CLLR Anthony Fyson, of Above Town, Dartmouth, writes:

In reference to your page 5 story ‘Trust defends rise in property rents’, Chronicle, December 11, of course trustees of the Dartmouth Trust have to observe the terms of their trust deed. But it is misleading to claim that their ‘hands are tied’ by a requirement to operate properly within the property market.

Markets are important, but as any landlord in the private ­sector knows, they are more a general guide than an exact price-setting mechanism, especially where varied properties are not compared easily and the method of establishing rental levels is imprecise.

Few people are aware that individual rents are often set following an unequal trial of strength between landlord and tenant. The trust describes this as ‘normal negotiation’, but it can look very much like ­bullying when one side appoints prominent City-based experts to research and present their case and the other can deploy only sparse resources to help set out their arguments.

It is not uncommon for small tenants to accept rent-revision demands with very little ­resistance, out of ignorance or lack of the determination and resources needed for a stressful and prolonged dispute.

Dire consequences follow, not only for themselves, but crucially for their fellow businesspeople too, since rent ‘negotiations’ are influenced by neighbouring rents as well as by the value of the particular property concerned.

Naturally, all landlords invest for profit, but it is ­unfortunate, to say the least, if a charitably intentioned trust accepts too readily exaggerated rigidities that it supposes are requirements for the proper operation of the property ­market.

The trust claims that this market is ‘set by an agent’, but that agent is of course not an independent adjudicator, but in fact is the advocate employed by the trust to help increase its income.

The trust professes concern for the long-term well-being of the community, but does not appear to be seeking legal ways of helping its small, independent business tenants.

Exploring the possibilities openly with the community at large would be a worthwhile first step. It would be surprising if the Charity Commission chose to forbid such an endeavour, although the outcome might be that the trust’s ­registered purposes will need modification.

In Dartmouth’s retailing scene the main problem seems to be the rapid disappearance of small, independent traders in favour of national or ­regional chains willing to pay dramatically higher rents. This discontinuity in the property market may appear at first sight to be good news for ­landlords motivated solely by a desire to increase their incomes, but it hardly suits the interests

of local shoppers and ­independent local shopkeepers.

While this insidious change to the nature of Dartmouth’s ‘shopping offer’ is not a recent phenomenon, and may increase the money that the trust can transfer to its designated ­beneficiaries, it seems unlikely that those beneficiaries would approve excessive exploitation of the town’s small businesses for that purpose.

The trust, as a registered charity, should not systematically favour its own tenants to the disadvantage of competitor businesses, but the impression is gaining ground that the trust is acquiescing in a distortion of the property market that is seriously damaging the town’s prospects as a shopping centre.

I am not privy to the terms in which the Charity Commission told the trust to ‘put its house in order’, but as someone with 30 years’ experience as a ­charity trustee, I do not accept that the trust must now ­maximise its income with little or no regard for wider ­considerations.

The Dartmouth Trust is probably no more severe in its treatment of tenants than some private landlords, nor any more considerate than some others. But the wide spectrum of ­practice within the property market as a whole is not as restrictive as the trust implies.

Many landlords regard keeping existing tenants in business in the long term as financially sensible in their own interest, as well as socially desirable in the wider community context.

The trust must recognise that there is a problem and that it is part of it.

The apparent operation of the trust as a mere income generator, while other bodies do the ­charitable works with the profits, seems to be a self-inflicted public relations problem that lays the trust wide open to accusations of ruthlessness and lack of social concern.

It needs to act more openly to demonstrate that these are not its real characteristics and, where shortcomings are identified, to amend its practices, starting with ways it might help its tenants.

As a Dartmouth Trust tenant and a Dartmouth town councillor, I have twice in the past asked to meet with the trust to discuss possible ­solutions to these problems, about which the trust chairman appears either unaware or unconcerned.

My confidential requests have been refused as pointless on both occasions.

This regrettable discourtesy is symptomatic of an attitude that has to change.