Craven sits on the border of Lancashire, Cumbria and West Yorkshire.  Two thirds of the district are within the Yorkshire Dales National Park.  The remaining one third is faced with meeting demand for questionable housing numbers.   There are also several Conservation areas within the district one of which the Settle Carlisle Conservation area runs along the railway line that forms the border with the Yorkshrie Dales National Park in a large part of Cravan.   The districts proximity to Bradford should be viewed as a positive to attract more day visitors to the area and increase tourism however, it serves  to attract speculative and questionable applications for development.  

Why?  Because building a home next to a national park and/or within a conservation area  increases it’s value and therefore is more interesting to a developer because open market homes are enhanced by such a location.

We’re not supposed to mention the P word when it comes to developers.  We can mention sustainability and need to improve economies thus delivering profit to local businesses but we can’t mention profit for developers.  It’s not a material planning consideration. 

It is though a moral consideration.

One of the key  reasons Craven is being targeted by so many speculative and repeat applications is it’s proximity to both the National Park and the AONB and the fact that the landscape in between is outstanding.  It’s appealing to buyers therefore of particular interest to speculative and determined developers.

We’re told by planners that no one person or dwelling has the right to a view.  Yet, how many times have you seen properties for sale with the line: set in a desirable location with far reaching countryside views or surrounded by open fields with stunning views or commanding amazing views…….?   So, whilst the individual has no right to a view, the individual is sold a property with a view as reason to buy!  Why isn’t there a caveat in the sales document that warns prospective purchasers that the view may possibly be temporary, is not guaranteed and in fact the vendor may the one who degrades or removes the view if said developer decides to extend the development?  Surely those in the property world should be prohibited from selling something that is not guaranteed? 

It gets worse when you read up on the pros and cons of living in a conservation area.  

This part should be of particular interest to residents of Cononley,  Embsay,  Ingleton  and Long Preston and Cowling

Since the mid ’60’s, local councils have had the power to identify areas of special architectural and/or historic interest whose character or appearance is worth protecting or enhancing.

Let’s look at some of the widely used phrases  for selling property in a conservation area:

Quotes:  

“People pay a premium to live in a conservation area because you’re buying into the whole history as well as the quaintness”

“People should not be put off (buying in a conservation area) at all.  There are definitely more pros than cons, including the fact that it protects the value of your property because it not only protects the building, it protects the local surroundings too, including the trees”

“People are very proud of their buildings and their surroundings and people aspire to live in places like this.”

“As well as enjoying the beautiful surroundings……. believed that living within a conservation area helps to build community spirit”

“Mr C, director of research at one of the big property agents, agreed that these are the kind aspirational areas that sell at a premium”

Miss X, manager of xxxxxx Estates, said: "Conservation areas are generally more sought after than other residential areas.’ 

Try quoting all the above phrases to residents of Hellifield who live near or within the Long Preston Conservation area.  They have witnessed unauthorised removal of hedgerow and trees (not in the public interest to take action apparently), the siting of an enormous static trailer park without the benefit of an EIA, the development of five bedroom, three garage house in an area (where development would not normally be permitted), the unauthorised culverting or diversion of watercourses and most interestingly, the creation of a European subsidied 250,000 ‘road to no where’ which is now in private ownership.

So whilst buyers pay a premium to live in these areas whose character and appearance the local authority has deemed  desirable to protect and enhance and whilst some developers benefit from this, existing residents who moved there in the first place and who have to work on their homes to protect and enhance (thus again paying a premium) have to accept that once they buy, they may lose their view, their setting and in some cases their right to live in peace and enjoyment of their surroundings.  Returning to the Long Preston Conservation area, this saga has been on going for nearly TWENTY YEARS.

Hang on a minute…so if I buy a house in a conservation area, I have to pay to apply for planning permission to put up even a satellite dish, ask for permission to trim my trees and pay a premium price for an renovation works, a determined or naughty developer can just swan in a pull down a hedgerow or throw up a development?  Is that reasonable?

Let’s return to major property companies statement about living in a conservation area

‘Satellite dishes, road widening schemes, wanton tree felling, and the haphazard demolition of beautiful buildings. These, you might sigh, are the inescapable evils of modern living. Aren't they?

Well no, not always - not if you live in a conservation area …….… and why buyers are willing to pay more for the privilege.’

Some of Craven’s conservation areas are or have been the subject on constant attack from a handful of developers.  Over and over again they apply and appeal.  In some cases they degrade the area first then apply appeal, apply and apply again until they get what they want.

Does this make sense or is it somewhat one sided making a mockery out Conservation area status?  Or should we all insist on a caveat for anyone buying a property however large or small within the countryside telling them that they may possibly one day soon face a determined, destructive and unpleasant attempt to build that may destroy their lives, their savings for hard work which were poured into their homes, and their right to live in peace and enjoyment of those surrounding.

You really can’t have it all ….or can you?

www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/8099133.Caravans_scheme____would_turn_two_villages_into_one___/

www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/11760885.Embsay_villagers_in_new_housing_development_battle/

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/14270825.Cononley_housing_appeal_dismissed/?ref=mr&lp=4

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/9317689.Inspector_rejects_Cowling_homes_appeal/