St Luke's bid for Graves Park / Norton Nurseries

I've been dead set against this, but am now wondering . I have plenty of major major issues with the council, but the improvements and commitment to parks and green space is beyond criticism as far as i can see- which is why i HAD been so angry about this.

But now i;ve read through everything, i'm wondering if i've been miselad in some way-it looks as though this issue is being used as a party political thing to do down the council.

When i looked at the plans as they are, and the proposed new site, it looks like a lot of derelict buildings being removed and replaced withabout a thrid of the total area being the new hospice, and the rest actually TURNED INTO garden/ park.

I'm a friend of my local park, we have tried loads to get the existing old building used better, because the evidence is that having well used public amenities in parks helps keep the park in better nick, for instance it's safer at night to go through if there's people in the community centre, if people are using a building there's eyes and ears so its less likley to have little corners where drug dealing, vanadlism and other anti social stuff can go on. I think some of the same arguments would apply to having this facility there.

edit- i have looked again at FOGP site, and read some of the responses to my origianl post, and have to say I;m back, very firmly, on board the 'against' train! The buildings are obviously NOT derelict and the work to make the rest of the site green space is obviously well undrway- congrats to FOGP as i know how hard it was to get things done in our friends group. I had read the SLH and FOGP website, and looked at the plans etc- but perhaps not read them ever so thoroughly. I also hadn't, and still havent, tracked this whole thread but the very well expressed points i have read since i posted this have convinced me that a) I was right to voted against in the poll, b) I was wrong in this post and c) I should shut up now!

I've been dead set against this, but am now wondering .

Did you read this too????!!

FOGP saved this land from the council and developers 10 years ago and have worked on restoring the site ever since.

The bottom 1/3 of the site has already been restored to parkland. It is an ecology zone which has been so successful it is attracting grants to make further enhancements. Work is currently underway to improve the water retention of the pond where Great Crested Newts breed. Top soil is currently being applied to certain areas to improve plant life and many trees are being planted. Already many rare birds and animals use this area and in summer the number of butterflies is breathtaking. There is no place for formal gardens here. It is a natural habitat to attract wild creatures.

The middle section of the site will shortly follow. A large arboretum will be sited here along with a possible information centre for the park. A pathway through the area will link up with the paths by the church and allow a safer route for school chldren than the current narrow footpath alongside the Norton Lane Grand Prix track.

The top third of the nursery site will retain the large greenhouse as a centre of excellence. Inside the greenhouse it is hoped to include a cafe and a sales area for the products of both the Green Fingers group as well as the Finishing Touches handicapped group who produce bird boxes, rabbit hutches and all types of wooden garden furniture within Graves Park.

It is also proposed to extend public access throughout this greenhouse to allow people to see the various activities including plant growing and preparation of floral displays. It is also possible that special displays and events can be staged in the greenhouse which has just undergone a £100,000 refit at tax payer expense. WE DO NOT INTEND TO SEE THAT PLOUGHED INTO A LANDFILL SITE.

Eventually parts of the old walled garden will be restored with lean to greenhouses similar to the Botanical Gardens. These stuctures will provide seating where picnics and refreshments can be taken.

As FOGP are a registered charity it is hoped that much of the funding can be sourced from Grants rather than putting the burden on Sheffield Tax payers.

This is all the result of a plan what has been ongoing for around 10 years.

THAT IS THE VISION. Which would you rather see in a public park?

Many thanks sassicaia and maggi. That's great. Those extracts/links will be very useful for a letter.

Councillors Drayton and Price have also been actively promoting the SLH bid in their capacity as trustees of the JGGCT.

I've been dead set against this, but am now wondering . I have plenty of major major issues with the council, but the improvements and commitment to parks and green space is beyond criticism as far as i can see- which is why i HAD been so angry about this.

 

But now i;ve read through everything, i'm wondering if i've been miselad in some way-it looks as though this issue is being used as a party political thing to do down the council.

 

When i looked at the plans as they are, and the proposed new site, it looks like a lot of derelict buildings being removed and replaced withabout a thrid of the total area being the new hospice, and the rest actually TURNED INTO garden/ park.

 

I'm a friend of my local park, we have tried loads to get the existing old building used better, because the evidence is that having well used public amenities in parks helps keep the park in better nick, for instance it's safer at night to go through if there's people in the community centre, if people are using a building there's eyes and ears so its less likley to have little corners where drug dealing, vanadlism and other anti social stuff can go on. I think some of the same arguments would apply to having this facility there.

Please, please don't get conned into believing the crap being put out by the Council and SLH.

The Council are most certainly not to be trusted with parkland - see my post on what happened at Firth Park.

If you want to see photos of the "derelict buildings" have a look here.

This is not a party political plot, believe me. It's the Council trying to break the terms of a convenant pertaining to land that was left very specifically as a open place. It's not the first time they've tried it. If they manage to overturn the covenant and build on public land, it will set a very dangerous precedent.

St Luke's does a wonderful job, but it's a great pity they've allowed themselves to become a pawn in the game the Council is playing. They were obviously relying on the fact that people wouldn't object, because St Luke's is such a well-loved charity. And, of course, they relied on people being influenced by the fact that the building would be for poor, dying people and would feel guilty if they objected to the scheme. It's the most blatant and appalling moral blackmail imaginable.

I'm a friend of my local park, we have tried loads to get the existing old building used better, because the evidence is that having well used public amenities in parks helps keep the park in better nick, for instance it's safer at night to go through if there's people in the community centre, if people are using a building there's eyes and ears so its less likley to have little corners where drug dealing, vanadlism and other anti social stuff can go on. I think some of the same arguments would apply to having this facility there.

So you are offering up your local park to SLH to be turned into a building site? Could I ask which poor unfortunate park is to be the target of this magnificant honour?

I've been dead set against this, but am now wondering . I have plenty of major major issues with the council, but the improvements and commitment to parks and green space is beyond criticism as far as i can see- which is why i HAD been so angry about this.

 

But now i;ve read through everything, i'm wondering if i've been miselad in some way-it looks as though this issue is being used as a party political thing to do down the council.

 

When i looked at the plans as they are, and the proposed new site, it looks like a lot of derelict buildings being removed and replaced withabout a thrid of the total area being the new hospice, and the rest actually TURNED INTO garden/ park.

 

I'm a friend of my local park, we have tried loads to get the existing old building used better, because the evidence is that having well used public amenities in parks helps keep the park in better nick, for instance it's safer at night to go through if there's people in the community centre, if people are using a building there's eyes and ears so its less likley to have little corners where drug dealing, vanadlism and other anti social stuff can go on. I think some of the same arguments would apply to having this facility there.

There are many good reasons why the St. Lukes proposal shouldn't be considered. If this helps... the main reason being that the land in question doesn't belong to SCC, a fact which some councillors aren't cognitive of despite the best efforts of the Charity Commission, the general public reminding them, the press and then of course FOGP reminding them. You're being shortsighted and duped if you believe that the council are beyond critisism.

But now i;ve read through everything, i'm wondering if i've been miselad in some way-it looks as though this issue is being used as a party political thing to do down the council.

 

When i looked at the plans as they are, and the proposed new site, it looks like a lot of derelict buildings being removed and replaced withabout a thrid of the total area being the new hospice, and the rest actually TURNED INTO garden/ park.

Here's a letter in the Star from someone who actually visited. Here's another from the Telegraph, and there's a post a few pages back about redrobbo's visit.

We've just spent a hundred grand on doing the nurseries up, and they've had another ten grand from Springwatch. It galls me to see all that money (and the time and effort that people have put in) go to waste.

You're right though that, with the local elections coming up, it's bound to be a party political thing[1]. I'd just say keep reading everything, stay informed, maybe go have a look for yourself and see what you think then.

[1]Meg Munn, the Labour MP for the area is against the development too, so it's not a simple split on party lines.

I've been dead set against this, but am now wondering . I have plenty of major major issues with the council, but the improvements and commitment to parks and green space is beyond criticism as far as i can see- which is why i HAD been so angry about this.

 

But now i;ve read through everything, i'm wondering if i've been miselad in some way-it looks as though this issue is being used as a party political thing to do down the council.

 

When i looked at the plans as they are, and the proposed new site, it looks like a lot of derelict buildings being removed and replaced withabout a thrid of the total area being the new hospice, and the rest actually TURNED INTO garden/ park.

 

I'm a friend of my local park, we have tried loads to get the existing old building used better, because the evidence is that having well used public amenities in parks helps keep the park in better nick, for instance it's safer at night to go through if there's people in the community centre, if people are using a building there's eyes and ears so its less likley to have little corners where drug dealing, vanadlism and other anti social stuff can go on. I think some of the same arguments would apply to having this facility there.

What has suddenly happened to make you now be wondering? If anybody in this is trying to do down the Council, it's self-inflicted. If you really have been following this, as you say, then you must have grasped that ANY disposal or building on this land would break the covenants on the land and open the flood-gates to who knows what carnage on any charitable land in the city.

If the Council wishes to protect itself from implosion, then the councillors have to:

1. get the council officers under control

2. make it clear that any disposal of charitable land is no longer an option, no matter who wants a slice of the building pie.

At the moment, that means the labour lot. As in the labour councillors

Seems to be the work of this youngster:

 

http://www.clumbermeets.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=205.0

Its the I'VE BEEN ASKED bit that bothers me, this could very vell be trolling for info on people.

I've been dead set against this, but am now wondering . I have plenty of major major issues with the council, but the improvements and commitment to parks and green space is beyond criticism as far as i can see- which is why i HAD been so angry about this.

 

But now i;ve read through everything, i'm wondering if i've been miselad in some way-it looks as though this issue is being used as a party political thing to do down the council.

 

When i looked at the plans as they are, and the proposed new site, it looks like a lot of derelict buildings being removed and replaced withabout a thrid of the total area being the new hospice, and the rest actually TURNED INTO garden/ park.

 

I'm a friend of my local park, we have tried loads to get the existing old building used better, because the evidence is that having well used public amenities in parks helps keep the park in better nick, for instance it's safer at night to go through if there's people in the community centre, if people are using a building there's eyes and ears so its less likley to have little corners where drug dealing, vanadlism and other anti social stuff can go on. I think some of the same arguments would apply to having this facility there.

TAKE A LOOK AT THESE DERELICT BUILDINGS.

Redrobbo took the trouble..

but if you can't be bothered here they are..

http://www.gravespark.fsnet.co.uk/greenhouse.htm