Supporters of Ashton Gardens

SOAG exists to protect, preserve and enhance Ashton Gardens

The Ashton Institute before its removal


SOAG's 2004 Campaign

The Battle is Joined

"Flowers not Flats" logo

The Council announces plans to demolish the greenhouses.

The battle between the promenade and Ashton Gardens lottery schemes intensifies. Fylde's Committee decide to sell part of the gardens. We test public opinion on the sale of land, and issue a position statement of opposition. 

We meet with the Council but reach a failure to agree. The Council confirms its intention to sell the land, and we institute a referendum of all St Annes households. The result is an overwhelming "no" to the sale. We approach the Council's Auditors about financing of the lottery scheme. We formally oppose any lottery scheme that relies on the sale of part of the gardens for funding. The council advertise the disposal of the land and invite objections. We provide  8,000. The Council set the objections aside. Newfield submit their reserved matters planning application to develop the land. There are errors on it. It is withdrawn. A new plan for 37 apartments appears. The Council rule that invalid, and it too is withdrawn.

In secret session, the Council's Executive Committee agree to sell to Newfield Jones. We ask the Attorney General to intervene. We also launch the Judicial Review of the Council's decision to sell the land in the High Court in London. Founder member of SOAG, now Councillor Barbara Pagett tells SOAG she has changed her mind and now supports the sale. Newfield Jones seek a Certificate of Immunity from listing.


February 2004 

Fylde Council announces that it is to demolish the glasshouses. It says they are dangerous. SOAG commissions two expert opinions that show they can be repaired cost effectively. We believe the Council wants to clear the site to use it as a depot when it sells the present depot in St David's Road North for building. This is all tied in to the plan to sell off the town hall and a number of other sites to provide cheap administrative offices on an industrial estate.

February 2004 

 Fylde Council issues a press release saying that Ashton Gardens and the Promenade Gardens will have to battle it out for grant aid because only one will be accepted

10 March 2004  

Fylde Council's Leisure Committee hold a meeting at Lytham Assembly Rooms. The room is packed with members of the public who have come to hear the debate about the lottery bid for the promenade, Ashton Gardens and the greenhouses. The Committee announce they plan to go into secret session to discuss the matter. Councillor Barbara Pagett challenges the decision to exclude the press and public on the basis that the reason for exclusion is invalid. There is confusion amongst officers then they admit the wrong reason has been printed on the agenda papers but there is another reason they can use, so they change the reason for excluding the press and public and go into secret session. The public wait outside in the corridor, and are not even invited back in to hear the result of the vote.

After the meeting one of the Councillors kindly leaves his agenda papers with the report and details of the discussion absentmindedly on a table in the corridor. We are grateful to him.

The Leisure Committee resolved: 

  • That Ashton Gardens is the preferred Lottery bid 

  • To recommend to the Council that any capital receipt from the sale of any Ashton Gardens land is ringfenced to contribute to the match funding required by HLF

  • To note the removal of the structurally unsound glasshouses 

  • To meet with SOAG to reach a "compromise" or "agreed position" regarding the Lottery bid

March 2004 

SOAG holds a coffee morning and public meeting to gauge public opinion on the Council's proposals to sell part of the gardens. We hand out questionnaires and ask for views. 94% of the 100 or so who complete the forms say none of the gardens should be sold. 82% say none of the gardens should be sold even if it costs the Lottery grant this time around. Full results of the survey can be found here.

15 March 2004 

SOAG debates its position on the land sale yet again in the light of the opinion survey. One Executive Committee member is strongly opposed to the committee's resolution which is crafted in the form of a Position Statement.

  • "SOAG exists to protect, preserve and enhance Ashton Gardens. (From our Constitution) 

  • We believe the historic integrity of Ashton Gardens should be respected and maintained. 

  • We oppose the sale of the Ashton Institute site even if the income is spent within the Gardens. 

  • We oppose the sale or disposal of any other part of the gardens. 

  • We will not support any scheme of restoration for the Gardens that requires part of them to be sold 

  • We wish to meet with the Council as soon as possible regarding the Heritage Lottery Fund bid"

1 April 2004  

The Government's Department of Culture Media and Sport advise SOAG that it does not intend to list the Ashton Institute and other structures in the Gardens. SOAG find that the inspector did not visit the gardens before deciding, and launch an appeal against this decision. We ask for the case to be reviewed, and send further supporting evidence.

22 April 2004 

SOAG holds talks with Fylde Council's Task & Finish Group regarding the deteriorating situation. 

This first meeting is difficult because Officers and Councillors are unprepared despite having been sent information and questions in advance. See the full questions asked and the replies given by FBC here. The meeting ended cordially, and the answers arrived a few days later. 

The key issue for SOAG was how genuine the Council would be in holding an open referendum. We wanted to agree the wording of a question to be posed to all St Annes residents (To whom Lord Ashton's gift was directed) and to put that to a public vote. We sought further clarification of how the Council envisaged the referendum being held. The reply was "In clarification of your point concerning the referendum. A referendum is a form of consultation which quite naturally the Council would have to lead". We were concerned about this reply. The Council had said in our meeting that it wanted to consult a proportion of Fylde residents. It began to look as though the Council planned to hold a consultation (to test public opinion) rather than a referendum (a vote to decide the matter). 

It was now clear that it planned to take control of the process and choose the people who were invited to respond. We had entered the discussions expecting to be treated as equal partners and this was clearly not the view from the Council's side. We saw nothing "natural" about the Council having to lead (and thus be able to influence the result of) the process. After much debate we decided SOAG should hold its own public referendum with a voting form sent to every household delivered with the free "Citizen" newspaper.

29 April 2004  

SOAG's Annual General Meeting sees Councillor Alfred Jealous stand down as President to be replaced by founding member and past Chairman of the St Annes Chamber of Trade, Arnold Sumner. Tom Abbot and Marjorie Greenwood also retire form the Executive Committee through ill health or time pressures. All have been stalwarts since the early days of SAG, and we are sorry to see them go.

12 May 2004 

SOAG holds its second meeting with the Council's T & F group. We had earlier issued a press release about the referendum we would hold, but had asked the media not to publish it until after we have told the Council of our plan at our meeting with them on 12 May. Due to a misunderstanding of dates, the Gazette published on the day of our meeting, so Councillors heard the news from the media before the meeting. We regret this and apologise for the situation when we meet, but the damage to joint working is done when councillors are affronted that they were not told first. The Council continue to refuse to consider alternative methods of funding the lottery scheme, and we will not accept the sale of any of the gardens. Impasse is reached, and the talks break down. The meeting is heated, and Councillor Collin Walton says he has changed his mind and now supports the sale of this small area of the gardens.

13 May 2004  

SOAG's executive Committee holds an emergency meeting to discuss the position. There is much internal argument. Our treasurer disagrees fundamentally with the majority of SOAG's committee, saying we should compromise and agree to the sale of part of the gardens. The majority of the committee stand firm. Progress becomes impossible because every item under discussion is challenged by the treasurer. After some ill tempered debate on a range of matters, the Chairman brings the matter to a head, making it an issue of choice between himself and the treasurer, asking the Committee to back him or to accept his resignation. It is clear a majority will back the Chairman, and the treasurer does the honourable thing and resigns his membership of the Committee. Though he remains a member, his wife ceases her membership of SOAG.

14/15 May 2004 

Councillor Colin Walton publicly resigns from SOAG, and refers to a split in SOAG's committee. He and four other councillors attend a hastily arranged press conference in the Red Cabin Yard (which they have allowed to become a rubbish tip), and complain about the condition it is in and the fact that a lottery bid would tidy it up, but SOAG's intransigence is threatening the lottery bid. SOAG is also accused of providing misleading and incomplete information.

18 May 2004 

SOAG responds to Fylde Council's criticism with a press release providing our view of the position. Read it here.

19 May 2004  

Members of Fylde's Leisure Committee meet and vote to support the sale of part of the gardens, including the Ashton Institute, and the setting up of a lottery task & finish group to progress the lottery bid, and that the Council do not participate in a referendum on the disposal of the Ashton Institute site and Red Cabin Yard. Councillor Barbara Pagett expresses her disappointment at the loss of one of the oldest buildings in the gardens, and that she would have liked the money to come from elsewhere.

SOAG's referendum form is delivered to all households in St Annes
See the form and information SOAG provided here.

20 May 2004 

Despite having decided not to hold one, the Council team up with the "Express" newspaper which prints a coupon in the paper saying "Do you agree to the sale of 0.6 percent of Ashton Gardens in order to match fund a 2 million pound Heritage Restoration of the Gardens". Three option boxes are provided:

YES - I agree to the sale of 0.6 per cent of Ashton Gardens in order to match fund a 2 million pound Heritage Restoration of the Gardens

NO I do not agree to the sale of any part of Ashton Gardens and would prefer the match funding to be included as a precept on my Council Tax bill of X per year over a X year period (amounts to be decided)

No strong preference either way

This is so blatantly biased, we are concerned it is not a real referendum, but a spoiling tactic for SOAG's referendum that is being run in conjunction with the (competing) free newspaper. 

27 May 2004 

The "Express" window displayThe "Express" sets up large shop a window display made by the Council that is headed "Ashton Gardens, The debate". It poses a series of statements under the heading "The Myths" and provides answers under the heading "The Facts". Many are wrong and misleading. Some are clearly intended to deceive and confuse. SOAG complains to the Express and has its own boards printed to refute the allegations. The Express agrees to put them alongside the Council's display. Copies of our two boards are available for inspection here and here

1 June 2004 

Following the resignation of SOAG's treasurer, Jill Sumner is elected to the post and assumes control of our finances.

2 June 2004 

The SOAG referendum result of St Annes Households is announced. 989 people take part (10% of the households). Valid "Yes" to selling the land 6%. Valid "No" to selling the land 94%. Invalid votes 44.

This confirms the figure from our sample of 100 opinions at our coffee morning earlier in the year. The picture shows the votes being counted by SOAG committee members scrutinised by County and Borough Councillor Bill Thompson of Lytham, invited to see the boxes opened and the count in progress.

Sorting and Counting the SOAG Referndum Result

3 June 2004 

The "Express" reports the result of its own referendum. 103 people take part. For the sale 103 (77%). Against the sale 30 (23%). 68% of all voters live in Lytham or St Annes.

5 June 2004 

Councillor John Coombes tells the Gazette that the sale of the Institute land is not an Asset Stripping exercise. He says "It is not the perfect plan for everybody but it is the best way of enhancing the town. This area is something which is under utilised and costing money to keep. The actual site - a derelict yard and building - is 0.6% of the whole park area. The building itself is a health and safety hazard. We have looked into the possibility of moving it have been told by structural engineers following a full examination that it wouldn't survive having its roof removed. There is only a small minority who are opposed. I really believe more people are supportive of seeing 2 million spent to make the park look fantastic"

7 June 2004 

Lytham St Annes Civic Society expresses opposition to the sale of part of the Gardens. Chairman Marion Coupe says she does not believe the lottery bid will be successful if part of the plan is to dispose of part of the heritage that the Council should be trying to preserve, and because of local opposition to the sale.

16 June 2004 

The Government says that the listing for the Institute has been reviewed, and that it is still not considered worthy of listing. On closer inspection it becomes apparent that the same inspector has reviewed his own decision, and (perhaps unsurprisingly) come to the same view as before. Neither has he visited the site. Mr. Barnes writes personally to the Minister concerned who undertakes to have all matters reviewed by an independent inspector.

29 July 2004 

SOAG's Chairman writes to the Council's auditors to ask why the expenditure for Ashton Gardens was not considered when the Council's capital budget was debated, but was left until a week later, when all the capital schemes had been allocated the resources they needed. Also asks about the risk to the lottery bid if land is sold before the bid is agreed, and whether the sale of the land is driving the planning decisions.

The auditor's reply says he does not think it unreasonable not to consider Ashton Gardens with all the other capital expenditure items, He does not believe this was done deliberately either to exclude it from priorities or to make it appear that no other funding options were available. He also says "My expectation is once the outcome of the Heritage Lottery Funding bid id known, that a full appraisal of the options for match funding would be undertaken. This would probably include the sale as previously discussed, but as you rightly point out, should also consider other options in the context of the longer term capital strategy and medium term financial plan. He also asks for further information about the sale being driven by a prior agreement between the Council and the developer to dispose of the land.

16 August 2004 

SOAG write to the Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund to say we oppose the lottery scheme if it involves the sale of any of the gardens. The full text of the letter is here.

19 August 2004 

Fylde Council publish the statutory notice of disposal of 0.0696 hectares of Ashton Gardens for residential development. It invites objections by Noon on 10th September. SOAG spring into action to gather objections. In a week, a copy of a petition with almost 4,000 signatures is handed in at the Town Hall. The petition urges the council to keep Ashton gardens free of all development. The Gazette reports that "Town Hall bosses have reacted furiously against the latest petition against the sale of land at Ashton Gardens - branding campaigners manipulative and underhanded" Follow this link for a plan of the land to be sold. Note that the Council has made a mistake in drawing the boundary along the frontage of the Ashton Institute. They have forgotten to include the veranda area. This will cause complications later.

19 August 2004 

On the same day, the Council issue a press release that says the Institute is to be "reprieved" by moving it to a new location in the Gardens when the land is sold. The following day, Councillor John Coombes (in a complete reversal of his previous statement to them) tells the Gazette that after taking advice from a leading architect, the authority has pledged to try to restore the institute and the disused Red Cabin Yard. He also says that the architect's report says the original institute was destroyed by fire in 1915, and the present one is a new one built to replace it.

22 August 2004 

Colin Widmer-Barnes prepares a case and asks the Government to list the Empire DeLuxe Cinema/Plaza Bingo Hall and the Akeds Garage building. SOAG writes a letter of support on this regard.

26 August 2004 

Over the Bank Holiday Weekend, SOAG man a table in St Annes Square asking residents and visitors to sign letters of objection to the proposed land sale.

9 September 2004

The day before the deadline and soon after handing in the 4,000 signature petition, SOAG hand in almost 4,000 letters of objection to the land disposal. The picture shows SOAG members handing them to Councillor John Coombes.

Councillor John Coombes received almost 8000 objections to the land disposal

27 September 2004 

The day before the Council's Executive Committee will consider the disposal of land in Ashton Gardens, SOAG hand delivers a hard hitting letter to every councillor. Read the full text here. The aim is to persuade them not to agree to selling the land.

28 September 2004 

Fylde's Executive Committee has an extra-ordinary meeting to consider the objections. Several Councillors say they are really only considering the 140 that arrived directly at the Town Hall. They decide to disregard almost 8,000 objections to the disposal. This number of objections to a land sale is without precedent but it fails to debt the avarice of those who want the money from the land sale. For a report on the meeting click here. Councillor Barbara Pagett indicates she is thinking of changing her mind and in order to make progress she is now reluctantly prepared to support the sale of the land in order to "break the impasse"

28 September 2004 

On the same day that Fylde Council decide to sell the land, Newfield Jones deposit their planning application that will convert their outline planning permission into a fill permission to develop. It is worth noting that the expiry date for submitting their application is 30th September.

1 October 2004 

SOAG's Executive Committee meets to consider the position. Our Committee is  outraged at the blatant disregard for public opinion shown by elected councillors. The Committee resolves to continue to oppose the development, and to attempt by all legal means to have the decision to sell overturned.

5 October 2004 

SOAG write to Government to contest the call in by Fylde Council's Consultants that the Ashton Institute was destroyed by fire in 1914. They refer to new evidence from original research suggesting it dates from the late 1880's. They also challenge the inspector to identify any other instance in the UK of a pre 1900 domestic colonial style prefabricated structure that is still standing.

6 October 2004 

The County Council responds to a request from Fylde Council for comments about the number of parking spaces to be provided on the latest scheme. The Chief Traffic and Development Engineer (North) maintains the view that "the level of parking at one space per two flats is unrealistically low".

7 October 2004 

Planning Notice in LSA Express informs the public of Planning application No 04/955 from Newfield Jones homes for an apartment block. There are several issues in the landscaping and the plan generally and information is sought from planners. It shows (as did the outline application in 2001) that a right of way is within the site. This is the pathway up the side of the Plaza building. The plan of the application is below. The area of the Gardens is shown in pale green.

Newfield's first "reserved matters" application

19 October 2004 

Visit to Wesham Offices to inspect the Newfield plans. The outline planning permission has approved all the matters of siting, design, means of access, construction etc. The only issue on which decisions may be made and questions asked is the landscaping. This application is for the landscaping and is expected to go to the November planning committee meeting. Several such questions left with Mrs. Cary to answer.

27 October 2004 

Following deposit of the planning application, SOAG contacts the County Council regarding the criteria for adding rights of way to the definitive footpath map. Forms for path users to complete are obtained, and the process of gathering evidence that the paths have been used freely without obstruction for more than 20 years begins

28 October 2004 

SOAG's Executive Committee is angry about the way the Council dismissed the objections to the land disposal and believes that the Council officers did not properly report all the objections, hence claims that only 140 were being seriously considered. Investigations begin as to whether a judicial review of the process by which the Council decided the matter can be instigated.

2 November 2004 

Mr. Barnes inspects the plans at Wesham and finds discrepancies in the footprint and layout of the building between the Outline and the Reserved Matters (Landscaping) plan. Rooms have changed, balconies have been removed on the landscaping plan (which should use exactly the same footprint as the approved outline plan). Mrs. Cary is unable to explain this change, but is aware of a change in the nature of the use of the building. She referred to is as being for "Sheltered Housing" not apartments for sale. There may be more to this than meets the eye. Later that day, the plans are withdrawn from public access as being "invalid". Either Newfield have been trying to hoodwink a change past the planning officers, or there may be collusion to effect the change given that more details are known than are being made public.

4 November 2004 

SOAG's Chairman called at Wesham to enquire if the item was on the agenda and to hand in a request to speak at Committee. Was advised by receptionist that the application(s) had definitely not been withdrawn, but that they would not be considered by the Committee of Wednesday next (10 November). That evening, the Gazette quotes Newfield's John Hayfield as saying "the plans had been submitted in error and have now been retracted. We have prepared a new plan for 37 apartments which was submitted in error and immediately withdrawn. New plans will be submitted in the near future" The confusion deepens, because the plan was for 57 apartments.

15 November 2004 

Mrs. Cary responds to the questions. No one knows what the amendment listed on the submitted plan referred to. She also advised that an error was made on behalf of the applicant/agent with regards to the omission of the kitchens. The agent has confirmed that the incorrect base plan had been worked up, in error by the architect. He had in fact, utilised a previous base plan when an application proposed the erection of a retail store and flats above. The plans are currently being amended. 

With regards to access arrangements, the applicant's agent has confirmed that at present, there is no intent to encroach on land outside of the application site red edge in order to carry out the development. The applicant's agent has also confirmed that there is no intention to store any materials within the park. (SOAG believes both these are impossible to meet. The building touches the boundary wall of Ashton Gardens in places, and foundations and drains would intrude into the gardens, as would scaffolding for construction and subsequent arrangements to paint, or clean windows or gutters after construction. 

Also, because there is less than 3 feet from the wall of the apartments to the wall of the gardens, there can be no vehicular access to two sides of the development, so after construction all contractors materials such as paint or shrub prunings will have to be carried through the footpaths in Ashton Gardens to a contractor's vehicle at one of the entrances.) 

We are also concerned about the security of the premises. The public will legitimately be able to stand on the grass embankment three feet away from lounge and bedroom windows and look down into the ground floor flats. There is to be no fence or barrier between the patio doors and windows and the gardens! 

Additional trees will be removed. They are close to the building on the northern side, but are considered dangerous and will be removed. (in SOAG's view they are not dangerous in their present location, but when they overhang the entrance to the apartments, the increased pedestrian traffic beneath them will render them a greater risk) She confirms the plans will not go to the November planning committee.

18 November 2004 

Mrs. Cary advises that amended plans have been submitted by Newfield, and are available for inspection at Wesham offices. On asking to see the latest Newfield plan at Wesham, SOAG's Chairman was given a copy of plans showing none of the gardens being taken by the development, which only took the Plaza and Aked's site, and was for the reduced number of 37 (rather than 57) apartments. See picture below. This plan was registered with the planning application number 5/2004/1043. However Council officers ruled it to be "invalid" and it was subsequently withdrawn. Of course, if this plan had been approved, the Council would not have received any money from selling part of the gardens to Newfield.

The scheme that Fylde Council said was invalid.

23 November 2004 

Further matters are drawn to Mrs. Cary's attention - Maintenance access, trespass into the gardens etc. Full details here

24 November 2004 

After detailed research at the County archives, SOAG is able to refute the claim of supposed historic building experts Donald Insall Associates that the Ashton Institute burned down in 1915. It did not, and was moved from its old location between the lodge houses to its new position between the bowling greens in March 1916 by the Council's own workmen and / or contracted staff. The main elements of it were used to form the present day building, although some new elements were probably added during the re-erection. This information is sent to Government to support the listing request.

24 November 2004 

Fylde's Executive Committee meets in closed session to decide whether to accept the terms and tender for the sale of the land from one tenderer (Newfield Jones Homes). We hear they decide to sell the land and grant certain rights to the developer over other parts of the gardens, including the right of access through the gardens. We subsequently find that the tender has been prepared outside the Borough Council (this would reduce the chances of anyone in SOAG being notified that the tender was being advertised). It was then advertised in the Preston-based Lancashire Evening Post newspaper, and not in the local papers such as the Gazette or Express, thus no one locally saw the advertisement. Furthermore, to discourage people (such as SOAG members) asking for a copy of the tender it was priced at 100 per copy. This is hardly the action of a reputable public body with nothing to hide.

26 November 2004 

SOAG asks Fylde Council's solicitor for a copy of the tender advertisement and document.

28 November 2004 

Now the Council has decided to sell the land, SOAG notifies the Attorney General that the land is a charitable gift and asks for his swift and decisive intervention to protect the public's interest in the Gardens. See the SOAG press release with more details here He recognises our barrister Francesca Quint as one for whom his office has the highest regard, and he immediately extracts an undertaking from Fylde Council not to sell any of the gardens land for at least 21 days. He instructs an independent barrister for a second opinion.

29 November 2004 

SOAG's solicitor writes to Fylde Council saying "We are informed that the Council has now tabled proposals for the disposal of part of the park (including the present site of the Ashton Institute) for residential development and that these proposals will give the Council little continuing control over the development. We understand that the proposals as tabled do not even restrict the development to residential flats and entertain the possibility of a leisure use of the site. Our clients believe that this development will impact adversely on the heritage of the site and its ambience and may seriously prejudice the proposed application to the Heritage Lottery Fund for funding to restore the park to its former glory.

Because the Council appears determined to proceed with the sale notwithstanding huge public protest, our clients have concluded that in the interests of the beneficiaries of the park they must now seek action by the Attorney General's department to prevent the proposed sale from going through.

We attach copies of letters which we have today sent to the Charity Commission and to the Attorney General's department. May we now please have your assurance that your Council will not proceed with the proposed sale pending a determination by the Charity Commission and the Attorney General's department."

5 December 2004 

In accordance with good practice, and in advance of a possible Judicial Review we set out our argument with the way the Council treated the objections and ask for the objections to be reconsidered in an unbiased unprejudiced way, and either re-advertising the land and seeking objections to unconditional disposal, or by re-tendering the land and conditioning disposal to the use that was stated in the disposal notice. See the full letter here.

5 December 2004 

Councillor Mrs. Pagett writes to SOAG saying she wants to distance herself from the views of this Committee. She says she now believes that what the Council is doing is right, and that people have been listened to. That is not the view of SOAG's Committee. We have debated this matter many times and we do not believe the Council is right, nor do we believe they are listening to the views of St Annes residents who, in response to our referendum, oppose the sale of any land in Ashton Gardens by 94% to 6%. SOAG notes the letter and Councillor Mrs. Pagett's change of heart with sadness.

13 December 2004 

Newfield Jones write to the Government asking for a "Certificate of Immunity from Listing" in respect of the three buildings that SOAG has asked to be listed. In effect is an attempt to force the pace of the decision so they can get on with buying the land.

15 December 2004 

The Government write to Fylde Council asking for any formal comments they have on the request for the immunity from listing sought by Newfield. The reply is due by 15 January. (In fact the Council don't reply until 3 February)

16 December 2004 

Legal Officer Ian Curtis responds to SOAG's letter before case saying that the Council will not accede to our requests. He says one of the issues is inappropriate for us to raise at a Judicial Review because it is following another legal process. We agree to remove this from our claim.

17 December 2004 

Further research on the Ashton Institute throws up a connection between its formation and Maxwell and Tuke, architects of Blackpool Tower. It was also the first public hall in St Annes. This information is fed to the Government, and SOAG decides to publish a small booklet about the history of the Ashton Institute.

21 December 2004 

SOAG apply to the High Court in London for permission for a Judicial Review of the Council's decision to sell the land.

23 December 2004 

SOAG receive a copy of the tender document for the sale of the land. It shows that completion of the sale was due to be effected on 24 December. However, because of our Judicial Review, the exchange of contracts has been put back. It also shows that the successful tenderer has to pay a one off capital sum of 10,000 to landscape a strip of the gardens 30 feet wide outside his site and behind the bowls pavilions. He also has to pay 6,000 per annum for future maintenance of this area.
Supporters of Ashton Gardens 

Copyright 2012 Fred Moor.
creative web design by