Download the documents

The Ham ADM

Anton Wylam

Personal Computer Doctor

Email your comments

Advertise here first applicant free

Many thanks to Kites Nest Farm for the Web Hosting and the very best beef

Thursday, May 27, 2010, 08:00

Common court case will start next year

Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 08:00

Mill owner seeks to speed up sale SHUT DOWN: Healing's Mill in Tewkesbury

Background and update on the ADM Claim concerning their Town Mills Ham site.



The Severn Ham is:


Approx.166 acres of meadowland surrounded by water but with two pedestrian accesses and one controlled vehicular/animal access via the Mill.


The Severn Ham has ancient rights of common, regulated by Act of 1808 (To know more see “Severn Ham – Commons” on this site)

The Severn Ham (Land) Owners are:

Major - Tewkesbury Town Council

Minor - ADM since 2003 (Previously Allied Mills, Healings Mills)

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and their Court Claim

ADM have “rationalised” their business in UK and closed Tewkesbury Mills in 2006 along with others. Their objective now is to sell the site and buildings, presumably for development of alternative uses.

The Town and Borough Council have welcomed this possibility for regeneration of that part of town. The Borough has developed design briefs for such development and the site is recognized as a major opportunity in the current MasterPlanning exercise being carried out in Tewkesbury.

One of the hindrances to a sale has been the confusion surrounding whether all common rights were extinguished at the various times parcels of land were sold to the previous Mill owners. (Common rights could theoretically include not only grazing of animals but such as taking of peat and turf, taking of fish, taking of wood, gorse or furze or eating of acorns or beechmast by pigs!).

This was compounded by the fact that the larger part of their site was registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965. This registration was done by two local townsmen with the best of intentions for the Ham at large. The fact that they included the Mill site was almost certainly incorrect, not challenged at the time and probably not noticed by the then owners.

So ADM are going to Court to seek agreement that all common rights on their land are extinguished and the site was incorrectly included along with the remaining, larger, part of the Ham as Common land. They do not on the face of it seek anything else affecting the part of the Ham owned by the Council nor the rights of transit across their property for approved vehicles and livestock in order to reach the Council owned land.

Such transit rights are anyway enshrined in the Deeds of transfer of the last plot the Council sold to Allied Mills. It was with the Secretary of State’s approval at that time that pedestrian access to the Ham through the Mill site was extinguished in favour of access across the new pedestrian bridge from Back of Avon, but approved vehicular and livestock transit rights were maintained..

Any Claim such as this has potential defendants that have a choice of agreeing the Claim before it goes to Court or contesting it.

Tewkesbury Commons Trustees were named as defendants but after taking Legal Council’s advice that all rights had indeed been extinguished (with one exception), they agreed not to contest the Claim. There was a negotiation first about the one exception; the last parcel sold by the Council where commons rights of grazing had not been extinguished but leased in-perpetuity to the Mill owners. After Legal Council’s advice that nothing could ever be done with these rights and for a consideration they were extinguished.

The Council was another named defendant. It is my understanding that they do not disagree with the Claim as I have described it above but that their Legal Council has advised that the Claim as worded will risk transit rights or have implications for the part of the Ham they own, or both. So, I believe they will contest and seek a Court decision and wording that avoids these risks.

The Council is meeting on the 31st January in extraordinary session to hear the latest advice from their Legal Council.

If the Council had not taken this course of action then possibly the Attorney General, the third named defendant, whose role it is to be the final defender of public rights, may have had to take action. As it was they felt the Council was doing enough in the public’s interests so will not themselves contest.

This matter has been rumbling on for four to five years and will presumably be decided in Court in the Spring. It is to be hoped that all is resolved satisfactorily soon so sale and redevelopment can go ahead and be incorporated into the MasterPlanning exercise.

Alan Purkiss

Clerk to Tewkesbury Commons

30/01/11

THE SEVERN HAM AND THE COMMONS

WHO ARE THE PRINCIPLE PARTIES INVOLVED WITH THE HAM?


THERE WERE AND ARE TWO PRINCIPLE PARTIES:

1. THE OWNERS:

IN HISTORICAL SEQUENCE, THESE WERE:

· THE CHURCH

· THE CROWN (POST DISSOLUTION THE HAM WAS NOT INCLUDED IN FIRST BOROUGH CHARTER)

· THE BOROUGH (1610 PURCHASE OF THE MANORS OF TEWKESBURY AND ABBEY BARTON)

o TO HELP RECOUP INVESTMENT THOSE WITH RIGHT TO PASTURAGE WERE TAXED 4 PENCE A WEEK FOR EVERY BEAST AND 4 PENCE A DAY FOR EVERY ONE OVER THREE

· WILLIAM FERRERS (161? GRANTED HAM TO REPAY LOAN TO BOROUGH FOR MANOR PURCHASES)

· JOHN EDMUND DOWDESWELL & HON. HENRY CRAVEN AND OTHERS (JAMES BENNETT – HISTORY OF TEWKESBURY, 1830)

· THE BOROUGH AND THE TOWN MILLS (MILL SITE AND OTHER SMALL PARCEL)

· THE TOWN COUNCIL AND COMPANY OWNING MILL (ADM AT PRESENT TIME)

2. THE COMMONS

· THE "HEIRS" OF THOSE WHO HAD THE ANCIENT RIGHT TO GRAZE THEIR ANIMALS ON THE HAM.
· THE OCCUPIERS OF A DWELLING HOUSE WITH A FRONTAGE ON:

· HIGH STREET (ALL) · BARTON STREET (TO CHANCE STREET/HOSPITAL) · CHURCH STREET TO BELL HOTEL

NB. ORIGINAL HOUSE AS AT 1808 OR AS CONTINUENCE OF SAME. A SHOP OWNER OR TENANT WILL QUALIFY ONLY IF LIVING ON PREMISES AND OCCUPYING PROPERTY IN ENTIRITY.

· CURRENTLY ABOUT SIXTY COMMONS

· FROM 1808, TRUSTEES ACT ON COMMONS BEHALF

WHAT IS THE (COMMONS) TRUST?

· A RESULT OF THE LARGE 18TH & 19TH CENTURY MOVEMENT TO FORCE THOSE WHO HAD RIGHT TO USE LAND TO INCLOSE IT. ALL IN INTERESTS OF BETTER SATISFYING FOOD SHORTAGE.

· A TRUST SET UP IN 1808 BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT, FOR MAINTAINING RIGHTS OF COMMON WHILST INCLOSING:

· SEVERN HAM

BECAUSE OF "NO COST" OF INCLOSURE (SURROUNDED BY WATER) RIGHT OF COMMON RETAINED



RIGHT OF COMMON LOST BECAUSE OF PROHIBITIVE COST OF INCLOSURE.

NB RIGHTS OF COMMON CAN ONLY BE EXTINGUISHED BY ANOTHER ACT OF PARLIAMENT (M ROTH QC. – 1965)

WHAT DOES THE TRUST DO?

· LEASES THE GRAZING RIGHTS OR AFTERMATH (13TH AUGUST TO 13TH FEBRUARY) AND DISTRIBUTES THE MONEY TO THE PEOPLE (OR SPECIFIC SUCCESSORS) WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF COMMON BEFORE THE ACT WAS PASSED.

· THE TRUST OWNS THE GRASSES AND HERBS FROM 12TH JULY TO 13TH FEBRUARY EACH YEAR.

NB. THE OWNERS (TTC) HAVE THE REVENUE FROM THE HAY CROP (14TH FEBRUARY TO 11TH JULY), SUCH HAY TO BE REMOVED BY 12TH JULY.

HOW MUST THE TRUSTEES ACT?

· ACCORDING TO THE ACT AND ONLY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMONS.

· UPHOLD THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.

· PROTECTING GRAZING (QUALITY AND QUANTITY) · DETERMINE WAY TO GET BEST PRICE · DISTRIBUTE MAXIMUM MONEY FROM LEASED GRAZING · APPOINT CLERK (AND TREASURER)

WHO ARE THE TRUSTEES?

· THOSE ELECTED · DRAWN FROM THE RANKS OF THOSE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT

NO LIQUOR RETAILER MAY BE A TRUSTEE.

· EX-OFFICIO · DRAWN FROM TOWN COUNCILLORS PREPARED TO TAKE THE OATH

EX-OFFICIO (COUNCILLOR) TRUSTEES MUST ALWAYS DECLARE AN INTEREST WHEN DISCUSSING HAM MATTERS IN COUNCIL AND WOULD BE OBLIGED TO RESIGN THEIR TRUSTEESHIP IF INTERESTS OF COMMONS AND THEMSELVES AS COUNCILLORS DIVERGED.

WAS THIS ALWAYS THE CASE?

· ELECTED TRUSTEES ROLE LAPSED CONSIDERABLY OVER TIME UNTIL REVIVED IN 1960s IN “SPIRITED” NEGOTIATION BETWEEN ENTITLED HOUSEHOLDERS AND COUNCIL.

WHAT ANIMALS MAY BE GRAZED AND WHEN?

· HORSES AND CATTLE FROM 13TH AUGUST TO NOVEMBER 20TH EXCEPT THAT FROM 10TH OCTOBER TO 20TH NOVEMBER NO HORSES OR CATTLE MAY BE GRAZED UNLESS 3 SHEEP PER ACRE ARE ALSO GRAZED.

· PIGS, BULLS OR HORSES OF HER MAJESTY’S DRAGOONS MAY NOT BE GRAZED AT ANY TIME.

· AS RECORDED UNDER THE 1965 COMMONS ACT 200 HORSES OR 200 CATTLE OR 1000 SHEEP MAY BE GRAZED.

HOW MUCH MONEY IS INVOLVED?

· VARIES OVER YEARS DEPENDING ON STATE OF AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY AND AMOUNT OF BUYING COMPETITION. SINCE 1990:

· BEST PRICE WAS £5400 (£17100 TO TTC FOR HAY SAME YEAR!) · WORST GRAZING PRICE £1000

HOW DOES THE TRUST BENEFIT THE "LARGER" TEWKESBURY?

· IT HAS HELPED PRESERVE THE HAM AS IT IS, LARGELY FREE FROM DEVELOPMENT AND INAPPROPRIATE EXPLOITATION.

· THE HAM IS A HUGE ASSET TO THE TOWN AS A NATURAL PLACE FOR LOCALS AND VISITORS ALIKE TO TAKE AIR AND EXERCISE.

· THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE RURAL HAM AND URBAN TEWKESBURY ACROSS THE MILL AVON SO ATTRACTIVELY HELPS TO DEFINE THE TOWN EDGE AND IS ONE SUCH OF VERY FEW IN THE UK.

· THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT ON THE HAM ARE UNIQUELY AND EASILY VIEWABLE BY A LARGE URBAN POPULATION.

· THE HAM OFFERS HUGE OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO LEARN ABOUT FLORA AND FAUNA OF A FLOOD MEADOW. A LOCAL RESIDENTS GROUP IS CO-OPERATING WITH SCHOOLS, THE COUNTRYSIDE MUSEUM AND MANY OTHER GROUPS TO IMPLEMENT A “LEARNING TRAIL”.

ARE THERE OTHER FORCES HELPING PRESERVE THE HAM FOR US?

· YES

· SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (SSSI) STATUS · PART OF CONSERVATION AREA SINCE 1970 · INCLUDED IN “ALCOHOL FREE ZONE” 1994 · NATURAL ENGLAND’S COUNTRYSIDE STEWARDSHIP SINCE 1991 UNDER THIS STEWARDSHIP THE TOWN COUNCIL NOW RECEIVES UP TO £18000 GRANT ANNUALLY AS “PAYMENT” FOR MANAGING THE HAM ACCORDING TO CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS.

Alan Purkiss, Clerk to the Commons