Planning, conservation and the knocking down of vicarages

Those who know a little of Cullingworth affairs will have witnessed the sad demolition of the vicarage - a fine old house in the centre of the village that for many years provided a home for the priest-in-charge at St John's Church. Never one to shy away from tilting at windmills I wrote an open letter to the bishop raising some issues relating to the proposed demolition. But my main point was:

“At present I find it difficult to conclude the Church was motivated by anything other than a desire to realise the greatest return from the disposal and/or development of the vicarage or the site on which it stands.”

Nothing that has happened subsequetly to that observation - the demolition itself and a proposal to build three houses where once there was one vicarage - has acted to change that view of the Church's actions. More to the point the local boss of this very powerful, public body refused - in perhaps the rudest letter I have ever received as a Councillor (quite an achievement) - to answer some very reasonable questions.

1) Why did the Church not simply dispose of the vicarage as it stood and purchase a semi-detached house elsewhere in the village to house the vicar?
2) The Church officials claimed they made every effect to sell the vicarage - yet I have been told that offers to buy or part exchange the property were turned down because they weren't from developers. I asked whether this was true?

The Church claim demolition and the building of a mini-estate was the only option that allowed for them to provide a 'suitable home' for the local incumbant - an argument put in this letter to the Keighley News. The only part of the argument that supports the demolition is the rather strange assertion that the Church wanted to keep the vicarage "on the same site" - which given it's a good 400 yards or so from the Church seems rather 'made-up'.

My complaint isn't really about the knocking down of a fine family home and the redevelopment of the site for additional housing. This happens all the time, is often regretable and sometmes wrong. It is the attitude of the Church - a body that sets itself up as being superior in ethics and untainted by the wicked commercial world - to the destruction of heritage. And above all the complete failure of the leaders of this Church to do what we expect other public bodies to do - to engage with local people, to consult them and to listen to their views.

The vicarage has gone now and we'll get some unattractive, badly designed little boxes in its place. But the Church remains as a public body that comes over all private and secret when it wishes to promote its own financial interests at the expense of conservation, heritage and community. I leave the final comment to Rev. Graeme Hancocks, a Cullingworth resident who also took the trouble to write to the Keighley News:

Custodian of heritage
Debbie Child, Bradford Diocese human resources manager, is quoted as saying said the old vicarage in Halifax Road, Cullingworth, was being demolished "because it had become too expensive to run". While I fully understand and agree that the church is not a historic preservation society I cannot help but agree with Councillor Simon Cooke. The argument -demolish because it is too expensive to be run - could be applied to just about all of our heritage, a lot of which the Church of England (whether it likes it or not) is a custodian.

The article in Sir John Betjeman's old column, "Nooks and Corners" in this week's Private Eye rather summed it all up:

"...the Diocese of Bradford has announced that the village's vicarage, a handsome victorian gabled stone house, is to be demolished after standing empty for two years, to be replaced by three new homes - although it could perfectly well be refurbished and lived in. So much for the CofE's commitment to sustainability and the environment. What has Cullingworth done to deserve such gratuitous vandalism?"