FUNDRAISERS aiming to buy and safeguard 88 acres of open land around Richmond were horrified to learn that the deal could be based on a lease rather than freehold.

Richmondshire Landscape Trust and its fundraising arm, Richmond Open Spaces Appeal, immediately sought emergency discussions with Richmondshire District Council.

They also postponed a £700 leaflet drop planned for yesterday and fear the revelation, in a council committee agenda, could jeopardise the whole scheme.

As soon as the concern came to light on Tuesday, council officials put on hold any action over a leasehold arrangement until clarification could be sought.

The charitable trust was formed earlier this year to buy five plots of land - Westfields, Jack King's Wood, Southbank and fields at Reeth Road and Sleegill - from the district council, which agreed to dispose of them as part of an asset review.

A knock-down price of £120,000 was agreed, payable over three years, with the first £40,000 due next month.

A public appeal launched in April has already raised more than £13,000 and a further £7,000 has been pledged. The trust planned to borrow the balance to ensure the deal went ahead.

Organisers were aghast to read in a report to the council's resources committee on Tuesday that the authority now appeared to be talking about a leasehold deal, which had not been discussed or sanctioned by members.

The report's recommendations contain no reference to leasehold but advice has been requested from solicitors on the merits of both types of transfer.

Investigations revealed that council solicitors had been instructed to begin drawing up terms for disposal of the land on a 999-year lease.

Coun Stuart Parsons, a founding member of the trust and a member of the district council, said the news had far-reaching implications for the project.

"Disposal by lease, rather than freehold, would allow the council to re-possess the land," he said. "We have been fundraising on the basis of freehold; the council has never hinted that this wasn't the case and has never mentioned it at any meetings."

A report by Margaret Barry, the council's corporate unit manager, says disposal of the land by lease would lessen two potential risks - that the trust was wound up or fell foul of the Charity Commission, or that community enthusiasm in the project waned.

Advice from council solicitors on the merits of both lease and freehold transfer is to be considered in the private part of the committee meeting.

Tony Clark, the council's executive director, confirmed there was confusion over the basis of the land transfer.

He said: "Given that, to date, the dialogue that has taken place between Rosa and members of the council has been on the basis of a freehold disposal, I have asked to take no further action on progressing the leasehold until we can clarify the position."

Mr Clark said there were merits of a leasehold arrangement which would not necessarily be a disadvantage to the trust but these would have to be discussed fully with trustees. The final decision rested with council members.

The resources committee meets in the council chamber at Swale House, Richmond, on Tuesday at 6.30.

* See also page 18