RIVERLIGHTS OPINION 2

The Riverlights saga has become a farce. After years of vacillation and delays, we are now told that MetroHoist cannot proceed with the building of the £90m Riverlights complex because one of its directors is ill. That is almost unbelievable and it says very little for the expertise of the developer if the absence of one man can torpedo such a major development.

Equally bizarre was the decision by the city council to allow the closure of the bus station, even though MetroHolst had failed to pay the £5m bond it was required to pay before demolition could commence. This premature closure has caused considerable unnecessary inconvenience and discomfort to thousands of bus and coach passengers. Hardest hit are those waiting for holiday coaches, many of whom have come from afar.

If they are delayed for any reason, their passengers, many of whom are elderly, are forced to stand with their luggage in all weathers for up to an hour with nowhere to sit and nowhere to shelter. It doesn't help that the stand in Full Street provided for holiday coaches is the one furthest away from facilities such as toilets and taxis. It is incredible that the city council has allowed this whole sorry business to drag on for eight years and is still giving MetroHolst until June 2007 even to start building.

What the council should do about this white elephant now is to admit it has made a monumental blunder, apologise profusely to the bus travelling public of Derby, reopen the bus station immediately and refurbish it as soon as possible. The latest developments vindicate the courageous campaigning by Dorothy Skrytek, whose name, surprisingly, did not appear in the New Year's Honours List for services to Derby's heritage, environment and public transport. I trust Her Majesty will rectify that omission in the Birthday Honours List. Barry Chadwick

Regarding the mess the Riverlights project seems to be in, there are numerous key questions regarding the situation that have not been asked. The council cannot wash its hands of this mess and blame the developer. How has this situation been allowed to develop? What control has it exercised over this project? Who is responsible for overseeing it? Who selected the developer? Why was the site handed over to the developer in October 2005? Why was the £5m bond due from the developer not obtained prior to releasing the site to them?

We now have a situation that there is no bus station, the temporary arrangements cause major traffic problems and there is little shelter for passengers from inclement weather. We also have no idea what the next steps are, apart from vague comments suggesting an additional developer might be found or a new developer may work with the existing one. The leader of the council, Chris Williamson has stated that the council has no power to do anything as the responsibility is with MetroHolst. Does this mean that we are totally at their mercy? How long can the site be left in its present state? What penalty clauses are in place to put pressure on the developer to either start work or abandon the project?

Is it not time that these questions were answered, the legal situation explained and a clear statement of the way forward made? The council acts on behalf of the public and it does not appear that it has done this very effectively. It must now take a pro-active role to try to recover the situation, get the project back on course and rebuild their credibility. We do not want a repeat of the infamous "hole". L R Grottick

<<< Prev