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

[barpen]

If they specifically are not allowed then that's pretty clear.

 

And I do agree that it makes little sense to sell of capital assets in order to fund running costs, do that for long enough and you have no assets to run. A self defeating spiral.

 

Which is precisely why JG Graves had it written into the covenants. He was after all one of Sheffield's most successful business men. And you don't get there by allowing folk to steal all the family silver.

[retep]

hang on. three attempts, I thought there had been the two concerning St. Lukes. maybe some-one could itemise the three attemts as bullet points so that the info isn't lost in a sea of council bashing . I'm also noticing a rather interesting lack of responses to most of my questions such as the two buildings which look as though they could of been connected to the park and now who owns them if people are now saying that selling properties could set a precedent..

The old mill in Millhouses park has been derelict for years and although the friends of Millhouses wanted something to happen they have never had the financial wherewithal to do anything it took a lottery grant to get that scheme moving. I would imagine that Graves park with it's greater financial outlay on upkeep simply haven't the fundds to do the discussed building up but still think it should be leased offf rather than sold, even if the rent was not paid till the new occupier got the place in a fit standard.

 

Perhaps Chantry Cottage,

http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/cabinet/agendas-2006/agenda-27th-september-2006/graves-parknorton-nurseries

[Scabbydog]

It is interesting to read the Charity Commissions guidelines to trustees of charities. Particularly the requirement that trustees must always act in the best interest of the charity they represent and nothing else. So councillors who are trustees of the Graves Park Charity are required to put the interests of that charity above their desire as councillors to cash in on the charities assets. One wonders how these shysters have been allowed to remain trustees for so long when the primary requirement of their post is probably the last thing on their minds.

[barpen]

Perhaps Chantry Cottage,

http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/cabinet/agendas-2006/agenda-27th-september-2006/graves-parknorton-nurseries

 

Don't you just love this bit?

 

2.2 Graves Park is made up of land that is held charitably and beneficially by the Council. Up until relatively recently the Council were of the view that the Norton Nursery site was part of the general land portfolio of the Council. The Nursery site had been used as a plant nursery by the Council for a number of years.

 

2.3 Following a decision to dispose of the Chantry Cottage within the Nursery site as surplus there was a reference made to the Charity Commission. The view of the Commission is that the land is charitable and the Council has decided not to contest this view.

 

The council as trustees of Graves Park Charity claim they were unaware of the land they were trustees of.

You couldn't make it up. Particularly as the council produced a booklet about the history of Norton Nursery which highlighted that it was part of the Graves Gift. These brochures suddenly disappeared around the time they tried to flog off the land.

Edited July 29, 2013 by barpen

[caretta]

I would seriously love it if just one of the people who constantly mouth off on here actually came up with a money making venture which would benefit Sheffield people and Graves Park. OK, so there is a potential asset there in the form of a run down cottage.

How does it become an asset and not a liability?

Someone needs to put a big chunk of capital funds into it to restore it and then there needs to be a big chunk of revenue in order to create a viable business which will use this space effectively and have a net benefit for the park (either by way of generating funds for its improvement or upkeep or by housing some trainee gardeners in there). This needs to be effectively managed in order to ensure that the net benefits are making their way into the parkland which was so generously gifted to the people of Sheffield.

 

In case you hadn't noticed- there are lots of cuts happening in local government. This, oddly, does include parks department as they are generally not statutory. So they don't have to keep the park's grass cut, replace burnt equipment, litter pick etc and if there continues to be the same levels of cuts, I should imagine visitors to Graves will start to realise this in the future. I certainly already notice it at Meerbrook and some of the Heeley parks I was in this weekend (not the Millennium park- thanks to new grant funding their team are able to keep on top of this at the moment and it looks great)!

So, how does the parks department maintain its great parks? By looking at any way they can raise some revenue money to help pay for this. The Friends of groups may be great at raising money for play equipment and caryring out excellent tree planting and other schemes, but at the end of the day someone has to pay the person to empty the bins, cut the grass, replace the burned out bench/swing etc. If you wanted Cobnar Cottage to be a park facility, then someone would have to pay people to manage it, staff it and maintain it so it was safe to the public.

Its tough times out there at the moment, I hate it. I wish they didnt have to sell things off, but I can understand why they come to these decisions at the moment- I dont for one minute think your local council officer or councillor is rubbing their hands together plotting how they can sell off all of Graves Park for a new housing estate- I just don't believe that's how people's minds work.

 

I hate the car parking charge, but I do know that the money goes back into maintaining the park- yes it may just pay for Joe Bloggs to have his contract renewed in order to carry on working with the gardening team for another season- but that makes a lot of a difference to us when we visit with our pals and family.

[Jonny5]

Shocking that they are using it's derelict state as a reason for selling. They let it become derelict!

 

On its own it's only a tiny plot on an unused edge of the park. The worry is if they get away with selling it then they have a precedent.

 

In an ideal world it should be brought up to standard and let out.

[tonkatoy]

I would seriously love it if just one of the people who constantly mouth off on here actually came up with a money making venture which would benefit Sheffield people and Graves Park. OK, so there is a potential asset there in the form of a run down cottage.

How does it become an asset and not a liability?

Someone needs to put a big chunk of capital funds into it to restore it and then there needs to be a big chunk of revenue in order to create a viable business which will use this space effectively and have a net benefit for the park (either by way of generating funds for its improvement or upkeep or by housing some trainee gardeners in there). This needs to be effectively managed in order to ensure that the net benefits are making their way into the parkland which was so generously gifted to the people of Sheffield.

 

In case you hadn't noticed- there are lots of cuts happening in local government. This, oddly, does include parks department as they are generally not statutory. So they don't have to keep the park's grass cut, replace burnt equipment, litter pick etc and if there continues to be the same levels of cuts, I should imagine visitors to Graves will start to realise this in the future. I certainly already notice it at Meerbrook and some of the Heeley parks I was in this weekend (not the Millennium park- thanks to new grant funding their team are able to keep on top of this at the moment and it looks great)!

So, how does the parks department maintain its great parks? By looking at any way they can raise some revenue money to help pay for this. The Friends of groups may be great at raising money for play equipment and caryring out excellent tree planting and other schemes, but at the end of the day someone has to pay the person to empty the bins, cut the grass, replace the burned out bench/swing etc. If you wanted Cobnar Cottage to be a park facility, then someone would have to pay people to manage it, staff it and maintain it so it was safe to the public.

Its tough times out there at the moment, I hate it. I wish they didnt have to sell things off, but I can understand why they come to these decisions at the moment- I dont for one minute think your local council officer or councillor is rubbing their hands together plotting how they can sell off all of Graves Park for a new housing estate- I just don't believe that's how people's minds work.

 

I hate the car parking charge, but I do know that the money goes back into maintaining the park- yes it may just pay for Joe Bloggs to have his contract renewed in order to carry on working with the gardening team for another season- but that makes a lot of a difference to us when we visit with our pals and family.

 

But didn't Friends of Graves Park raise north of £100,000 to refurbish the kids play area down by the Cobnar Road entrance, obtained money from Spring Watch to restore the wildlife area, raised funds to pay for the arboretum, funded projects in the playground by the cafe, and provided funds and buildings for the rare breeds centre. Doesn't that rather take the weight off the councils obligation as these were projects that should have been funded from the public purse.

[Riannon]

I've just heard that the council is discussing declaring Cobnar Cottage surplus to requirements with a view to selling it off on the private housing market.

 

Cobnar Cottage is part of Graves Park and was a gift to the people of Sheffield and no provision in the charity documents exists for its sale.

 

It is pretty disgusting that the property is currently run down as it is the duty of the city council as trustees of the Graves Park Charity to maintain it.

 

Oh dear. Are they at it again?

[I1L2T3]

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

 

The LibDems killed off the last sell-off attempt. Now Labour are back in somebody in the Labour party is hell bent on selling off a bit of the park again.

 

---------- Post added 29-07-2013 at 21:23 ----------

 

hang on. three attempts, I thought there had been the two concerning St. Lukes. maybe some-one could itemise the three attemts as bullet points so that the info isn't lost in a sea of council bashing . I'm also noticing a rather interesting lack of responses to most of my questions such as the two buildings which look as though they could of been connected to the park and now who owns them if people are now saying that selling properties could set a precedent..

The old mill in Millhouses park has been derelict for years and although the friends of Millhouses wanted something to happen they have never had the financial wherewithal to do anything it took a lottery grant to get that scheme moving. I would imagine that Graves park with it's greater financial outlay on upkeep simply haven't the fundds to do the discussed building up but still think it should be leased offf rather than sold, even if the rent was not paid till the new occupier got the place in a fit standard.

 

Yes, three attempts.

 

1. Plans to sell top cricket pitch field for housing. Quite some years ago.

2. The St Luke's plans

3. This one.

 

They won't give up until they do it. It stinks.

[barpen]

The LibDems killed off the last sell-off attempt. Now Labour are back in somebody in the Labour party is hell bent on selling off a bit of the park again.

 

---------- Post added 29-07-2013 at 21:23 ----------

 

 

Yes, three attempts.

 

1. Plans to sell top cricket pitch field for housing. Quite some years ago.

2. The St Luke's plans

3. This one.

 

They won't give up until they do it. It stinks.

 

 

You missed the attempted sale of the whole of Norton Nursery for a housing estate. (I still have the draft plans) About a year or 2 after your number 1. The lib/dems killed that one too or should I say dropped it like a hot potato when they took office as the Charity Commission had threatened court action. It's odd though how the L/Ds have a habit of taking over the council straight after Labour fail to sell off parts of Graves Park. Coincidence I know.

Edited July 29, 2013 by barpen