Jump to content

barpen

Members
  • Content Count

    676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About barpen

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. Not true. Not even close to being true. Trustees of charities are required to act in the best interests of the charity of which they are a trustee. So if a charity exists to provide affordable homes there is little to stop them selling homes at whatever price they choose. I've never heard of Oxfam charging market rate for vacines and food parcels.
  2. Bloody Hell. They'll be offering murder awareness courses before long.
  3. We got a reply from the Charities Commission at the weekend. They didn't seem too impressed.
  4. Simple. The cottage belongs to the Graves Park Charity. It was in the trust of Sheffield Council when it went from being a valuable and appreciating piece of real estate to becomeing a run down and neglected one. At the time the damage was caused it was on Sheffield Council's insurance policy. That policy should pay for the restoration of the damage. The cottage could then be rented out to a deserving person and the cottage could bring in revenue to the charity whilst appreciating in value as a capital assett of the charity.
  5. Well there you have it. The council are trusted with looking after the property The council are the insurers of the property The council neglect the property allowing it to flood. It is the responsibiliy of the council as insurer of the property to rectify the damage, not use it as an excuse to sell something that isn't theirs to sell.
  6. Spoken like a true servant of Sheffield Council. I think I know charitable law pretty well. I also know the objectives of the Graves Park Charity as well as the covenants that apply. They state that no land can be sold without the receipts being used to purchase further land of equal or greater amenity value to the park. Regarding the cottage. It was the responsibility of the council to insure the cottage. They chose to put that insurance through the city council. When a pipe burst through negligence the council decided not to claim against its own insurance. This is the reason the cottage needs repair. No spin will get round this. The cottage belongs to the Graves Park Charity. The bill for its repair rests with Sheffield Council. The Charity Commission have been made aware of the situation. In the past they have certainly not been toothless regarding the abuse of the Graves Park Charity. The small cost of the upkeep of Graves Park is a trivial amount compared to the assett value of 248 acres of prime parkland that the council is allowed to use otherwise rent free.
  7. I've certainly got my facts right. I know who is trying to sell property that they don't own, and it is only one party that is trying to sell it. You probably missed the fact that audited accounts are only as good as the information given to the auditors, which is why I have passed on my concerns to those in a position do do an audit. We have been here before several times in the last 15 years and I have yet to have been on the side not backed by the Charity Commissions verdict.
  8. The Friends of Graves Park have been mentioning this and other attempted sell offs to the Labour councillors for the past 15 years. The trouble is they take no notice until the Charity Commission come around again and explain to them what being a trustee of a charity is supposed to involve. Incidentally the leaflet appears to be a joint one for council and the Heeley Westminster seat. ---------- Post added 20-04-2015 at 23:55 ---------- The council wouldn't have needed to spend that money if they hadn't neglected the cottage in the first place.
  9. Just to be clear as Blackbeard is trying to derail this thread. The issue is nothing to do with cost. THE COTTAGE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE COUNCIL. The land and buildings in Graves Park belong to the Graves Park Charity. The whole lot including Cobnar Cottage was given FREE to the people of Sheffield as parkland after the council agreed it would maintain the park and its buildings. The reason the cottage needs money spending on it is because the council neglected it and failed to insure it. It is the councils duty to repair the damage that was caused whilst it was in their care. Simply claiming money is tight does not change the law. The cottage still is not the councils to sell. They waste endless amounts of money trying to sell off chunks of Graves Park, and everytime the Charity Commission remind them that they can't do it. The Charity Commission are now fully aware of the situation. They have asked the council to submit a scheme explaining their intentions. No doubt in a few months they will tell the council the land cannot be sold to provide funds for the council to use for its maintenance responsibilities. That is because the cottage belongs to the charity and not the council. It isn't rocket science. ---------- Post added 20-04-2015 at 20:43 ---------- I have contacted the sitting Labour MP.
  10. It is odd though that if the council employees remain the same why they fail to grasp the concept that Graves Park is not theirs to sell. They make this mistake over and over again despite the money they keep squandering in their repeated attempts to sell it. Why doesn't the elected council sack them?
  11. Actually barpen knows the difference between a FoI request and a set of accounts. But it is good of you to confirm that car parking receipts for the year in Graves Park amounted to £53878. I have included that figure in the letter sent to the Charity Commission suggesting an audit of the charity's accounts as it appears that several of the trustees of the charity are unaware of the difference between the charity's assetts and those of the council. So let's get back to that disgraceful election leaflet that seems to suggest that selling off assetts belonging to the Graves Park Charity and using the money for council purposes is a really great idea.
  12. Graves Park is hardly a poisoned chalice. From a freedom of information request the car park raised over £50,000 last year. There were concerts, shows and fairs where those using the park paid a fee. I have yet to establish how much rent comes from the cafe but assume it to be around £20,000/pa. There is also a £10,000 fee for using part of Norton Nursery as a depot. It seems in return 0.7 people are employed to maintain the park. Perhaps if the accounts were audited we could find out where all this cash goes.
  13. I think there is truth on both sides here. Certainly the attempts to sell off charitable staus parkland galvanised many all around the city who also had parks under threat. It is clearly a very important issue around the Graves Park ward where the local councillors have probably done very well as a result of supporting the park charity's interests rather than seeking to abuse it. It is significant that the Labour MP for Heeley also supported the interests of the park charity and often sat on the opposite side of the table from her Labour Council colleagues. It needed Labour to have lost support over a few elections for the issues in Graves Park to make a decisive impact. But the repeated attempts by the Labour Council to sell off bits of parkland that were not theirs to sell certainly contributed to their loss of support.
  14. I think the council would have liked it to have set a precedent. However the Charity Commission were unaware of the council selling off Chantry cottage until it was too late. Had they been aware they would have stopped the sale. The fact that the council as trustees preceded against the best interests of the charity but without sanction from the Charities Commission means no precedent was set. But folk must be vigilant as the trustees of the Graves Park Charity clearly do not understand the meaning of the word trust.
  15. That sounds like utter hogwash to me. Why would the NT want urban parks?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.