Many years ago, when I worked at this newspaper's Mexborough office, I reported on a campaign to save the local hospital from being downgraded.
Readers rose up on a crest of protest to be rewarded by the local health authority backing down.

A couple of years later, though, when the sting had been drawn from the protesters, the plans were repackaged.

This time the stomach for a fight was not as strong and the plans were pushed through. The downgrading of the hospital got under way, just as the officials had wanted.

It was the best (should that be worst?) example of 'we-know-best' I have come across.

Until now.

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.


Do you agree with Paul? Post your comments below.

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.

Your views on St Luke's. Click here to see a selection of your letters and comments on the St Luke's controversy.

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.

READ MORE
Your letters.
Business.
Today's features.
Latest sport.
Main news index.