Voice of the Mysterons Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Hi,Just reading the report in the Shetland Times online about possible 7 day working at the new AHS and noticed at the bottom of the report there is a comment about the Freefield Centre: "Regarding other vacated buildings, Mr Sinclair said the former Olnafirth Primary School was now “leased out on commercial terms” and the Freefield Centre in Lerwick had been “disposed of”. The council no longer had any interest in it, he added." What does that mean? I don't recall seeing it being offered for sale like other ex-council buildings (Leog, St Clements, Craigielea, etc), does this mean the council got nothing (or very little) for this prime site in town? Also, who now owns it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keedle Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Buildbase owned the site Freefield sat on. The council payed a yearly rent on it. Freefield was handed to Buildbase free. BP gave the money to the Shetland pensioners to buy the building to use as a Social and Lunch club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) So, if just the building has been sold, who gets the money? BP, SIC, Shetland Pensioners? Maybe it (the money) could be used to start another lunch club... Edited April 13, 2015 by Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I seem to recall that the SIC did not own the ground that it stands on so it may have gone back to the land owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keedle Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Colin the building wasn't sold it was given to Buildbase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffererof1crankymofo Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Buildbase owned the site Freefield sat on. The council payed a yearly rent on it. Freefield was handed to Buildbase free. BP gave the money to the Shetland pensioners to buy the building to use as a Social and Lunch club. Wasn't it ground rent/feudal as opposed to rent on the actual building? Surely,therefore, the building is a separate entity? Now couldn't that have been rented out to another party? paulb 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 seriously council just cant dispose of property like that. can they. if bp bought it for a pensioner club how does it become an assist of the council. it belongs to said pension club. im assuming it is or was a proper charity so it cant be just taken by council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keedle Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Paulb BP gave the money to the pensioners who in turn gave it to SIC to buy the building for them.The rent was paid on the ground the building stood on. paulb 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Probably should have been turned into a Food Bank. Keedle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Off topic but, is anyone else seeing the word "money" as a capitalised blue link in my earlier post? Damned annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffererof1crankymofo Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Off topic but, is anyone else seeing the word "money" as a capitalised blue link in my earlier post? Damned annoying. You got skype? It does funny things like that, which is why I de-installed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Do we know for certain that the Council just "gifted" the building to Hays? If so, then what the Council is saying is that they believed it would have cost them more to sell it than they believed they'd get for it. Okay, its neither big nor new, but is it really in that bad a shape? Strange they just assumed that was the case without at least trying it on the open market, especially in these cash strapped times. Or are some of these infernal "managers" who seem to have over-run every corner of the behemoth not quite savvy as to what "cash strapped" means. Edited April 13, 2015 by Ghostrider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 "You got skype? It does funny things like that, which is why I de-installed it." Sorted. It was a Malware infection.... Looks like I (somehow) managed to pick up an infected flash file. No idea how or where from as I only visit a small handfull of web sites. Just shows that you can't be to safe.... Suffererof1crankymofo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly-on-the-Wall Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Isn't it a case that if Buildbase are owners of the land, that they have the rights to a building that is sitting on their property if they are no longer receiving rent, regardless of the value?The building can't be in great shakes anyway or the pensioners would never have moved out in the first place - so maybe the easy option for the Council was not to pay rent on the site and then Buildbase would have to deal with a property that the Council can't get rented out, and which ultimately needs serious upgrading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Isn't it a case that if Buildbase are owners of the land, that they have the rights to a building that is sitting on their property if they are no longer receiving rent, regardless of the value? No sure its quite as simple as that, unless as I said before, the Council gave it to them as a "gift". Surely the Council should had done the "responsible" thing and negotiated a price for the asset they owned on the site as part of terminating the lease. Even if they just simply refused to pay rent for the site, Hay's would have had to take them to court to repossess of the site, and the Council would have been entitled to receive the value of their asset on the site, less the amount of rent outstanding and legal costs, unless they decided to not contest the case. The building can't be in great shakes anyway or the pensioners would never have moved out in the first place - so maybe the easy option for the Council was not to pay rent on the site and then Buildbase would have to deal with a property that the Council can't get rented out, and which ultimately needs serious upgrading. As I recall it the pensioners moved out with a metaphorical gun at their head, as one of them reportedly said at the time, they were told as of xyz date they'd turn up to a padlock on the door - aka. make the most of the alternative being offered, or there will be nothing at all. The main driving force at the time seemed to be the "need" to lower the £80k per annum it reportedly cost to run, and some bead counter reckoned it could be done for £50k by bunging the users off to Isleburgh instead. The figures bandied about to "upgrade" at that time were somewhat extortionate for the size of the building, certainly, but it was never elaborated on what exactly the "upgrade" consisted of. The fact however that a wheelchair ramp was specifically mentioned, would tend to suggest however that a lot of it if not all was going to be spent on "user specific" facilities rather than general maintenance/repair. Have the Council ever tried to rent it out? I can't recall ever seeing it offered anyplace, but I may well have missed it. If they've tried and had no takers, fair enough, but the easiest way to be able to state no tenant could be found is to not let anyone know you're looking for one. That said, getting rid of it or even renting it out wasn't allegedly on the table when decisions were being taken - The preferred option was that the voluntary sector took over the running of the service in the Freefield building, and if that wouldn't fly (as it didn't) the Council would lot at alternate Council usage of the building. It goes without saying both options left the Council fairly and squarely responsible for maintenance and repair, so it couldn't have been considered uneconomic to maintain the building wind and watertight at that point - unless of course those were all little white lies to smokescreen that the Council wanted rid of the service and building quicker than a hot potato. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.