redfox   10 #289 Posted January 11, 2016 You could always join the trees discussion :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sgtkate   10 #290 Posted January 11, 2016 You could always join the trees discussion :)  No, no, no, no! I can only handle one anti-SCC thread that's going nowhere at a time! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
redfox   10 #291 Posted January 11, 2016 That is a thread not for the feint hearted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Dubaidani13 Â Â 10 #292 Posted January 11, 2016 If they continued to do that, it would quite quickly result in the entire park being sold off, one small inconsequential piece at a time. Twenty years later, the park is just 1 acre in size, with the rest having been sold and the proceeds having been used to keep the park running, whilst the council save money by not running it using their primary budget. Â clutching at straws there cyclone?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #293 Posted January 12, 2016 Not in the slightest. If you can't see how the same decision being repeated multiple times would result in no park then you're not thinking very hard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Dubaidani13 Â Â 10 #294 Posted January 12, 2016 Not in the slightest. If you can't see how the same decision being repeated multiple times would result in no park then you're not thinking very hard. Â so very unlikely but yes i suppose ultimately it could but i am sure the charity trust would then step in. the only reasons this part is being sold off is that it is in disrepair, its an eyesore, the land is not really adding anything to the park its on a bit of land not really part of the park and a private developer will enhance the site along with the proceeds which will go towards the parks upkeep? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #295 Posted January 12, 2016 At what point would they step in? How can selling any of the park be acceptable if the entire park property has been gifted in perpetuity... It's a slippery slope.  The fact that it's in disrepair and looks bad are entirely down to the trustee's, they are failing in their duty. Selling the bits that THEY allow to run down should not be an option. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #296 Posted January 12, 2016 but that has nothng to do with the cobnar cottage or graves park which is what this thread is about  But it has plenty to do with the post I was replying to... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
S1 1DJ   11 #297 Posted January 12, 2016 At what point would they step in? How can selling any of the park be acceptable if the entire park property has been gifted in perpetuity... It's a slippery slope. The fact that it's in disrepair and looks bad are entirely down to the trustee's, they are failing in their duty. Selling the bits that THEY allow to run down should not be an option.  What about the Council adding it to Sheffield Homes housing stock doing the repairs and renting it out? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sgtkate   10 #298 Posted January 12, 2016 What about the Council adding it to Sheffield Homes housing stock doing the repairs and renting it out?  As long as it stayed under the 'ownership' of the people of Sheffield I doubt there would be too many dissenters. If the Graves Park Trustees rented it out as a council house then I see absolutely no issue with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
S1 1DJ Â Â 11 #299 Posted January 12, 2016 As long as it stayed under the 'ownership' of the people of Sheffield I doubt there would be too many dissenters. If the Graves Park Trustees rented it out as a council house then I see absolutely no issue with that. Â Exactly my thought! Was shocked to see it listed on Rightmove!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
1978 Â Â 14 #300 Posted January 12, 2016 Precedent, that seems to be the major objection here, and it's important that the point is understood. Â What the trustees were proposing (and are now doing) in all other respects sounds a better plan for the preservation of the cottage than has existed for at least a decade. Would Alderman Graves consider this to be detrimental to the preservation of the parkland he donated? He surely wouldn't be happy to see the cottage as it is now. Â What we don't seem to have access to is the accounts of the trust, or do we? All things relating to council related finance seem to involve smoke and mirrors, or am I being unfair? Who is paying for the upkeep of what from where? Â The trustees position seems to be set out here; http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=10230 and here; http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=1317 Â Events have clearly moved on apace. The auction is on 26th January; http://www.markjenkinson.co.uk/auctions/tuesday-26th-january-2016/display/Cobnar%20Cottage,%20Cobnar%20Road,%20Graves%20Park,%20Sheffield-%7C-1997 Â The auctioneers believe there's a good title to sell. Compromise? Maybe wealthy benefactors from 2016 might donate the sum needed to the Friends so they can buy it and do what's necessary. The difficulty may not be the price to buy, but the cost, time and expertise to renovate and then let out. Â Some time back it was suggested that ploughing the sale proceeds back into upkeep of the park was sensible. Assuring the restoration of the cottage is sensible. Â The terms of the original donation allowed for demolition of properties. It also allows for strips of land to be taken for road improvement if necessary. Alderman Graves was pragmatic. Maybe he would see the sale as the most practical course in the changed times since his original gift. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...