RIVERLIGHTS OPINION

The Riverlights scheme in its present form does nothing to complement our city. Its buildings and the prison-like structure of the car park would be an eyesore, and would just close everything in. The scheme targets the monied groups, not the ordinary family or individual. As a business plan it is very good, but only for the developer. Expensive flats take up the prime position as the developer's jewel in the scheme, without which it is not commercially viable. Derby is well-known for the volume of drinking establishments in the city centre. More of our old buildings are being turned into drinking establishments than ever before.

The city has more than its fair share of clubs already, and why do we need two more casinos? If we are going to put office blocks on the river bank, what did we build Pride Park for? Just to watch the weeds grow? I don't think the fitness centres are appropriate in a riverside scheme either. This scheme should be focusing on open air spaces, and outdoor activities, with a focus on water sports. With our present climate getting warmer there is a case for an open air swimming pool for example. After all the title is Riverlights and there was a time when Bass's Rec had open air pools.

Why should Matlock, Matlock Bath and Alfreton be more advanced than Derby? With regard to the proposed bus station, it is my opinion that the area allocated is too small. Any layout that requires a bus to reverse into its bay is deemed, by general safety assessments, as a high-risk area. It also increases air pollution by extra engine use. But, this scheme is devoid of green ideas and green thinking in general. The Riverlights area is cut in half by two traffic routes. Both carry high volumes of traffic and both produce high volumes of pollutant gases. These pollutants are currently being dispersed by the open green spaces.

The proposed scheme does not take this into account and as a result, air pollution levels would increase to an unacceptable level. Bass's Rec was given to the people of Derby, not to the council. We should have the say on what is built here. Derby City Council has a very poor track record for development, for which, over the years, we have had to pick up the bill. Let us now put a stop to this. I suggest the Riverlights scheme should keep space as open as possible, with water activities on and around the river as its main theme. This could include open air swimming pools, a bandstand for evening concerts and an open air roller-skating rink which could double as a dancing arena.

By all means let us have refreshments, but keep the lager louts in the city centre, which they already dominate. Instead, we could have continental-style cafes and bistros, little squares of shade and peace with seats where families, the elderly and any other age group can sit and relax. And yes, let's see some shops there, but only those that have goods, and foodstuffs to sell, not services. And let's keep all buildings to one storey. I would also like to see plenty of rubbish bins with a council policy of emptying them and cleaning up when required, not just once a day. Pride in a city starts with the council. If they don't care, neither will the public. Frank Leeming

Public places, parks and the River Gardens belong to the general public and, without their agreement, councils cannot build on, alter or remove any of the land? I was astonished to learn that a school was to be built on the site of the old Carnegie Library on Alvaston Park. Won't this create a hazardous traffic problem on London Road? Jonathan Guest, director of development and cultural services, has said the Riverlights plan for housing and offices would be referred to the Government because of the proposed loss of a small area of public open space and the proposals for residential use.

He goes on to say that the development barely touches the River Gardens and results in no overall loss of open space but a dramatic increase in quality and accessibility. For whom, and is it legal? Why is the council unable to see that we have the basis for a wonderful tourist attraction, the river? What is the matter with the thinking of our councillors? It seems just to extend to the erecting of drab buildings, and the destruction of the interesting treasures built in years gone by. It's such a waste. Ivy Ryalls

Something very strange is afoot within Derby City Council with regards to the progress of Riverlights. Within the paperwork submitted to the members at a recent planning committee was a statement from Metro Holst that if the proposed change of use for block D of the development were to be refused then Metro Holst would withdraw from the whole scheme. So again, with complete disregard to all environmental objections and public concerns, members voted in favour of the change of use.

The city council appears not to have considered that Metro Holst has given itself two years to decide on whether block D will be office or residential space. Metro Holst has said that the width of an office block will be greater than a residential building and so require different designs. Anyone worth their salt in the construction industry will know that if the use of Block D has not been decided within four months there will not be enough time to design the building, obtain statutory approvals and construct it by the intended date of 2008.

Again despite many objections and a 500-signature petition, cabinet members agreed to dispose of open space in the scheme. Apparently the sum total of Derby City Council's involvement with the new bus station is to lease the land to the developer. Yet in March 2002, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster approved a £22m grant to Derby City Council for traffic improvements on Victoria Street and the new bus station. That money seems to have vanished into thin air. Tony Dunn

Next >>>