The Following Eight Page Document has been released to the Press ahead
of time by the Derbyshire County Council (DCC) and is self-explanatory.
The Friends response to the points raised by the DCC is in bold type,
following each item.
MEMBER’S WORKING
PARTY DOCUMENT, 16th OF MARCH 2006
Page 1of 8
The
following document has been released to the Press ahead
of time and is self-explanatory. The Friends response to
the points raised by the DCC is in bold type, following
each item.
Joint
Report of the Director of Corporate Resources and
Director of Environmental Services
Response
to the Final Consultation Exercise on the “Holistic
Plan” for the Castle and Country Park
PURPOSE
OF THE REPORT
To advise members of the responses to the “holistic
plan” consultation and to consider recommendations
to Cabinet on the next stage
The
consultation did not adhere fully to the Holistic Plan,
in our opinion
INFORMATION
AND ANALYSIS
As members will recall Highgate Sanctuary had
consulted on the Hotel and golf course proposals and the
Council had consulted (via it’s consultant Lanarca)
on the Garden restoration proposals but as there had been
an expectation of an “overall” development
consultation Cabinet approved that a “final
consultation” exercise be undertaken.
Neither Highgate Sanctuary’s leaflet, nor
Lanarca’s efforts can be accurately described as
consultations. Both of them are little more than
marketing exercises (containing inaccuracies), which,
where questions were asked, were only designed to point
one way. As the Friends has maintained all along, a
proper consultation exercise would begin with the
question; ‘Do you believe that Elvaston Castle
Country Park should be disposed of to a private
company?’ Since a similar sounding question was
asked in 2000 and was rejected by 78.15% of respondents,
it has never been asked again! Why not?
The Council published the final development proposals in
the Derby Evening Telegraph on the 16th January
requesting responses by the 13th February 2006.
Development proposals were set out on a two full page
spread and notices were put in the other local papers.
Information was also put on the Council web site for the
public to respond to. In addition copies of the double
page proposals were sent to all those previously
contacted under the Heritage Lottery Garden consultation
and other local associations. Over 100 such copies were
sent out.
Responses have been received by individual letters,
e-mails and on a number of standard forms prepared by
objectors but completed by named individuals.
In total 611 responses have been received (by the return
date) of which 221 were on tick box pre-printed forms
prepared by the Friends of Elvaston.
The way that these forms have been analysed is
open to interpretation. One only has to look at the fact
that there are 215 against and 13 for, to realize the
scale of public feeling. What is lost here are the many
issues raised by the public not least that many do not
want the estate sold or leased at all.
The 105 “Not Against” listing states that these
are ‘individual letters mainly for the Cricket Club
wish for extra land and no other views on the
proposals.’ If this is mainly about the wish for
extra land it suggests that some of them address other
issues. Intriguingly, these are not then analysed
further. As it was reported recently that the extra land
the Cricket Club wishes to expand onto is wanted for golf
use, it might have been a useful exercise for the public
to know what other issues were raised.
Next >>>
|
