barpen
Members-
Content Count
676 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by barpen
-
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.
-
Bloody Hell. They'll be offering murder awareness courses before long.
-
We got a reply from the Charities Commission at the weekend. They didn't seem too impressed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That sounds like utter hogwash to me. Why would the NT want urban parks?
-
Well they attempted to sell off Norton Nursery to become a housing estate. They spent a fortone in the attempt before the Charity Commission pointed out that the land belonged to the Graves Park Charity and could not be sold. Then they tried to sell part of the playing fields in Graves Park to a private individual who wanted a garden extension. They spent a fortone in the attempt before the Charity Commission pointed out that the land belonged to the Graves Park Charity and could not be sold. Then they tried to sell land out of the park to be used as a driveway at Chantry Cottage. They spent a fortone in the attempt before the Charity Commission pointed out that the land belonged to the Graves Park Charity and could not be sold. Then they tried to sell off 8 or 10 acres to St Lukes for them to use to build a hospice. Both parties involved spent a fortone in the attempt before the Charity Commission pointed out that the land belonged to the Graves Park Charity and could not be sold. Now they are trying to sell off a cottage that is in the park. The Charity Commission are now aware and have told the council to submit a scheme of their proposed disposal. I think we can see where this is going. The common factor is the money wasted by the council in flogging the same dead horse over and over again. Any fool can make a costly mistake but it takes a certain type of idiot to keep making the same mistake over and over again. Stick your hand in the fire it burns, but you really need to be thick to keep trying in case it doesn't burn next time.
-
The property is freehold and owned 100% by the Graves Park Charity.
-
Yes. What you can do is ask your solicitor. He is trained in these matters and will give better advice than folk on here who aren't but imagine they are.
-
It is a Labour Part election leaflet.
-
This is totally different. This is about a party political leaflet telling the local electorate about a range of improvements and asking the electorate to choose how they would like this windfall spent. Unfortunately this windfall actually is the property of a registered charity. It doesn't belong to the council, and it certainly doesn't belong to the Labour Party.
-
I have just received a leaflet from the Labour Party outlining "New Investment in Graves Park". Surely this leaflet is some kind of bad joke. The plan is to sell a cottage that belongs to the Graves Park Charity and use the proceeds for one of several schemes laid out on the leaflet. They are asking local people to aid and abet this idea by ticking which scheme they would prefer. All are schemes that the council is obliged to fund from its own pocket, not those of the charity. Unfortunately the land is not the council's to sell. It belongs to the Graves Park Charity. (remember St Lukes). The deeds of the charity say that should any land be sold from the park that it must be used to buy other land of equal or higher amenity value to the park. It does not say that money can be used as a substitute for the council's obligation to maintain the park. The leaflet claims..Cobnar Cottage is located outsidethe park walls as if this makes a difference. There are walls all over the park and they do not indicate the park's boundaries. If they did Norton Hall would be part of the park. The leaflet also states that the cottage in need of repair. Indeed it is. This is despite the council having an obligation to maintain the cottage. So neglect of duty is being used as an excuse to sell property that the council does not even own but is obliged to maintain. What a pity that this leaflet isn't printed on softer paper so that I could put it to some use. Instead I have forwarded it to the Charity Commission so that they are aware of yet another attempted abuse by the charities trustees.
-
Castlegate/old Market area redevelopment
barpen replied to iansheff's topic in Sheffield News & Discussions
Are you talking about the market or Park Hill Flats? -
Withdraw funding from Israel to end the violence..
barpen replied to Bonzo77's topic in General Discussions
If you ever wanted to waste your time signing a petition this is the one. As the only thing they want is your email address anyone with a domain can sign it 20,000 times if they wish. So it is the type of petition that is bin fodder although the spammers will be pleased to get a list of email addresses. They will sell it for £10,000. I just signed as Freddy ****nut from *********@******.com -
Once more Sheffield's Graves Park is used as a council tip.
barpen replied to SHYTOT's topic in Sheffield News & Discussions
We love what you say. This thread would have died 3 weeks ago without a nutter like yourself. Like they say it takes 2 to tango. We just needed to find someone with nothing else to do. -
Once more Sheffield's Graves Park is used as a council tip.
barpen replied to SHYTOT's topic in Sheffield News & Discussions
You do come across as someone with a grudge. Were you one of those who pushed to give bits of Graves Park to St Lukes, or to sell off bits as housing, and lost your job as a result of it. If the council wants to save money they should stop hatching these illegal schemes to dispose of assetts belonging to the Graves Park Charity. If they stopped doing that they would have an awful lot more money and an awful lot more respect.