Jump to content


St Luke's bid for Graves Park / Norton Nurseries

Do you support St Luke's bid?  

486 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support St Luke's bid?

    • Yes
      70
    • No
      416


Recommended Posts

THAT is a classic! :hihi:

 

So there's no distinction between expressing views in a council debate and trying to influence Sheffielders in the local press?

 

I might be wrong here, but I was under the impression that Jackie Drayton's letter which appeared in the Star, appeared after the legal advice had been issued.

 

I am pretty sure you are right on that and that Peter Price may have done exactly the same.

 

However none of the above comments by robbo can bypass the fact that both PP and JD are on the board of trustees of the JG Graves Charitable Trust. This body has repeatedly stated its support for St Lukes bid and is oft quoted by St lukes in its propagonda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all who responded to my question about the legal background to why candidates don't seem to be able to make comments on the Graves Park situation.

 

However, I'm still a bit unclear.

 

It would be nice to actually see the advice, rather than just rumours of what it is! Can't any councilors here send us the actual text of the advice, or wasn't it given to them in written form? I've looked in the online minutes of the council meetings and haven't been able to find anything there so far.

 

The answers given here so far seem to be leaning towards that there is no 'outright ban' on councilors commenting, as long as they keep an open mind, and that candidates are not affected by the advice. But this doesn't match what is happening on the ground - that both councilors and candidates are reluctant to say anything on the subject at all.

 

Why is this subject different to any other subject that might be decided in council meeting, that necessitates such advice? Is it because the councilors would be making a decision as trustees (and therefore the advice is somehow related to rules set by the Charity Commission, so I can probably get the relevant rules from them)? Or is it not related to their status as trustees but because it involves the councilors receiving some legal advice that they need to take into account before they decide (but surely this would apply to all sorts of decisions that are made by the councilors, so such advice would be an everyday occurrence?)?

 

Is the advice specifically about working against the interests of the Graves Park charity, or is it about making statements of any kind?

 

What might the consequences be for those who do not follow the advice - some kind of legal challenge to them voting, or maybe preventing them from being a trustee? Has this been explained by the person who gave the advice? redrobbo has said that he gets the impression that anyone who has given their views on the subject before the advice will not be affected - but surely, if stating your views makes you open to some kind of legal challenge or ban from voting, then a defense of 'I didn't know I shouldn't say anything' isn't valid?

 

I'm guessing that all my questions would be answered if I saw the full text of the advice (but maybe not!) - so is it available?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks to all who responded to my question about the legal background to why candidates don't seem to be able to make comments on the Graves Park situation.

 

However, I'm still a bit unclear.

 

It would be nice to actually see the advice, rather than just rumours of what it is! Can't any councilors here send us the actual text of the advice, or wasn't it given to them in written form? I've looked in the online minutes of the council meetings and haven't been able to find anything there so far.

 

The answers given here so far seem to be leaning towards that there is no 'outright ban' on councilors commenting, as long as they keep an open mind, and that candidates are not affected by the advice. But this doesn't match what is happening on the ground - that both councilors and candidates are reluctant to say anything on the subject at all.

 

Why is this subject different to any other subject that might be decided in council meeting, that necessitates such advice? Is it because the councilors would be making a decision as trustees (and therefore the advice is somehow related to rules set by the Charity Commission, so I can probably get the relevant rules from them)? Or is it not related to their status as trustees but because it involves the councilors receiving some legal advice that they need to take into account before they decide (but surely this would apply to all sorts of decisions that are made by the councilors, so such advice would be an everyday occurrence?)?

 

Is the advice specifically about working against the interests of the Graves Park charity, or is it about making statements of any kind?

 

What might the consequences be for those who do not follow the advice - some kind of legal challenge to them voting, or maybe preventing them from being a trustee? Has this been explained by the person who gave the advice? redrobbo has said that he gets the impression that anyone who has given their views on the subject before the advice will not be affected - but surely, if stating your views makes you open to some kind of legal challenge or ban from voting, then a defense of 'I didn't know I shouldn't say anything' isn't valid?

 

I'm guessing that all my questions would be answered if I saw the full text of the advice (but maybe not!) - so is it available?

 

Thanks.

 

The City Solicitor gave verbal advice during a council meeting at the opening of a debate on parks and green spaces, where the motion for debate made reference (in part) to the St Luke's hospice request to relocate to Norton Nurseries.

 

The legal advice was clear, i.e., if any councillor spoke in relation to the possible relocation of the hospice to this site, then they should make it clear that they maintained an open mind on this issue in case this matter should come before council for a vote in order to avoid any legal challenge that they had already pre-determined this issue before the full facts were known.

 

It does not appear to me that the legal advice is a wholesale 'gagging order' on councillors, but it also appears to me that any councillor who speaks in public on this issue should be very circumspect in what they say - in case they lay themselves open to a legal challenge that they have already pre-determined the issue (which could effectively deny them a vote if this matter comes before council).

 

Speaking for myself, in my capacity as a city councillor, I have opted to express no view - except, in accordance with the legal advice, that I am keeping an open kind until the full facts are known.

 

This kind of legal advice has been given to councillors on other occasions in relation to other issues. It always relates to matters that have yet to fully come before council for a vote, or where a decision has to be taken by a Planning Board or the Licensing Board.

 

As a footnote, there is a current thread running regarding the suitability or otherwise of a Hooters restaurant in Sheffield. All councillors appear to have received at least one email lobbying us to oppose this proposal. I have deliberately refrained from posting on that thread, and I also replied to the email asking the sender not to contact me again. I have taken these actions to avoid any possibility of my being legally challenged that (by whatever means) I am seen to have pre-determined this particular issue before the full facts of any such application are known. The full facts on that particular issue will only be known if an application for a license comes before the Licensing Board. As a member of the Licensing Board, I clearly must take no view on this particular issue in the interim. This is not dissimilar to any proposal for St Luke's hospice to relocate to Norton Nurseries - for should this matter come before council for a vote (in our capacity as trustees of a charity) we must not be seen to have pre-determined the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THAT is a classic! :hihi:

 

So there's no distinction between expressing views in a council debate and trying to influence Sheffielders in the local press?

 

I might be wrong here, but I was under the impression that Jackie Drayton's letter which appeared in the Star, appeared after the legal advice had been issued.

 

Cllr Jackie Drayton's letter did indeed appear after the legal advice had been given, and this has already been discussed on this thread. See my post at no. 3128.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is oblique reference to the City Solicitor's advice in the minutes of the Council Meeting, 6th February, referred to by redrobbo.

 

Please note that they still don't know the name of the Charity/Trust of which they are trustees.

 

(NOTE: 1. Any contribution made on the above item of business by Members of the City Council as trustees of the JG Graves Trust and by Members of the City Centre, South and East Planning and Highways Area Board which may deal with any future planning application in relation to the relocation of St Luke’s Hospice to the Norton Nurseries site, was on the basis that (a) their comments represented a preliminary view and any such application will be dealt with at the appropriate time on the basis of all relevant information and (b) no view on the merits or otherwise of any potential proposal had been taken at this stage;

 

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/full-council/agenda-5th-march-2008/minutes-6th-february-2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is rather convenient that the council can't express an opinion on a key issue just before an election!

 

Of course this is codswallop, and they are all perfectly at liberty to express opinions on the general principles without mentioning SLH in particular. For example, they should be expected to answer a direct question such as "Are you in favour of, or against, development on our parkland, or on any land gifted to the city as parkland?". This would be no different to asking a member of the licencing committe if we need more, or fewer, pubs in the city without this stopping them voting on the licencing of any particular venue. How about if I asked a member of the planning committe if we should build more houses in Sheffield? Would that mean that he had to abstain from all planning applications which involved houses of any kind?

 

Perhaps this system can be used as a way of shutting up councillors on any issue we don't want them to talk about. My local councillor is desperate to be photographed with people raising money for a local park, so perhaps I can apply for permission to put a scrap yard on that land and then he can't get his photos taken for his election leaflet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surley its fairly obvious which off the political parties are for and against, you only have to look back to the Council meeting last year.

 

Lib Dems voted against building on Graves Park. Labour, Greens, Conservatives didnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surley its fairly obvious which off the political parties are for and against, you only have to look back to the Council meeting last year.

 

Lib Dems voted against building on Graves Park. Labour, Greens, Conservatives didnt.

 

Still waiting in Woodseats for either the Labour candidate to canvass the area, of failing that some Electoral literature through the letter box from the Labour party...up to now nothing.

 

Perhaps they realise because of this fiasco they won't win in the Graves Park ward and aren't bothered.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting in Woodseats for either the Labour candidate to canvass the area, of failing that some Electoral literature through the letter box from the Labour party...up to now nothing.

 

Perhaps they realise because of this fiasco they won't win in the Graves Park ward and aren't bothered.

 

Cheers

 

The Graves Park Ward active membership of the labour party couldn't fill my dining table Jack that's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not just the Labour party, I've not had anything from the Greens or the Conservatives either...one day to go though so we'll see if I receive anything.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What more facts need to be known before they can make a decision?

Are the interests of the city council the same as the JG Graves Trust?

Surely the trustees can decide NOW whether or not they want to sell off the nurseries.

Maybe the only thing they can't decide now is whether to sell it St Lukes or to somebody else.

But I'm sure if they do sell they would need a good reason not to sell to the highest bidder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • 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.