Jump to content

Labour Graves Park leaflet

Recommended Posts

I have read that the scc are to give away all the parks to the national trust ,so they don't have to pay for there upkeep.

 

That sounds like utter hogwash to me. Why would the NT want urban parks?

 

He's right you know. It's part of their new strategy; not just stately homes in the countryside, but helping with council-run parkland in urban areas too: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/national-trust-could-run-sheffield-parks-1-7171400

However, that is not giving away the parks - it's bringing in the NT as a partner to run and maintain the parks in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he isn't right, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's right you know. It's part of their new strategy; not just stately homes in the countryside, but helping with council-run parkland in urban areas too: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/national-trust-could-run-sheffield-parks-1-7171400

However, that is not giving away the parks - it's bringing in the NT as a partner to run and maintain the parks in the long term.

 

And this is to do with Graves Park how ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well they attempted to sell off Norton Nursery to become a housing estate. They spent a fortone in the attempt before the Charity Commission pointed out that the land belonged to the Graves Park Charity and could not be sold.

 

Then they tried to sell part of the playing fields in Graves Park to a private individual who wanted a garden extension. They spent a fortone in the attempt before the Charity Commission pointed out that the land belonged to the Graves Park Charity and could not be sold.

 

Then they tried to sell land out of the park to be used as a driveway at Chantry Cottage. They spent a fortone in the attempt before the Charity Commission pointed out that the land belonged to the Graves Park Charity and could not be sold.

 

Then they tried to sell off 8 or 10 acres to St Lukes for them to use to build a hospice. Both parties involved spent a fortone in the attempt before the Charity Commission pointed out that the land belonged to the Graves Park Charity and could not be sold.

 

Now they are trying to sell off a cottage that is in the park. The Charity Commission are now aware and have told the council to submit a scheme of their proposed disposal. I think we can see where this is going.

 

The common factor is the money wasted by the council in flogging the same dead horse over and over again. Any fool can make a costly mistake but it takes a certain type of idiot to keep making the same mistake over and over again. Stick your hand in the fire it burns, but you really need to be thick to keep trying in case it doesn't burn next time.

 

 

I'm no expert in law but what I think the Labour party is trying to do is set precedent. They only need to get it though once and the floodgates will open

 

Given that land opposite the new inn pub that is currently being developed, will contain 52 houses that have already sold (despite not being built) for around 250k each, I can see why the council is so desperate to be able to get it hands on Graves park for development purposes, its a little gold mine, and will save them in budget as well, for they will no longer have to foot the bill for upkeep

Edited by Gunstar_Hero
added a missing word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm no expert in law but what I think the Labour party is trying to do is set precedent. They only need to get it though once and the floodgates will open

Given that land opposite the new inn pub that is currently being developed, will contain 52 houses that have already sold (despite not being built) for around 250k each, I can see why the council is so desperate to be able to get it hands on Graves park for development purposes, its a little gold mine, and will save them in budget as well, for they will no longer have to foot the bill for upkeep

 

It looks like this, doesn't it. That's why I posted earlier about whether there could be an injunction to stop them once and for all. I don't know the legalities but the fact that they keep trying different ideas, as barpen's post, looks like they're trying to beat the restrictions on the use etc of Graves Park. If they could be stopped from submitting such applications on the basis that they are taking the **** (there's probably a specific legal term for this - making applications even though they know they should fail, on the off chance that they get round the restrictions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a Labour Part election leaflet.

 

Vote for me and I'll back the council cabinet in selling your land. Sounds like a winning policy. :loopy:

 

I have read that the scc are to give away all the parks to the national trust ,so they don't have to pay for there upkeep.

 

Not theirs to sell, not theirs to give away.

 

However, that is not giving away the parks - it's bringing in the NT as a partner to run and maintain the parks in the long term.

 

Having the NT as a partner, perhaps as one of the trustees would be great, but I can't see it happening.

 

I'm no expert in law but what I think the Labour party is trying to do is set precedent. They only need to get it though once and the floodgates will open

 

It has happened before (Chantry Cottage, Norton Lane) and it didn't set a precedent or St Lukes would now be in the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm no expert in law but what I think the Labour party is trying to do is set precedent. They only need to get it though once and the floodgates will open

 

 

 

 

It has happened before (Chantry Cottage, Norton Lane) and it didn't set a precedent or St Lukes would now be in the park.

 

I think the council would have liked it to have set a precedent. However the Charity Commission were unaware of the council selling off Chantry cottage until it was too late. Had they been aware they would have stopped the sale. The fact that the council as trustees preceded against the best interests of the charity but without sanction from the Charities Commission means no precedent was set. But folk must be vigilant as the trustees of the Graves Park Charity clearly do not understand the meaning of the word trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the Graves Park Sheffield Forum thread and letters to the Star at the time. Where the Lib Dems, who were the only councillors to stand up for Graves Park, were given overall control of the council, and Nick Clegg will always have Coun Auckland to thank for that.

 

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_City_Council_election,_2007.

 

Labour had a 4 seat majority but lost 3 seats and the Lib-Dems gained 4. Labour lost Hillsborough, Gleadless Valley and Walkley to the Lib-Dems who also took a seat in Dore and Totley from the Tories. I honestly don't think you can say Graves Park was so much of an issue in 2 of those wards that it swung them to the Lib-Dems from Labour, certainly not in Walkley and Hillsborough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been watching this thread with interest over the past few days and enjoying the anti-labour rant, I avoided getting involved because the last time barpen and I locked horns I was called a nutter when I told a few home truths.

In the interest fairness it would be useful to see what the other parties say in their election leaflets, failing that, maybe people would like to read the Sheffield City Council Cabinet report by Executive Director of Place, Paul Billington on Cobnar Cottage dated March 18 2015.

The report includes the Friends of Graves Park Business Plan for the cottage part of which says:

The Friends of Graves Park is proposing that the cottage is carefully taken down to approximately 1 metre in height with some variations retaining window and door positions on the rear elevation.”

The report is quite long but well worth a read to get a few facts even if from the view of the Trustees. Remember, whichever party leads the city it gets the "poisoned chalice" which is the Graves Park Trust.

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s17336/Cobnar%20Cottage.pdf

It is also interesting to see a nice picture of one of the posters with Cllr Ian Auckland outside Cobnar Cottage on the LibDem website.

Remember, no matter who you vote for the council always get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_City_Council_election,_2007.

 

Labour had a 4 seat majority but lost 3 seats and the Lib-Dems gained 4. Labour lost Hillsborough, Gleadless Valley and Walkley to the Lib-Dems who also took a seat in Dore and Totley from the Tories. I honestly don't think you can say Graves Park was so much of an issue in 2 of those wards that it swung them to the Lib-Dems from Labour, certainly not in Walkley and Hillsborough.

 

I think there is truth on both sides here. Certainly the attempts to sell off charitable staus parkland galvanised many all around the city who also had parks under threat. It is clearly a very important issue around the Graves Park ward where the local councillors have probably done very well as a result of supporting the park charity's interests rather than seeking to abuse it. It is significant that the Labour MP for Heeley also supported the interests of the park charity and often sat on the opposite side of the table from her Labour Council colleagues.

It needed Labour to have lost support over a few elections for the issues in Graves Park to make a decisive impact. But the repeated attempts by the Labour Council to sell off bits of parkland that were not theirs to sell certainly contributed to their loss of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they'd maintained the cottage, like they are supposed to do, and stopped trying to sell parts of the park or use it as a tip, like they aren't supposed to do, then Graves Park wouldn't be a poisoned chalice.

 

And I certainly don't believe them when they say that the cottage is a special case and doesn't set a precedence in that report. Mainly because they are a bunch of sneaky lying ********.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.