LETTER TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL

Dear Madam/Sir,

I am writing regarding the ongoing controversy about any plans (or lack thereof) for the popular Elvaston Castle Park.

Many pages of plans and debates seem to have been written, but I feel it is, actually, fairly easy to state what ordinary people of the district want to happen. This should be as follows:

1) The park should have no restrictions at all placed on public access, compared to the current level of access (except, perhaps to protect any restored areas of gardens or the house which have a historical significance of one kind or another).

2) The park's tattiness in many areas needs to be addressed in a way which does not compromise (1).

3) Any commercial interest which is expressed in the park should be disregarded, unless there are, for instance bodies/companies who wish to give money altruistically and without any plans for commercial development. i.e. if companies want to donate money to any projects for improving the facilities, they should be allowed to do so only on the basis of gaining some form of advertising, or perhaps restricted use of conferencing facilities (although I can't really see how well that would work in a public park).

4) Essential restoration work (such as roof repairs) should be treated as a matter of urgency, even if this is done simply by starting a "Save the Roof" fund or something similar - as many churches seem to have done.

Whilst there appears to be a dispute about the park's actual upkeep costs, there appears to be a strong historical imperative to this whole debate. Elvaston Castle was the nation's first country park with rights of access guaranteed by statute. This, surely, can not be changed or curtailed without laws or statues being passed or repealed?

The ordinary person does not care who runs the park, providing access is unrestricted, admission fees are ideally zero or, say (at current prices), less than £5 for a family of 4 or so.

Any set of business plans, proposals or goals, if they are to be successful and well-received, only need to hold these ideas at the forefront. There needs to be a firm removal of any suspicion of commercial exploitation or self-interest in running the park. This can only be done by publishing all proposals and plans which can then only be approved, in principle, through public consultations, or some kind of ballot, either postal, in person, or on-line.

An additional important note seems to be that the park should be considered for inclusion in the BBC's "Restoration" initiative. Any required steps, which do not contravene the above points already made, should be taken to allow this to happen - thus allowing a flow of licence payers' money to subsidize a part or parts of the renovation.

If people want to argue the finer points of restoration, then surely bodies such as the National Trust and English Heritage can somehow be consulted or involved?

I also think that if something along these lines can not be settled upon in fairness and without a lot of wrangling, the easiest thing to do is simply leave the park more or less as it is, and save everyone a lot of trouble and strife.

Or is this line of thinking too sensible to be taken seriously?

Yours faithfully,
Andrew Johnson

To see the reply click here