Midlothian Council say "No ones interested" in whole building.
Midlothian Council claimed, in January 2013, that no one was interested in the whole building. That only one small group who had heard of the opportunity via Councillor Milligan and was in discussion privately in the hope of using the back hall for after school provision and soft play, but they had no funding for alterations in place (Bonnyrigg and Sherwood Community Development Trust BSCDT).
Darius Namdaran, as a concerned resident and member of the community council, asked " Why is this unique opportunity for community groups not publicly advertised so that various organizations or groups can collaborate and take over different parts of the building, instead of spending £100,000 demolishing it?". At this point demolition was not public knowledge and it was 5 months away.
BSCDT, said they were "not interested in the whole building", "It was too much for them", "would not be viable for them" and "that public did not need to know about the demolition".
The three local Councillors response January 2013:
Councillor Milligan "Everyone knew about the demolition", "Its not viable", "There is a contract in place to demolish it.", "I would only consider the back hall." and "Its too late." Councillor Constable, "Everyone knew", "Its too late", "The clock is ticking", "Maybe next time." Councillor Baxter, "If a viability is shown I would listen to it. Our officers have told us its unviable and too late."
Midlothian Officers stated that it would cost £250,000 building costs "just to move in" and £250,000 annual running costs. They presented the following report as evidence to support it has 'structural problems'. On detailed reading by campaigners it was found that the issues they identified with 'ceilings and beams' was in fact staining to ceiling tiles and some walls from a leak.
Darius Namdaran, as a concerned resident and member of the community council, asked " Why is this unique opportunity for community groups not publicly advertised so that various organizations or groups can collaborate and take over different parts of the building, instead of spending £100,000 demolishing it?". At this point demolition was not public knowledge and it was 5 months away.
BSCDT, said they were "not interested in the whole building", "It was too much for them", "would not be viable for them" and "that public did not need to know about the demolition".
The three local Councillors response January 2013:
Councillor Milligan "Everyone knew about the demolition", "Its not viable", "There is a contract in place to demolish it.", "I would only consider the back hall." and "Its too late." Councillor Constable, "Everyone knew", "Its too late", "The clock is ticking", "Maybe next time." Councillor Baxter, "If a viability is shown I would listen to it. Our officers have told us its unviable and too late."
Midlothian Officers stated that it would cost £250,000 building costs "just to move in" and £250,000 annual running costs. They presented the following report as evidence to support it has 'structural problems'. On detailed reading by campaigners it was found that the issues they identified with 'ceilings and beams' was in fact staining to ceiling tiles and some walls from a leak.