be seen. Simonie is going to next week ' s meeting, and I suggested she in viLe 1'1alcolm Batty to accompany her . Let ' s hope the meeting clarifies the position. I will let her lmow the comment you got from Peter Grjmm abou t Kings tlarsh flooding. 1/ . ,-,. 1-/ ( 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL515AH 17 November 2002 Dear Allan Thanks for your letter of the 11th. Following an interesting and open telephone discussion with Peter Grimm, he has kindly e-mailed what he refers to as the 'protected line' of the bypass 'Option B'. This almost entirely follows that previously (1996) proposed. I am somewhat relieved to ( learn that it is the most favoured option. Even so, it cannot be seen as a justifiable expense. Mr Grimm concedes that 'any' development over King's Marsh must be impractical due to the flooding nature of the plain. If projected, the bypass must have some adverse affect on the area, even though they have included cutting and masking techniques to reduce impact. There will be more formal consultations this week involving the local authorities. It just remains now to await the next stage in the decision making before taking any further action. With regard to the Harp Close eaaow situation, what was Charles Sparrow's response to your letter of 28 April 2000. You mention he refers that Section 25 ( 5) of the Scheme would cover the new land. Did he relay a full 'opinion' or is that a private matter. If so, dia he come up with any clear advice on how to proceed? From what you say, he accepted the Commissioner's determination. I recall you saying that ( Simonie had had enough on the subject! Does this mean the subject is too complex to proceed without assistance. What is clear, is that the Charity Commissioners, given half the chance, will close customary practices where ever there is little resistance. This is no reflection on your considerable efforts, quite the contrary. The Huntingdon case came too close for comfort when arguing for our commoning continuance. When we look back to 1990, when each of the 15 freemen were found to have benefited £31,750 and had each been receiving several thousands in the years before (in the name of charity). It was no wonder that freemen's land came under close scrutiny (and probably an over reaction). It is easy for me to say we must persevere and I feel it is entirely unfair that you are expected to be our saviour. We cannot, as an association, flourish without your help. I cannot imagine what we would do without your oversight and knowledge. On the subject of the Wm·dman Meadows, are you able to advise who the land was purchased from. And are they fully 'owned' or leased under certain conditions? I believe they are in the region of 40 acres. For the time being 'long may the freedom of Sudbury flourish' ( ( ' 10 Blackheath Colchester C02 OAA 11 No v. 2002 Dear Alan, I muyst try to answer at least some of the points raised in those helpful letters of yours. I will look up the Law of Property Act 1925 i n Halsbury. If that doesn ' t make Sections 193/194 clear, I shall have to look at the Act itself on my next visit to the university. Th e library here should be able to show whe,ther the Inclosure Act 1845 and the Inclosure Act 1849, or any parts of them, have been repealed. Th e Steeds have go ne very quiet . Nothing seems to have been heard from them since last November, when they threatened to take legal action if llarp Close was used for building. In fact by then there were apparently already at least 29 houses on the site, with more being built . I imagine that now there is no prospect of their selling land for tl e hospital they will lose interest, unless from injured pride at their defeat . The Health Service mus t be making a healthy profit. \'/arclm2 n meadov1s, as charity and, must presumab y be vest ed jn t he Qff.cial Custofian of Chari ties un er the Charities Act 19 9.0 . The position of transfer of riohts was left in the air . Tile Charity Co mmissioner et"ermined, in the light of Section 31 of he Scheme, ha th. freemen we r e no t entitled t o benefit from tile s •' l 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL515AH 9 November 2002 Dear Allan Fmther to my last letter and patticularly concerning Hat Close Meadow. In the penultimate paragraph, I of course, meant to imply ... should administer 'rights' over the land (or distribution if you so wish). May I respectively enquire what overtures the Society have made to the relevant Council members with interests in the continuance of the common land. What does the member of Babergh District Council, on the Common Lands Management Committee have to say in our support. Has anyone approached English Nature (addresses advanced to Simonie) who are the arbitrators of the Commons ESA! Particularly to Dr Wortley at Ipswich re my fax to Simonie 20 October last. And can I remind ourselves that Babergh designated the commons as Local Nature Reserve and therefore should be committed to its preservation. Harking back to my conversation with Ted Backing at Huntingdon, he was glad to hear that we had registered King's Marsh. Although we must respect the privacy of the David Ainger opinion closely held by Huntingdon Council, he has clearly indicated that it is in respect of Sections 193 and 194 of the Law of Prope1ty Act 1925 that we should be able to prevent any development. Of course, this may be a final resort requiring expensive legal assistance in court. An interesting aside is the fact that David Ainger's chambers are at 10 Old Square Lincoln's Inn and that Charles Sparrow is at 13 Old Square Lincoln's Inn, I wonder if as close neighbours they ever discus over coffee the tricky problems of customary law. Finally, I appreciate I have been laying a lot of questions at your door, but am not expecting you personally to be chasing eve1ybody rather as a conduit if this is permissible, what else can I do from this distance. I sincerely trust are both well and that this business is not too trying. 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL513AH 7 November 2002 Dear Allan Thank you for your update and copy of letter to Mr Grimm re the Bypass. My last letter may have seemed a little harsh, but it was intended to focus on the 'hard facts' that unfortunately pay little heed to our sentiments. We can no longer simply appeal on the basis of cultural landscape. We need the allied political clout of the larger ( national bodies. Certainly as many local/ national, environmental associations (particularly including Suffolk Wildlife Trust) that we can engage. This morning I have again visited Paul Johnson at the Countryside Agency to obtain any clues/ refs for the David Ainger exposition on the Huntingdon land. Other than the awareness of the basics he has no copy. However, he was able to say that the most recent explanation was dated March 2000 but that it had been a privately studied casework carried out (at considerable expense) for Huntingdon Council. I rang Ted Backing, Town Clerk at Huntingdon (lengthy and costly call) who was most friendly but explained that this material was produced to defend any future attempts to develop their common land. Consequently he has given an undertaking to Council to keep this under lock and key to prevent any opposition gaining site of it. However, as Ted Backing and Paul Johnson have both pointed out, it is imperative that we join the Open Spaces Society and in turn we will gain the assistance of David Ainger. He will cost less as an affiliate of the 0/S Society and having done all the work already in the case of Huntingdon could serve us well. With regard to Harp Close Meadow, your draft looks good and I support your intentions to resolve this matter. 1 cannot remember whether or not we fully explored the argument of 'exchanged rights' in connection with the leased 'Wardman' land. It may be too late to invoke Section 147 of the Inclosure Act 1845 which enables exchanges of land to be effected by means of an Order of the Secretaty of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (that was). This would have ensured the same trusts and liabilities given in exchange. As this is a conveyancing matter, simply requiring a solicitor's assistance, it should be straight forward and involves the Inclosure Act 1849 Section 11. The exchange is effected by the Order itself and no further deed is necessary. I am a little incensed by the breakdown of the original intentions to provide a hospital and the subsequent development of housing. Surely the original transaction, in good faith, was for the benefit of the town and its inhabitants. Who are the recipients of the profit made from the housing development? Perhaps you can clarify: * Is the balance of Harp close Meadow still under application (by Steed's or others) for 'Green' registration ('Peoples Park'). * Acceptance that Wardman's Meadows are not under the 'ownership' of the Freemen. ( * How is the Wardman land registered 'in title' at the Land Registry and can (if necessary) this be amended. * What are the leasing arrangements, from whom/ owner, the acreage and period. Even so, I strong y fiola the view that we should pursue registration of transferred 'rights' as further com ensation for the outcome and unintended development of the Close. The argument is strong enough to insist on a grant of rights from the Charity Commissioners by virtue of 'lost' capital and the additional costs incurred over the replacement lands. I support your question of the Charities Custodian - In the circumstance the trustees should administgXtl[e land. Although even this is little in compensation for the lost potential profits from the sale of Harp Close Meadow. Having said all of this, I must say that certain advantages come from the 'closed' nature ( of the Wardman land, it being an unspoiled reserve (not public) landscape. Ps re an optional termination of the Bypass- am I not right in assuming that we may still have unextinguished rights over Lady Island? 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL513AH 6 November 2002 Dear Simonie/ Allan Sudbury Bypass Proposals Further to my letter of 25 October and my subsequent brief research, here is a summary of facts, conclusions and opinions. Salient Facts: a) The road proposals, at County level, are significant - to warrant survey costs of £375,000 (Mouchel, Chelmsford). b) The Town Council have unanimously agreed they would like to see a western bypass (option B) with slight alterations to the accompanying traffic management schemes. c) The County Council have been seen to engage a wide sweep of opinion including a 3 day exhibition seen by more than 1000 local inhabitants. d) A similar scheme (A131 Western Sudbmy Bypass) was not accepted in the local transport settlement in December 2000 on the grounds of deliverability. However, government were to reconsider a re-subrnission once the two accepted major bids - Lowestoft Southern Relief Road and the B 1115 Stowmarket Relief Road - have been built. e) Re common land- A significant factor arising from the 1955-58 Royal Commission on Common Land and the resulting 1965 Act was that such land should be preserved to provide multi-benefits to locality, people and environment. This includes, not only commoners but local inhabitants -This is an overriding factor. Conclusions: Benefit to the greater proportions may be seen to come from a compromise that benefits the majority- the town preservation by reduced disturbance caused by traffic, with additional support for complainants living along the existing congested route. Politically, the County Council are committed along with support from Town Council. Resistance- The enlistment of legal assistance can be very expensive but the help from interested bodies will be inexpensive and should clarify the necessities involved. Action/ Assistance: a) The Association should seek membership of the Open Spaces Society. b) The Association should contact Transport 2000 who, in conjunction with the CPRE, can provide useful assistance. Contact www.transport2000.org.uk. c) A senior member of the Countryside Commission has recommended we consider the legal restrictions to development on common land - by analysing the counsel's opinion on the Huntingdon case, re the sale of Spring Common David Ainger ?1998* Sections 193 and 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 have specific relevance. d) Legal restrictions - with regard to ecology and nature conservation occur in Volume 11 Section 3 part 4 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. This covers the 'Protected Animals and Plant Species (Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981). The Ranger would need to prove the existence of any faunal flora listed. NB I have the relevant listings if necessary. *To-date I have been unable to trace David Ainger's account of counsel's opinion, although I have a copy of the vety extensive coverage (1993) of Peggs v Lamb by Morritt J from the All England Law Reports 1994. This mainly deals with the background to freemen's rights and their entitlement to benefit under charitable trusts. It does not study the other factors concerning relevant values or restrictions over the land. Unfortunately, I have not received any information from Alan Fallows, Archivist of the F.o.E. My guess is that there is no useful precedential material in the archive. Well I must trust that progress will be in our favour and that we can blunt that 'wedge' in order that the Sudbury Freemen's Lands may 'continue to flourish'. Best wishes to you both and the to progress you may be able to achieve. ~<-,- ~- 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL513AH 25 October 2002 Dear Simonie/ Allan Protection of Our Sudbury Commons Following my last correspondence, I have spoken with Ray Mason, leader of the freemen at Newcastle-under-Lyme who was unable to give any specific advice. I then contacted Alan Fallows, the F.o.E archivist who has said he will dig through his materials for anything useful. Yesterday I visited the Countryside Commission to seek their opinion. I spoke with Paul Johnson, Snr. Countryside Officer, Common Land, who advises: a) that our Association should register for assistance by the Open Spaces Society and b) that we consider (preferably with legal assistance) Sections 193 and 194 of the Law ofProperty Act 1925*. He particularly believes the 'key' may be within counsel's position on the Huntingdon debacle. Within the detail are restrictions - once public access has been declared even the Secretary of State (who must rule) cannot easily allow any polluting effects caused by a motorway. Also this provides protection of common land even down to the smallest application of concrete to its surfaces. *You can recall that commons within a former borough are affected by the limitations under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Although fenced, in one sense, our commons via their many pathways allow 'right of access' by the public 'for air and exercise'. The public are prohibited from driving vehicles/ bicycles, camping or lighting fires. The Road Traffic Act 1972 Section 36 p100 prevents vehicles anywhere on common land within 15 yards from a road. Section 193 of the 1925 act declares it an offence to drive anywhere on the common. In addition to these statutory restrictions, the trustees of the commons may apply to the Secretary of State for an Order of Limitations to prevent any misdemeanours. Section 194 of the 1925 Act (p88) provides that: erection of any buildings or fence or the construction of any other work on land which the section applies is unlawful, unless the consent of the Secretary of State is obtained. NB. With regard to the County Council plans - the Planning Authority cannot approve itself. It is Section 194 that provides a high degree of protection (being that our land was subject to 'rights of common' at the 1965 Act). This should also prevent any modifications to the riversides (regarding leisure pursuits) as anticipated by the River Stour Tmst or River Authority. With regard to 'Huntingdon' we can recall the disgust (to us all) caused by freemen of Huntingdon who sold 'Spring Common' for development and became 'overnight millionaires' on the proceeds. This led to considerable discussion and doors have been closed against any such repeat actions. However, the detail may be useful in protecting our own future. Paul Johnson (Countryside Comm.) advises that Ted Backing, Town Clerk at Huntingdon, may be wmth approaching. Counsel's Opinion by David Ainger ?1998. Hope some of this may be useful if only as a reminder. Ps. I append a note I produced to introduce the problem to the Countryside Commission Dear Alan, You might like to hve the enclosed copy of a note I have done for freemen in the family. I have mooted a new tactic, asking the custodian of Charity Lands to grant us rJghts, - but Simonie feels she has had enough. Bob Bacon, who is now Chairman of the Colchester freemen, went to the FEW AGt·1. He is despondent; he foresees Colchester dying out; numbers have dropped alarmingly. The Council won't allow their new Borough boundaries, and they can't admit women. Sudbury is lucky! 10 Holbrook Close Gt. Waldingfield Sudbury Suffolk COlO OXX Tel: 01787 373209 Email: jo_hrtc_bar_te_r@icZ4_.n_eJ Sir, I think it is time some of the recent history ofHarpclose Meadow was put into perspective. ft was owned by the Freeman and never registered as a public open space. When the Sudbury Freeman's Society was informed through the Sudbury Common Lands Trustees of the approach by the Regional Health Authority for the purchase ofHarpclose Meadow for a Hospital for Sudbury; the committee were informed that if they did not agree to its sale, it would be compulsorily acquired at a knock down price, under powers which the Regional Health Authority had at that time. The Freeman were told that the purpose of their interest was to provide a Community Hospital for Sudbury and District to supplement services provided by the West Suffolk Hospital at Bury St. Edmunds, and that after looking at other possible sites in the Town this one was their first choice. Emphasis was placed on the fact that it was in a central position for Sudbury residents and that a Hospital on this site would provide much needed facilities for the townspeople. Somewhat reluctantly the Sudbury Freeman's committee agreed through the Sudbury Common Lands Trustees that a private sale could be negotiated on this basis. We now know that after many excuses, mainly financial, this was never to happen and the Health Authority more recently sold part of the Meadow for building thus more than recouping their outlay on its purchase and incidental costs. This was against the Freeman's wishes as they had also been assured that apart from a Hospital and ancillary buildings; no residential development would take place on any land not needed for Hospital purposes. The Health Authorities now wish to dispose of the remainder ofHarpclose Meadow for residential development to help reduce their large financial deficit incurred by West Suffolk Hospitals. 1 do not agree with ALL the points in the letter from Peter Blackwell (EADT- 24th November 2006) but I am sure many Freeman, and residents of Sudbury would agree with the last paragraph of his letter concerning the remainder of the Meadow and its return to the people of Sudbury as a new public open space. How about it Babergh ? John Grimwood (Past Chairman, Sudbury Freeman's Society) 2 Registration of the Sudbury Common Lands The intention and expectation of the Land Registration Act 2002 is that all land in England should be registered. This also includes the ownership of any rights applying over or into the land. It is expected that the register will provide a 'complete and accurate reflection of the title of the land at any given time'. Better protection is intended for registered landowners. Regarding boundaries - rules will enable owners to apply for the exact line of a registered boundary to be determined. Benefits to the Trustees Registration of the Common Lands will clearly define the boundaries and determine riparian borders of ditches, streams or river where any doubts may exist. This will resolve any potential disputes regarding encroachment by bordering properties and would prevent bridges (even temporary) being placed to gain access to the Common Lands. Benefits to the Freemen Freemen's historic rights would be clearly registered and endorsed to protect them against any future actions of reform. NB The registration of the lands and of the rights over are independent of the recordings held at the County Register of the Common Lands under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and subsequently updated under the Commons Act 2006. Alan Shelley October 2008. .r:lrm~ t-;U.o{ !ho.d tt...e__ c:-..~ R{J~ lkr. I~ ()diJh.u It;~ 7 tf1.L fl1 ~ tf-t "/ ~ ~ tht-o( l-trl'4f 4~~7- 1-::JfJ/f ~~ - ,/fa p~~ ~;t:j 1-?U~ r~i!ok_~ ~ ~ ~ dtxio~ (// tk ~~~s e~~~ · ~ 2? Nav~bll./ 197+ ~ ~ ~ of Nlll~ IYI·~ ~I .)udb~ - ! B~be:-9~ ~u-~ Sufr~ ~ tty(~. o{- ik!e r~ ~ 1f:c_ tU~ a/ ~ ktuM 1 .- '/ ~ I ~ be. hdd fj~ ~ ~~u~t6~v;y 1 'fj"- v~ uf Sad~ F~'s ~. ~ ~ cJ ~~ v~ -t tef f(. w~ rlr:-1--U-~ef- £":}~ ~~ ~'97s P· t:J (rt 8 ii'e bruary 2001 Dear Al an, A thor oughly wet O. ay s eems a good time to t ake to the typewriter , Ava ilable booklets enclos ed . 'rhe loca l books hop has s coured their stock f or ' Poverty & Affluenc e' without success. You cheque was way over the top, s o I enclos e s ome s t amp s . By all means pa s s lf.J:l he f reed om of Sudbury' on to Angela . I a m o.e lighted to think she would be interes ted, Have you seen the s tudy of the Sudbury Oornmon Lands and the freemen i n the ea rly 18t h c entury, by H R French, i n t ll e Agricultural Hi s tory Review, 2000, Part 2? In case you di dn't see the Times report of a case about Commons , a copy enclos ed. I f only this had come up a dozen yea r s ago it could have put pa i d to a ll tha t agitation by the Steeds , ( A ma p I have s een of the flood pl a in round Suo.bury incl ud es the Common Lands and beyond , s o they s hould be saf e f rom building . The projected line of the bypass , if it i s ever built, goes well av1ay f rom t he Co tn mo n Lands , Th ere ar e now 5 nevJ f r eemen comi ng up n ext month . Ted Filer i s working on the t estimoni a l I dr aft ed for presentation to David Wardley in view of his retirement. Roy Al s ton has r etired as Cl erk to t h e Freemen, and b een replaced by Richard Prior, Simonie' s hu sband, s i nc e we couldn't find a fre eman to do it. '.J:lhis y ear ' s payout i s to be on 27 June . It promis es to be jus t over £4 , becau se of the los s of the ES A grant. 0c ill no decis ion a out c::; r az ing rig t s on ~~ a r u man meadows. Our Committee meeting l ast month d ebat ed wh er e to s tore the freeme n ' s a r chives , at pr es ent in four l arge cardboa r d box es at iVJ elford. 'l'h e Christoph er i s not con s i d ere d~ s ecure enough, s o Tony Whe eler i s to approach the To wn Hall, hoping that i n view of all we do f or them they mi ght be h el pful. I sugges t ed St. Peter' s ves try, but acces s vlould not be r eao.ily ava ilable . Th e Suff olk Record Of f ice i s out, a s they now have r egulations which involve hol dine,- them f or at least 20 year s. The Freemen' s Trus t had the old s i gn tha t us ed to be at the entrance to the town r epaired , wi t h the i dea of putting it i n that little bit of garden at the s ide of the To wn Hall, but the Tour i s t Off ice now want to expand i nto that s pa ce . A l eafl et on St. Gr egor y' s spons ored by the Trust ha s been published with proper acknowl edgem ent . Si monie has s ent FE\~ a r evised article on Suo. bur y ( which I wrote) 1 for the propos ed nevJ ' Freemen in Engl and • 'rhe project for a symbolic s culpture at Belle Vue h a s been mo dified. They s till have the Trus t's original £1000 gr ant ( getting interes t). You mi ght like the enclos ed uncorrected extract f rom the 1 \-J'ho was who' bit of the a c count of the 1771 revolt, See Mayhew F'rench. Al s o extra ct from 1935 lis t of f reemen. I~y c ollaborator on 1771 \vas l ast heard of s etting off for Austra lia and South Sfrica . Her res ea rch found things I never dr eamed of , but I s truggle to s ort out her s ornethimes confus ed notes , We are h o p eful o f a vis it from the f a mily at h a lf term, if their commitments permit ( Mar garet i s moving to a nother d e pa rtment). ~I e trus t you a nd yours a re fit a nd Mell. Don 1 t let study g et you dovm; remember what the boss of a civil engineering firm told me: 1 You 1 1 should c a re a bout your work, but you s houldn t \•lorry about it • f0<~ /frl~ ( ( 16 Bournside Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL51 5AH 27 April 2000 Dear Allan Thank you for your letter of the 24th. I am sorry to have 'caused' you to write, my intention by ringing was to prevent further incursion on your time. However, I am most pleased to hear you are both fit and well enough to reorganise your garden. Glad to hear that a letter has gone to the DETR if only to make our (freemen) presence known. Also pleased that Charles Sparrow has given his blessing. This subject has ( resurrected some of my latent thoughts on 'lost' freemen's' land (in other boroughs). As you will recall, freemen's rights and common rights in general are, in customary law, and therefore in English law, 'real property'. The popular assumption of many local authorities (and by little opposition to the fact) has been to receive commonable land as freehold (which it is) and therefore council property. By doing so, they have, in several instances not recognised the 'ownership' of any individual rights over the land. In law, each individual (with a right) was at the least entitled to com ensation for the removal of their hereditary 'propetty. It should not be the case, by consequence, that continuous use (normally required in law) be instrumental. Therefore, it may be 'reasonable', in law, that without the discharge by compensation, the transfers were not legally binding? It may be considered umeasonable that the registrations (or non-registrations) carried out by the various local ( authorities (unchallenged) were 'neatly' taken. Of course, this goes hand in hand with rejection, and consequent loss of freedom/ privilege. An example of limited numbers assuming they were too few to argue their case. 'Old hat', you may say, so what! However, my purpose in ringing you, other than socially, was again to pick your brains. Sounds awful when I write that! a) What was registered as common land (Sudbury) under the 1965 Act and subsequently? b) Any idea of the composite acreage of freemen's land in England and Wales? c) You have already answered a question re the registration - it was presumably 'in gross' . Although we can relate certain land with earlier agreements by 'grant'? d) Did Blackwell manage to foul things by his attempt at registering as 'town green'? I spoke at some length (discussed) these matters with Guy but regret I cannot find my aged notes. I am a little intrigued how these matters were orchestrated. By that I mean from the local opposition! challenges and Parliamentary pressures. It seems that those remaining freemen bodies with some control are holding 'in trust' the amalgamation of old municipal charities and where these did not exist no 'body' for an association was formed. This is getting too wordy now so I will close on the subject. Further to Charles Sparrow, I commend your eff01t to have him recognised and agree that FEW activity was insufficient. It has been attempted for him and even our past presidents but to no avail. However, I will extend the comments on FEW to tell you of a growing problem within the leadership. We have a schism, between the current president, past president and Charles Sparrow on one hand, who have been supporting a growing ( number of newly formed 'Court Leets' (membership simply by application). On the other hand their is strong opposition from various gild leaders supported by Bill Healey, the Archivist and others. This has reached a level where one or two have resigned from the Association! The problems revolve around hereditary 'rights and privilege'. There has always been contention regarding the growing numbers of London freemen (not regarded as proper) the Beverley Pasture Masters and others, all of whom being under par with the hereditary burgess freemen of the 'old boroughs'. I have seen this resentment and it is extraordinary. For my part (and what it's worth) if it would bring satisfaction, the Association can be of gilds/ association bodies and the individuals, from whatever backgrounds, designated as associates with no voting rights. Perhaps the members of Court Leets should be associates rather than be cast out. My impression has been that the current President, very keen, and even more so in his ( previous office, wishes to 'grow' the Association as large as possible. I must say, I was never keen when Col. Kenyon was desperately chasing the 'free' regiments to join. We appeared to be going toward a military comrades club, but this was scotched soon after they joined. They have all resigned having seen that there was no logic in their membership! It does seem that each new President pursues a personal crusade. You wouldn't believe the anger when questioned. I am afraid we are liable to have a serious confrontation. The dissatisfied Gild masters are angry with Charles for his support (as they see it) of Richard Bishop who introduced these anomalies (ex president and of Altrincham Comt Leet). The Gilds have been out-voted by associate (individual) members and Court Leet members. Time to change the subject and thank you for the info regarding the defendants of the 'revolt' I would be interested to learn more. It is fascinating to learn of these peoples trades. Mayhew (interesting forename) French, of whom we have spoken much, had an accomplished hand for a labourer. I appreciate this may simply be practised handwriting. The reference to the marriage of Philip and Susanna RICE at Borley, I am assuming to fit progeny of Thomas and Susan nee KEMP who in fact moved to Melford c1712, they were then collateral of our family but it's nice to make the links, thanks. Sorry to have bored you with such a long letter, all the best for now, ( 10 Blackheath Colchester Essex G02 OAA Christmas 2000 Dear Alan, The latest on Sudbury i s that Adrian Walters has informed Simonie t at the Trustees are consulting the Charity Commission, and meanwh ile are wi thholaing the grazing money from \olardman Meadows . Another frustration, - the woman at lteli.xstO\ve \vi th \ ( 10 Blackheath Colchester Essex C0 2 OAA 22 Oct. 2000 Dear Alan, If you are still collecting millenium greens, you may like to have the enclosed. From the FEW Newsletter it s eems they still hope to republish 'Freemen in England', s o I have sent Simonie Prior a draft rewrite on Sudbury. Simonie and Roy Alston have not been seeing eye to eye lately, and it will not surprise me if we end up with a new Clerk,- but who? Tony Wheeler doesn't want it. Barry Hibble is understudying Peter Smith as Treasurer. Simonie would be prepared to hold the fort for the time being. She has reorganised and listed the archives, which I went through and threw out the junk. ( The Common Lands matter is still not finally resolved. Our last Committee agreed a letter to the Charity Commission, Where a new ercon has taken over the Sudbury patch, and we have received a reply , just quoting the ~cheme, which should be put to the trus tees shortly. ': e know the new land is being grazed. Charles Sparro1v has expressed his thanks for the book we sent him. On a vis it to Ingatestone Ha ll I had a word with Lord Petre (pronounced' Peter, incidentally), wh o commented h ow t horough Charl es a l ways was . I am now collaborating 1v i th a researcher, Judith Campbell, on a study of the Sudbury freemen' s revolt of 1771. It was essentially provoked by a conspiracy to deprive the lovJer class of freemen of their freedom. Another current project of mine is a chronicle of early 19th century Sudbury, but that will take time. There are of course distractions, such as the arrival in Colchester of a gang of navvies who are demanding a poem about them ••• •• And the girls who do my printing want a collected edition of the things I h ave 1-.rr itten a bout them i n the last decade. I\.nd correspondence! Tony Copsey has pu.blished his book (a £45 job), but a man doing the same thing for Kent now comes up with queries about Sudbury 18th century printer William Brackett, which I am passing on to a pres ent-day Brackett . One correspondence pa id off; it led to two women taking up the freedom, along with three others (a mother and her two sons) las t month. A note I s ent to 'Suffolk Roots' on Sudbury men in the l'llili tia brought several letters from people assuming I am an expert on Suffolk military history. What problems will the next i ssue caus e me? - I s ent them a copy of an 18th century Sudbury trade directory. We trus t you and the family a ll flourish.