East London land dispute destined for court after parishioners defy diocese

BY CHRISTINA FARRELL
\fil`,I111)\11i., of an East London church have launched a legal bid to stop Westminster archdiocese developing land they insist belongs to them.
St Mary and St Michael's on Commercial Road is at the centre of a hotly contended dispute with diocesan education officials. Parishioners claim that land appropriated by Westminster for part of a multimillion pound school development the Bishop Challoner Learning Village does not belong to the diocese but, under the temis of a 19th-century trust, has always been held in use for the parish.
They insist that the site, at the rear of the church and parish centre, should remain as playground facilities for local children in the East End.
The parishioners have set up a company, the St May and St Michael Parish Advisory Company Limited, and have secured the permission of the Charity Commissioners to proceed with their legal action.
Solicitor Paul Howick, of Davies, Arnold, Cooper, said the parishioners simply wanted clarification from the court on the ownership of the site. He confirmed that he was acting on a no-win, no-fee basis.
"We commenced litigation in the High Court on December 22 and have served the diocese with a writ declaring that the trusts should be determined in favour of twit parishioners and, specifically, that the development proposed brunks the 1851 trust deed," he said.
"We are also applying to remove the existing trustees because we consider the action they have taken to be in breach of their powers."
A preliminary hearing was due to be held this week and Mr Howick said he hoped to confirm the scope of evidence to be lodged and to set a trial date for later in the year.
"The diocese is trying to broaden the scope of the litigation and is seeking to serve evidence which we consider unnecessary," he explained. "We think this is tantamount to admitting that our claim, that the 1851 trust holds, is true."
He insisted that the parishioners' motives were not financial. They were not, he said, seeking monetary recompense for the land value of the site.
"That's not the issue here. The issue is land and the fact that it is held in trust for the parish. It's not for the diocese to determine what happens." The parishioners maintain that they do not object to the school development per se, although there have been questions over the scale of the project in an area with a diminishing Catholic population.
"We have offered mediation and arbitration and been rejected,Mr Howick said. "Furthermore, we have still received no undertaking that the works will cease until the dispute is resolved. Parishioners rarely have the opportunity to contest decisions taken in their name. It's a real David and Goliath situation."
The site was formerly a graveyard and last year over 700 bodies were exhumed under supervision from the Museum of London. Work is scheduled to begin again early next month.
When the dispute first emerged last summer diocesan education officials were adamant that the diocese had a right of ownership over the land and would contest the parish's claims. In June parish priest Fr Francis Van Son was arrested after protesting at the site. He was later released without charge and has since resigned from the parish on health grounds. Though he has taken no active part in the proceed ings, he is believed to be watching developments with interest.
But Eddie Tulasiewicz, spokesman for the archdiocese, said the parish's action would be contested. "We feel very strongly that the Bishop Challoner Learning Village is a major investment in the future of Catholic education in Fast London," he said. "The project has been pulled together by the diocese, Tower Hamlets and the Department of Education and Skills. It is regrettable that the project is being opposed and we will robustly claim that the disputed land is not solely for the use of the parish."
Mr Tulasiewicz said he believed that the proposed development would be permitted under the trusts relating to the land.
"Even if the trusts say that the disputed land is solely for the use of the parish we would argue that the trustees would have been favourable to the needs of the diocese and would have consented for the greater good and benefit of local people."
Mr Howick said he regretted the dispute could not have been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. 'The populace of the East End holds very strong and firm views," he said.