We believe that the developers plans are seriously flawed. Riber Castle is just not a suitable place for a large housing development. Turning Riber Castle into a block of flats and building a housing estate in the grounds and the adjacent fields is a scheme which must be stopped. The damage to the landscape setting of the castle would be catastrophic and irrevocable.

The fundamental reasons why there was huge public opposition to the previous application still apply:

· the plans still do not meet enabling development criteria.

· they still do not address many aspects of local planning guidelines, especially for a conservation area.

The current proposal is based on the argument that there are no other ways of saving the castle. We think that there are alternatives and that these must be explored before any application is considered.

Riber Castle is of such value to Matlock and Derbyshire that:-

1. The Castle should be kept and maintained as a skeletal ruin and hilltop symbol of Matlock.

2. The site should be a public amenity for the benefit of local people and visitors.

3. The existing coach house and some of the adjoining stone built structures could be adapted for residential use.

4. An independent study should be undertaken to explore the viability of alternative options for the future of the Castle.

1. The Castle should be kept and maintained as a skeletal ruin and hilltop symbol of Matlock.

· The view of Riber Castle has been a unique asset to Matlock since its construction in 1868.

· The gothic ruin makes a wonderful symbol for Matlock just as the crooked spire does for Chesterfield. 

· The castle makes a wonderful ruin but as an occupied building it is widely recognised that it has little architectural merit.

· The castle was given a conservation status as a ruin.

2. The site should be a public amenity for the benefit of local people and visitors.

· Riber Castle ought to be open to the public. Many people who visit Matlock come up to Riber to visit the castle and would be delighted to be able to enjoy it fully.

· The Castle has a unique atmosphere and fantastic views across the town towards Chatsworth Park and Kinder Scout. This should be open to us all.

· The site would be a great addition to the lottery funded Matlock parks project.

· The Castle would be a great visitor attraction for Matlock.

3. The existing coach house and some of the adjoining stone built structures could be adapted for residential use.

· This would open up opportunities for the developers to work alongside the local authority and the community to achieve a solution that will bring benefits to everyone concerned. 

4. An independent study should be undertaken to explore the viability of alternative options for the future of the Castle.

· We agree with English Heritage that ‘it would be premature to make decisions which carry significant and permanent disbenefits without giving a not-for-profit / community solution time to be tested' (letter from English Heritage to Derbyshire Dales District Council 13 July 2001).

· One of the 7 key conditions for enabling development is that alternative funding to preserve the building has been fully explored. 

More Planning reasons why you should join us in opposing this daft scheme

The over development within the conservation area and outside the castle walls on the greenfield site would destroy the context of the castle and the conservation area of Riber hamlet.

This proposal for development of Riber Castle is in a Conservation area and partly in a green field site and the castle is a Grade II listed building. It is serviced by country lanes which will not cope with the traffic and there is no public transport. It is a hill top site and will be ruin the views of this nationally important landscape. All national and local planning policies have been ignored.

The developers are relying on using the fact that the castle is a listed building & an English Heritage policy of allowing some "enabling development" to fund the development of the castle but their scheme fails six of the seven criteria which all must be met to allow enabling development.

This proposal breaches almost every planning principal and policy. It is in direct conflict with the UK government's Planning policy guidance in particular Housing (PPG3) and Conservation (PPG17)

It is also in direct conflict with a great deal of the Planning authorities own policy in the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan.