IN November last, in response to the Save the Rec Campaign's request to make representation to the head of community planning at Carrick district council, I sent a letter of objection to the proposed development of the Rec. The officer concerned replied enclosing a leaflet headed "Falmouth Recreation Ground Project: Frequently Asked Questions."

I quote from the last paragraph on page one of the leaflet " the recital to the deed states that the site was sold to the then local council as pleasure grounds or such other purposes as the corporation may determine'."

In a letter published in the Packet on November 29, 2006, Mr Keith Rashleigh claimed to have a copy of the original conveyance for the sale of the Rec, between Kimberley's and Falmouth borough council. He quotes from the conveyance as follows: "purchased for the purposes of public walks and pleasure grounds or such other purposes as the corporation may determine." Clearly, if Mr Rashleigh has quoted correctly from the document, the operative word is "public," which must surely refer not only to walks but also to pleasure grounds and such other purposes, all for the use of the public. Mr Rashleigh goes further in support of this. He refers to the press reports around the time of the sale in 1936. He states " it is plainly obvious the trustees (the Right Honourable John, Second Earl of Kimberley, had died on January 7, 1932) wanted to sell it and keep it as an open space for the people of Falmouth to enjoy as an open recreational area as it had been since 1887."

He goes on to say that the borough council provided a full time groundsman and that it was used for every kind of sport and show, including school sports, until the ".. rugby club shut the door,' aided by Carrick council."

Having read Mr Rashleigh's letter, I wrote a second letter to Carrick's head of community planning asking him to confirm that the wording in the council's leaflet was complete, ie the phrase "public walks and" does not appear in the deeds.

I have now received a reply, which, summarised, admits that the words "public walks and" do appear, not in the deed itself but in the recital. He says ".. the recital merely states the acts under which the council had power to purchase which included the Public Health Act 1875 for the purpose of public walks and pleasure grounds..' This recital did not and does not limit use to this or result in the ground being a public open space. " He goes on to say that the full deeds are available for scrutiny by the public but nevertheless the guidance leaflet will be updated on the council's website to reflect the fuller definition.

I am no lawyer but it seems to me that the recital recorded which law(s) empowered the borough council to purchase the land and for what specific purpose(s) and to put that land to some other use would be illegal. In this case, "public walks and pleasure grounds" etc, surely indicates a public use and places the same constraints upon Carrick as on its predecessor. In other words, Carrick may have acted illegally in giving up the public's rights in 1980 when it granted a new 50-year lease of the whole site to the Rugby Club thus enabling the club to control public access to it. Once again, Carrick may be in danger of acting illegally if its plans to develop the site proceed.

However, if the Save the Rec Campaign or other protesters wish to pursue this point, they may have to take legal advice and without delay. Perhaps there are lawyers amongst the many signatories to the petition who could advise?

John Wilkinson, Marlborough Court, Falmouth