Huge hole fears at Assembly Rooms site as bizarre 40-minute talks held

Derby's Assembly Rooms building has stood empty since a dramatic fire in 2014. Image by Google Maps.

By Nigel Slater – Local Democracy Reporting Service

Fears have been raised that changes to plans to replace Derby’s Assembly Rooms could leave the city with a huge hole.

Concerns were raised during a 40-minute discussion between councillors and Derby City Council officers at a planning meeting over the change of one word.

Some city councillors fear the city’s Market Place could potentially be left with a big empty space for years after the Assembly Rooms is bulldozed.

The council-owned Assembly Rooms has stood empty since a major fire forced its closure more than 10 years ago.

A major planning application has been submitted to regenerate the Market Place. Proposals are to replace the prominent building with a mixed-use complex, office buildings and a new hotel, as well as public realm space.

The demolition of the building was approved some time ago but has been delayed by a complication over a planning condition.

Councillors met on Thursday (February 12th) at a planning meeting to vote whether or not a council request to change one word in a clause could be allowed.

The condition was put in to ensure a redevelopment contract was fully in place after demolition and to prevent the site from being left empty for a long time.

The clause read: “No demolition works shall take place until a scheme for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and until that approved scheme is covered by a ‘contract’ with an approved timeframe for its implementation.”

Council bosses requested that the word “contract” be replaced with “development agreement,” which triggered further concerns about the Market Place plans.

The authority said that changing the word would still require a binding agreement to be in place and would not change what the original condition set out to do.

Planning bosses said the request was to ensure modern, correct terminology was used to avoid misinterpretation.

But councillors feared the change could leave the door open to having a “huge hole” at the Market Place for years.

This concern was highlighted further after councillors were told groundwork investigations would have to take place once the Assembly Rooms was demolished.

Councillor Steve Hassall, speaking as an objector, said he feared the change of wording would lead to a “lack of detail” and be a “significant risk to long-term harm of the city centre”.

Alvaston councillor Tim Prosser agreed and said the change of wording “makes a huge difference to the process going forward”.

He added: “Had we not forced this (the condition) so far, it would have been demolished a year ago, and we would have had a huge hole there still as a risk.

“We’ve had that before. That’s why this was there to prevent another huge hole in this city centre that sits there for years with a big puddle in the middle of it.”

Littleover councillor Lucy Care feared the chances of leaving a hole in the city centre were “real” and suggested partial demolition could be the way forward to alleviate concerns.

Mickleover councillor Miles Pattison said he was confused by it all.

He said: “We seem to be told the wording is a small change and makes no difference – if that is the case, why is it here (for discussion)?

“They could demolish it, they could clear it and find something on site. They could turn around and say ‘this wasn’t supposed to be here’ and then they back out.

“Then we are back in a situation that this current wording of the condition helps us avoid, which is an empty site in the middle of the Market Place.”

Fellow Mickleover councillor Matthew Holmes said: “We know demolition is irreversible. We have to have assurances we are not exposing the city centre to long-term vacancy risk. I personally don’t have that assurance.”

But despite the concerns, the majority of councillors on the planning committee voted to change the word.

Labour councillor Martin Rawson said: “The public would not thank us if we put ourselves in a position where the project was stalled or effectively sabotaged or couldn’t proceed – just for not clarifying the type of agreement we’re talking about.”

The submitted application for the Market Place regeneration will go before the planning committee at a future meeting.