Background information to the Section 146 notices Red Lion Car Park

First Section 146 notice sent 10 Mar 2021

Mr Peachey sent the PC a Section 146 notice. The claims in the notice and the Parish
Council’s response are detailed in the Clerks full response in May 2021.

Dear Mr Peachey
Section 146 Notice
The Section 146 Notice dated 10 March 2021 and received 12 March 2021 requires the
breaches complained of to be remedied within two months of the notice insofar as they are
capable of remedy. The Council believes it has adhered to the terms of the lease which it
does not consider itself to have breached, however all the appropriate steps to maintain the
car park in good repair and condition are in hand. In the letter of 31 March 2021 from the
Council’s Solicitors, numbered paragraph 8, it was stated that two months was not accepted
as a reasonable period of time to require any necessary works to be completed due to the
procurement requirements which apply to all public bodies though to date no extension has
been notified.
I am writing to provide a position statement from the Council in respect of the alleged
breaches, as follows:
(d) Failure to repair and maintain the surface water drainage of the car park.
The Council has commissioned a drainage survey on 12 October 2020. The report dated 21
October 2021 identified that further works were necessary to complete the survey and those
were commissioned on 3 November 2020. Those works could not be carried out until after
Christmas and were delayed further due to a positive covid test amongst the workmen and
then snow. The report dated 18 March 2021 revealed that further substantial works were
necessary to resolve the drainage issues in the car park and these works have been
commissioned. The contractor will commence the works in the first week of June and expects
the works to take about two weeks to complete.
(a) Failure to repair and maintain the surface of the car park properly or at all.
(b) Failure to repair the recurring potholes in and about the car park.
The Council considers that the making good of the drainage works excavations and the filling
of various potholes will satisfy the maintenance requirement of good repair and condition as
specified in the lease. Notwithstanding and to demonstrate good faith the Council will
resurface the car park in its entirety. These works were approved at the Council meeting on 6
May 2021 and will commence following the completion of the drainage works. They will take
up to five days and the car park will need to be closed for the duration.
We appreciate that the drainage and resurfacing works will impinge upon your business and
we will keep you fully updated on the arrangements. You will appreciate that the exact timings
of the works are beyond our control.
(c) Failure to repair and maintain the footways in or about the car park properly or at all.
In the letter to you of 31 March from the Council’s Solicitors, numbered paragraph 2, it is
stated that evidence of alleged failure to repair and maintain the footways will be considered if
provided. No such evidence has been produced. May we assume therefore that you do not
wish to pursue this allegation.
(e) failure to repair and maintain the roof structures of the public toilet building forming part of
the premises.
Further to the statement in numbered paragraph 3 of the letter of 31 March, the Council’s
general contractor has not been able to source matching roof tiles. Two specialist roofing
contractors have been invited to view the roof and submit quotations for the remedial work.
Neither has responded which suggests that either they cannot source matching roof tiles or
that they regard the job as too small for their attention. Although there is no evidence of
ingress of water from the roof into the toilets, the Council is willing to replace any missing roof
tiles but any replacement tiles will not be an exact match. Please advise as to whether or not
you wish the Council to pursue this course of action.
(f) Failure to repair and maintain the street lighting columns forming part of the premises.
As you are aware from other correspondence the electrical works have been commissioned.
When the contractor sought to carry out the works on 23 April 2021 he found that he was

unable to remove the broken light columns as they had been concreted into position. A
groundworks contractor has been engaged to remove the old columns and to position the
new ones whereafter the electrical works will be undertaken. Whilst I do not have specific
dates for these works, they are expected to take place within the next few weeks.
(g) Failure to repair and maintain to the extent specifically required the boundary structures
forming part of the premises.
In the letter to you of 31 March from the Council’s Solicitors, numbered paragraph 5, it is
stated that evidence of alleged failure to repair and maintain the boundary structures will be
considered if provided. No such evidence has been produced. May we assume therefore that
you do not wish to pursue this allegation.
(h) installation of signage in or about the premises without first obtaining the consent of the
Landlord.
The sign to which this allegation refers has been removed.
(i) Failure properly, adequately or at all to incorporate within the car park necessary signage
and/or road markings delineating allocated disabled parking spaces and/or coach parking
spaces.
Re-lining the car park is part of the specification to be undertaken by the resurfacing
contractor.
(j) Failure properly, adequately or at all to erect signage (including for the provision of keys)
for the disabled toilet facility.
Thank you for your suggested wording for the notice received on 4 May. To cover all the
points you make might make it an unduly large sign but I will take into account your
suggestions and send you a draft before ordering a sign.
Subject to any comments you may have on items (c), (e) and (g) and the completion of the
works in items (a), (b), (d), (f), (i) and (j) can you confirm that the Section 146 Notice is
discharged.
Yours sincerely
Graham White
Parish Clerk

In summary, the PC did not agree that it had breached the terms of the lease, but in an
effort to build bridges with the landlord had agreed and made progress on the works
indicated.
The terms of the lease contract include a clause which requires the PC to refund the
landlord’s cost in relation to any legal action he deems required in terms of maintenance of
the lease.

By July 2021 the works itemised in Section 146 notice had been completed and the PC wrote
to the landlord to ask that he sign off on this.

By October 2021 the PC were still receiving minor complaint to which the PC did not agree.
Relevant extracts from the Clerk’s letter to our solicitor on 20 Oct 2021 explains this
background.

20 October 2021
+++
The car park and public conveniences are part of the freehold which includes the Red Lion
pub. This is owned by the Langham Property Company (Essex) Ltd, a private company wholly
owned by Mr Jonathan Peachey. The Council has a twenty year lease at a nominal rent over

the car park and toilets which has some thirteen years to run. Attached is the lease and a
Land Registry plan showing the freehold edged red and the leased area edged blue.
The lease was entered into in 2015 (but running from 1 September 2014) by the Council and
Jonathan Peachey’s father who had some measure of public spirit, reflected in the grant to
the local authority and the nominal rent. Jonathan Peachey took over shortly thereafter and
relations with him over the past several years have been difficult. He has persistently
interfered in matters concerning the car park and toilets beyond that which we do not regard
as proper for a landlord to do and he regards the Council as having failed in its maintenance
obligations or at best not having maintained to the standard he wishes to see as an
enhancement to his recently refurbished pub now badged as The Lion Brasserie.
On 12 March 2021 Mr Peachey served on the Council a Notice pursuant to Section 146 of the
Law of Property Act 1925 (attached) alleging breaches of covenant in ten particular areas.
The Council was required to remedy the breaches within two months and to pay the
Landlord’s costs pursuant to clause 23.3 of the lease. Failure to comply could lead to
forfeiture. Rachel served a counter notice on our behalf on 31 March 2021.
Since then we have never acknowledged any breach of covenant but we have undertaken
both significant and minor works in respect of certain of the areas of alleged breaches and
have reached the point where there is nothing more to be done and we consider there are no
items upon which breach of covenant can be alleged.
The Section 146 Notice
+++
The position regarding the alleged breaches is as follows:
(a) Failure to repair and maintain the surface of the car park properly or at all.
The car park was completely resurfaced in July 2021. The Council thought this
exceeded the minimum required to keep it in good repair and condition but
commissioned the works nevertheless.
(b) Failure to repair the recurring potholes in and about the car park.
See (a) above.
(c) Failure to maintain the footways in or about the car park properly or at all.
There are no defective footways. This refers to a historic claim for reimbursement
which the Council considers to be ill-conceived. This is addressed below.
(d) Failure to repair and maintain the surface water drainage of the car park.
For some years areas of the car park flooded when it rained heavily. Extensive
drainage works were undertaken in June 2021 before the resurfacing.
(e) Failure to repair and maintain the roof structure of the toilets.
Broken/missing tiles haves been replaced and the gutters cleaned.
(f) Failure to repair and maintain the street lighting columns.
The lights had not been working for several years following vandalism and a desire in
the village to preserve dark skies. The lights have been replaced and are working.
(g) Failure to repair and maintain to the extent specifically required the boundary
structures.
There used to be an old and decrepit fence denoting the boundary between the pub
and the car park. Mr Peachey removed this and replaced it with a low brick wall and
pillars as part of his pub refurbishment. There is currently no breach of covenant in
this regard. Mr Peachey has been asked for further and better particulars but nothing
has been forthcoming.
(h) Installation of signage without first obtaining the consent of the Landlord.
The particular sign which offended Mr Peachey has been removed.
(i) Failure properly, adequately or at all to incorporate within the car park necessary
signage and/or road markings delineating allocated disabled parking spaces and/or
coach parking spaces.
The car park was relined following the resurfacing including provision of disabled
spaces and coach spaces. Mr Peachey complained that additional lining was

required. My email of 21 September (attached) sets out why additional lining will not
be provided.
(j) Failure properly, adequately or at all to erect signage (including for the provision of
keys) for the disabled toilet.
Signs on the toilet related to arrangements prior to the Council taking over the
management of the facility. These have been replaced with a sign to which Mr
Peachey (eventually) agreed the wording.
The Council considers that in respect of the foregoing list of alleged breaches there are no
remaining actionable breaches. We are minded to write to Mr Peachey and say that we
consider that to be the case and that we are not in breach of covenants and the notice is
therefore discharged.
+++
The historic costs
The Council’s position upon these claims is stated in Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of my email
of 21 September 2021, attached. +++
Consultant’s costs
+++ we have accepted that we are liable to reimburse Mr Peachey for costs incurred
pursuant to Clause 23 of the lease.
+++ NB: identification of overpayments of fees charged by Mr Peachey erroneously,
including professional fees due for planning applications made.
+++ NB: fees claimed by Landlord for his own time, refused by the PC as a valid charge
under the terms of the lease
+++

Asset of Community Value
The car park and toilets were listed as an asset of community value in 2014. The listing
expired in 2019. In anticipation of that in 2017 the Council sought to list the pub and the car
park but eventually withdrew the community nomination as Mr Peachey made representations
that if the pub and car park were listed he would be unable to raise loans on the property to
finance the refurbishment which was taking place at that time.
In 2020 in response to Mr Peachey’s threat not to re-open the pub but to seek permission for
residential accommodation the Council submitted a further nomination for the pub and the car
park to be listed as an ACV. After considerable discussion and an Extraordinary Council
meeting took place at which Mr Peachey was invited to make representations. He made the
same point as before about loans but ultimately he agreed to open the pub on a specified
date and if he did so the Council agreed to withdraw the nomination which it did.
Just before Christmas 2020, without prior consultation, Mr Peachey made a planning
application for development of the back land to the pub and encompassing about half of the
car park including the demolition of the toilet block. The Parish Council was not served with a
notice as the occupier of the land and objected to the local planning authority which required
the application to be amended and a notice duly served. In due course the Parish Council
objected to the application as did a substantial number of residents. The application was
contrary to a whole list of planning policies and was likely to have been refused but Mr
Peachey withdrew it before it was determined.
By then the Council had responded by submitting a community nomination to list as an ACV
just the car park and toilets i.e. to preserve the land the subject of the lease. The first
nomination was refused, wrongly in the Council’s view, but a second more substantial
nomination was successful and resulted in the land being listed as an ACV. Mr Peachey
sought a review of the decision and that will be determined imminently. Although we have not
seen the substantial documentation which he has apparently submitted, we are inclined to
think that his opposition to listing is based on commercial considerations and not on the strict
criteria of Section 88(1) of the Localism Act 2011.

+++

Harassment
There is no doubt that Mr Peachey is an overbearing landlord and arguably has breached our
right to quiet enjoyment of the car park on many occasions. A body of councillors consider
that we have put up with enough over recent years and that the time has come to take action
to preserve our quiet enjoyment and to stop his interference.

Due to ongoing delays on the Landlord’s part in confirming that the PC had completed the
tasks itemised in the Sec 146 notice, the PC made a generous offer to pay the outstanding
items Mr Peachey felt he was due for legal fees on the condition that the matter was then
closed. After some discussion the PC on 12 July 2022 made a full and final Calderbank offer
to pay all Mr Peachey was requesting. A Calderbank offer is an offer made without prejudice
and is an attempt to resolve a disputed issue without going to court. Neither the Landlord
not his solicitor has responded to this offer.

A letter reminding them of the Calderbank offer was sent to the Landlord via his solicitor in
February 2023. No response has been received.

Second Section 146 Notice 23 June 2023

A Section 146 notice has again been sent to the PC, this time saying that the PC is in breach
of its lease because:
1. The landlord states that the PC is in breach of its lease by drawing the line for 2 coach park
spaces when, he claims, only 1 is possible due to his interpretation of coach parking
standards. The Section 146 notice claims that a line on the ground is an “installed sign” for
which the PC requires the Landlord’s permission.
2. The PC has not paid the outstanding payment due for his fees from the first Sect 146 notice.
The PC has previously provided the Landlord with:
1. Evidence that the coach park lines are in compliance with Suffolk CC and Babergh parking
standards for coaches. The PC refutes the point that lines on the ground denoting parking
spaces are an “installed sign”
2. The PC made a Calderbank offer twice to the Landlord and his solicitors, which they have
both failed to acknowledge.

Joan Miller
12/7/23