Is Sheffield Council about to sell off bits of Graves Park YET AGAIN?

[barpen 10]

Are you accusing them of lying about what they would do with the money?

 

Yes.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

It is pretty straightforward subterfuge. You strip assetts from the charity and then substitute the money you get from the sale for the money that is in budget that the council is obliged to provide for the park's upkeep. Someone should perhaps ask how the council have in the past accounted for money that the kiddie-winkies put in that milk churn at the animal farm. Or as it used to be know the council money box.

 

Then there is the other part of the subterfuge as the charitable deeds for Graves Park specifically exclude the council from selling any buildings that are in the park.

Edited July 28, 2013 by barpen

[WallBuilder 10]

Just curious enough to ask where is this building, if it's that bit up by the sports pavilion it looks severely neglected but I didn't think that was Cobnar road

[barpen 10]

Just curious enough to ask where is this building, if it's that bit up by the sports pavilion it looks severely neglected but I didn't think that was Cobnar road

 

That is the one.

 

As the council has an obligation to maintain the buildings in its care it is pretty rich to allow one to become neglected and use that neglect as an excuse to dispose of it.

[FlyingTone 10]

Yes.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

It is pretty straightforward subterfuge. You strip assetts from the charity and then substitute the money you get from the sale for the money that is in budget that the council is obliged to provide for the park's upkeep. Someone should perhaps ask how the council have in the past accounted for money that the kiddie-winkies put in that milk churn at the animal farm. Or as it used to be know the council money box.

 

Then there is the other part of the subterfuge as the charitable deeds for Graves Park specifically exclude the council from selling any buildings that are in the park.

Exactly!

 

Anyway, isn't there money available in the Graves Charitable Trust for the upkeep of this Cottage? The council do not need to spend council money on this, so they've just allowed it to get run down and then use that as a reason for selling off and trying to sell off (again) yet more parkland. Since the council are trustees and clearly can't manage this simple task, they should probably be replaced as trustees, as there seems to be a conflict of interest.

I'm sure if the building was made good again (with the Trust's funds) there are many good uses it could be put to, considering all the work which take place in the park. Accommodation for apprentices/work experience working in the animal farm perhaps?

[WallBuilder 10]

How long is it since that building actually was in use I can't ever remember it in use as anything The stone built toilets just along from there in the park desappeared years ago. I'd want to see plans of what land if any would also be included in a sale and what the access routes would be like. Hang on maybe I'm thinking of the wrong building though as there is the little house actually by the main gates which in my mind is part of the park proper so if that is the building then it shouldn't be sold off

[barpen 10]

Exactly!

 

Anyway, isn't there money available in the Graves Charitable Trust for the upkeep of this Cottage? The council do not need to spend council money on this, so they've just allowed it to get run down and then use that as a reason for selling off and trying to sell off (again) yet more parkland. Since the council are trustees and clearly can't manage this simple task, they should probably be replaced as trustees, as there seems to be a conflict of interest.

I'm sure if the building was made good again (with the Trust's funds) there are many good uses it could be put to, considering all the work which take place in the park. Accommodation for apprentices/work experience working in the animal farm perhaps?

 

Perhaps if the council didn't keep wasting money trying and failing to sell off the park they would have more money for maintaining it. You seriously have to ask if the trustees of the Graves Park Charity fulfill their obligation to act in the best interest of the charity. It seems they go out of their way to do exactly the opposite.

 

Does anyone have any idea how much the council squandered trying to flog off Norton Nursery to St Luke's?

[Longcol 610]

Yes.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

It is pretty straightforward subterfuge. You strip assetts from the charity and then substitute the money you get from the sale for the money that is in budget that the council is obliged to provide for the park's upkeep.

 

You've lost me a little bit there.

 

Shouldn't all that be accounted for in the Graves Park Charity books rather than the councils?

 

My way of looking at it is the income from sale of assets would go to the charity, and upkeep of the park should be paid for by the charity.

[barpen 10]

You've lost me a little bit there.

 

Shouldn't all that be accounted for in the Graves Park Charity books rather than the councils?

 

My way of looking at it is the income from sale of assets would go to the charity, and upkeep of the park should be paid for by the charity.

 

The agreement made between Graves and the council was he bought and gifted the land in exchange for a council's agreement to maintain it as parkland forever. It's not really much to ask. With building land around S8 being £500K per acre and the park being 250 plus acres that's one hell of a gift. The council have to maintain the parks anyhow so they got this one for free.

 

The agreement also specifically excludes the council's ability to sell buildings within the park, but that doesn't stop them trying. We've been here many times before.

 

If the council need sell any of the land from the park they have to use the proceeds to buy more land of at least equivalent value and amenity to the park.

Edited July 28, 2013 by barpen

[Longcol 610]

The agreement made between Graves and the council was he bought and gifted the land in exchange for a council's agreement to maintain it as parkland forever. It's not really much to ask. With building land around S8 being £500K per acre and the park being 250 plus acres that's one hell of a gift. The council have to maintain the parks anyhow so they got this one for free.

 

The agreement also specifically excludes the council's ability to sell buildings within the park, but that doesn't stop them trying. We've been here many times before.

 

Yes - but the present value of the land doesn't really enter into it as it can't (well shouldn't) be built on. It doesn't appear as an assett on the balance sheet.

 

The latest accounts appear to show the council makes good the shortfall between the costs of running / maintaining the park and the income it generates.

 

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends41%5C0000510841_AC_20120331_E_C.pdf

 

No problem with that as long as the shortfall isn't excessive.

[shilling 10]

I sense deja vu

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/what-s-on/paul-license-speaking-out-st-luke-s-special-1-237226

 

I am sure I wasn't dreaming a couple of years back when Sheffield council officers were sent away with their corporation tails stuck firmly between their municipal legs after seeking permission to sell off part of Graves Park to a house builder.

 

On that occasion the Friends of Graves Park challenged the thinking and reminded everybody that the land had been gifted to the city by the benefactor, JG Graves. There were legally-binding documents which prohibited disposal of the land. And charitable status, which the park enjoyed, added copper bottom restrictions on what can and can't be done to that land.

 

No way could the council dispose of the corner of the park, occupied by the Norton Nurseries.

 

Now, a couple of years later, and the same thing is happening again.

 

It is being suggested that St Luke's Hospice should relocate to the self same piece of land. The very plot which only a couple of years ago the Charities Commissioner ruled was out of bounds.

 

A few things worry me here. The most serious is that someone has managed to set two of Sheffield's most treasured institutions at each other's throats: St Luke's and our parks. It takes a real talent for mischief or total amnesia to come up with something like that.

 

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.

 

They have already been told to keep their grubby hands off the park. But now they are scurrying round trying to find a loophole.

 

Why? What is the motive for disposing of the land?

 

Not a few readers have suggested that this is no more than a test case.

 

Set a precedent with Graves Park and not a scrap of municipal land will be safe from development. There is some merit in that. Why else would so much time, money and effort be expended on this? It must be important. After all, we're always being told how much hard work officers invest on our behalf to earn huge salaries on their behalf.

 

An argument is that the site is derelict. It is shabby and lets the park down. So let's put a nice building there instead.

 

Just pause here and think. This is a piece of precious, charitable-trust protected land. Whatever was the council doing allowing it to become derelict in the first place?

 

Incompetence? Neglectful accident? Or design?

 

Forget that the land isn't derelict at all. The fact is that someone has decided, for whatever reason, that it is surplus to requirements.

 

It isn't in the officials' gift to decide this. Their job is to look after what was bequeathed to the people of Sheffield.

 

If they can't do that - or can't be trusted to do it - then move over and let someone else do the job.

Edited July 28, 2013 by shilling

[WallBuilder 10]

I am a curious nosey so and so, where are the papers saying the council have again offered the land to St. Lukes I haven't noticed anything. Also there is a slight difference between selling off a building and selling off a piece of land. The nursery area is quite large although under used at present, maybe if they're not growing plants for other area's of the city the land should be divided up into allotments or similar.

Also at the bottom of Cobnar road there is a nursery in an old building, wasn't that building part of the park initially as it looks as though it may of been

[pandorra 10]

I sense deja vu

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/what-s-on/paul-license-speaking-out-st-luke-s-special-1-237226

 

I am sure I wasn't dreaming a couple of years back when Sheffield council officers were sent away with their corporation tails stuck firmly between their municipal legs after seeking permission to sell off part of Graves Park to a house builder.

 

On that occasion the Friends of Graves Park challenged the thinking and reminded everybody that the land had been gifted to the city by the benefactor, JG Graves. There were legally-binding documents which prohibited disposal of the land. And charitable status, which the park enjoyed, added copper bottom restrictions on what can and can't be done to that land.

 

No way could the council dispose of the corner of the park, occupied by the Norton Nurseries.

 

Now, a couple of years later, and the same thing is happening again.

 

It is being suggested that St Luke's Hospice should relocate to the self same piece of land. The very plot which only a couple of years ago the Charities Commissioner ruled was out of bounds.

 

A few things worry me here. The most serious is that someone has managed to set two of Sheffield's most treasured institutions at each other's throats: St Luke's and our parks. It takes a real talent for mischief or total amnesia to come up with something like that.

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.

 

They have already been told to keep their grubby hands off the park. But now they are scurrying round trying to find a loophole.

 

Why? What is the motive for disposing of the land?

 

Not a few readers have suggested that this is no more than a test case.

 

Set a precedent with Graves Park and not a scrap of municipal land will be safe from development. There is some merit in that. Why else would so much time, money and effort be expended on this? It must be important. After all, we're always being told how much hard work officers invest on our behalf to earn huge salaries on their behalf.

 

An argument is that the site is derelict. It is shabby and lets the park down. So let's put a nice building there instead.

 

Just pause here and think. This is a piece of precious, charitable-trust protected land. Whatever was the council doing allowing it to become derelict in the first place?

 

Incompetence? Neglectful accident? Or design?

 

Forget that the land isn't derelict at all. The fact is that someone has decided, for whatever reason, that it is surplus to requirements.

 

It isn't in the officials' gift to decide this. Their job is to look after what was bequeathed to the people of Sheffield.

 

If they can't do that - or can't be trusted to do it - then move over and let someone else do the job.

 

Yes you can see history about to repeat itself with the council using exactly the same ploy that has cost them so much in the past. Perhaps if the brain dead morons who keep hatching these plans were required to reimburse us for the money they squander on these half baked schemes they would think them through a bit better. I think it is time the Charities Comission took trusteeship of the Graves Park Charity away from the city council. Isn't trustee supposed to mean folk who can be trusted?