I would like the opportunity to challenge the article by Gerald Cadogan which appeared on the front page of FT Property today under the headline "From pig farm to parkland". The headline itself could hardly be more misleading. The land on which Mr. Cardale intends to build formed a part of the much larger Scrubbets Farm, which was farmed by my family from 1934 until it was sold in 2000. There was indeed a pig unit on the farm, but it was neither near to nor visible from the proposed site. The land on which it is proposed to build was used for an extensive single suckler beef enterprise and consists of permanent pasture, which was managed as "improved grassland" under the terms of the Cotsolds Environmentally Sensitive Area. I find it hard to understand how it could be described as "sadly degraded parkland" when it was managed in this way and when old tithe maps dating back to the early 19th century clearly show field boundaries very much as they are today, indicating that it has been used for commercial agriculture for centuries. Furthermore an extensive programme of stone wall repair was undertaken on the land from 1997 to 2000, benefiting from ESA grants.
Mr Cardale failed to reveal himself as a member of the five man consortium which bought a large part of the farm until the bid was accepted, and when introducing himself to neighbouring landowners, he told them he had bought it simply because he wanted to own a little piece of England. Turning my back on three generations of family history was an extremely painful and distressing experience which has now been made even worse by the knowledge that the land has not been passed on to someone who would continue to care for it, but to someone who sees it only as an opportunity for personal gain. The proposed site is a truly beautiful piece of unspoilt English countryside and the bridleway which runs through it is exremely popular; being featured in many walking guides. It would be a tragedy if this development were allowed to destroy such a delight.
There is one positive feature of the proposal. The community spirit which used to bind the scattered population has declined in recent years, but it has been rekindled by the resolve to fight the plan and people who had barely spoken to each other for years now enthusiastically exchange views on how to fight the latest developments.
From J Huntley, Boxwell
Dear Sir,
I write to protest at the tone and context of Gerald Cadogan's article last weekend entitled 'from pig farm to parkland', which I would maintain was economical with the truth.
His mentor Mr Cardale did not buy 80 acres of a former pig farm - Scrubbetts Farm was a mixed farm with a pig unit, suckler cows and cereal enterprises. The farm, when sold was split between seven buyers.
Mr. Cardale bought 72 acres of typical Cotswold permanent pasture around the 550 foot contour, which has not seen a pig for the past 30 years. He also bought Conygre Wood, an ancient woodland of 6.7 acres much enjoyed by badgers.
This land has never been parkland, and has a Cotswold stone wall under the wood, restored under the Cotswold ESA.
I may be classed as a Nimby, but at least I am a countryman who would like to preserve the AONB rather than turn it into a Virginia Water type enclave with an Italianate house every 70 acres.
If Gerald Cadogan is again asked to sit on such a RIBA panel he might at least visit the site prior to acceptance to see if the development proposed has any empathy with the surrounding environment.
From M Challis, Bagpath
Dear Sir,
'From pig farm to parkland' - Property FT 23/24 March
As a resident in the area described by Gerald Cadogan in
the lead article of last weekend’s Property FT I take issue with several of
the points he is attempting to make. In the interest of brevity, however, I
refer now only to the confusion expressed by him under the catchy headline ‘
From pig farm to parkland’.
For what I imagine are promotional reasons Cadogan refers
to the proposed site as ‘a former pig farm’ and introduces the concept of
it being ‘sadly degraded parkland’. Whilst these descriptions are not
necessarily mutually exclusive, a visit to the site, which I assume he has as
yet been unable to make, would have revealed without leaving the car that the
pig farm is about half a mile away and is still a pig farm. A simple enquiry
would also have revealed that neither pig farm nor adjacent fields are in the
ownership of the potential developer and that it is to continue to be used as
a pig farm.
Similarly the ‘sadly degraded parkland’ has never
been parkland as is apparent from the field boundaries and can be confirmed by
examination of field names, tithe maps, deeds etc..
It is true that the land was previously in the ownership
of a family who farmed (amongst other things) pigs.
But so is Highgrove House.
This lack of concern for accuracy, more suited to
the tabloids than the FT, is disturbing from an eminent archaeologist.
Scholars should perhaps take note.
Response from John Munch, FT Weekend property editor
Dear Mr Challis
Thank you for your recent message on the plans to build so-called
Brimpscombe Park in the Cotswolds. I assure you we took great care to
maintain accuracy in our report on the judging of the architectural
competition and on all planning and topographical details connected with
the land owned by David Cardale.
Not only was Gerald Cadogan a member of the judging panel but my colleague
Anne Spackman and I both interviewed Mr Cardale and the winner of the
competition Craig Hamilton before the piece appeared. In fact it was David
Cardale who told us that the land on which the house is hoped to be built
was in part a pig farm, thus giving rise to the headline. Further the
reference to "sadly degraded parkland" was also a comment made by a member
of the judging panel. In both cases these should be sources that command
respect and could be relied on to be incorporated in the text.
I would be very concerned if you felt the FT was sliding into a tabloid
mentality. This is certainly as far from our target audience as can be
imagined in the Weekend property section. We will of course follow the
progress (or non-progress) of the plans through the local council and seek
to provide an accurate commentary.
Response from M Challis, Bagpath
Dear Mr Munch,
Thankyou for your response to my correspondence.
I note that on two of the points I raised (describing the building plot
as both a former pig farm and the quoted description of the site as 'sadly
degraded parkland'), you relied on your sources of information as ones
which,
in your words, 'should ... command respect.'
I agree that they 'should'.
You will know, however, from the letters you have received that many local
people have little respect for the sources you have referred to and I
suggest that perhaps your respect, in this instance, was misplaced.
You say that you intend to follow the progress of this proposal
through. May I suggest that your readers may be interested not only in the
views of Mr Cardale and his promotional entourage but also in the views of
other people who do not share his enthusiasm. The website
www.nothanks.org.uk expresses some of those views and includes copies of
some letters to your newspaper on the subject. Whilst I do not claim that
the views expressed therein are those of every member of the local
community, the indications I have received suggest they represent those of
the great majority.
The Cardales' proposals challenge the general unacceptability of building in
open countryside and are of particular relevance in view of the government's
reportedly unsympathetic review of PPG 7 (DTLR Planning Policy Guideline 7),
by which the Cardales hope to squeeze their proposal through.
