ELVASTON CASTLE - FINAL CONSULTATION

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
 

Highgate Sanctuary has delayed submitting a planning application, blaming red tape. Managing director Dr Tanya Spilsbury said that the schedule had been delayed because English Heritage, which advises the council on applications involving listed buildings such as Elvaston, was checking paperwork. She said, "We are still in the pre-planning stage of the application and English Heritage is checking and verifying the repair work costs we have submitted. This is a vital, ongoing part of the process and we don't know at this stage exactly when the application will be submitted." Dr Spilsbury said that the current economic climate would not affect the development and that Highgate was still hoping to begin work next year as planned.

Opposition to the development is strong, with the Friends of Elvaston Castle campaign group, formed more than four years ago, fighting to keep the estate in public ownership. Friends members wrote to organisations across Derbyshire asking them to sign up in support of their aims and have formed the Friends' League of Affiliated Groups. Ninety groups have already joined, among them Sinfin Running Club, Derby's Hindu Cultural and Welfare Society, Bakewell and District Civic Society and the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire branch of the British Legion. A Friends spokesman said, "We predict widespread opposition to any planning application. The number of organisations supporting our campaign is irrefutable proof that a proper sustainable future for the estate must involve it staying in public ownership. The community demands it."

Derbyshire County Council maintains that public access to the park would not be lost if development took place. A spokesman said, "Once Elvaston is redeveloped, the public will still be able to use the park. We maintain our long-standing commitment to keeping current levels of public access. The golf course will be built on land that is outside the public areas and we believe that, far from the proposals being detrimental for wildlife, they will enhance the wildlife. The reason we have chosen a company to take over the lease is that the council doesn't have the resources needed to carry out major repair work." Addressing the Friends' campaign, Dr Spilsbury said, "We disagree with their statement that our proposals will involve a destruction of public access. We are seeking to increase public access to the estate and castle buildings." (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Oct/08)

The Friends of Elvaston Castle has accused Derbyshire County Council of withholding information to which it claims it is legally entitled. The group has been fighting to keep the Grade II-listed building and grounds open to the public after plans to sell them were announced eight years ago. In October, the Friends of Elvaston Castle wrote to the council and, using the Freedom of Information Act, asked how much money had been spent on the advertising, marketing and disposal of Elvaston Castle Country Park, including all public consultations in connection with the disposal, since 1999.

The request was acknowledged by assistant county secretary Kay Riley on November 2 and forwarded to the council's access to information officer. But the group had not received a response by November 30, when the 20 working days allowed for feedback was up. The group sent two e-mails in the following weeks but still received no reply and says it believes the council is deliberately withholding the information.

A spokesman for the Friends of Elvaston Castle said, "We believe that the latest problems which we have encountered in obtaining information from the county council about the Elvaston Castle disposal only goes to highlight the long-standing lack of transparency which has dominated and overshadowed the matter from the beginning. If the disposal is as advantageous to taxpayers as the council alleges, then why avoid revealing the details to them? We can only take this to indicate that there is much which the council does not want made public about the amount of taxpayers' money it has already spent in disposing of Elvaston Castle Country Park."

A spokesman for Derbyshire County Council said, "There is no mystery surrounding the situation. It was simply a case of human error. We have had quite a number of requests from the Friends of Elvaston Castle in the past and this one slipped through the net. We apologise and are hoping to get the information to the group as soon as possible." (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Jan/08)

The Friends of Elvaston has discovered that a field earmarked to form part of a golf course falls within the city boundary. The rest of the 325-acre site is in South Derbyshire District Council's area of responsibility. It means that when developer Highgate Sanctuary applies for planning permission it will have to submit applications to both the city and district authorities, which will make decisions on the land that concerns them. A city council spokeswoman confirmed that part of the Elvaston Castle estate was within the city boundary.

The Friends of Elvaston has drawn attention to the fact that the 12.1 acre (4.9 hectares) area on the north of the Local Nature Reserve (LNR), called Greatricks Field, which the developers need for their golf course(s) plans, and which Derbyshire County Council fully supports, is, in fact, within Derby City Boundary. This means that although the land technically belongs to the DerbyshireCC (It actually belongs to the people but is administered by the CountyC), planning permission will now have to be sought from both Derby City Council for Greatricks Field, and South Derbyshire District Council for the rest of the Park, which the developer wants for golf courses, club houses, practice areas, ancillary and service buildings.

It is claimed that Greatricks Field has not fulfilled what was expected from it in terms of a wetland facility for wading birds but, if true, the reasons for this do not seem to have been investigated. It could be that the lack of funds to invest in the rest of the Estate has impacted upon the LNR and its environs. In any case, this does not mean that the area occupied by Greatrick's Field could not support other habitat(s) which would provide a greater nature conservation value in biodiversity terms than it does now. If this situation were achieved, visitors to the site could derive even greater pleasure from the site than that which they currently enjoy.

City council leader Chris Williamson said that the planning committee's decisions were not party political and added that he did not think the city council should stand in the way of the county council's plans. He said, "I think it's a good scheme, it will preserve the castle, improve the grounds and in fact make it more accessible for people. It will provide a good leisure facility that will be popular with even more people. The last thing I would want to do is to muddy the waters of the county council's scheme."

In September 2005, following his renewed leadership, The Friends wrote to him asking for the City Council’s backing in support of the community’s efforts to stop the loss of the Estate. Although they outlined their ideas for the Estate’s restoration, Mr Williamson made it quite clear that there was no prospect of the City Council getting involved in the matter. He cited purely financial reasons for not wishing to become involved with issues which; “Fall within the purview of the County Council.” (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Jul/06)

Derbyshire County Council should not be selling Elvaston Castle for development. The castle and its grounds were left to the people of Derby for their enjoyment. The council should have maintained the castle and grounds properly while it was its responsibility. The council cannot be allowed to sell this beautiful area for profit; it belongs to the people of Derby and Derbyshire. These politicians must be accountable to the public and not be able to ignore public opinion. The residents of the Rushcliffe Borough Council area, in Nottinghamshire, made their politicians listen in a very stormy public meeting about the Sharphill Wood development. Derbyshire politicians should also be made to listen! Colin Harrison.

Perhaps Chris Williamson, when talking about accessibility to Elvaston Castle and its grounds, should make it clear that, only if one can afford the fees for the leisure activities or afford to be able to stay in the luxury hotel, will the public have more access than they do at the moment. As I see it, only visitors to the county, and not the local people, will be the ones to benefit. Susan Giles