Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 8th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Protests over hospice deal


Couns Julie Dore, John Robson and Tim Rippon, Arbourthorne ward

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 August 2008
So, the council leader, Paul Scriven, is pleased that a 'deal has been done' on the relocation of St Luke's.
I am pleased for St Luke's that a possible solution has been found. However, many of my constituents are not so pleased that this 'deal' has been done behind closed doors and without any consultation with local people.

Over a number of years, the
area of Norfolk Park has undergone huge changes and local people have been promised new housing to repopulate the area and help sustain local shops, schools and services. The Bluestones School site was one such site that was identified for new housing. Clearly, this will not now be happening.

So, local people are already contacting me and asking why has this new Liberal Democrat administration reneged on its promise to 'listen' and consult with local people?

Also, does Coun Scriven think it is a good use of public money to forsake a sale of, potentially, many millions of pounds, in giving away this site? Maybe his next move will be to do a 'deal' to locate wind farms into Norfolk Park too?

Or could it be, as one of my constituents has noted, that Coun Scriven is only interested in consulting in areas where the Liberal Democrats have seats, or in Central constituency where he has aspirations of becoming the next MP?!

More:

Letters
St. Lukes' Debate
Forum
Local News
Local Sport
Arts Guide




The full article contains 242 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 August 2008 11:26 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: SHEFFIELD, SOUTH YORKSHIRE
 
Prev
1
2
Next
Last
1

busylizzy,

08/08/2008 15:16:13
This sounds like a very bad case of sour grapes from a load of councillors who know that when they help power in Sheffield they never consulted with anyone. Perhaps they should reflect on the fact that they were chucked out of power in Sheffield, and consider that mischief making like this is unlikely to reverse that fact.
2

beer monster,

08/08/2008 15:28:34
Just who is supposed to be protesting against this deal. It seems to me that the only people to complain are 3 Labour Councillors. The poll in the Star recently had 96% of the population in favour of this move.

This looks like yet another case of the OUSTED COUNCIL being at odds with public opinion. Welcome to a long time in opposition.
3

,

08/08/2008 15:43:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Removed at request of user because of error in text. Corrected comment posted below.
4

Great Legs,

08/08/2008 15:46:11
I could have sworn that a few months ago these same councillors thought it was a good idea to hand over public parkland if it were to go to a worthwhile organisation such as St Lukes. This is despite the fact that the land in question belonged to another charity.
Now it seems their support for the hospice has evapourated now it is not considered an election winner. Just how shallow can our politicians get?
It seems everyone other than these councillors feels that the site at Bluestones represents the best deal that the hospice will get, and my understanding is that the site is to be leased at a commercial rent and not given away as stated by the councillors.
I find it disturbing that the ousted council is still attempting to use St Lukes as a political football in an attempt to score points off the new administration. They should be ashamed of themselves, particularly if their vindictivness in any way scuppers the deal.
5

Big Toe,

08/08/2008 16:07:45
A couple of weeks ago the Telegraph asked the question. Is the Bluestones site the best location for St Lukes new hospice? The public reponded with 95% in favour. So just who do these councillors think is against the deal?
This sounds like sour grapes to me.

In April they lost the argument over Graves Park
In May they lost the election.
Now it seems like they have lost the plot.

Isn't it time that people forgot about political points scoring at the expense of St Luke's Hospice. Despite the antagonism over Graves Park they do a fantastic job. Comments like the ones from 3 out of power councillors will not help the situation one iota. They really should be ashamed of themselves.
6

Redrobbo,

08/08/2008 17:25:50
Aren't these the same councillors who were pushing the case for St Lukes to be given public parkland just a few months ago. It just shows what a difference an election makes. All of a sudden intergrity goes out of the window and cynicism floods in. We should be getting behind St Lukes and helping them relocate to what is a perfect site for the hospice. I am saddened to think that some councillors were only supporting the hospice when they thought it might win them votes.
7

fluffybunny,

sheffield 08/08/2008 20:09:28
The above letter from the councillors is abject stupidity in the extreme, and indicates the attitude that put Labour into opposition at the council elections.

Of course there has been no consultation with local people. At this stage there was no consultation between the previous Labour council and local residents when they were pushing for St Lukes to go to Graves Park. Infact there was no consultation whatsoever with local people at all.
It seems to me that first a site is identified. Then it is looked at to see if it is suitable. Then local people are consulted and opinions taken into account. That would be common sense. Sadly the 3 councillors not only have very short memories but also seem to lack that common sense as well. I am very glad they do not represent my own ward.
8

Fender Bender,

08/08/2008 21:49:11
This sounds like an excellent ruse to distract attention from the housing crisis, inflation, the war in IRAQ, the war in Afghanistan and Gordon Brown.

St lukes are being used as a political football once again. Shame on the party that Sheffielders have just had the good sense to throw out of power.
9

TrueRed,

T'Manor 08/08/2008 21:59:34
As at least one of the so called authors of this letter claims to be away on holiday, just how have they written it?
Is this an individual pretending to represent the views of the others or is it just the load of party points scoring tosh that most other commentators seem to have spotted?
The electorate should be told.
10

woodseats willie,

sheffield 09/08/2008 09:58:43
I see the sour grapes department isout in force. Perhaps the 3 councillors should reflect that they never attempted to consult with local people when they tried to give parts of Graves Park to St Lukes. Giving away valuable parkland would not really have been a good deal for Sheffield council tax payers, but as the Bluestones site is to be leased at an agreed commercial rent I really fail to understand the councillors gripe. Perhaps they should check their facts before going to the papers will an illfounded rant.
Prev
1
2
Next
Last

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.