COMMENT

I have been opposed to the disposal of a publicly-owned asset, Elvaston Castle and country park, by Derbyshire County Council since 1999. If Highgate Sanctuary is successful in privatising the Elvaston estate in order to accommodate their golf course, it will mean the destruction of a mature nature reserve, where thousands of pounds have been spent over the years to encourage wildlife, including protected species. Recently, more thousands were spent building a bridge so that disabled people could enjoy the reserve.

Adjacent to the Local Nature Reserve, a wildlife haven will be destroyed. A wildflower meadow will be destroyed which is host to birds, insects, butterflies and moths and a host of other wildlife, all contributing to the biodiversity of the area. This is not even taking into account the sheer pleasure that the wildflower meadow gives to visitors to the country park. An international standard golf course can cover about 165 acres, which require a colossal amount of water a day to irrigate the playing surfaces. This could also have an adverse effect on the water supply; fertiliser will be used which will ultimately reach the water table and affect the ecology of the lake and the River Derwent in which salmon have recently been reported as returning, at Elvaston.

A site where evidence of archaeological importance has been found will be lost to a golf course, and a floodlit driving range will be sited close to housing. The historic core garden must be protected from overuse; this is a condition of the Heritage Lottery funding. It means that 185 acres of the country park will be fenced off to the public. Derbyshire County Council is match-funding the bid for Heritage Lottery money. This means millions of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent to benefit a private company for the restoration of the gardens.

Destroying the appearance of the Grade II*-listed castle building with extensions to accommodate hotel, gymnasium, swimming pool and conference facilities and whatever else they intend to offer their guests, goes against the Derby and Derbyshire Joint Structure Plan, co-signed by the councils in 2001, as does the plan for the golf course. At a recent meeting, a councillor stated that the figure of £10 could be levied as a daily car parking fee. I will continue to fight for truth, community and the Elvaston Castle estate. Alexander Devlin, VIce-Chair

How can a council which finds itself unable to fund repair costs to an estate that attracts 700,000 visitors a year, announce as its preferred bidder a company registered as developers of real estate which, so far as I am aware, has never traded, and with the terms shrouded in secrecy, under the euphemism of "commercial confidentiality"?

Councillor Bob Janes statement about "free public access throughout the park" presumably does not include the curtilage to the castle, any possible use for the public of which will be permanently lost. The 18-hole golf course is glossed over by saying that it will be on land not currently open to the public. So, here we have an area of the park owned by the public but not open to them, which can be converted and opened to golfers!

A bridleway runs at the side of this section of the park, which is used by horse riders, walkers and cyclists. Should everyone have to start wearing protective headgear in order to walk across it, whilst dodging golf balls? Or will the paths be diverted away from the precious game? this would be difficult as there is so much of the Estate required by the developers for their golf courses. This makes a mockery of the so-called "free" public access. Presumably, converting the stables to a craft centre and café will have a two-fold advantage for the developers.

One will be to maximise their profits, and the other will allow them to build the extension to the castle that Tanya Spilsbury spoke of on Radio Derby, where the present cafeteria is located. The lottery funding for the gardens has been on offer for some time. £8m is the amount talked about. Firstly, this is not available to any commercial developer and has apparently been held up due to the uncertainty of the situation.

It does seem a shame, however, that such extensive restoration work seems destined to surround a "posh hotel", rather than a building at present owned by the public but unable to be fully enjoyed by them. As far as the purchase of the estate is concerned, the then Derby Borough Council, together with Derbyshire County Council, purchased the estate, not the county council on its own.

Also, whilst Councillor Janes emphasises the fact that it is Derbyshire (and not Derby's) taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the estate, he goes on to suggest that there may be ways for Derby City Council to become involved in the proceedings. The taxpayers of Derby paid their contribution towards the estate in the first place and its location on the edge of the City is a geographical fact. How local government advises Central Government of the local boundary requirements is probably beyond most of us (as are many of the decisions they make on our behalf)..

Several Derby city councillors have told me that although they sympathise with protesters who do not want the castle "handed over", there is nothing they can do about it as the County Council is now the sole administrator of the estate, something of which Councillor Janes is well aware.

The massive banners that the County Council had erected on the main entrance to Elvaston Park last year, stating that "Elvaston Castle and Country Park Is Not For Sale", couldn't be more misleading. Perhaps Councillor Janes can explain the real difference between a sale and a 150-year lease? Graham Mansey, Secretary

Councillor Bob Janes states, "Elvaston Castle and Country Park is not for sale." What Councillor Janes does not inform us is that the 150-year lease for the park and castle is for sale. After 150 years' ownership reverts to the people. This is a subtle play on words as the end result is exactly the same, loss of access to the castle and park. Property consultants FPD Savills issued a glossy brochure on behalf of Derbyshire County Council stating that the sale is Long Leasehold/Freehold. Under Aims and Objectives, it stated, "Continued provision for public access as far as possible." This contradicts Councillor Janes' claims that "public access is not and never has been under threat."

He also says, "There will be no entry fee to walk in the park."

There are public rights-of-way through the park, set in law, which cannot be taken away. So there is another play on words. Are we to be allowed to walk through but not in the parkland? Let us now establish where and what, exactly, the park (open to the public) is. Is it where we now walk and enjoy the area within the estate? I'm afraid not!

The wild-flower meadow is not part of the park.(open to the public).The fields where the horses graze are not part of the park (open to the public).The fields and woods from the Golden Gates to the entrance at the A6 are not part of the park  (open to the public). The entire area, including that on the north side, adjacent to the lake, across to the Golden Gates, in the opposite direction from the former working farm museum, to the Old English Garden, is not parkland  (open to the public). This entire area is classed as the gardens.

So what, exactly, is the park, Councillor Janes? When the Derbyshire County Council's preferred bidder (now classed as preferred partner), was announced as Highgate Sanctuary, the director of the company, Tanya Spilsbury, was interviewed on Radio Derby. She revealed that there would be loss of public access to the parkland.

To create a top-class hotel in the castle building would totally destroy the internal fabric of this Grade II*-listed historic house.

It does not surprise me that the leaseholder/freeholder would support a lottery funding bid to restore the gardens, as their hotel will be sitting in the middle of them, to be enjoyed by their exclusive clientele. To transform the stables into a craft centre and café would be criminal, ending all hope of reinstating horse riding facilities for disabled children and people with learning difficulties, which was the first thing that Derbyshire County Council closed as part of its cut-backs on the Estate.

The destruction of the wild-flower meadow by the building of an 18-hole golf course would also remove a wildlife haven. Is yet another golf course of any real benefit to the community, or the environment? Why is Bob Janes giving out misinformation on this issue? The Elvaston Estate was bought jointly by the then Derby Borough Council, and Derbyshire County Council.

The park, created under the Countryside Act 1968, became the first country park in England. The scheme attracted a Central Government grant of 75%. The estate was jointly funded by both Councils until boundary changes, when it came under the guardianship of Derbyshire County Council. In retrospect, many people have told us that they believe this to have been a grave error of administration and, we have to admit, under the circumstances one can judge for oneself.

In 1969, Harry Crossley, then the clerk to the County Council, made the following statement,

"Country parks are not designed solely to serve the locality in which they are situated and Elvaston will be of regional, indeed national, significance." Let Derbyshire County and Derby City Councils turn the castle over to a trust, raised from the community.

It should have a business approach to generating an income, but use those funds to restore and preserve the estate for the entire community and the nation. On behalf of all the people who use Elvaston Castle and Country Park both now, and in the future, I ask Derby City Council to grasp this opportunity offered by Councillor Janes. Alexander Devlin, Vice-Chair

Derbyshire County Council leader John Williams said, "We will not privatise anything but keep all services in house because it's the best value." He also said that the council has also changed its philosophy from being "Proud of Derbyshire", to "improving life for local people". I wonder how he reconciles these statements with the council's intention to dispose of Elvaston Castle Country Park? The council could still improve life for local people by handing over the running of the estate to a not-for-profit trust.

Councillor Annette Noskwith also stated there was not enough money for improvements needed at the castle. This is not strictly true. A report by Derbyshire County Council Elvaston Castle Country Park Working Party on July 8, 2002, said: "Heritage Lottery Fund has indicated that there is the possibility of grant aid towards elements of the restoration of the castle and other buildings". Why is this grant aid not being vigorously pursued by the council on behalf of the community, not its real estate developer partners?

Councillor Bob Janes stated in November 2004 that, "Currently, security and building expenditure in the order of £150,000 per annum is being expended. The castle is not being allowed to fall into disrepair." If this is true, why was there a large hole where part of the roof of the Grade II listed former Working Farm Museum collapsed; until the intervention of the Friends, why were roof tiles being lifted off the roof of the (grade II listed) stable-block by ivy; and why allow the disgraceful damage to the ceiling and wall of Lady Harrington's bedroom, caused by rainwater?

In one statement the castle requires £3m worth of repairs, in another, £150,000 a year is being spent on security and maintenance. In the same fashion, the county council claims that it costs £500,000 a year to run the place and it can no longer afford to do so. If the county council showed some proper commitment to Elvaston Castle Country Park, taking as an example Normanby Hall Country Park, a site of similar size and historical origins, run so successfully by North Lincolnshire Council, there would be no problems with the finances and running of Elvaston Castle and it could take pride of place where it belongs, as one of the top tourist attractions in Derbyshire. Graham Mansey, Secretary

Back to Top

© friendsofelvaston.co.uk. The content on this site is published without prejudice.