Saga of ugliest eyesore in Derby could soon end

“That's all we need is another car park in the city center to cause even more grid lock for the buses. What a **** idea. Pride Park is where ALL the car parks should be. Just look at the chaos which is called the ~Spot - nothing but grid lock for the buses....and silly me I thought we were supposed to be encouraging people out of their cars and into the buses....”

“and?”

“Following on from last year's report concerning Rigby Estate Agency marketing the site, their current marketing (up to date information) from their website us:

"Planning. The site is currently without any specific detailed Planning Consent – the last Outline Planning Consent granted was for a 120,000 sq ft mixed-use leisure complex in 2004.

As part of Derby's ongoing Regeneration cycle, Derby City Council are currently putting the finishing touches to a newly adopted Masterplan for Regeneration and Redevelopment in the City Centre. One of the key corporate priorities already identified by the Local Authority (and subsequently endorsed by a Consultation) is a comprehensive improvement and modernisation of the Becketwell Development Area, within which the subject site sits.

The site is considered to have potential for an extremely wide range of commercial and residential uses, including retail, leisure, offices and housing. Interestingly the topography of the site also lends itself to high rise developments. The owners of the site and Rigby & Co are liaising closely with Derby City Council's Regeneration Team – Derby City Council have indicated that they would wish to gain afull understanding early of any development proposals for this site – interested parties who may wish to talk more about the City's vision are encouraged to liaise directly with the City Centre Regeneration Team, headed up by Greg Greg.Jennings@derby.gov.uk Jennings , and supported by Neil Johnson neil.johnson@derby.gov.uk and Mark Leach mark.leach@derby.gov.uk TENURE Freehold with Vacant Possession THE NEXT STEP? Call Russell Rigby Tel: 01332 203377 Mob: 07894 641316 Email: russellrigby@rigbyandco.com METHOD OF DISPOSAL The site is to be disposed of through an informal tender process – further details will be supplied by Russell Rigby at Rigby & Co. Please register your interest in this site directly to us and you will automatically receive additional sales information and clarification on the sale process"

http://tinyurl.com/cawpm6s”

“Mark sinfin. There needs to be a swimming pool in a central position as opposed to just Moorways as that would mean two buses to get there, one into town and another out to Moorways. However by having a pool central means it is only one bus from anywhere, as you rightly point out a bus journey isn't cheap. Given the bus station is too small and we all knew that from the plans before it was even built so if the council was to extend the bus station into the area for the planned swimming pool then Duckworth Square would be an ideal place to build the pool complex. Moorways swimming pool will close as it is, like Queen Street, coming to the end of its use in relation to the costs to keep it open. Not everyone drives and rely on public transport so putting a pool centrally makes it accessible for all,”

“Duckworth square closed years beofre westfield was built and when victoria street and debenhams in particular was going strong. it will never work for a retail area now if it didnt in those conditions. as for building the swiming pool there you would still have to pay for parking or a bus everytime you used the pool, which is the biggest problem with building it on the riverlights development, each swim will cost a fortune compared to if they redeveloped the whole moorways complex with its big car park and close proximity to where the majority of derbys work force are in Rolls Royce. the best option is housing there and on the normanton site also this would provide the supposed need for more houses within the derby area with out the need to build on green fields. also someone metioned earlier in realtion to a previous comment of mine about the old car park on top of the shops. i was talking about the car park that was there when the buildings were pulled down.”

“Alas, we are all to blame !...
Few people / shoppers were willing to go that extra yard - to go behind the main shops - and spend their dosh in Duckworth Square. It was simply the 'wrong side of the shops' !
Result - shops gradually closed, new tenants could not be enticed...
Changing shopping habbits - out of town supermarkets, the internet and the 'pull' of the shiny new Westfield Shopping 'city' - means there be no realistic prospect of any new shopping development in the city centre.
Time to re-invent the 'old town' centre - more independent / specialist retailers ? bars /cafes / restaurants ?? housing ??? offices ????”

“Alas, we are all to blame !...
Few people / shoppers were willing to go that extra yard - to go behind the main shops - and spend their dosh in Duckworth Square. It was simply the 'wrong side of the shops' !
Result - shops gradually closed, new tenants could not be enticed...
Changing shopping habbits - out of town supermarkets, the internet and the 'pull' of the shiny new Westfield Shopping 'city' - means there be no realistic prospect of any new shopping development in the city centre.
Time to re-invent the 'old town' centre - more independent / specialist retailers ? bars /cafes / restaurants ?? housing ??? offices ????”

“"Maybe the Telegraph could do a follow-up to this story as it paints a different picture to what we are being told in the article above"

Perhaps the fact that story was January 2012 and we are now in March 2013 tells all you need to know Derby_Born - despite a national marketing campaign the site has no interest to anyone, is unsellable.

Digressing again - As I said before, the document I linked to suggests Lowbridge (as the applicant) has done a feasability study into how the vbridge may be brought back into use. The document was not referring to Clowes until a later section. (they may also have done a study but it is clear as night and day that Lowbridge have)
This money spent on this study is repayable now from the £45,500 S106 money. Hence probably no money left for more works.
This is not if's buts or maybe's it is set down in the same document that you so trimumpantly linked to - clause 6.2.3
Regardless of arguing over studies, the bridge needed over £1/2million to repair it 3 years ago (http://tinyurl.com/c8wfk3d). exactly what use is the unspent portion of £45,500 from Lowbridge? Still at least £454,500 short!
£45,500 wouldnt even get the scaffolding needed to paint the bridge, let alone the materials

You stated that the developer had a S106 to fund repairs of the bridge and they should be taken to court as they have completed the office complex and not done the repairs
You have proven through your own link that neither are true.
They have to provide a piffling drop in the ocean of finance needed, several months after completing the WHOLE project
Thankyou”

“"Maybe the Telegraph could do a follow-up to this story as it paints a different picture to what we are being told in the article above"

Perhaps the fact that story was January 2012 and we are now in March 2013 tells all you need to know Derby_Born - despite a national marketing campaign the site has no interest to anyone, is unsellable.

Digressing again - As I said before, the document I linked to suggests Lowbridge (as the applicant) has done a feasability study into how the vbridge may be brought back into use. The document was not referring to Clowes until a later section. (they may also have done a study but it is clear as night and day that Lowbridge have)
This money spent on this study is repayable now from the £45,500 S106 money. Hence probably no money left for more works.
This is not if's buts or maybe's it is set down in the same document that you so trimumpantly linked to - clause 6.2.3
Regardless of arguing over studies, the bridge needed over £1/2million to repair it 3 years ago (http://tinyurl.com/c8wfk3d). exactly what use is the unspent portion of £45,500 from Lowbridge? Still at least £454,500 short!
£45,500 wouldnt even get the scaffolding needed to paint the bridge, let alone the materials

You stated that the developer had a S106 to fund repairs of the bridge and they should be taken to court as they have completed the office complex and not done the repairs
You have proven through your own link that neither are true.
They have to provide a piffling drop in the ocean of finance needed, several months after completing the WHOLE project
Thankyou”

“A Car park? its good to see the council is so interested in improving Derby!”