thunder

Even if you don't manage to find a copy of the covenant couldn't you still put those suggestions forward (restoration of artwork, replacement of seating/litter bins)? They sound good. What ideas do you have that specifically require the covenant details?

It's not brief but you could try this: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=303223

But why does St Luke's continue to retain an interest in Norton Nursery? Why do they not formally withdraw their interest now? If the terms of the proposal are not to their liking will the Hospice Trustees resume their campaign to build on parkland?

What is 'the full situation' regarding the following?

The Hospice Trustees said they would only agree to withdraw their interest in Norton Nursery if the Bluestones proposal was endorsed by Cabinet. From the Cabinet minutes it doesn't appear to have been discussed yet so presumably St Luke's still retain an interest in the Nursery. The proposal was supposed to have been submitted to Cabinet 'in the near future' according to a press statement last July.

As early as January 2008 St Luke's said, "We are informed that the charitable status of the Graves Park, including the Site, is currently the subject of review, which should be finished by the end of September. This review should clarify the position, both as to the legal and charitable status, and also identify any constraints on the use of the Site. Once this is complete we will be in possession of all the facts". Presumably such information could only come from an officer or member of the council. How did they arrive at that date? How did they know it would take a further eight months for the review to be finished?

4.7 If Members are agreeable to the terms outlined in this paper the Trustees of the hospice have agreed to withdraw their interest in the Norton Nursery site and to work with the Council to develop a new hospice on the Bluestones school site. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/cabinet/agendas-2008/agenda-10th-september-2008/st-lukes-hospice This was dated 01/09/08 and they had still not withdrawn their interest. If Members were not agreeable to the terms, would St Luke's resume their campaign for the Nurseries? What is the point of them holding on to their interest?

On this site (found whilst searching for City Solicitor/Graves Park) they ask if it is the general public or CP graduates who are the 'useful idiots'. Seem to recall the term 'mushroom treatment' from the other St Luke's thread.

Is the 'gagging order' still in place? There seems to be a discrepancy as to whether it was verbal or written. From the thread: St Luke's bid for Graves Park / Norton Nurseries redrobbo 19-02-2008 Page 71 Post #1402 "At the last council meeting, there was a motion for debate which made reference to the St Luke's Hospice/Graves Park issue. Prior to the debate, all councillors present were given verbal legal advice by the council's legal officer that if they spoke in relation to this matter, they needed to keep an open mind at this stage in the process -n order not to prejudice their position should this matter come before council at a later date." Councillor Bryan Lodge's amendment: m) further notes that all Members of the Council were advised, in writing, that even if they had formed a provisional view for or against the proposed Norton Nurseries location, they needed to have an open mind to the merits of the argument before making a final decision, on the basis of a detailed report;

Just watched a VERY long but intriguing video. Near the end the speaker says, "We now have local councillors realising that it is the officers who control the council". The Star's Paul License in his St Luke's special column (21/03/08 ) said: "Almost equally disturbing is that this is yet another example of officers at the town hall feeling they are above not only the will of the people (the vast majority of readers are aghast at the proposal, believe me) but also beyond the law." Was the St Luke's saga an example of CP trained officers 'leading beyond authority'?

So some or all of the previous administration who supported St Luke's relocation to Norton Nurseries (for which they had no details) underwent CP training which includes Chatham House Rule meetings. The rule states, "participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed". Am I right in thinking officers were also given CP training? Sounds very secretive. The Graves Park/St Luke's issue has an air of secrecy about it too.

Don't know what sort of charitable work they do but they seem to get paid well for their leadership training courses. Their slogan, 'Leading beyond authority' sounds similar to acting 'ultra vires' which was mentioned on the other St Luke's thread. The Lib/Dems have said they are committed to protecting all our local parks from development so they really need to discover who was involved and how it came about then put in place safeguards to prevent future administrations from trying to dispose of parkland. Maybe there will be a press release when the following happens. 4.7 If Members are agreeable to the terms outlined in this paper the Trustees of the hospice have agreed to withdraw their interest in the Norton Nursery site and to work with the Council to develop a new hospice on the Bluestones school site. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/cabinet/agendas-2008/agenda-10th-september-2008/st-lukes-hospice

Looks like she is otherwise occupied refusing Freedom of Information requests about another charity. Sheffield Chief Exec Refuses to release CP Expenditure 1 Sep 2008

In The Star 09 March 2007 Coun Bryan Lodge said: "We are very supportive of the idea that St Luke's Hospice could re-locate to the Norton Nursery site. We will need to look at several other issues around design, landscaping and access, but we feel this would be a wonderful asset for the people of Sheffield in an ideal location." This was said 9 months before St Luke's submitted a formal application according to Councillor Lodge. In his amendment above he notes, no detailed application has ever been received by the Trustees and that St Luke’s Hospice did not make a detailed proposal to the Council. Paul Blomfield, Chair Sheffield District Labour Party, also said: We fully support the proposed development ... Why were they very supportive of a development for which they had no details? Scenario. Labour: We are very supportive of this development. Questioner: What are the details of this development? Labour: We have absolutely no idea; could be anything.

From the full motion and amendments. Amendment to be moved by Councillor Bryan Lodge, seconded by Councillor Jan Wilson l) notes, for the record, that although St Luke’s announced that they wished to pursue the possible use of the Norton Nurseries, and submitted a formal application, by way of a letter, on 7th December 2007, no detailed application has ever been received by the Trustees of the Graves Park Charitable Trust, which comprises all members of Sheffield City Council; m) further notes that all Members of the Council were advised, in writing, that even if they had formed a provisional view for or against the proposed Norton Nurseries location, they needed to have an open mind to the merits of the argument before making a final decision, on the basis of a detailed report; n) further notes that, as St Luke’s Hospice did not make a detailed proposal to the Council, no such report has ever been produced, and consequently no proper debate on this matter has ever taken place; Still calling it Graves Park Charitable Trust?