A BLINDING LIE BY DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

An appraisal of Derbyshire County Council’s results on Public Consultation which the authority has chosen to ignore.

In this document we shall examine the Report To Derbyshire County Council’s Elvaston Castle Member’s Panel of 6 June 2000, a joint report of the Director of Corporate Resources and Director of Environmental Services, Mr. Gerald Tommy and Mr. David Harvey respectively. The Report is headed ‘Consultation Over The Future Of The Elvaston Castle And Estate’. This was part of the County Council’s Masterplan for the disposal of the Estate. For those people who don’t know the history of this debacle, in 1999 Derbyshire County Council sent out a pre-paid return Garden Restoration Proposal form for Elvaston Castle, to which it received 600 responses, following this up by marketing the entire Estate! See: Garden Restoration

In 2000, the County Council put out 287,000 copies of a brochure containing details of the fifteen proposals it had received, and, on the back, published a feature entitled ‘How You Can Help’, on which were 5 questions with tick-box options, and which in small letters at the bottom contained the information that this was a ‘Public Consultation’, to which the Authority received 2,100 responses. See: How You Can Help

The results of this were clear and unequivocal but oddly, the Council completely ignored the figures from its own survey, somehow changing a figure of over 78% who disagreed with the proposals to lease or sell the Estate, into a figure of 70% in favour. Clearly, as this figure has been insisted on by the Derbyshire County Council for the last 5 years, it cannot be an ‘innocent misinterpretation’ of the results. Let us examine more of the facts that are quoted by the County Council itself and what they truly represent. See: Consultation Results

The 2,100 returns from the ‘How You Can Help’ questionnaire represents less than a half of one per cent of the County’s population and less than one per cent of the population of the surrounding districts. This means that the first (Gardens) survey, upon which the County Council went ahead and marketed the Estate, represented slightly more than one eighth of one per cent of the County’s population! And, around a quarter of one per cent of the surrounding districts! And the County Council was willing to let the Estate go, leasehold or freehold – if someone had come along at the time with a big enough cash offer it would have been sold there and then – there would have been no need to talk of sustainability in that instance.

That there was a hidden agenda from Derbyshire County Council is proven beyond doubt by the seemingly pointless sale of 64 acres of land belonging to the Country Park to a local landowner in 1980 (The same landowner who has recently applied for permission to build over 2,000 houses nearby), and a number of properties around the Estate. As it was, a sum of money yet to be revealed was wasted on consultants and advertising and marketing, to no avail. The die was cast for all that has happened since. As the County Council didn’t make it clear to people what the term ‘private investment’ (used in the ‘consultation’), might mean, what form it might take, or how it might be utilized, it is possible that a number of respondents didn’t realise exactly what was meant by it. As the County Council has been secretive about its intentions and dealings from the beginning, this is unsurprising.

In any case, the fact is that although the County Council asked the question, (question 5), as to whether the Estate should be sold or leased to release income to be spent on key County Council services, it couched this in such a way as to make it appear to be an order, rather than a question;

‘The Estate Should be sold etc.,’
The way the questions were phrased led to a letter of complaint being sent to the County Council from Bob Laxton, MP for Derby North. Despite the efforts of the County Council, over 78% of people disagreed with the proposal to dispose of the Estate, over 60% strongly disagreed. And, here is the thrust of the matter – Derbyshire County Council insisted that 70% of respondents voted to sell or lease the Estate. Insisting that this was the case, the authority continued with the disposal, undaunted by public opposition. This cannot be treated as a random act, it is a total sign of contempt for the wishes of the general public about property which their money has paid for and which is somewhere that they love. Further to this, our legal advisors are still examining this aspect of the case and, of course, so is the Ombudsman’s department.

A proportion of respondents wanted investment without selling, or leasing, which the County Council stated was;

‘Not An Achievable Objective’
This clearly indicates an unwillingness by the authority to listen to the public’s point of view and take it on board. The only conclusion that can be reached is that it isn’t interested in what the public wants, evidenced by its later act of utter contempt to the electorate by ignoring a petition signed by 65,000 people. The Estate was marketed on the back of a questionnaire with 600 returns. The number who signed the petition, which is more than a massive, 108 times greater, has been ignored. Just what is going on? Originally, the Council emphasised that ‘reasonable charges’ would be acceptable at the Park, there is nothing reasonable in our view about charges of up to £10 per person per day.

What is clear from the ‘consultation’, is that by a very large majority, the respondents did not want to see the loss of their Country Park, either by way of lease or sale. Additionally, 498 people, or 23.75% of respondents fielded a further 41 responses giving suggestions and ideas from a broad spectrum on how a way forward might be found. As these suggestions meant that the Estate would be retained they were ignored by the decision makers at Derbyshire County Council.

The final statement of the Director’s Report is awash with sanctimony;

‘In preparing this report the relevance of the following factors has been considered: prevention of crime and disorder, equality of opportunity; and environmental, financial, health, legal, personnel and property considerations’.

Such humbug is more evidence of the hypocrisy and double standards of those who have made the decision (and are attempting to stick by it at all costs), to rid themselves of the priceless Elvaston Castle Estate. Where will be the equality of opportunity where those that can afford it may be allowed to use certain facilities, those who can’t, won’t? How will depriving people of the Country Park, at present enjoyed by all, prevent crime and disorder, or encourage environmental or health considerations? As one, let us make our voices heard and our presence felt, in stopping a few people at the Derbyshire County Council from depriving literally, millions of people (7 million over the last ten years), from enjoying this wonderful piece of English Heritage.

© Friends of Elvaston (FOE) 2005