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

[horribleblob 212]

Sheffield Heeley MP, Louise Haigh, chatting to Roney Robinson and Councillor Shaffaq Muhammad, last friday.

 

[vincentb 10]

Sheffield Heeley MP, Louise Haigh, chatting to Roney Robinson and Councillor Shaffaq Muhammad, last friday.

 

 

Well, that wasn't very helpful. MP Haigh started off talking about the sale of the cottage, but as soon as councillor Mohammed joined the conversation he turned it straight into a fight about which party had supported what and when, without addressing the points she'd actually been making about why they considered it acceptable to sell the cottage.

[Dubaidani13 10]

Well, that wasn't very helpful. MP Haigh started off talking about the sale of the cottage, but as soon as councillor Mohammed joined the conversation he turned it straight into a fight about which party had supported what and when, without addressing the points she'd actually been making about why they considered it acceptable to sell the cottage.

 

which ever way you look at it the cottage is going to be sold, it doesn't form part of the park, it never has, its a small piece of land with a not very attractive stone building which has lain waste into dereliction, nobody knows who will buy it yet but i am sure whoever does will turn it into a desirable place to live....whats everyones problem????? would you rather it be a further drain on graves park and the citys finances??

[Robin-H 11]

which ever way you look at it the cottage is going to be sold, it doesn't form part of the park, it never has, its a small piece of land with a not very attractive stone building which has lain waste into dereliction, nobody knows who will buy it yet but i am sure whoever does will turn it into a desirable place to live....whats everyones problem????? would you rather it be a further drain on graves park and the citys finances??

 

I think it's a bit unfair to say it doesn't form part of the park - it may be behind the park wall but it was part of the original bequest, and so is covered by the same covenants as the rest of the park.

 

I don't think its difficult to understand that people are upset with the principle of selling off publicly owned land and buildings that were given to the people of Sheffield. It may with entirely good intentions in mind, with the funds that become available spent on improvements etc, but the council don't have a great track record with Grave's Park (previously attempting to sell of park land for housing) and they did not even consult the Friends of Grave's park until after they had decided to sell.

 

This could have been handled much better.

[foxy lady 10]

which ever way you look at it the cottage is going to be sold, it doesn't form part of the park, it never has

 

It was bought by JG Graves in 1925 as part of Graves Park. It is within the park. It is on the park deeds and covered by the same covenants as every other part of the park. Inside or outside some wall that someone built is irrelevant. It doesn't form a boundary of the park any more than the wall around the cafe.

The council also claimed Norton Nursery wasn't part of the park, but had to concede on that one.

It does look like this is going to litigation. Lets see if the councillors and MPs get away with lying in court as they try to get away with doing on the radio.

Edited January 18, 2016 by foxy lady

[horribleblob 212]

Well, that wasn't very helpful. MP Haigh started off talking about the sale of the cottage, but as soon as councillor Mohammed joined the conversation he turned it straight into a fight about which party had supported what and when, without addressing the points she'd actually been making about why they considered it acceptable to sell the cottage.

 

I agree, it wasn't very helpful, vincentb, but it was MP Haigh who made the first party political swipe, not Councillor Mohammed. However, this should be about Graves Park, not party politics.

 

Personally, I like the "stonemason" option as it seems more community-focussed, but as (unlike Jonny5), I don't have a degree in Mathematics, I'll remain a sidelines observer.

[Dubaidani13 10]

It was bought by JG Graves in 1925 as part of Graves Park. It is within the park. It is on the park deeds and covered by the same covenants as every other part of the park. Inside or outside some wall that someone built is irrelevant. It doesn't form a boundary of the park any more than the wall around the cafe.

The council also claimed Norton Nursery wasn't part of the park, but had to concede on that one.

It does look like this is going to litigation. Lets see if the councillors and MPs get away with lying in court as they try to get away with doing on the radio.

 

better hurry up with any litigation?? only just over a week to auction day:roll:

[Robin-H 11]

better hurry up with any litigation?? only just over a week to auction day:roll:

 

The timescale for litigation isn't limited by the sale..

[Dubaidani13 10]

The timescale for litigation isn't limited by the sale..

 

once contracts are exchanged the only litigation would be with the vendor not the purchaser

[Robin-H 11]

once contracts are exchanged the only litigation would be with the vendor not the purchaser

 

I didn't suggest otherwise did I?

[Dubaidani13 10]

I didn't suggest otherwise did I?

 

no sorry! but if its a "fait acompli" why bother as it will just cost ratepayers more

[Eric Arthur 10]

once contracts are exchanged the only litigation would be with the vendor not the purchaser

 

Until a judge reverses the sale.