In reply to Jim Hamilton:
The relevant bit is:
<<However the BMC thinks that a far better use of the money SE have set aside for repairs, would be to use it in re-landscaping the upper car park to provide as many spaces as possible, rather than invested in a resource that only has an 18 month lifespan. >>
Sport England would, under the terms of the lease, be required to return the building to the Forestry Commission in the same state they received it in, so have put aside money to make the repairs required to do so. However, once the block is returned to the FC, IT (the FC) intends to demolish it, even though it would now be in good condition, so the funds spent on it would be wasted.
My understanding (from attending several Sandstone Open Meetings and SVG group events in the last 2-3 years) is that the BMC's position is that IF THE TOILET BLOCK IS TO BE DEMOLISHED ANYWAY then the funds earmarked for its repair would be better spent on improving the parking. That doesn't mean the BMC wants to see it demolished.
The BMC has said that it doesn't have the funds to run the car park AND to maintain, repair and run the toilet block. The voluntary car park charge barely covers the cost of collecting it as so many people don't bother to pay.
All kinds of options to retain the toilet block have been discussed, and the BMC is certainly, as far as I can tell from the various meetings, keen to see it refurbished and in use. A much better idea of the BMC's position can be obtained by attending Sandstone Open and SVG Meetings where HRMG and BMC officers give more detailed insights into legal and financial positions than they can in brief articles on websites where the main message was for people to stop using the campsite pending a solution being found.
I did sign the petition, BTW.