Dubaidani13 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 It's always good when folk post those sort of things in advance. It sort of suggests they are just trolling rather than seriously considering buying. ha ha no not trolling, i am seriously considering it but i think it will go for too much to someone who wants to live there, we will see on the 26th! ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 15:19 ---------- We will see what? We know that the council are selling this building at auction. We know that the Charity Commission agreed to the sale. We also know that this breaks a legal covenant that this building was to be left to the people of Sheffield. Being in anyway complicit to the breaking of a covenant is something that I personally would not want to touch with a bargepole. Taylor Wimpey broke a covenant a few years ago - they were made to demolish 17 homes they'd just built. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-16309548 ah so now you agree they are legally allowed to sell it?? this covenant you speak of it cant be very clear or strong otherwise lots of other stuff would have been enforced in graves park?? when the legal pack becomes available then we can see whats what and in any case an indemnity can be put in place on the purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbeard Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Actually the land & cottage belongs to The Graves Park Charity, who hold it in trust for the people of Sheffield. You do know that knocking down a listed building is a very serious offence? Please tell that to the Friends of Graves Park, that was their solution. http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s18722/Cobnar%20Cottage%202.pdf This makes the Trusts case http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s18722/Cobnar%20Cottage%202.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Please tell that to the Friends of Graves Park, that was their solution. http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s18722/Cobnar%20Cottage%202.pdf This makes the Trusts case http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s18722/Cobnar%20Cottage%202.pdf The cottage is part of the Graves Park trust and is owned by the same. The trustees are Sheffield City Council. The covenants do not give the trustees permission to sell the land or the cottage. The original covenants say that any building no longer needed may be demolished, presumably so that the land stays within the trust. The only reason the friends suggested partial demolition and conversion into a garden was to stay within the covenants and keep it from being sold. It is not a listed building so is not protected from demolition. The latest idea of a stonemason living there and restoring it seems a brilliant idea - don't get why the council won't jump at this opportunity. ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 15:43 ---------- The cottage is part of the Graves Park trust and is owned by the same. The trustees are Sheffield City Council. The covenants do not give the trustees permission to sell the land or the cottage. The original covenants say that any building no longer needed may be demolished, presumably so that the land stays within the trust. The only reason the friends suggested partial demolition and conversion into a garden was to stay within the covenants and keep it from being sold. It is not a listed building so is not protected from demolition. The latest idea of a stonemason living there and restoring it seems a brilliant idea - don't get why the council won't jump at this opportunity. And I believe the friends originally wanted to restore the cottage so it could be rented and the council refused saying it wasn't needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 ha ha no not trolling, i am seriously considering it but i think it will go for too much to someone who wants to live there, we will see on the 26th! ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 15:19 ---------- ah so now you agree they are legally allowed to sell it?? this covenant you speak of it cant be very clear or strong otherwise lots of other stuff would have been enforced in graves park?? when the legal pack becomes available then we can see whats what and in any case an indemnity can be put in place on the purchase. And Taylor Wimpey had permission to build those houses, which was allowed by the council and been through lots of meetings and discussions. A covenant, when properly enforced, trumps all that. Personally I'm on the side on the charity in this case. They do not want to sell this cottage and have come up with an alternative scheme where it can be saved and kept in public ownership. I would hate to have on my conscious that I was making money out of something that is against the wishes of the charity and the legacy of J G Graves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 A covenant should not be allowed to trump everything, for ever, otherwise it could stifle sensible development and improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 A covenant should not be allowed to trump everything, for ever, otherwise it could stifle sensible development and improvement. It is for the beneficiaries of the covenant to decide whether or not it should be enforced. If it were stifling sensible development and improvement then they could agree that it should not be enforced. I don't think that is the case here. The only reason it is being sold is to generate money and the only justification for it being sold is that is would be too expensive to repair. Why is it expensive to repair - because it hasn't been maintained. Who was in charge of maintaining it - Sheffield Council. Who are selling it - Sheffield Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 From the Charities Commission: 'The Charity Commission has reviewed our position as to whether we would need to authorise the trustee of Graves Park to sell Cobnar Cottage. We have concluded that the charity’s governing document does not contain an express prohibition. The trustee can rely on the statutory power available (contained in section 6 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act) because the proportion of Cobnar Cottage in relation to the size of the charity’s land will not affect the ability to carry out the purposes of the charity. The Charity Commission does not need to make a scheme to authorise the proposed sale, and does not need to be involved in the sale process. I hope this is helpful in explaining the position? Kind regards, Siobhan' Sadly it looks like that is that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richkent Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 From the Charities Commission: 'The Charity Commission has reviewed our position as to whether we would need to authorise the trustee of Graves Park to sell Cobnar Cottage. We have concluded that the charity’s governing document does not contain an express prohibition. The trustee can rely on the statutory power available (contained in section 6 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act) because the proportion of Cobnar Cottage in relation to the size of the charity’s land will not affect the ability to carry out the purposes of the charity. The Charity Commission does not need to make a scheme to authorise the proposed sale, and does not need to be involved in the sale process. I hope this is helpful in explaining the position? Kind regards, Siobhan' Sadly it looks like that is that No mention of the land being sold. There may well be nothing expressly prohibiting the sale of a building. There are restrictions regarding the sale of land. I think 'Siobhan' (no surname, who is she, does she exist?) is trying to fob us off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubaidani13 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 No mention of the land being sold. There may well be nothing expressly prohibiting the sale of a building. There are restrictions regarding the sale of land. I think 'Siobhan' (no surname, who is she, does she exist?) is trying to fob us off. if you read and understand it, she says basically in the grand scheme of the rest of the charitable trust land the sale of this small part is inconsequential or no detriment to the rest and as it is not expressly prohibiting the sale it can be sold!! uh oh! watch out conspiracy theory in the offing ...siobhan who?? fobbing off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker7 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Graves Park = 87 hectares = 214.98 acres Cobnar Cottage = "less than" 1 acre. On the above figures the following statement is correct...... "Basically in the grand scheme of the rest of the charitable trust land the sale of this small part is inconsequential or no detriment to the rest and as it is not expressly prohibiting the sale it can be sold." However, that's not the point. It belongs to the people of Sheffield and we are merely looking after it for future generations. We have no moral right to sell any part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now