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

The way I understand it, a market rent is a compromise between what a landlord expects to receive and a tenant expects to pay based on other land of similar size and location. In other words, a negotiation.

 

Are there records of any negotiations between St Luke's and GPC trustees? In fact, do any minutes exist of decisions made by Labour councillors in their role as Trustees of Graves Park Charity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I understand it, a market rent is a compromise between what a landlord expects to receive and a tenant expects to pay based on other land of similar size and location. In other words, a negotiation.

 

Are there records of any negotiations between St Luke's and GPC trustees? In fact, do any minutes exist of decisions made by Labour councillors in their role as Trustees of Graves Park Charity?

 

Certainly initial talk from St Lukes was that they expected to get Norton Nurseries for nothing. I presume that someone must have given them the impression that was the case. We do not know who.

 

Later when it became obvious that the Commission would become involved talk turned to a lease but at a knock down figure. My discusions led me to understand that approaches from developers who might bid in competition to St Lukes would be thwarted by insistence that the site only be used for a hospice. It didn't give me the impression at any time that trustees who were involved in any of the negociations had any concern in the best interests of the GPC. Indeed every effort was being made to dispose of the site for the least financial return for the charity.:suspect:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I understand it, a market rent is a compromise between what a landlord expects to receive and a tenant expects to pay based on other land of similar size and location. In other words, a negotiation.

 

Are there records of any negotiations between St Luke's and GPC trustees? In fact, do any minutes exist of decisions made by Labour councillors in their role as Trustees of Graves Park Charity?

 

 

My understanding regarding every charity is that they must be in the position to produce the minutes for inspection at any reasonable time. I believe a reasonable charge can be made to enable them to be read or viewed.

If you wish the charity to provide copies a charge will be made. The charge can be adjudicated by the charity commission if excessive.

 

The Charity Commission will have information on their web site regarding this.

If you have the charities registered number that could be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The very first person who had the idea to hold the WSG was Gerry Montgomery the then deputy director of the recreation department, of course Peter Price jumped on the idea as he saw it as a means of becoming more important within the group.

 

My part in the saga was to analyse and give second opinion on officer reports and councilor reports such that group and DLP would not be 'blind sided' with either something missed by mistakes caused by over exuberance or deliberate deception.

 

After it became clear that my report had been misrepresented to the group by the leader its chair Jimmy Boyce telling me what was said I made my findings available to DLP which was blocked by its chairman dick Cabourn and secretary Rodger Barton.

 

At this point I leaked the report to Pat McCarthy at radio hallam in order that the truth could be exposed.

 

As to Albert's rant about him as a labour candidate for council whilst exercising an RTB (introduced by the Tories and against labour policy) I note his hypocrisy in that at the time he was standing on a platform of no sales of council housing whilst at the same time buying his own, although I have to say he was not alone in this hypocrisy as virtually every labour member did exactly the same thing.

 

As to Albert's rant about him as a labour candidate for council whilst exercising an RTB (introduced by the Tories and against labour policy) I note his hypocrisy in that at the time he was standing on a platform of no sales of council housing whilst at the same time buying his own, although I have to say he was not alone in this hypocrisy as virtually every labour member did exactly the same thing.

 

 

I did wonder how long this garbage would be left in the slime pot!!

( My web is awaiting the flies )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I understand it, a market rent is a compromise between what a landlord expects to receive and a tenant expects to pay based on other land of similar size and location. In other words, a negotiation.

 

Are there records of any negotiations between St Luke's and GPC trustees? In fact, do any minutes exist of decisions made by Labour councillors in their role as Trustees of Graves Park Charity?

 

I am very reliably informed that minutes were kept and held in the leaders office but were destroyed when it became clear that the city council was to change hands, not unlike last time:suspect:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[/b]

 

As to Albert's rant about him as a labour candidate for council whilst exercising an RTB (introduced by the Tories and against labour policy) I note his hypocrisy in that at the time he was standing on a platform of no sales of council housing whilst at the same time buying his own, although I have to say he was not alone in this hypocrisy as virtually every labour member did exactly the same thing.

 

 

I did wonder how long this garbage would be left in the slime pot!!

( My web is awaiting the flies )

 

 

Dear me Albert, after asking the questions you seem not to like the answers, I believe the saying is 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

 

As to "your web" rather than snaring anyone else all you have ever managed to do is incriminate yourself and your labour colleagues, not surprising really as you guys are the guilty party here (no pun intended).

 

Awaiting your next missive:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am very reliably informed that minutes were kept and held in the leaders office but were destroyed when it became clear that the city council was to change hands, not unlike last time:suspect:

 

This is a serious allegation and unless you can substantiate it I suggest you withdraw your remarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a serious allegation and unless you can substantiate it I suggest you withdraw your remarks.

 

Can you shed light Max on why labour members were in the town hall overnight after the election results were tabulated, you do know that security keeps a record of the 'out of hours' comings and goings don't you, there's also CCTV footage of the movements of that night.

 

But just to satisfy you you can consider the remark withdrawn although I think we all know they weren't there consoling themselves:suspect:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a serious allegation and unless you can substantiate it I suggest you withdraw your remarks.

 

The remark should be investigated a Charity Commission nominee.

This will either confirm it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly initial talk from St Lukes was that they expected to get Norton Nurseries for nothing. I presume that someone must have given them the impression that was the case. We do not know who.

 

Later when it became obvious that the Commission would become involved talk turned to a lease but at a knock down figure. My discusions led me to understand that approaches from developers who might bid in competition to St Lukes would be thwarted by insistence that the site only be used for a hospice. It didn't give me the impression at any time that trustees who were involved in any of the negociations had any concern in the best interests of the GPC. Indeed every effort was being made to dispose of the site for the least financial return for the charity.:suspect:

 

If St Luke's were given the impression they would get the Nurseries for nothing or for a knock down figure then that would explain why it wasn't on their 'too expensive' list. But if no surveyor's advice was sought and no negotiations took place, no signed agreements, no protective 'hospice only' covenants actually in place etc. then there was nothing to stop other interested parties bidding for the Nurseries; just this 'suggestion' of RC's.

 

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that St Luke's seem to have wasted the past 16 months or so pushing for the Nurseries solely on a suggestion and nothing concrete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it appears that the initial function of this thread has been served and the thread has now branched off into other directions, including unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing against council members, I'm going to close this one.

 

Those posting allegations of wrongdoing really need to be aware that SF is not the place to be running personal campaigns. We may be a community resource, but we don't take kindly to having statements posted which could leave us open to legal problems.

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.