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

[Longcol]

The agreement made between Graves and the council was he bought and gifted the land in exchange for a council's agreement to maintain it as parkland forever. It's not really much to ask. With building land around S8 being £500K per acre and the park being 250 plus acres that's one hell of a gift. The council have to maintain the parks anyhow so they got this one for free.

 

The agreement also specifically excludes the council's ability to sell buildings within the park, but that doesn't stop them trying. We've been here many times before.

 

Yes - but the present value of the land doesn't really enter into it as it can't (well shouldn't) be built on. It doesn't appear as an assett on the balance sheet.

 

The latest accounts appear to show the council makes good the shortfall between the costs of running / maintaining the park and the income it generates.

 

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends41%5C0000510841_AC_20120331_E_C.pdf

 

No problem with that as long as the shortfall isn't excessive.

[shilling]

I sense deja vu

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/what-s-on/paul-license-speaking-out-st-luke-s-special-1-237226

 

I am sure I wasn't dreaming a couple of years back when Sheffield council officers were sent away with their corporation tails stuck firmly between their municipal legs after seeking permission to sell off part of Graves Park to a house builder.

 

On that occasion the Friends of Graves Park challenged the thinking and reminded everybody that the land had been gifted to the city by the benefactor, JG Graves. There were legally-binding documents which prohibited disposal of the land. And charitable status, which the park enjoyed, added copper bottom restrictions on what can and can't be done to that land.

 

No way could the council dispose of the corner of the park, occupied by the Norton Nurseries.

 

Now, a couple of years later, and the same thing is happening again.

 

It is being suggested that St Luke's Hospice should relocate to the self same piece of land. The very plot which only a couple of years ago the Charities Commissioner ruled was out of bounds.

 

A few things worry me here. The most serious is that someone has managed to set two of Sheffield's most treasured institutions at each other's throats: St Luke's and our parks. It takes a real talent for mischief or total amnesia to come up with something like that.

 

Almost equally disturbing is that this is yet another example of officers at the town hall feeling they are above not only the will of the people (the vast majority of readers are aghast at the proposal, believe me) but also beyond the law.

 

They have already been told to keep their grubby hands off the park. But now they are scurrying round trying to find a loophole.

 

Why? What is the motive for disposing of the land?

 

Not a few readers have suggested that this is no more than a test case.

 

Set a precedent with Graves Park and not a scrap of municipal land will be safe from development. There is some merit in that. Why else would so much time, money and effort be expended on this? It must be important. After all, we're always being told how much hard work officers invest on our behalf to earn huge salaries on their behalf.

 

An argument is that the site is derelict. It is shabby and lets the park down. So let's put a nice building there instead.

 

Just pause here and think. This is a piece of precious, charitable-trust protected land. Whatever was the council doing allowing it to become derelict in the first place?

 

Incompetence? Neglectful accident? Or design?

 

Forget that the land isn't derelict at all. The fact is that someone has decided, for whatever reason, that it is surplus to requirements.

 

It isn't in the officials' gift to decide this. Their job is to look after what was bequeathed to the people of Sheffield.

 

If they can't do that - or can't be trusted to do it - then move over and let someone else do the job.

Edited July 28, 2013 by shilling

[WallBuilder]

I am a curious nosey so and so, where are the papers saying the council have again offered the land to St. Lukes I haven't noticed anything. Also there is a slight difference between selling off a building and selling off a piece of land. The nursery area is quite large although under used at present, maybe if they're not growing plants for other area's of the city the land should be divided up into allotments or similar.

Also at the bottom of Cobnar road there is a nursery in an old building, wasn't that building part of the park initially as it looks as though it may of been

[pandorra]

I sense deja vu

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/what-s-on/paul-license-speaking-out-st-luke-s-special-1-237226

 

I am sure I wasn't dreaming a couple of years back when Sheffield council officers were sent away with their corporation tails stuck firmly between their municipal legs after seeking permission to sell off part of Graves Park to a house builder.

 

On that occasion the Friends of Graves Park challenged the thinking and reminded everybody that the land had been gifted to the city by the benefactor, JG Graves. There were legally-binding documents which prohibited disposal of the land. And charitable status, which the park enjoyed, added copper bottom restrictions on what can and can't be done to that land.

 

No way could the council dispose of the corner of the park, occupied by the Norton Nurseries.

 

Now, a couple of years later, and the same thing is happening again.

 

It is being suggested that St Luke's Hospice should relocate to the self same piece of land. The very plot which only a couple of years ago the Charities Commissioner ruled was out of bounds.

 

A few things worry me here. The most serious is that someone has managed to set two of Sheffield's most treasured institutions at each other's throats: St Luke's and our parks. It takes a real talent for mischief or total amnesia to come up with something like that.

Almost equally disturbing is that this is yet another example of officers at the town hall feeling they are above not only the will of the people (the vast majority of readers are aghast at the proposal, believe me) but also beyond the law.

 

They have already been told to keep their grubby hands off the park. But now they are scurrying round trying to find a loophole.

 

Why? What is the motive for disposing of the land?

 

Not a few readers have suggested that this is no more than a test case.

 

Set a precedent with Graves Park and not a scrap of municipal land will be safe from development. There is some merit in that. Why else would so much time, money and effort be expended on this? It must be important. After all, we're always being told how much hard work officers invest on our behalf to earn huge salaries on their behalf.

 

An argument is that the site is derelict. It is shabby and lets the park down. So let's put a nice building there instead.

 

Just pause here and think. This is a piece of precious, charitable-trust protected land. Whatever was the council doing allowing it to become derelict in the first place?

 

Incompetence? Neglectful accident? Or design?

 

Forget that the land isn't derelict at all. The fact is that someone has decided, for whatever reason, that it is surplus to requirements.

 

It isn't in the officials' gift to decide this. Their job is to look after what was bequeathed to the people of Sheffield.

 

If they can't do that - or can't be trusted to do it - then move over and let someone else do the job.

 

Yes you can see history about to repeat itself with the council using exactly the same ploy that has cost them so much in the past. Perhaps if the brain dead morons who keep hatching these plans were required to reimburse us for the money they squander on these half baked schemes they would think them through a bit better. I think it is time the Charities Comission took trusteeship of the Graves Park Charity away from the city council. Isn't trustee supposed to mean folk who can be trusted?

[barpen]

Yes - but the present value of the land doesn't really enter into it as it can't (well shouldn't) be built on. It doesn't appear as an assett on the balance sheet.

 

The latest accounts appear to show the council makes good the shortfall between the costs of running / maintaining the park and the income it generates.

 

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends41%5C0000510841_AC_20120331_E_C.pdf

 

No problem with that as long as the shortfall isn't excessive.

 

As it should do. That's what the council is required to do under its obligation to the charity. That is a whole lot different from selling off the fixed assets to use as revenue. Fortunately the Charity Commission is fully aware of that difference which is why they keep slapping the council and leaving the council tax payers to pick up the bill for the councils incompetence.

[I1L2T3]

Here we go again.

 

Labour are not fit custodians of our parks. This is the third major attempt at selling off a bit of Graves Park.

 

Question: is there a register of interests for councillors? I'd like to look at it.

[WallBuilder]

If a building that offers absolutely no return to the park financially or is a drain on meagre resources then surely it's better to lease it off so some-one hopefully can make use of it.

I'm now also wondering who actually owns the park cafe as it's run by a private company I believe. same thing about that fairly big house down beyond the rare breeds centre, who lives there, who owns it. You can tell the park is obviously scrabbling for cash when I noticed the path up the ravine was blocked off for a few months as a bridge had been vandelised and so had to be closed to people wanting to walk through the park. That bridge and another were repaired but that path is in a fairly poor state maintenance wise along with others and yet no money seems to be available to repair them long term.

[Ms Macbeth]

Here we go again.

 

Labour are not fit custodians of our parks. This is the third major attempt at selling off a bit of Graves Park.

 

Question: is there a register of interests for councillors? I'd like to look at it.

 

Here's a link - they're all listed individually: http://councillors.sheffield.gov.uk/councillors/register-of-councillors-interests

Edited July 28, 2013 by Ms Macbeth

[taxman]

Here we go again.

 

Labour are not fit custodians of our parks. This is the third major attempt at selling off a bit of Graves Park.

 

Question: is there a register of interests for councillors? I'd like to look at it.

 

But why do you think any other party would be better, do you really think tories are interested in local parks?

[megalithic]

But why do you think any other party would be better, do you really think tories are interested in local parks?

 

I wouldn't trust any politician of any persuasion as far as i could wazz. Corrupt to the core the lot of em with only their own interests at heart. none of them could give a t*ss about us serfs.