We want to thank our members for their patience waiting for the minutes of the meeting we had with The Craighouse Partnership on the 26th Jan.
We were hoping to be able to bring you agreed minutes. We have sent these to the Craighouse Partnership and invited them to send their notes, saying we would accommodate any amendments or changes they wanted to make.
After a lot of prevarication, they have said they are not happy with them but have refused to send us their notes and they have also refused to send their amendments or the changes or to state what it is they are unhappy with. We have invited them to send us minutes that they have written instead, but they will not do that either.
They wanted to have another unminuted, agenda-less meeting to talk about them. Today they wrote to say they will talk about these minutes only if we agree not to disclose anything about their comment on the minutes.
We are beginning to believe we will never get a consensus and this situation will just be delayed further and further. As the Community Liaison Forum starts in 2 days, we regrettably feel we have to publish our own minutes of the meeting now, and the Partnership can put their own version if they wish.
The Craighouse Partnership said if we published these minutes then they would publish their own version and the public could decide which was accurate. We are happy for our members to compare and contrast these to whatever The Craighouse Partnership produces. [Added: The Craighouse Partership have since posted their version of the minutes, not agreed by or sent in advance to the Friends, which you can read here.] We had three independent members of the group present at the meeting and have said at every point that we are willing to correct any inaccuracy either in these minutes or on our website. However, we cannot do that unless the Craighouse Partnership tell us what they want corrected.
I must apologise for the length of the minutes. They cover very complex issues and the meeting was 3 hours in duration – and these detailed minutes reflect this.
Key Points
The key points that came out of the meeting for us is that:
- The Craighouse Partnership are asking for Planning Policy to be ignored in favour of a cross-subsidising maintenance model for which they could provide no figures nor examples.
- The revised capital costs given to us at the meeting would still deliver a profit to the developers with no new-build element, under their original proposals for 90 flats in the old buildings at the conservative estimate of £400,000 each.
- The projects we were given as examples of Mountgrange’s track record need serious investigating and pose serious questions about the suitability of this company which has little history of similar development but a big history of land speculation and making money through service charges.
- Leslie House in Fife is the only comparable development in terms of listed convertion with enabling development we could find that any member of the partnership had done and ended with a building gutted through fire. [We have corrected this sentence after complaint from William Gray Muir from Sundial and issued a clarification of this point here.]
- The relation of Craighouse and Caltongate needs thorough research and investigation.