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

[Robin-H 11]

As I understand it, the nursery and both cottages both predate the creation of the park i.e. there never was any open parkland or woods on those plots: they've always been developed plots?

 

 

 

That's a hypothetical about a different thing; I'm asking about concrete facts: whether the plots which the council have in the past proposed for sale have actually ever been open recreational parkland or not.

 

Well the sales have been judged illegal and prevented from happening despite the councils insistence, so that surely implies that the council haven't exactly been spotless trustees in the past..

[foxy lady 10]

As I understand it, the nursery and both cottages both predate the creation of the park i.e. there never was any open parkland or woods on those plots: they've always been developed plots?

 

 

But according to the booklet, Graves bought the park and the walled gaden which includes the cottages as part of the park in 1935. The council took over the walled garden around 10 years later to grow plants for the park. The cottages were used by park employees. In the 1950s they took down the wall and expanded the nursery into a wooded area of the park. So by the time the nursery was "surplus to requirements" it occupied 7.5 acres of Graves Park, compared to around 2 acres that had been a plant nursery and cottages for park employees.

 

You see how easy it is to blur the edges.

[Localman 10]

Brilliant news about the £200,000 investment in Graves Park using the proceeds of the sale of Cobnar Cottage and more. See:

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/graves-park-in-line-for-200-000-upgrade-in-biggest-overhaul-for-a-decade-1-7813956#ixzz4479cG853

 

I simply fail to understand those dinosaurs who claim to be ‘Friends of Graves Park’ who first wanted to spend tens of thousands knocking the Cottage down and then, when that was ridiculed, came up with some half-baked scheme to allow some unspecified stonemason to occupy it rent-free but, when asked about the proposal, claimed that putting together a business case was beyond them.

 

As a regular user of the Park over several decades – although playing football and cricket has now given way to walks and more with the grandchildren – I am delighted by the planned upgrades to a variety of sports facilities and to some new toilets.

 

Bring it on.

[foxy lady 10]

Brilliant news about the £200,000 investment in Graves Park using the proceeds of the sale of Cobnar Cottage and more. See:

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/graves-park-in-line-for-200-000-upgrade-in-biggest-overhaul-for-a-decade-1-7813956#ixzz4479cG853

 

I simply fail to understand those dinosaurs who claim to be ‘Friends of Graves Park’ who first wanted to spend tens of thousands knocking the Cottage down and then, when that was ridiculed, came up with some half-baked scheme to allow some unspecified stonemason to occupy it rent-free but, when asked about the proposal, claimed that putting together a business case was beyond them.

 

As a regular user of the Park over several decades – although playing football and cricket has now given way to walks and more with the grandchildren – I am delighted by the planned upgrades to a variety of sports facilities and to some new toilets.

 

Bring it on.

 

I suppose it is because the cottage and the land it occupied did not belong to the council. It simply was not theirs to sell. They both belonged to the Graves Park Charity. The council on the other hand does have a responsibility to fund the maintenance of the park.

It is rather like someone renting a house and stealing the garden gates, selling them on Ebay then using the money to pay the electric bill.

 

The interesting thing that I learned from studying the deeds and covenants on the park, is that should it be necessary to dispose of any of the land, the proceeds of that sale MUST be used to buy replacement land of equal utilty to the park. Using the proceeds as a substitute for the councils mandatory funding is not buying replacement land.

Edited March 27, 2016 by foxy lady

[Localman 10]

I suppose it is because the cottage and the land it occupied did not belong to the council. It simply was not theirs to sell. They both belonged to the Graves Park Charity. The council on the other hand does have a responsibility to fund the maintenance of the park.

It is rather like someone renting a house and stealing the garden gates, selling them on Ebay then using the money to pay the electric bill.

 

The interesting thing that I learned from studying the deeds and covenants on the park, is that should it be necessary to dispose of any of the land, the proceeds of that sale MUST be used to buy replacement land of equal utilty to the park. Using the proceeds as a substitute for the councils mandatory funding is not buying replacement land.

 

(As the former Company Secretary of a Charitable Trust, with historic buildings and land) I think you are legally confused.

 

(1) The council didn't sell the cottage; it was the Trustees of the Charitable Trust which made the decision.

(2) There is no statutory responsibility nor duty for the council to fund the maintenance of Graves Park.

(3) Your attempted analogy is simply misleading and incorrect. Just suppose that, instead of a cottage, we'd been talking about a well which was situated outside the park and had originally supplied the water for the park. However, there is now a mains water supply available to provide the park with water more efficiently and effectively. But you would insist that the Park must still continue to own and maintain the well, despite it being of no use for the primary purpose of the Trust AND it would cost money to retain for no purpose? I think that's nonsense. In fact, it's likely that the Trustees would be open to legal challenge for wasting the Trust's resources.

(4) I haven't read the Trust deeds but, from all the previous correspondence, it appears that your view of the legal situation is not shared by others, including the Charities Commission.

(5) 'Council's mandatory funding'? I don't know where you get this from. It's a legal fiction; there is no mandatory funding. there isn't even a legal obligation or duty.

[I1L2T3 10]

Surely the point here is about the precedent being set, and the threat to the rest of the park.

 

To my knowledge this is the third attempted disposal of land. The first was an attempt a couple of decades ago for house building on the upper cricket pitch. The next was the attempted disposal of the nursery for St Lukes.

 

This won't be the last time. We all know it. And now the government, under the Infrastructure Act 2015, has the power to take any decision about further disposal of land out of local hands and override local scrutiny.

 

It's nailed on that another attempt will be made on the nursery land, and I think given the latest precedent and the new central government powers it will likely succeed.

[foxy lady 10]

(1) The council didn't sell the cottage; it was the Trustees of the Charitable Trust which made the decision.

 

That is very good to know. Presumably then the council will not be stumping up money for their legal fees.

[I1L2T3 10]

That is very good to know. Presumably then the council will not be stumping up money for their legal fees.

 

It's splitting hairs by Localman who is being highly disingenuous . The council is the trustee.

[Localman 10]

It's splitting hairs by Localman who is being highly disingenuous . The council is the trustee.

 

Understanding the different legal responsibilities and factors and issues which Trustees and ‘the Council’ are required to address is not a matter of disingenuity, it is fundamental. If you don’t grasp that, it is unsurprising that you and Foxy Lady keep making assertions that have no basis in law.

 

I think the Trustees have wasted far too much time listening to a small group of apparently self-inflicted Friends who don’t represent anyone except themselves and certainly don’t represent most people who use Graves Park.

 

We’ve been hearing about these threats of legal action for a long time now. If the Friends reckon they have a good legal case, they should just get on with it. If not, they should shut up and move on.

 

Bluntly, this legal nonsense is just diversionary from the key issue. There is now a clear choice.

 

I suggest the Friends go out in the Park tomorrow and ask people whether they want:

(a) Tens of thousands of pounds being spent on demolishing Cobnar Cottage and landscaping the site. (Friends’ proposal 1); or

(b) Cobnar Cottage being let at no rent to an unknown stonemason, who will rebuild the stonework over an unspecified period at the conclusion of which there would still not be a property fit to live in (Friends proposal 2); or

© The proceeds of the sale of Cobnar Cottage be used – some attracting matched funding – to provide £200,000 worth of investment in sports facilities, new toilets, playground upgrades etc etc in Graves Park, AND that a family gets to live in the modernised and refurbished Cobnar Cottage. (What is now proposed).

 

Further, if you think JG Graves would be choosing (a) or (b) rather than ©, I think you are out of your tiny minds.

[Jon26 10]

In my view the trustees need refreshing, and there needs to be more a balance preferably so that they're not just exclusively made up of the council. I reckon this is also what JG Graves would have preferred in the present day.

[1978 14]

In my view the trustees need refreshing, and there needs to be more a balance preferably so that they're not just exclusively made up of the council. I reckon this is also what JG Graves would have preferred in the present day.

 

I reckon Graves would be pragmatic enough to recognise changing times. As the availability of funds to maintain his donated open spaces (there's more than Graves Park in the city) has diminished other sources must be sought.

 

The outcome here seems to be what he would have desired; the provision of park improvements for the benefit of citizens, without any loss of publicly available facilities.

 

He certainly would not have wanted limited funds being wasted on litigation. The difficulty in changing trustees is who would they be and who would they represent to achieve better outcomes. The council seems to be exploring other sources of funding and the pilot study with the National Trust should be welcomed. It may well come up with workable plans that could change the way parks are managed in future. Changes in trustees may be part of what they look at.

[I1L2T3 10]

Understanding the different legal responsibilities and factors and issues which Trustees and ‘the Council’ are required to address is not a matter of disingenuity, it is fundamental. If you don’t grasp that, it is unsurprising that you and Foxy Lady keep making assertions that have no basis in law.

 

I think the Trustees have wasted far too much time listening to a small group of apparently self-inflicted Friends who don’t represent anyone except themselves and certainly don’t represent most people who use Graves Park.

 

We’ve been hearing about these threats of legal action for a long time now. If the Friends reckon they have a good legal case, they should just get on with it. If not, they should shut up and move on.

 

Bluntly, this legal nonsense is just diversionary from the key issue. There is now a clear choice.

 

I suggest the Friends go out in the Park tomorrow and ask people whether they want:

(a) Tens of thousands of pounds being spent on demolishing Cobnar Cottage and landscaping the site. (Friends’ proposal 1); or

(b) Cobnar Cottage being let at no rent to an unknown stonemason, who will rebuild the stonework over an unspecified period at the conclusion of which there would still not be a property fit to live in (Friends proposal 2); or

© The proceeds of the sale of Cobnar Cottage be used – some attracting matched funding – to provide £200,000 worth of investment in sports facilities, new toilets, playground upgrades etc etc in Graves Park, AND that a family gets to live in the modernised and refurbished Cobnar Cottage. (What is now proposed).

 

Further, if you think JG Graves would be choosing (a) or (b) rather than ©, I think you are out of your tiny minds.

 

Unfortunately you've been rumbled.

 

You presented the idea that the trustees had made the decision to sell, in a way that made it seem that the trustees are independent from the council.

 

The council is the trustee. You know that but you did do well there for a short time - you managed to fool one of the sharpest and most combative posters on the site, foxy lady.

 

I repeat. The council is the trustee.