Adjudicator to have say in Tymperleys debate

A BID which would allow Tiptree’s Jam-makers to transform one of Colchester’s most historic buildings will be heard next month.

Almost exactly 12 months ago, Wilkin & Sons applied to Colchester Council to turn Tymperleys, the 16th century building once used as a clock museum, into a tea room.

In February, the council announced the Tiptree family firm had submitted the best application to take the building over on a 20-year lease.

But three months later, the Gazette revealed the landowner who owned the archway and passage to it was refusing to allow the authority access through it.

Now, Colchester Council has applied to the Land Registry to turn the passage into a public right of way.

See Tuesday's Gazette for the full story

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:59pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

It's not surprising the landowner refused permission across his own land because he has an interest in a competing cafe/restaurant which would clearly be affected by Wilkins opening a cafe on the Tymperleys site.
It's not surprising the landowner refused permission across his own land because he has an interest in a competing cafe/restaurant which would clearly be affected by Wilkins opening a cafe on the Tymperleys site. Say It As It Is OK?

11:18pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Boris says...

Another obvious case of ineptitude by CBC who failed to check the title deeds of Tymperleys before offering it to Wilkins. They could have negotiated a deal with the café owner.
Previous owners of Tymperleys, from William Gilberd to Bernartd Mason, apparently never had a problem with access to their home. But then they weren't setting up in competition with the neighbour.
Another obvious case of ineptitude by CBC who failed to check the title deeds of Tymperleys before offering it to Wilkins. They could have negotiated a deal with the café owner. Previous owners of Tymperleys, from William Gilberd to Bernartd Mason, apparently never had a problem with access to their home. But then they weren't setting up in competition with the neighbour. Boris

11:20pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Boris says...

Bernard
Bernard Boris

8:12am Tue 27 Nov 12

GreensteadResident says...

Why couldn't the adjudicator be brought in to resolve the case of the Dedham man jailed for living on his own land?
Why couldn't the adjudicator be brought in to resolve the case of the Dedham man jailed for living on his own land? GreensteadResident

9:35am Tue 27 Nov 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

GreensteadResident wrote:
Why couldn't the adjudicator be brought in to resolve the case of the Dedham man jailed for living on his own land?
Because he would have had to pay out of his own pocket to defend himself whereas the council have lawyers and legal departments which incidentally we pay for from our council taxes.

It's often the case that legal costs to take or defend actions are disproportionate to what most individuals can afford but as council fees and legal costs are paid by us their costs don't become a factor for them to consider!
[quote][p][bold]GreensteadResident[/bold] wrote: Why couldn't the adjudicator be brought in to resolve the case of the Dedham man jailed for living on his own land?[/p][/quote]Because he would have had to pay out of his own pocket to defend himself whereas the council have lawyers and legal departments which incidentally we pay for from our council taxes. It's often the case that legal costs to take or defend actions are disproportionate to what most individuals can afford but as council fees and legal costs are paid by us their costs don't become a factor for them to consider! Say It As It Is OK?

12:47pm Tue 27 Nov 12

GreensteadResident says...

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
GreensteadResident wrote:
Why couldn't the adjudicator be brought in to resolve the case of the Dedham man jailed for living on his own land?
Because he would have had to pay out of his own pocket to defend himself whereas the council have lawyers and legal departments which incidentally we pay for from our council taxes.

It's often the case that legal costs to take or defend actions are disproportionate to what most individuals can afford but as council fees and legal costs are paid by us their costs don't become a factor for them to consider!
Thank you for the information Say It As It Is OK?

The whole situation doesn't seem right in either the Dedham or Tymperley's case.

There must be a better and cheaper way of mediating in these cases that is reasonable and fair to all parties so that one side can't be denied justice just because they can't afford it.
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GreensteadResident[/bold] wrote: Why couldn't the adjudicator be brought in to resolve the case of the Dedham man jailed for living on his own land?[/p][/quote]Because he would have had to pay out of his own pocket to defend himself whereas the council have lawyers and legal departments which incidentally we pay for from our council taxes. It's often the case that legal costs to take or defend actions are disproportionate to what most individuals can afford but as council fees and legal costs are paid by us their costs don't become a factor for them to consider![/p][/quote]Thank you for the information Say It As It Is OK? The whole situation doesn't seem right in either the Dedham or Tymperley's case. There must be a better and cheaper way of mediating in these cases that is reasonable and fair to all parties so that one side can't be denied justice just because they can't afford it. GreensteadResident

11:53pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Boris says...

GreensteadResident wrote:
Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
GreensteadResident wrote:
Why couldn't the adjudicator be brought in to resolve the case of the Dedham man jailed for living on his own land?
Because he would have had to pay out of his own pocket to defend himself whereas the council have lawyers and legal departments which incidentally we pay for from our council taxes.

It's often the case that legal costs to take or defend actions are disproportionate to what most individuals can afford but as council fees and legal costs are paid by us their costs don't become a factor for them to consider!
Thank you for the information Say It As It Is OK?

The whole situation doesn't seem right in either the Dedham or Tymperley's case.

There must be a better and cheaper way of mediating in these cases that is reasonable and fair to all parties so that one side can't be denied justice just because they can't afford it.
It was called Legal Aid, and it benefited just those people who deserved justice but couldn't afford it.
Now it is being drastically cut back, by a doctrinaire right-wing government.
Had you not heard about the cuts?
[quote][p][bold]GreensteadResident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GreensteadResident[/bold] wrote: Why couldn't the adjudicator be brought in to resolve the case of the Dedham man jailed for living on his own land?[/p][/quote]Because he would have had to pay out of his own pocket to defend himself whereas the council have lawyers and legal departments which incidentally we pay for from our council taxes. It's often the case that legal costs to take or defend actions are disproportionate to what most individuals can afford but as council fees and legal costs are paid by us their costs don't become a factor for them to consider![/p][/quote]Thank you for the information Say It As It Is OK? The whole situation doesn't seem right in either the Dedham or Tymperley's case. There must be a better and cheaper way of mediating in these cases that is reasonable and fair to all parties so that one side can't be denied justice just because they can't afford it.[/p][/quote]It was called Legal Aid, and it benefited just those people who deserved justice but couldn't afford it. Now it is being drastically cut back, by a doctrinaire right-wing government. Had you not heard about the cuts? Boris

7:45am Wed 28 Nov 12

GreensteadResident says...

Yes Boris I know about the cuts. My family and friends have lost good jobs and businesses as a result of them.

So there's no need to be sarcastic Boris with your comment "Had you not heard about the cuts?"

All I wanted to know - is there a lower cost mediation process that doesn't require all the high powered legal people to help people reach an agreement in these types of cases?
Yes Boris I know about the cuts. My family and friends have lost good jobs and businesses as a result of them. So there's no need to be sarcastic Boris with your comment "Had you not heard about the cuts?" All I wanted to know - is there a lower cost mediation process that doesn't require all the high powered legal people to help people reach an agreement in these types of cases? GreensteadResident

8:19pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Boris says...

GreensteadResident wrote:
Yes Boris I know about the cuts. My family and friends have lost good jobs and businesses as a result of them.

So there's no need to be sarcastic Boris with your comment "Had you not heard about the cuts?"

All I wanted to know - is there a lower cost mediation process that doesn't require all the high powered legal people to help people reach an agreement in these types of cases?
GR, I apologise for my comment, which you must have found offensive.
I don't think there is a cheap way of resolving cases like this where the arguments may be complex and ancient. If you were buying a house, you wouldn't do it without a qualified solicitor to spot any possible pitfalls.
In this case, I read somewhere that when William Gilberd owned Tymperleys, he also owned the adjacent house and therefore there was no problem about right of access. Then, somewhere through the centuries, the properties were separated and the property that is now the café ended up with the right of access to Tymperleys.
Our capitalist society protects the rights of property owners. A revolution to alter all that would be desirable but seems unlikely to take place in the near future.
Private individuals can seek justice from the Small Claims Court, but it does not deal with cases like this.
Should you ever need a barrister, you can contact the Free Representation Unit (FRU) in London, who will provide a barrister for free, if one is prepared to take on your case. This is usually when the barrister in question wants to gain some experience in the area of law which is relevant to your problem. He/she will do a good job for you but will often be a relative novice.
[quote][p][bold]GreensteadResident[/bold] wrote: Yes Boris I know about the cuts. My family and friends have lost good jobs and businesses as a result of them. So there's no need to be sarcastic Boris with your comment "Had you not heard about the cuts?" All I wanted to know - is there a lower cost mediation process that doesn't require all the high powered legal people to help people reach an agreement in these types of cases?[/p][/quote]GR, I apologise for my comment, which you must have found offensive. I don't think there is a cheap way of resolving cases like this where the arguments may be complex and ancient. If you were buying a house, you wouldn't do it without a qualified solicitor to spot any possible pitfalls. In this case, I read somewhere that when William Gilberd owned Tymperleys, he also owned the adjacent house and therefore there was no problem about right of access. Then, somewhere through the centuries, the properties were separated and the property that is now the café ended up with the right of access to Tymperleys. Our capitalist society protects the rights of property owners. A revolution to alter all that would be desirable but seems unlikely to take place in the near future. Private individuals can seek justice from the Small Claims Court, but it does not deal with cases like this. Should you ever need a barrister, you can contact the Free Representation Unit (FRU) in London, who will provide a barrister for free, if one is prepared to take on your case. This is usually when the barrister in question wants to gain some experience in the area of law which is relevant to your problem. He/she will do a good job for you but will often be a relative novice. Boris

5:48pm Thu 29 Nov 12

GreensteadResident says...

Hi Boris

Apology accepted.

Tymperleys is a lovely old build and great bit of local history with all the clockmaking etc.
.

Thanks for the information regarding the FRU - useful to know but I hope that I'll never have to use them.
Hi Boris Apology accepted. Tymperleys is a lovely old build and great bit of local history with all the clockmaking etc. . Thanks for the information regarding the FRU - useful to know but I hope that I'll never have to use them. GreensteadResident

12:54pm Fri 30 Nov 12

jut1972 says...

Good move CBC, sooner it's resolved the better, for the council and us (not wasting money maintaining a building no one uses).

I completely understand the owners point of view and no doubt I would do the same, but he has to then in turn accept that by dragging the procedure out it costs everyone else money and does him no favours in terms of reputation.
Good move CBC, sooner it's resolved the better, for the council and us (not wasting money maintaining a building no one uses). I completely understand the owners point of view and no doubt I would do the same, but he has to then in turn accept that by dragging the procedure out it costs everyone else money and does him no favours in terms of reputation. jut1972

10:14am Sun 2 Dec 12

Catchedicam says...

We seem to be missing the point here, Tymperleys is held 'in trust' by the council for the benefit of Colchester Residents. i.e. they don't own it we do. I for one would rather see the building utilised by a community groups rather than a commercial enterprise, albeit one with a very good Corporate Social Responsibility track record.

This could have been offered to community group(s) to run on a full repairing lease so no cost fell to the council, instead they have chosen to make a profit from it, which will no doubt be sequestrated into council coffers and not spent on direct community benefit.
We seem to be missing the point here, Tymperleys is held 'in trust' by the council for the benefit of Colchester Residents. i.e. they don't own it we do. I for one would rather see the building utilised by a community groups rather than a commercial enterprise, albeit one with a very good Corporate Social Responsibility track record. This could have been offered to community group(s) to run on a full repairing lease so no cost fell to the council, instead they have chosen to make a profit from it, which will no doubt be sequestrated into council coffers and not spent on direct community benefit. Catchedicam

11:29am Sun 2 Dec 12

jut1972 says...

I thought they invited community bids and didnt receive any that stood up? Whilst we would all like more community driven iniatives, the council making money from this isnt negative, its prudent when facing cuts.
I thought they invited community bids and didnt receive any that stood up? Whilst we would all like more community driven iniatives, the council making money from this isnt negative, its prudent when facing cuts. jut1972

3:28pm Sun 2 Dec 12

SOMETHING2SAY says...

and how much is all of this costing "US" ?
and how much is all of this costing "US" ? SOMETHING2SAY

11:04pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Hamiltonandy says...

No one should be surprised by yet another council cockup. I was interested in the long lease and looked at the council sale document with disbelief.
.
Colchester Council knew of the potential access problems but deliberately omitted that the only access was owned separately.
.
Also they were very misleading over the maintenance required. £5000 was mentioned as outstanding. Somewhat underestimating the backlog. When I last visited the property, there seemed a lot of work to do. After a minimum of two winters abandoned by the council it will only have got worse.
.
I wanted to see for myself the work needed. Unfortunately when the council knew I was coming they deliberately kept the gates locked so the estate agent involved could not gain access. Typically Colchester Council never allowed the estate agent to have a key. I have repeatedly complained to the responsible councillor and at council meetings. Typically the tinpot dictators have never responded or even apologised.
.
I wanted Tymperleys to be kept for charitable use. In view of the disabled access problem for the upper floor, that would be best for offices. The ground floor and garden would be ideal for charitable exhibitions. Ideally it would provide a facility for a variety of charities to use as needed. Two particularly come to mind - Essex Blind Charity and a mobility scooter service.
.
I wonder how long it will take before the jam maker realises he has bought an expensive lease, unexpected repairs and council/heritage body obstruction to building alterations. Guess he can keep it closed as the cheaper option!
No one should be surprised by yet another council cockup. I was interested in the long lease and looked at the council sale document with disbelief. . Colchester Council knew of the potential access problems but deliberately omitted that the only access was owned separately. . Also they were very misleading over the maintenance required. £5000 was mentioned as outstanding. Somewhat underestimating the backlog. When I last visited the property, there seemed a lot of work to do. After a minimum of two winters abandoned by the council it will only have got worse. . I wanted to see for myself the work needed. Unfortunately when the council knew I was coming they deliberately kept the gates locked so the estate agent involved could not gain access. Typically Colchester Council never allowed the estate agent to have a key. I have repeatedly complained to the responsible councillor and at council meetings. Typically the tinpot dictators have never responded or even apologised. . I wanted Tymperleys to be kept for charitable use. In view of the disabled access problem for the upper floor, that would be best for offices. The ground floor and garden would be ideal for charitable exhibitions. Ideally it would provide a facility for a variety of charities to use as needed. Two particularly come to mind - Essex Blind Charity and a mobility scooter service. . I wonder how long it will take before the jam maker realises he has bought an expensive lease, unexpected repairs and council/heritage body obstruction to building alterations. Guess he can keep it closed as the cheaper option! Hamiltonandy

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree