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

[Localman]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Blackbeard]

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.

 

The council also pay the bills, in 2015 the shortfall in the accounts was £184,176 in 2014 £253,097

See the accounts at http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends41%5C0000510841_AC_20150331_E_C.pdf

That shortfall was paid by you and me from our council tax

[1978]

I repeat. The council is the trustee.

 

And the council makes up any shortage in funds for running costs, currently in the region of £250k each year, and rising.

 

If the trustees have to pay legal costs it leaves a bigger deficit for the council to meet. If the council pay the legal fees directly the cost still has to come out of the city budget. It's just a matter of timing and where it's allocated.

 

If I had to pick up the tab I'd certainly want a very big say in the running of the park. I'd be happy to listen to constructively helpful views and would wish to avoid litigation. If the council is relieved of some or all of the ongoing financial responsibility it's only fair that those who take it on should be represented as trustees.

 

To that end the review that has been mentioned more than once must be welcomed, and patience exercised until it can have had time to examine options.

[I1L2T3]

Unfortunately this seems to have grubby political fingers all over it.

 

Another reason for never voting Labour again for me.

[Blackbeard]

Unfortunately this seems to have grubby political fingers all over it.

 

Another reason for never voting Labour again for me.

 

Of cause it is political, the ruling party have to pick up the poison chalice which is the Graves park trust, no council would take on a gift like that today unless it came with its own continuing funding stream. Gone are they days when a city can fully fund libraries, parks etc, I can remember when parks were staffed with gardeners, park keepers, nurserymen etc, now we have mostly sterile green deserts of parks that requires little maintenance. My mother died a few years ago at the age of 100 and before she died we were talking and I told her they were closing libraries, she looked at me and said "I remember when they were opening them. Here are the accounts for 2011, you can see the fingers of both the Liberals and the Labour parties on them.

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends41%5C0000510841_ac_20110331_e_c.pdf

[Jack_Russell]

Of cause it is political, the ruling party have to pick up the poison chalice which is the Graves park trust, no council would take on a gift like that today unless it came with its own continuing funding stream. Gone are they days when a city can fully fund libraries, parks etc, I can remember when parks were staffed with gardeners, park keepers, nurserymen etc, now we have mostly sterile green deserts of parks that requires little maintenance. My mother died a few years ago at the age of 100 and before she died we were talking and I told her they were closing libraries, she looked at me and said "I remember when they were opening them. Here are the accounts for 2011, you can see the fingers of both the Liberals and the Labour parties on them.

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends41%5C0000510841_ac_20110331_e_c.pdf

 

Thank you Blackbeard, Recently the Graves Park Charity has had its own funding stream.

Namely the money received from Car parking Fees received from the Car Park in Graves Park, The Animal Farm Car Park.

 

100% Of the Money Received is Provided to the Graves Park Charity for their own use.

 

Money Received as follows (Info received via FOI Request, so this is correct if anyone wants to know where I have figures from)

 

 

2013/14 (full collection on 5/3/14) 4,885.95

2014/15 (full year) 54,841.92

2015/16 (to 29/12/15) 43,791.10

Total 103,518.97

 

So the Council Nor the Graves Park Charity are as skint as they make out.

I'd be interested to know where this money has been spent?

[1978]

Of cause it is political, the ruling party have to pick up the poison chalice which is the Graves park trust, no council would take on a gift like that today unless it came with its own continuing funding stream. Gone are they days when a city can fully fund libraries, parks etc, I can remember when parks were staffed with gardeners, park keepers, nurserymen etc, now we have mostly sterile green deserts of parks that requires little maintenance. My mother died a few years ago at the age of 100 and before she died we were talking and I told her they were closing libraries, she looked at me and said "I remember when they were opening them.

 

The National Trust is offered many properties every year, but has to turn a lot down because they come with a high burden of maintenance costs that cannot be covered. Sometimes the donor will give a trust fund (an endowment) alongside the property to cover such costs, but unless that happens there has to be a prospect of trading income or grants to cover the costs.

 

If Graves Park were being offered to the council, or a charitable body, they'd have to look very carefully at where the money would come from. In today's changed economic times that's hard to see. (In jest I might suggest a cash generating theme park on the old nursery site!!)

 

Libraries are a good example. As recently as the early 1950s if you wanted to borrow a book there were limited numbers of public free libraries in British cities. W H Smiths (they had kiosks at most railway stations) and Boots both operated small subscription libraries in many of their branches, as did many other traders. Council cash then started flowing fairly freely into suburban free libraries and by the 1970s the network we've recently come to take for granted had been created. Very few subscription libraries now survive, mostly specialist libraries. Volunteers are now involved, but how long that will work remains to be seen.

 

Times constantly change. The clock can't be put back, but sometimes closer examination of history can suggest ways that can be adapted for modern life.

 

Instead of expecting the council to pay for everything, and bleating when it can't/won't, we need to think how the parks can generate reliable income to cover their maintenance without subsidies from the council. That will take time to think through, and the knowledge of people who understand these things. Hang on, isn't that what the council and National Trust are supposed to be doing?

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2016 at 17:15 ----------

 

The latest available accounting figures as at 31.3.2015 are at; http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends41%5C0000510841_ac_20150331_e_c.pdf

 

I leave others to make what they will of them, but the need for council support had reduced to £164k in that year.