The village hall in perpetuity?

[88V8]

I hope to buy the freehold of the village hall.
It's a slim hope as the holder is a greedy skinflint of a local landowner who plans to build a house on the site and evict the village, who have held the hall via the Parish Council, on a series of short tenancies for a hundred years.
The PC owns the hall, but not the land.

The latest lease has been signed without security of tenure so crunch time is nigh.

If I succeed, I can give the Parish Council a 99 year lease.
My concern is looking forward to that time when I shall no longer be here. Rumour has it that such a time eventually transpires.

I wish to ensure that it remains a village hall in perpetuity. I wish to head off a situation where a village builder gets onto the PC - easy as they are always short of councillors - and persuades others that it would be a great idea to sell the site, relocate the village hall - there is not another site as central so it would not be a great idea at all - and he would then build a house on the site thus enriching himself but impoverishing the community of the village.

What provision could I incorporate in the lease to ensure that the site remains a village hall?

V8

[Lootman]

I hope to buy the freehold of the village hall.
It's a slim hope as the holder is a greedy skinflint of a local landowner who plans to build a house on the site and evict the village, who have held the hall via the Parish Council, on a series of short tenancies for a hundred years.
The PC owns the hall, but not the land.

The latest lease has been signed without security of tenure so crunch time is nigh.

If I succeed, I can give the Parish Council a 99 year lease.
My concern is looking forward to that time when I shall no longer be here. Rumour has it that such a time eventually transpires.

I wish to ensure that it remains a village hall in perpetuity. I wish to head off a situation where a village builder gets onto the PC - easy as they are always short of councillors - and persuades others that it would be a great idea to sell the site, relocate the village hall - there is not another site as central so it would not be a great idea at all - and he would then build a house on the site thus enriching himself but impoverishing the community of the village.

What provision could I incorporate in the lease to ensure that the site remains a village hall?

Isn't that what Community Land Trusts are for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust

[Mike4]

I hope to buy the freehold of the village hall.
It's a slim hope as the holder is a greedy skinflint of a local landowner who plans to build a house on the site and evict the village, who have held the hall via the Parish Council, on a series of short tenancies for a hundred years.
The PC owns the hall, but not the land.

The latest lease has been signed without security of tenure so crunch time is nigh.

If I succeed, I can give the Parish Council a 99 year lease.
My concern is looking forward to that time when I shall no longer be here. Rumour has it that such a time eventually transpires.

I wish to ensure that it remains a village hall in perpetuity. I wish to head off a situation where a village builder gets onto the PC - easy as they are always short of councillors - and persuades others that it would be a great idea to sell the site, relocate the village hall - there is not another site as central so it would not be a great idea at all - and he would then build a house on the site thus enriching himself but impoverishing the community of the village.

What provision could I incorporate in the lease to ensure that the site remains a village hall?

V8

A couple of observations strike me:

1) Hopefully the greedy skinflint of a local landowner is not reading this public forum.
2) Does your granting of a 99 year lease really ensure the site remains a village hall in perpetuity as per the thread title?
3) I'm not entirely convinced a building on land (e.g. your village hall) can be owned separately from the land. If the land is sold, ownership of anything built on it transfers with the land AIUI.

[Clitheroekid]

Isn't that what Community Land Trusts are for?

That could work, but you wouldn't have any control of the land, which would be controlled by the members of the CLT. It's also fairly complicated to set up.

Another alternative would be to set up a charity, and transfer the land to the charity. It's quite easy to do - certainly easier than setting up a CLT - and it could, at least in theory, exist in perpetuity. Again, however, you wouldn't have any direct control of the land.

If the object of the exercise is for you to have control of the land then it's very simple - you just insert a covenant in the lease restricting the use of the land to a village hall. However, this wouldn't be in perpetuity - it would be there only for the term of the lease.

Also, you'd have to think of what would happen when you pop your clogs. The freehold would be dealt with by your Will, and the lease would be enforceable by whoever inherited it. However, on the face of it there's nothing to stop them releasing the covenant for a substantial cash payment, and although this could only happen if the tenant was in agreement it's possible that they could be paid off as well.

[88V8]

A couple of observations strike me:
1) Hopefully the greedy skinflint of a local landowner is not reading this public forum.
2) Does your granting of a 99 year lease really ensure the site remains a village hall in perpetuity as per the thread title?
3) I'm not entirely convinced a building on land (e.g. your village hall) can be owned separately from the land. If the land is sold, ownership of anything built on it transfers with the land AIUI.

I would be amazed if he were.
Perpetually as far as those now alive are concerned.....
You're right of course. If the lease fall in, the building and all the time and money spent on it over the years will be lost.

Isn't that what Community Land Trusts are for?

That could work, but you wouldn't have any control of the land, which would be controlled by the members of the CLT. It's also fairly complicated to set up.....
what would happen when you pop your clogs. ...

Thankyou for those thoughts.

I suppose it's the clog popping I'm thinking about.
As a living leaseholder there is of course no problem, and perhaps I shouldn't worry about what happen when I'm not. After all, I won't be here to know about it.

But thankyou for those options. If anything eventuates, I may be back.

V8

[didds]

maybe a derail here ...

Ive seen a couple of similar "in perpetuity" type buildings/facilities/provisions before that have become untenable - mainly because the facility etc is no longer fit for purpose or needs so much work doing to it to make it usable/safe that it becomes unusuable etc. Then proposals to replace the facility always end up with some parties making claims that it cannot be done because clause this, or requirement that or covenant other means that the building cannot be strucrturally altered, or replaced, or moved to a different place (eg land sold and the facility replaced elsewhere in the village etc).

Whether these claims are valid legally etc I've no idea but its clear that what maybe have been pragmatic sensible decisions are stymied by emotive claims on some possibly incorrect understanding of what "in perpetuity" or similar means.

I suppose what I'm saying is that bandying words like "in perpetuity" about locally may end up with irrational claims in decades to come.

I am aware of at least two village schools originally built eg 100 years ago with a village brick fund, that became untenable to upkeep. When suggestions were made to resite the school and bankrolling that by selling the land etc all sorts of hoohah ensued about how the villagers had paid for it (a hundred years ago) and the governors shouldn't ride roughshod over that. Of course when it was proposed (in one case) that maybe the villagers would like to contribute to a new brick fund to pay for the extensive repairs (roof, windows, doors, damp courses etc) that didnt happen...

I'll get me coat!

[JohnB]

I agree with didds. While the OPs intentions are good, they can't bind people after they are dead without such legal work that would prevent changes they would approve of. Buy the land by all means, but control it by leaving it in your will to a person or organisation you trust, and they in turn will leave it to someone/thing they trust too. They won't thank you if its bound with covenants that busybodies can nit-pick over.

Don't forget to plant a memorial tree!