‘Be very careful what you wish for’ was my reaction to the majority decision (Tuesday, November 5) of our council’s management committee to market a long lease of the Greenhill chalets and surrounding facilities.

Mindful of the Whitehall boa constrictor’s ever-tightening coils around its stingy grants to local authorities such as ours, I attended this meeting in a personal capacity.

While I have known and loved Greenhill throughout my life, I have never rented a chalet or beach hut there. I was impressed by ‘community’ and ‘consultation’ points raised by speakers from the floor prior to the debate, especially the eloquent contribution by Liz Bird of the chalets group, for this decision to be deferred to allow for meaningful consultation with, for example, the relevant interest groups.

I am not opposed, in principle, to a leasehold structure (preferably local and one with community emphasis; perhaps, a chalets co-operative) but it seems to me, having read the business report, that the council intends to create an inferior but strong estate in parts of the land (ie Greenhill Gardens) which was originally gifted to this borough and its citizens for recreational purposes by Sir Frederick John-stone in 1902.

Whereas business report clauses would appear to emphasise protection to this land by dint of the restrictive covenants which bind it, I am worried by the second sentence of Clause 5:13. It says: “The site is encumbered by restrictive covenants benefitting The Wilton Estate. We would leave it to the leaseholder to modify or extinguish covenants by negotiation.”

That is, at best, opaque; moreover, would it be responsible of a freeholder to delegate such important matters? I expect there may be safeguards with which legal experts are familiar (well, I would hope so), but would any immediate action be taken in respect of a breach of covenant which would have a negative impact on surrounding parts of this gifted land?

I have to say that, despite the serious financial situation facing our local authority (and us, as citizens), this decision should have been deferred – not indefinitely – for the reasons I have stated above. Others could doubtless add to them.

Jonathan Pullen Princes Drive Weymouth