Having this plan on Elvaston Castle I
have come to the conclusion that the consideration of
park-users are not important. To build a road from
London Road, through to Golden Gate, and up through
the gardens, will spoil the peace and tranquility of
a large portion of the castle grounds, not to mention
the wildlife which is in abundance in this area.
Greater-spotted and green woodpeckers, squirrels,
rabbits, the odd pheasant or two, sparrowhawks,
kestrels, two species of owls, flocks of goldcrests
and long-tailed tits are often seen. The nature
reserve is another mute point. It is to be taken over
so that the residents of the proposed hotel can play
golf. There are already sufficient golf courses in
the Derby area for anyone wishing to play. What about
the people who visit the castle on a daily basis?
Also what about the families bringing their children
for a day out in safety? Not everyone can afford
hotel restaurant prices. Neither do I see, in the
proposed plans, a replacement for the lovely cafe
which is so popular. The developers are going to take
away our freedom of use of a very public place which
belongs to the people of Derby. Previous councils
have allowed the castle to deteriorate. If they had
done their job in the first place the castle would
not be the issue it is today. Highgate Sactuary is
not the answer. Valerie Smith
Campaigners battling to keep Elvaston
Castle in public hands have demanded to know why the
attraction's future has not yet been resolved. More
than five years on from Highgate Sanctuary being
selected as the preferred company to take over
running of the castle, no planning application has
been submitted. In the meantime, Derbyshire County
Council has spent more than £3.6m on running the
castle and its grounds and spent nearly £80,000 on
trying to complete the deal. Campaigners are
astonished the council has admitted that it has not
set a date for the matter to be resolved and has no
plans to seek an alternative developer.
The council originally said it wanted someone else to
run the castle because it could not afford the
estimated £3m bill to repair the castle, or cover
its annual running costs. But a spokesman for the
Friends of Elvaston Castle, which is fighting to keep
the castle in public hands, said, "The £3.6m
could have restored the estate and returned it to the
fully-operational tourist attraction it ought to be,
not treating it as a white elephant to be disposed of
no matter what the cost." A Highgate Sanctuary
spokeswoman said "it was to be expected'' that
the process would take so long and it was hoping to
open the hotel by 2013. That is two years after the
original proposed date.
The spokeswoman said she expected a planning
application to be submitted this autumn, also two
years behind schedule. The move is intended to save
the taxpayer an estimated £3m in repairs and
£500,000 running costs a year. But as negotiations
over the leasing of Elvaston Castle to developer
Highgate Sanctuary drag on, the cost to the county
council mounts. From when Highgate was first backed
as preferred bidder for the castle in September 2004,
to March 2009, the authority has spent more than
£3.6m on its running costs.
And a Freedom of Information Request revealed nearly
£80,000 more spent on legal fees, marketing,
advertising and architects' work to complete the
deal. Now campaign group The Friends of Elvaston
Castle, which is battling to keep the castle in
public hands, has demanded to know why the future of
the historic site is still in doubt. A Friends
spokesman said, "We are disappointed the future
of the castle has not been sorted out. Public disgust
at the disposal is very strong and High-gate
Sanctuary has no known experience of country estate
restoration."
He added, "The Friends are opposed to any
privatisation of Elvaston Castle Country Park and
question the suitability of any scheme which
radically alters such a beautiful public asset and
runs contrary to the wishes of the community. The
£3.6m could have restored the estate and returned it
to the fully-operational tourist attraction it ought
to be, not treating it as a white elephant to be
disposed of no matter what the cost." (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Apr/10)
