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

[barpen]

The charitable trust is in a hard position. Nobody is disputing that.

 

Does that justify breaking the rules and selling off capital assets that were gifted along with instructions that they never be sold?

 

At last someone with a grasp on reality.

 

The charitable trust does not allow the sale of the cottage. NO IFS NO BUTS...

There is no option of breaking the law because the Charity Commission will not allow the sale to go ahead. So to attempt a sale only incurs needless expense.

 

Yes the council are strapped for cash. But they still spend hundreds of millions each year. They were given Graves Park, Ecclesall Woods and many other parks and woodlands free on condition they maintained them. This and many other expenses are part of the councils obligation. There are other things that the council spends money on that they aren't obliged by law to do. So they cut back there. They don't attempt to rob a charity of its assets in order to plug their funding gap.

 

Interestingly the charitable deed does make provision for the trustees to dispose of buildings providing it is deemed in the best interests of the charity. That is to demolish them and return the land to full public access. But I suspect that the council might suddenly lose interest if they thought they couldn't profit from the scheme.

Edited August 3, 2013 by barpen

[Speckled Hen]

The charitable trust is in a hard position. Nobody is disputing that.

 

Does that justify breaking the rules and selling off capital assets that were gifted along with instructions that they never be sold?

 

I suppose you could look at it like this.

 

You are allowed to live in a stately home rent free provided you maintain it in a good state of repair. But you decide that if you allowed the gate house to fall into disrepair and sold it your family could each buy a new Jag and flat screen TV.

The only problems are that the property doesn't belong to you, and that irritating requirement that you look after the place. Apart from that it's a great plan.:help:

[Scabbydog]

The charitable trust is in a hard position. Nobody is disputing that.

 

Does that justify breaking the rules and selling off capital assets that were gifted along with instructions that they never be sold?

 

The charitable trust is doing just fine. It owns the land that is Graves Park and allows the city council to use the land as public parkland, in return the council maintain it.

 

So all the assets in the park belong to the charity which is not responsible of the park's upkeep. Therefore selling off any land or building in the park would not benefit the Graves Park Charity, nor would any money derived from such a sale be available to the council for maintaining the park.

[robertathome]

The charitable trust is doing just fine. It owns the land that is Graves Park and allows the city council to use the land as public parkland, in return the council maintain it.

 

So all the assets in the park belong to the charity which is not responsible of the park's upkeep. Therefore selling off any land or building in the park would not benefit the Graves Park Charity, nor would any money derived from such a sale be available to the council for maintaining the park.

 

yes it could be the case but like any thing once its gone its gone it was left to the people of Sheffield in trust not to be let run down and sold off

[barpen]

yes it could be the case but like any thing once its gone its gone it was left to the people of Sheffield in trust not to be let run down and sold off

 

That is 100% correct and that is why it makes a mockery of any councillor who claims (and is required by law) to act in the best interest of the charity to recommend the sale of any of the charities assets. Selling off Cobnar Cottage cannot benefit the charity who would be worse off to the tune of one cottage.

 

The Graves Park Charity is not responsible for the routine maintenance of the park or its buildings, or the cost of doing that maintenance. So how can a councillor claim to be working in the interests of the charity by removing a cottage for the charities assets and selling it to pay for things that the charity does not pay for anyhow?

 

Whether they like it or not the council are responsible for funding the maintenance of the park and the buildings in it. If a part of the park or a building becomes worse for wear it is because the council has failed in those responsibilities.

Edited August 16, 2013 by barpen

[Speckled Hen]

This has all gone very quiet

[barpen]

The Charity Commission provided a very interesting link to this.

 

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/detailed-guidance/land-and-property/sales-leases-transfers-or-mortgages-what-trustees-need-to-know-about-disposing-of-charity-land-cc28/

[Jack_Russell]

Do we know which councillor(s) are behind this ?

[cgksheff]

It will be Council Officers who think that they have to prove that they are never wrong.

How dare the public stop them doing what they want?

 

Sadly Councillors get carried along with their lies.

[barpen]

It will be Council Officers who think that they have to prove that they are never wrong.

How dare the public stop them doing what they want?

 

Sadly Councillors get carried along with their lies.

 

I wonder how much money in officer time the council is prepared to waste on this this time. Is it any wonder that the council has to cut services when it wastes money like this and on futile internet schemes.