Church threatens to sue Govt if meeting not held

In a conflict as old as biblical times, land is at the heart of a dispute involving two denominations and this time the Government has been accused of operating in bad faith.

The land at the centre of the controversy is the Welch Village Junior property in St John which, on Tuesday in the House of Assembly, was the focus of a resolution to approve its sale to the Wesleyan Church.

However, the Barbados Diocesan Trustees (BDT) is saying it is not the state’s own to sell and has threatened legal action if a meeting requested since June is not held.

Chairman of the board of trustees, Adrian Elcock, confirmed that its lawyer had sent a letter to the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Housing since May 9 and there had been a response on May 16 but an email sent on June 4 requested a meeting with the ministry that had not taken place.

“We are not anxious to get into legal battles, but we have to protect the rights of our land and the rights of our church. So, if a meaningful compromise cannot be met, then we will have to take whatever action we’ve been advised that we’re entitled to take,” Elcock said when contacted yesterday.

The land resolution passed on Tuesday included a structure on the land in an arrangement that would see the Wesleyan Holiness Church paying $28 000 to the State.

In the May 9 letter, the trustees had contended that when the Anglican Church was de-established in 1969, several lands and properties were vested in the trustees, including church schools and Welch Village Junior was on the list.

“There can therefore be no doubt, or debate, that the Welch Village Junior property was vested in the trustees by the Act. Our client therefore has statutory title to the property. Statutory title to land is strong and difficult to challenge,” read the letter from Virtus Legal. It also said the board discovered the ministry had recently demolished the derelict building and was planning to take possession of the land to turn it over to the Wesleyan Church.

Elcock said the board was disappointed in the action taken since they became aware that the Minister of Housing was interested in the land to be used by the Wesleyan Church as it was no longer in use by the Anglican Church.

“We indicated that we did not think it was as simple as that. There would need to be some level of understanding as to who was the key owner of the land. The Permanent Secretary wrote back outlining their side of the issue. In June, we requested an urgent meeting to attend to that matter and that meeting has not been forthcoming. And subsequent to that request the property has been levelled, the church and the school knocked to the ground.

“We find that very distressing – when you are under discussion on a matter and one party unilaterally decides to proceed without concluding the discussion,” Elcock said.

The May 16 correspondence from the ministry said the Welch Village School site was leased by the Government from Bath Plantation and after the passing

of the Anglican Church Act, the church continued to pay rent to the plantation. When the school closed and the BDT expressed an interest in using the building, the property was handed over to it. The BDT, said the letter, took over the rental and transformed the school into St Julien, paying rent to Bath Plantation until 1978 when the state compulsorily acquired the plantation and St Julien Church was listed as its tenant and thereafter paid rent to the State until the church ceased operations.

Elcock said that based on the above, in a meeting with a previous chairman of the trust and which he attended, the response was that they would need to check that information.

“I believe an appropriate way to bring a resolution would be to have the lawyers finish their consultation and for the parties to come to an agreement. But to go and knock down a sacred property that has been in use by the Anglican community and then to read the House of Assembly debate carried in the newspaper, that is extremely distressing. We, the trustees, take great umbrage,” Elcock stated.

He said while it was good that the area was still being considered for a sacred place of worship, with discussion – if the Bishop of Barbados was not desirous of putting another church there – a compromise could have been reached. (AC)