CPRENY campaign to promote the use of Brownfield land first and to protect and enhance our countryside, in particular heritage assets such as conservation areas, listed buildings and the character of the area.
An interesting application has been lodged with Craven District Council to build on land in Carleton in Craven. The piece of land in question, was not taken forward as a preferred site in the emerging local plan. However, more questionable is the suggestion that if the developer is granted permission, he will not develop the planning permission already granted on the brownfield land he owns in close proximity to the site!
CPRE nationally promote the use of brownfield first yet here we see, what can only be described as skewed bartering! "Grant me permission to build on one piece of land and if you do, I won't build on nearby land that I own.....land with permission already granted!"
CPRENY were contacted by local residents who were opposed to this contentious application and asked this organisation for support. Following site visits, in depth study of the application, liaison with local people and comparison of the application against national government and CPRE national policies, we were left in no doubt that we should support local people and OBJECT to this proposal.
We have since publlshing our objection, received the following from a resident of Carleton who is opposed to the scheme and determined to protect the conservation area
Vist the following site for local opinion: http://www.carleton-community.co.uk/planning
We have the author's permission to publish his letter. A copy of our letter to HIstoric England is attached to this news item in addition to our response to the application
Sent: 07 June 2017 09:54
To: planningcomments@cravendc.gov.uk
c: J Smith MP and Neville Watson
Subject: FW: RURAL SOLUTIONS REPORT. GRUNDY FARM 17/2017/17886.LISTEDBOUNDARY WALL Date 4/6/17 FAO MR DUNCAN HARTLEYnow 7/6 CONSERVATION AREA DRAFT REPORT 2016
Dear Mrs Muscroft, Date 7/6/17
DRAFT CONSERVATION AREA - SUMMARY
If I’m reading the situation correctly what is going on is at best shocking. CDC appear to have commissioned a report by independent Conservation experts and then told them what they can and cant put in it. On the evidence available it seems that Alan Baxter Ltd, who have been involved in the 2016 Conservation Area appraisal, want to upgrade the Conservation Area status of land to the SE of Carleton (presumably including the field at Grundy Farm) but appear to have been told by either the Council or Heritage England to downgrade it. This will obviously help to pave the way for development. It appears that similar influence has been exerted at 2 other sites, at least one of which is controlled by the same developer, R N Wooler. I refer to Land adjacent to Shires Lane in Embsay.
I sincerely hope that my reading of the situation is wrong but having spoken briefly to the consultants in London I’m pretty sure its not. The facts are as set out below and I think that they speak for themselves. If, as a Council, Craven District want to do what they want and build where and when they want they need to be open and honest about that fact. They shouldn’t waste taxpayers money paying professionals to report and then try to influence their reports and hide behind them. It makes no sense and is contrary to the policy of transparency that they purport to follow.
Please confirm that you will respect the Conservation experts desire to include the land to the SE of Carleton in an extended Conservation Area and reflect this in your recommendation about this application. Please further confirm that your department will get to the bottom of who asked for the draft report to be “doctored” and why.
RURAL SOLUTIONS REPORT
You will see from the attached email that Rural Solutions have at least had the decency to respond to my correspondence. Sadly they have not addressed all of the points that I raised and now no longer want to correspond with me. Still one letter is better than none and they have, at least, helped to clarify the position in respect of the existing Conservation Area and more importantly led me to delve deeper into what is actually going on. So thanks to them for that. It appears that a few words were missing from their original report making it ambiguous and contradictory, but now things are becoming clear. The 1999 plan has the bit of OS 3585 that is not in the Conservation Area in the “Special Landscape Area”. Presumably that in itself is enough to stop it being built on. But its how that area of land is being treated in the 2016 draft report that really concerns me.
On the separate issue that I liaised with Rural Solutions about, the removal of the listed Grundy wall, I would say the following. Briefly, the point that they have failed to address is that it would be totally wrong for you to ask a committee to consider an application which purports to allow and encourage the breech of a condition of approval of a previous permission. This when the previous site is not included as part of the new site. Surely you can see that even if Rural Solutions are reluctant to admit it. If you cant, then kindly ask your legal department to clarify the position for you. It is very important. As my son pointed out in his objection of 7/4, villagers have “a substantive legitimate expectation” that the listed boundary wall to Grundy farm will remain.
As I indicated above my interaction with Rural Solutions did prompt me to look at the 2016 Conservation Area report, by Alan Baxter Limited. Please correct me if I am wrong but I assume that this was a report paid for by us as taxpayers and organised by Craven District Council and perhaps Historic England. I’m guessing that the authors are an independent professional organisation who have a specialisation in Conservation. (To be fair since drafting this objection I have looked the firm up on the internet and as I indicated above I have had a couple of brief chats with them).
It seems to me that the footnote which appears on page 15 of some versions of the document, but has mysteriously been removed from others, indicates that somebody in either the Council or Historic England has overridden the views of the experts, who wanted to say that the whole of OS 3858 made “ a STRONG contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area”. Instead they have forced the authors to downgrade the status of part of the field to “ only makes SOME contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area”. Even more worrying is the fact that the Recommendations for Further Work (in s5 of the report) expresses the authors views that actually they would like to look into extending the Conservation Area ASAP. This is the polar opposite of downgrading it which is what they appear to have been asked to agree to.
For the avoidance of doubt the footnote says “ The authors, Alan Baxter Ltd and the 2 commissioning partners , Craven District Council and Historic England, were able to reconcile their views throughout the project, except on a limited number of occasions when all parties were satisfied with the inclusion of this note to qualify the opinion expressed. In the 16 appraisals produced by the project , the note appears in only 3 places, Carleton page 15, Embsay page 12, and Settle Carlisle page 14. (This explanatory footnote is provided by Craven District Council)”.
This note implies that 3 times is not a lot in 16 reports. Take it from me as a taxpayer that it is a major issue that it appears at all. You should not be paying experts and then telling them what to say. That’s appalling.
If I am right, I would respectfully suggest that somebody in either the Council, or less likely, Historic England is bordering on overstepping the mark as to what they should and should not be doing to help a developer. Why should a council employee be able to override the views of specialist consultants paid for by the taxpayer and more importantly, why would they want to ?? Please do not try to convince me and the residents of Carleton that this is the LPA favouring sustainable development under the NPPF. This is something completely different. It is favouring development for developments sake with no regard for its sustainability.
I congratulate the consultants for refusing to write something that they did not feel professionally comfortable with and insisting that the situation was clarified by the footnote. The fact that the footnote is microscopic and sometimes invisible is clearly not their fault. I realise that the consultants have been put in an awkward position by whoever asked them to write things that they were not happy with, but they have come out of it with credit. Experience tells me that some professionals clearly do not value their reputation and integrity so highly and can be paid to say almost anything.
Interesting that Rural Solutions are using the downgraded status 0f OS 3585 in Conservation Area terms to help promote the case for development, albeit with some qualification. Even more interesting is the fact that their quote from the 2016 Conservation Area report, in s3.11 on page 14 of their report, fails to mention that the authors of the report did not agree with its contents on this particular issue.
Likewise the report of FAS Heritage. The one that forgot that the new access was coming through the listed farmyard. It too (s 5.2) uses the fact that part of the field is apparently going to be downgraded in Conservation Area status when the 2016 draft report is finalised, but fails to add the footnote.
Neither report recognises that the independent consultants actually want to upgrade the status of the field to bring it all within the Conservation Area “ in order to conserve the significant relationship between the historic settlement and the surrounding open space”. Why does that not surprise me ? I guess you only have to look at who paid for them. Please do not think that they are independent and bring that fact to the attention of the committee members if you choose to take this matter that far. On the evidence even the one paid for by the Council could hardly pass for that.
The integrity of the highway man is, as you know, currently under investigation by his bosses. I have given them a timeline of events running up to the production of his report and they have agreed that the matter merits looking into. He too appears to have made the mistake of trying to favour the developer on more than one occasion which inevitably raises suspicions. I have absolutely no doubt that in the near future they will be withdrawing his report (which supported the development), if they have not already done so. As you know he has already admitted that the visibility splay that he said was 35m is only 25m. That’s quite significant in highway safety terms and I am struggling to see why you as planners have not already rejected the application on highway safety grounds. By continuing to head towards a committee decision you are ensuring that lots of dirty washing is aired in public, which I think is unfortunate. Forgive me but it’s hard to tell what is going on because, at this important time, the planning website has not been updated for almost 3 weeks. Clearly I have no way of knowing whether they have withdrawn the document or not.
Please can you confirm that I am seeing things correctly as far as the 2016 Conservation Area appraisal is concerned and if so can you kindly let me have the name of the person or persons responsible for influencing the contents of it. Please further confirm what qualifies them to overturn the findings of professional experts paid by taxpayers to assess the situation and what could possibly justify that intervention. I and the residents of Carleton that I spoke to yesterday would like to get to the bottom of this and that will involve asking some difficult questions.
I am familiar with the field in Embsay that now has planning approved for Messrs Wooler to build around 51 houses. I must admit that I wondered why a field seemingly in the middle of nowhere would get approval. Now things are becoming a little clearer. Similarly when I rang a friend and land agent in Settle yesterday to ask about the third site where a footnote needed to be added to the report saying that the views expressed were not those of the consultants, he quickly picked up on the block of land in question and told me all about it. His stand out comment was that lots of people in Settle were asking why development was suddenly being allowed “in the middle of nowhere”. Now he can tell them.
At the same time can you please confirm that the Council will reconsider their position and allow the consultants to put what they wanted in the final draft of the document which will presumably become part of the local plan. For the avoidance of doubt that will mean putting the field in the Conservation Area and preserving its future as a field rather than downgrading its status by painting it yellow and allowing some or all of it to become a housing estate.
As you know I am concerned about planning procedures not being followed correctly and with the deadline for a hearing fast approaching I have copied Julian Smith and Mr Watson in on this email. If I am right about the Conservation Area issue then this attitude is exactly what fuels my concerns. If I am wrong then, as I said when I started looking at the highway issues, I will be the first to apologise.
Please could one of you respond to me directly within a week rather than sending me the standard letter saying that you are busy. It is certainly very important and needs dealing with as quickly as possible. There’s a fundamental principle in question here. And the reports of the consultants paid for by the applicant have selectively relied on its contents to a greater or lesser degree to come to their conclusion that development should be permitted. So the matter needs addressing fully before the Grundy application can be considered further.
Needless to say that I still consider that the highways issue and the demolition of the listed wall (which is supposed to remain as a condition of the 2012 consent) are both stand alone objections which should both lead to an immediate refusal of the application.
Finally whilst writing could I reiterate my request to have site of the independent flood report that the Council had done and which I originally requested on 25/5. Time is moving on. Many thanks.
Yours sincerely,
CPREC
