davieG Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 As DeMontfort University continues to dominate the city council. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news...il/article.html Secret deal seals fate of Leicester bridge Leicester City Council is expected to agree plans to demolish the city's historic Bowstring Bridge in private discussions next week. A secret report leaked to the Leicester Mercury shows a deal is now in place to help De Montfort University build a swimming pool and sports centre in the West End. On Monday, the council's cabinet is expected to agree to spend up to £472,000 demolishing the Victorian bridge by January. It is also thought they will agree to sell the remainder of the viaduct, in Duns Lane, and adjacent land to the university for an initial £1 fee. The report, entitled "Sale of land and viaduct at Duns Lane" says the university will then knock down the remainder of the viaduct, demolish the Pump and Tap pub and apply to build a £6m sports centre there. The university will then give a second payment of about £250,000 to the council for the land. Another payment of £500,000 will also be made as part of a planning agreement. Both parties say the sports centre will be available for public use, but it is not clear to what extent. Thousands of people have opposed the plan to knock down the bridge and the pub since it was first suggested in 2005. An online Facebook group called Save the Pump and Tap and Braunstone Gate Bridge currently has 3,089 members, and an online petition on the Prime Minister's website has 1,295 signatures. Campaign founder Lee Mullen said: "If the council goes ahead with this demolition, it deliberately flies in the face of public opinion. They may as well stick two fingers up at the people whose interests they are meant to be serving. "Leicester has more than 2,000 years of history, but the planners seem to have no appreciation of the fact that architectural history is what gives a city character, and the people that live in it a sense of place." Mr Mullen said in "any other city" a landmark such as the Bowstring Bridge would be "cherished". He said: "The loss of the bridge and arches would be a disaster, but also destroying the Pump and Tap, itself a fine Victorian building and a hub for West End residents, is simply appalling." The bridge was built in 1897 to support the Great Central Railway. Now the only hope for the thousands of campaigners who want to save it is an application already underway to get the bridge listed. Leicester Civic Society says a decision is imminent from English Heritage – and if the application fails, it is "game over". Civic society chairman Stuart Bailey said: "If it is listed, the council will have to apply to have it de-listed, and they won't want to do that. "The council seem intent to carry out these decisions in private and not stand by them in public. They are selling off our heritage, and that is a real tragedy." Last year, the city council won a court case to close a footpath running over the bridge. That paved the way for this latest decision to be considered. Patrick Kitterick, city council cabinet member for regeneration, said the item was only being heard in private because it contained prices. He said: "It is not a secret. You can't just go and remove a bridge in the middle of the night. It is being discussed in private because the document includes the price of selling land. That's always been our policy and there will be more opportunities for people to have their say. "We cannot afford to restore and maintain the bridge because this runs into millions. In turn, we have the opportunity to have a swimming pool and sports centre a stone's throw from the city centre. "A sports centre in that location would be massively popular with the people of Leicester and the West End. "We are getting good value for money because the city would be getting a £6m sports facility and it won't cost the local taxpayer a penny. "On opening day we will see how unpopular our decision was then." The sports complex would include a 25-metre swimming pool, a sports hall with six courts, a gym and a fitness suite.
lou Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 Where's the Bowstring Bridge? Western Boulevard just outside the John Sandford Centre at the traffic lights with Braunstone Gate.
Dr The Singh Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 Money Talks as usual! The DMU buildings are horrid and cheap, they make the city look nasty. I can't believe we have historic buildings like the new walk musuem etc and DMU are allowed to build those cheap buildings around it!!
Tilley Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 Western Boulevard just outside the John Sandford Centre at the traffic lights with Braunstone Gate. That bridge is ugly, looks shit and like it's falling to pieces.
lou Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 That bridge is ugly, looks shit and like it's falling to pieces. Matter of opinion I guess... its only falling to pieces as the council has purposely let it go as an excuse to pull it down to allow the DMU to extend. They waste far more money on other worthless stuff every year. Some of us would rather keep historical sites going in the city. Maybe its because Im a fossil myself
davieG Posted 31 July 2009 Author Posted 31 July 2009 That bridge is ugly, looks shit and like it's falling to pieces. It's not ugly it's masterpiece of engineering from a bygone age that has been seriously neglected by Leicester City Council and it's not falling to pieces at least not to the extent that it can't take a few people walking over it. DeMontfort University's only claim to fame it their ability to erect horrible buildings in inappropriate places, Oh and having Leicester City Council in their pocket.
Dr The Singh Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 Matter of opinion I guess... its only falling to pieces as the council has purposely let it go as an excuse to pull it down to allow the DMU to extend. They waste far more money on other worthless stuff every year. Some of us would rather keep historical sites going in the city. Maybe its because Im a fossil myself You look at other cities inlcuding brum and liverpool, the redevelopment work tends to encorporate the history of the place. Tearing it down and your tearing down a part of the city's history!! Surely the council\DMU could do something to keep all parties happy!!
Jon the Hat Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 I like the way it says the coucil will spend £472k at the top and not a penny at the bottom. Is this the level of intelligence on the city coucil? Ultra?? Surely putting that cash on the table to assist DMU with construction can enable the retention of the bridge.
Flynny Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 I like the way it says the coucil will spend £472k at the top and not a penny at the bottom. Is this the level of intelligence on the city coucil? Ultra?? Surely putting that cash on the table to assist DMU with construction can enable the retention of the bridge. They're spending that and getting about 1.75 million in return, by the sounds of it. Not too bad a deal. That bridge is hardly the Clifton Suspension Bridge is it? The whole area looks awful because of it.
davieG Posted 31 July 2009 Author Posted 31 July 2009 They're spending that and getting about 1.75 million in return, by the sounds of it. Not too bad a deal.That bridge is hardly the Clifton Suspension Bridge is it? The whole area looks awful because of it. Were do you get the £1.75million from It's actually quite unique and it only looks awful because of Council neglect, it may not be in the same league as other pieces of engineering but it's ours and we have precious little left and I'd say they wouldn't look too good if they weren't maintained for 20years. Besides it's hardly going to be replaced by some iconic piece of architecture - remember this is DeMontfort University working hand in hand with Leicester City Council hardly the bastions of good taste
Bellend Sebastian Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 I know that Lee, he's a good lad. Here he is cycling over the bridge in question: I have mixed emotions about this. I'd be sad to see the Pump and Tap go, but I would feel a bit daft making a song and dance about it as I only go there about twice a year. It's sad about the bridge too, but I suppose the argument boils down to the fact that it doesn't serve much purpose and a sports centre does. In all honesty the bridge makes me a bit sad because it reminds me of something that we carelessly threw away and wish we still had. Bloody Doctor Beeching
Jon the Hat Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 They're spending that and getting about 1.75 million in return, by the sounds of it. Not too bad a deal.That bridge is hardly the Clifton Suspension Bridge is it? The whole area looks awful because of it. Where I live, we continuously have the same situtation. Nicer parts of the borough somehow retain their nice old buildings and historic interest (be it pubs, bridges, public buildings or houses), whereas in our village anything goes and it is fine to knock things down and build crap for a quick profit. It is a never ending cycle of devaluing the heritage and heart of the area.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 I suppose the argument boils down to the fact that it doesn't serve much purpose and a sports centre does. Function over form makes for a very ugly City.
Guest Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 Properly restored, that bridge could be a focal point. DMU should be made to incorporate it into their design, not remove it. But I guess people have no imagination. I am more upset about the Pump and Tap. I have spent many a night in there, and it's a great pub.
Flynny Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 Were do you get the £1.75million from It's actually quite unique and it only looks awful because of Council neglect, it may not be in the same league as other pieces of engineering but it's ours and we have precious little left and I'd say they wouldn't look too good if they weren't maintained for 20years. Besides it's hardly going to be replaced by some iconic piece of architecture - remember this is DeMontfort University working hand in hand with Leicester City Council hardly the bastions of good taste There's a balance between progress and heritage to be struck, obviously, and we don't save enough- but, I'd rather save things that look nice. If the council spend the half million doing it up instead a completely different set of people will be complaining. Also I don't think the De Montfort bit looks particularly terrible, though the buildings might eventually when they age a bit. In any case, the better a uni De Montfort is the better it is for the city. If this development helps and we have to demolish a rusty, ugly bridge to sort it - is it really worth doing it back up and saving it?
Dr The Singh Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 Were do you get the £1.75million from It's actually quite unique and it only looks awful because of Council neglect, it may not be in the same league as other pieces of engineering but it's ours and we have precious little left and I'd say they wouldn't look too good if they weren't maintained for 20years. Besides it's hardly going to be replaced by some iconic piece of architecture - remember this is DeMontfort University working hand in hand with Leicester City Council hardly the bastions of good taste Totally agree!!! I grew up around the 'great central way' and remember playing on the tracks on the bridge!! DMU have massacred the city interms on architecture, those buildings around the musuem and the building on vaughan way are surrounded with cheap new builds, not to mention the holiday inn roundabout, those new student digs are horrid. Like I say, both parties need to do more to accomodate and improve the city visually!!
Dr The Singh Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 There's a balance between progress and heritage to be struck, obviously, and we don't save enough- but, I'd rather save things that look nice. If the council spend the half million doing it up instead a completely different set of people will be complaining. Also I don't think the De Montfort bit looks particularly terrible, though the buildings might eventually when they age a bit. In any case, the better a uni De Montfort is the better it is for the city. If this development helps and we have to demolish a rusty, ugly bridge to sort it - is it really worth doing it back up and saving it? It depends what they replace it with, have you seen DMU's latest work, the halls behind the holiday inn, there nearly as horrid as the Travelodge building!!!!
Bellend Sebastian Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 Function over form makes for a very ugly City. I don't disagree, but it's a difficult argument to get over to those holding the purse strings
Scow Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 Properly restored, that bridge could be a focal point. DMU should be made to incorporate it into their design, not remove it. But I guess people have no imagination.I am more upset about the Pump and Tap. I have spent many a night in there, and it's a great pub. It is indeed a great pub. Looks a bit ropey from the outside, but it serves good beer and has a great outdoor bit to watch the football.
Guest Posted 31 July 2009 Posted 31 July 2009 It is indeed a great pub. Looks a bit ropey from the outside, but it serves good beer and has a great outdoor bit to watch the football. Indeed. That's the kind of heritage loss that concerns me.
davieG Posted 31 July 2009 Author Posted 31 July 2009 There's a balance between progress and heritage to be struck, obviously, and we don't save enough- but, I'd rather save things that look nice. If the council spend the half million doing it up instead a completely different set of people will be complaining. Also I don't think the De Montfort bit looks particularly terrible, though the buildings might eventually when they age a bit. In any case, the better a uni De Montfort is the better it is for the city. If this development helps and we have to demolish a rusty, ugly bridge to sort it - is it really worth doing it back up and saving it? Which is exactly what the Council hoped you'd view it as when the deliberately chose to let it run down. Have you seen how close they built to the Magazine, that development was bone on the back of enhancing the Magazine not over powering it by putting a massive building right up close to it. If you destroy everything that is attractive about a city then people wont want to come to the university, after all it's not actually very high on the scale of academic achievement. I would argue that after achievement levels a high proportion of students will select a City that is attractive to the eye.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.