St Luke's bid for Graves Park / Norton Nurseries

[cgksheff 44]

I have discovered the advise was not not to comment at all, butif they commented publically to keep an open mind etc., which is a little different.

 

 

Really?

 

[cptntacredi 10]

That was the version from "sources close to the town hall"

 

[thunder 10]

Still chasing the elusive Parks Regeneration Strategy.

 

To the left of this interactive Preferred Options Proposal Map is a key to map details that can be toggled on or off. The two shadings given to Norton Nurseries denote ‘Historic Park, Garden or Cemetery’ and ‘Open Space’. The rest of Graves Park has vertical green lines to represent ‘Park’ but they have omitted Norton Nurseries. Double-clicking on the area brings up a link to Preferred Option PHE 6: (my bold)

 

Historic Parks, Gardens and Cemeteries will be protected and, wherever possible, their restoration and enhancement will be encouraged. Development that would damage their features, character, setting or appearance, or which might prejudice future restoration, will not be permitted. Applications affecting Historic Park, Garden or Cemetery must contain sufficient information to enable their impact on the site to be judged and outline applications will not be permitted.

 

In both the Unitary Development Plan and the Sheffield Development Framework there doesn’t appear to be any mention of the 10% policy unless it is in an obscure place yet the Parks Regeneration Strategy seems to be based on a review of the UDP.

 

Still puzzled.

[cptntacredi 10]

No. Remember it's Viv who is telling people this. The policy never got through the DLP but Viv behaves as if it did.

 

I remember I steered through a motion to reaffirm Sheffield DLP commitment to protect our Green Spaces as laid down in the 1993 Unitary Development Plant which received warm approval by the delegates who voted in through,

REVERSING A DECISION BY THE LABOUR GROUP OF COUNCILLORS.

 

Viv gave me a Medusa look on the way out, which if looks could kill, would have turned me to stone on the spot.

 

:hihi::hihi:

 

[thunder 10]

No. Remember it's Viv who is telling people this. The policy never got through the DLP but Viv behaves as if it did.

 

I remember I steered through a motion to reaffirm Sheffield DLP commitment to protect our Green Spaces as laid down in the 1993 Unitary Development Plant which received warm approval by the delegates who voted in through,

REVERSING A DECISION BY THE LABOUR GROUP OF COUNCILLORS.

 

Viv gave me a Medusa look on the way out, which if looks could kill, would have turned me to stone on the spot.

 

:hihi::hihi:

 

 

Thanks for making that clear cptntacredi. So even if a copy of the Parks Regeneration Strategy did turn up there would be no mention of the 10% policy. Naughty Viv.

 

Would the decision you referred to be minuted? And online?

[Taky 10]

Has anyone actually been able to get a substantive response to a Freedom of Information request on this subject from the Council – my request is now past the 20-day deadline and the next stage is a complaint.

 

The holding response below could be genuine or a stalling technique. They’ve had 20 working days plus so I don’t see why they could not deal with this. I guess if others are getting information through I could be in a long line but if everyone is getting the same excuses it is just not good enough.

 

“As you are aware this subject is topical and it is therefore the subject of several other requests under both the FOIA 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, but in each case the information requested is slightly different, so the information to be provided is slightly different, with different exemptions, requiring individual examination of the files and the documents contained therein. This means that a queue of requests is building up which the City Council is endeavouring to clear as fast as possible, but as there is only one set of definitive original documents to work from this cannot be speeded up. These documents are also current and as a consequence are also being worked upon by officers not involved in the FOIA /EIR process. This inevitably causes delays.

 

I hope that you will bear with the City council as it works its way through these requests”

[redrobbo 10]

There are a few of them writing to the Star saying just that.

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/letters/ST-LUKES-Let-all-enjoy.4017084.jp

 

Indeed Mr Redrobbo is back posting again. I know "our" redrobbo claims it isn't him, however I have noticed a subtle change in his postings of late. Do you think he has seen the light?

 

 

 

11 Redrobbo,26/04/2008 10:38:21

It is a subtle difference that makes the truth into a lie.

 

Just so that everyone is clear on this point. The land that St Lukes are trying to build on is not CLOSE TO Graves Park. It is not ALONGSIDE Graves Park. IT IS IN GRAVES PARK.

 

St Lukes are trying to take public parkland that belongs to the people of Sheffield and claim it as their own. This land was given to the people of Sheffield on condition that it be maintained as public parkland forever. St Lukes simply cannot have it.

 

NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!

 

Disclaimer: Redrobbo and redrobbo are different people. Any views attributed to Redrobbo in the newspapers are not those of Sheffield Forum member redrobbo.

 

On any occasion that I write to the media, I always use my real name.

[cptntacredi 10]

Thunder,

 

yes it will be minuted for a meeting in 1993 but I don't think any DLP minutes are on-line.

 

I put it up to protect Gleadless Common - where we have now lost on the second attempt years later - using the 1993 Unitary Development Plan which emphasised a green Sheffield, with protection of green space, green cooridors out of the city and protection of the Heritage Parks - naming them, including Graves Park as the largest - and other large green spaces, which should be accorded the status of Heritage Parks. It was voted through on this basis.

 

I thought everyone would support protecting the parks, being naive in those days and as green as the grass that grew in them. However to my horror, as I tried to gather support in the break i was told by various councillors they had to support Labour Group policy.

 

When it came to the vote the platform looked distinctly perturbed and Viv looked like thunder.

 

The 10% motion could obviously not be put to the DLP immediiately to reverse this but the estimable wolfstalin has described in an earlier post what happened when it was.

 

Er, as this vote has never been reversed, doesn't this mean it is still DLP policy.....?

 

:hihi::hihi:

:hihi::hihi:

[Oriole 10]

I have been following this thread with great interest It has been a fascinating study in local democracy and the big hitters on board have persuaded me away from my initial sympathetic support for St Lukes and I'm now firmly in the anti-camp.

 

I can't add anything new, but I would like to ask Redrobbo some direct questions. I should state that Robbo strikes me as a man of some intergrity and appears to be the only Councillor to have had the courage to stick his head repeatedly above the parapet.

 

I accept that you are going to abide by the advice of the City Solicitor and I am not asking your opinions on this subject. However, as a Councillor

could you please comment on the following issues that have repeatedly cropped up on this board.:

 

1. Has St lukes submitted a formal proposal to acquire the land at Norton Nurseries? If so how was this proposal made? Who made it? Who received it?Is it writtten ? Minuted? Are there drawings? Can I see them?

 

2. Have City Council officials been surveying the land around Norton Nurseries. If so who instructed them and to what purpose?

 

3. A number of Councillors have clearly given their views on this subject in a very public manner. When this matter comes to a vote will these Councillors declare an interest and abstain?

 

4. Can you please shed some light on the 10% disposal aspect of the Parks Regeneration Strategy. Does it exist or not? I would really like to know.

 

5. At what point will the Trustees feel thay have sufficient information to make a decision. Any time scales on this?

 

6. Why on earth are Sheffield Citizens having to resort to the FOI to try and prise the information they need to make a rational decision, away from the clammy grip of those who have decided we can't be trusted with it. I mean we're not exactly threatening the security of the Nation are we?

 

I don't think the City Solicitor has banned you from commmenting on the above so would you please share your opinions, either as a private individual or as a Councellor. Do remember, this is my Council and my say.

 

By the way. Sincere congratualtions on your forthcoming celebration. I hope you have a great trip.

 

Oriole.

[Tony 10]

As you are aware this subject is topical and it is therefore the subject of several other requests under both the FOIA 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, but in each case the information requested is slightly different, so the information to be provided is slightly different, with different exemptions, requiring individual examination of the files and the documents contained therein. This means that a queue of requests is building up which the City Council is endeavouring to clear as fast as possible, but as there is only one set of definitive original documents to work from this cannot be speeded up. These documents are also current and as a consequence are also being worked upon by officers not involved in the FOIA /EIR process. This inevitably causes delays.

 

I hope that you will bear with the City council as it works its way through these requests”

 

To quote Benny Hill.. apparently the new Leader of SCC... borrocks.

[redrobbo 10]

I have been following this thread with great interest It has been a fascinating study in local democracy and the big hitters on board have persuaded me away from my initial sympathetic support for St Lukes and I'm now firmly in the anti-camp.

 

I can't add anything new, but I would like to ask Redrobbo some direct questions. I should state that Robbo strikes me as a man of some intergrity and appears to be the only Councillor to have had the courage to stick his head repeatedly above the parapet.

 

I accept that you are going to abide by the advice of the City Solicitor and I am not asking your opinions on this subject. However, as a Councillor

could you please comment on the following issues that have repeatedly cropped up on this board.:

 

Welcome to the forum Oriole.

 

Just for clarification (as I appear to have a near namesake who emails the Star using the name Redrobbo) I am redrobbo (all lower case) - but red or robbo will suffice though.

 

I think you may be right that I do have a tendency to stick my head above the parapet - if often provides a sitting target though!

 

I don't think the City Solicitor has banned you from commmenting on the above so would you please share your opinions, either as a private individual or as a Councellor. Do remember, this is my Council and my say.

 

I will attempt to answer your questions.... but please note in my private capacity as a SF member, not as a city councillor....

 

1. Has St lukes submitted a formal proposal to acquire the land at Norton Nurseries? If so how was this proposal made? Who made it? Who received it?Is it writtten ? Minuted? Are there drawings? Can I see them?

 

I was under the impression that St Luke's Hospice had submitted a formal proposal to the city council, but I now understand that this is only an expression of interest in the Norton Nurseries site.

 

2. Have City Council officials been surveying the land around Norton Nurseries. If so who instructed them and to what purpose?

 

Norton Nurseries is in Graves Park ward, whereas I represent another ward. I therefore do not have any knowledge of any alleged surveying.

 

3. A number of Councillors have clearly given their views on this subject in a very public manner. When this matter comes to a vote will these Councillors declare an interest and abstain?

 

My understanding is that the Lib Dem councillors who expressed their views in the council debate last year, and voted en masse for their amendment, will not be precluded from voting if this matter comes before council. Nor, I understand, will any Labour councillors who have publicly spoken on this issue be precluded from voting.

 

All such views expressed pre-dated the legal advice from the city solicitor, which is to keep an open mind should this matter come before council.

 

Councillors have to determine for themselves whether they have a personal or a pecuniary interest in any vote, but a personal interest does not necessarily mean that a councillor cannot vote on a matter.

 

Cllr Mike Reynolds (Lib Dem) has already expressed an interest in this matter, and unless circumstances have changed, I anticipate that he will not be voting.

 

4. Can you please shed some light on the 10% disposal aspect of the Parks Regeneration Strategy. Does it exist or not? I would really like to know.

 

I refer you to the post on this thread (no 1544) by bglodge, in which he states....

...I would also like to clear up the misunderstanding raised again about the selling off of 10% of park land. This emanates from a policy implemented many years ago, endorsed by all parties and reaffirmed under both Lib Dem and Labour administrations over recent years, that no more than 10% of green and open space can be disposed of across the City. I'm sure that there are many out there that will interpret this as they wish but I'd confirm that it is not a policy to sell off parks or open space. This policy allows for the reinvestment of sums raised from disposal of small, underused and low value green spaces to be reinvested into the Parks and Countryside service. As i said, it's a policy that both Labour and the Lib Dems have used to generate additional funding for investment into the service.

 

 

5. At what point will the Trustees feel thay have sufficient information to make a decision. Any time scales on this?

 

I have no idea of the time scale involved.

 

6. Why on earth are Sheffield Citizens having to resort to the FOI to try and prise the information they need to make a rational decision, away from the clammy grip of those who have decided we can't be trusted with it. I mean we're not exactly threatening the security of the Nation are we?

 

I have no responsibility for replying to information requested under the Freedom of Information Act, as officers deal with these FOI requests, not councillors.

 

However, if you look at the post (number 3438 ) by Taky - there is some information posted there which may assist.

 

By the way. Sincere congratualtions on your forthcoming celebration. I hope you have a great trip.

Oriole.

 

Thank you.

 

I'm meeting the Registrar next week to formally publicise our forthcoming civil partnership. I must also get round to booking our trip to New York though!

[DIVA 10]

My understanding is that the Lib Dem councillors who expressed their views in the council debate last year, and voted en masse for their amendment, will not be precluded from voting if this matter comes before council. Nor, I understand, will any Labour councillors who have publicly spoken on this issue be precluded from voting.

 

All such views expressed pre-dated the legal advice from the city solicitor, which is to keep an open mind should this matter come before council.

 

 

THAT is a classic!

 

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.