Letter: Futurist - Questions still remain about the demolition

The Futurist.
The Futurist.

The Scarborough News published a well-informed letter regarding the stability of the land, and the steps which will be taken to make this demolition “safe” given that the theatre was originally built into the hillside, which was then stabilised with three concrete terraces.

Does this “safe demolition” refer to the safety precautions taken during the building demolition in relation to surrounding properties and people? Or does it refer to the safety of the remaining land and surrounding properties post demolition?

The foundation of the land is boulder clay which with constant flowing underground rainwater creates slippage. A look at the cliff from Cayton Bay (Knipe Point), Holbeck Hall hillside, the land behind the Spa leading up to the Esplanade and the permanent and ever increasing large cracks in the road and pavement, speak for themselves, loudly and clearly. Then, along the coast towards Whitby and indeed Whitby itself tells its own story. This current “thinking” by the council smacks of desperation: “we will get this development with Flamingo Land regardless of what it costs”. Costs seem to be spiralling out of control with each new piece of information. They are not telling us what they are, but our own expert advisers are talking about a total of £10m and counting. Who in the council is so desperate that they will involve the public taxpayers in this potential financial and physical disaster for a development that they do not want? And why? Even worse, denying them a much cheaper alternative that they do want and are prepared to take on. At the same time they are telling us of cuts to essential services because they are strapped for cash. Now it would appear that the Futurist is not scheduled in the Forward Plan for discussion before mid January.

Our researches of this type of development so far have shown that this method of piling construction is vulnerable to vibration damage, yet they are talking about putting a giant roller coaster next to it, and other earth-shaking activities which will be on the go 12 hours a day, 364 days a year. Also the close proximity to the sea and winter storms make it vulnerable to salt spray erosion over time. So what will be the lifetime of this large amount of expensive piling to cover the width area from King Street Steps to Blands Cliff? What steps and costs will be involved in providing access for constantly monitoring it for potential damage, given its vulnerability? Who will pay for that?

We must all make it clear that it is not something we are prepared to pay for and the council should abandon this foolhardy and ill-considered “pet project” and start afresh.

Patricia David

Filey Road