They are still working through your collection of 'vague' recommendations. I'm sure once they have got past 'Fill it in' and 'Make a theme park' or a 'Circus' from DMD, they'll be right in touch.
So you didn't actually make a suggestion to them did you? The fact you doubt the other suggestions shows you didn't look into this very hard either. Like I said initially, your mind was made up, so you didn't need the facts. In any event, it's all moved on, so it's a pointless discussion.
I'd still love to know how many of those protesting have actually visited it. I walk past it on nearly a daily basis, and apart from kids I can't remember the last time I saw in it. Lets be honest it's just a bunch of bricks, and if no-one told you it was the Beverley Gate you wouldn't know that it was an 'ancient monument'. Fill most of it in and cover the actual walls with glass and no-one will pay it the slightest bit of attention. Tourists don't want to see a old brick wall - they want to see a replica, preferably with a daily re-enactment. While this sounds a good idea, I don't think it's practical. I like the idea of a mock up like the picture OLM posted and using it as a ' gateway to the old town', in fact I like that idea better than the stupid bloody artwork they had suggested for outside Princes Quay.
No, it's not pointless at all. You can't even present me with any facts. You can't include the option to fill in and build a visitor centre - because that is still filling in the hole. Well?
Right, so in your mind, they sat discussing only wether to fill it in or leave it as it is. Even you must see why that's not really what happened. Variations on each were considered. The article in the OP stops short of a quote from anyone at the Council saying it was to be filled in, and mentions other options considered. Did the Council reply to your suggestion? You did put one forward, didn't you? What else did you do other than whine on here? Easy this isn't it? Dull, but easy.
I've put forward some ideas, via the Action For Hull group (who were involved in the petition, banner and historic monument listing), I've been a member for a while, mainly due to their ongoing efforts to protect the Lord Line building. I believe a representative will have a meeting with the Council next week, to discuss various ideas, though there's a concern that the two options mentioned have already been decided.
Absolutely.....why suggest filling it in & replacing it with a shiny silver monstrosity costing god knows how many thousands of pounds which in no way relates to the City of Hull & would itself probably be covered in graffiti in a matter of months
The owners have refused to meet with them, their efforts so far have been based on pressing the Council to issue enforcement orders to stop it deteriorating further.
It's a shame that the people responsible seem to get such an easy ride. At least they're pushing on an open door with the council.
You mean apart from the ones in the OP and the ones implied by OLM'S recent reply? Put the spade down. You're just showing you haven't looked into it at all.
An update from the Council... When the plans for the city centre redevelopment (which included filling in Beverley Gate) came up in front of the council, nobody opposed them. But it soon became clear during the consultation, that people were opposed to it being filled in. Today, the Council will see new outline proposals and if they're happy with them, they will be put forward for public consultation. Though the Council have agreed to meet with the campaigners next week, it seems that they will actually decide the options that will be put forward today, which is a shame, ideally they'd listen to other proposals before deciding what options they're going to put forward for public consultation. It looks like the meeting next week will simply be for the campaigners to advise which of the two proposals they prefer.
Unfortunately, it's not possible to make one private individual meet with another private individual. The Council are the only ones in a position to force the owners to do anything and sadly they take forever to actually take any action, if they take any action at all.
There are other avenues open. One would be to buy the building, as Hull ratepayers would be doing with a CPO. The time issue is relative. Quick decisions are rarely better than considered opinions, especially if that's after wide consultation. The legal wheels run slowly and cost, which is why informal discussion is the favoured option.
The Council are not being pressed to buy the building, merely to issue enforcement orders to stop it crumbling away. There are far too many buildings in Hull which should have been saved, but the owners left them to fall into such a state of disrepair that demolition ended up the only option, more action should have been taken to protect these buildings. With specific regard to the Lord Line, there are no planning decisions to be considered, it's not the Council's to develop, this is simply a case of making sure it doesn't fall into such a state of disrepair that demolition becomes the only option. Informal discussion is not an option in this case either, Manor Properties don't turn up to any of the Council arranged meetings and are not going to spend a penny unless they are forced to do so.
CPO was something groups have pushed for previously. I'm not sure why you mention it, but some aspects of the current situation would be enforced by planning. Any pressing for Council action, is pushing on an open door. The issue is deciding the best way of acting against private companies and individuals that let these sites deteriorate so badly, be it on Hull or beyond.
