My answers to the Neighbourhood Development Plan questionnaire (with a handful of minor edits…)

Q9
Lower and Middle Tysoe have already met their targets under Stratford District Council’s Local Plan; and yet the village is blanketed with active house building: none of which is affordable to our (meaning the majority of residents’) children: who have therefore to move out of the village (a heartbreaking process that I have sadly witnessed several times).

What I would really like to know is why the Neighbourhood Plan that was proposed (and seen as a good idea by most inhabitants) has transmogrified into a Neighbourhood Development Plan. Is it because those involved are keen on increasing the prices of the houses in Lower Tysoe; or simply wish to fill the pockets of our local property dealers (i.e. estate agents)?

Also: it is claimed that the NDP involved a great deal of public/inhabitant consultation: it “reflects the views and aspirations of Tysoe Residents” you stat(ed). But, as most of this involved writing “disagreed” against the majority of responses (which obviously made the NDP committee, and especially its chair, uneasy), surely the opposite is the case? Why?

[As my comments above are mostly questions, it seems to me that writing “disagreed” against them provides no sort of answer – in which case you have not only not ‘listened’ to me (as in all previous drafts); but have provided the politician’s usual defective reply: which is obviously a case of failed linguistic logic. I would like real answers, please.]

Q11
There seems to be an absence of sustainability: a property which I would have hoped ran through the document like a glistening thread of gold.

On The Bard of Tysoe’s website (in February 2014), he explains that “Our victory at the [Gladman] planning hearing [on 8 January 2014] was led by a full-frontal charge of sustainability – and [the Neighbourhood Plan] could be our sole chance (until, perhaps, legislation catches up), as a group, to develop something with this as its lead objective. Couple this with a power-generating wind-turbine, or two, on Tysoe Hill, and Tysoe would become a shining, green beacon: generating profit for its residents, as well as power; and publicity (of the good kind) for a community that actually practises what it preaches.”

Why are there no specifications limiting air pollution: e.g. built-in electric car charging points; an absence of chimneys (unless emitting steam from condensing boilers), and the open hearths and wood-burning stoves that frequently accompany them? Why are you only interested in “sustainable drainage proposals” (SUDS); and not sustainable methods of construction and heating? Where are the zero-carbon stipulations; the requirement for ground/air source heat pumps; the instructions to make all dwellings smart and therefore energy-saving (especially as that ‘smartness’ requires LED bulbs throughout); the need for thorough insulation? Why no mention of green roofs; or roofs covered in solar slates/panels; and the inclusion of battery storage; as well as requiring EVs to be able to feed back into the grid?

Why are there no plans to render all three Tysoes contributors to that grid: with ridge-and-furrow fields protected by swathes of solar panels; accompanied by the installation of small- and large-scale windmills, etc.?

[Again – as my comments above are mostly questions – it seems to me that writing “disagreed” against them provides no sort of answer – in which case you have not only not ‘listened’ to me (as in all previous drafts); but have provided the politician’s usual defective reply: which is obviously a case of failed linguistic logic. I would like real answers, please.]

Q13
Roses Farm is on the edge of the Cotswolds AONB; and its land frequently floods. Its development would add traffic flow to one of the most dangerous junctions (Epwell Road; Shipston Road; Main Street) in the village; and its residents would be entering Epwell Road at a bottleneck, and with very limited visibility. (Others living in Upper Tysoe will no doubt have rendered their objections in much more detail – especially as this extremely dumb suggestion seems to have emanated from Lower Tysoe!)

Herberts Farm similarly makes no sense; and its development would cause yet more noisy and polluting mayhem around what was one of the (very) most beautiful areas of the village (centered on the school and church).

The village is lucky to have so many working farms interwoven with its dwellings. To eradicate such land and buildings when farmers are struggling for survival also makes no sense – and does not help those young farmers looking for places to work. Lower and Middle Tysoe are rendered all the more interesting and valuable by the inclusion of these farms. They are at the beating, working heart of the village, and make the villages what they are (in an extremely positive way). They contribute strongly to our history, too.

The imagination- and interest-devoid (well, let’s say it straight: darned ugly; and obviously thrown up in ten minutes by an apprentice architect using Autodesk’s much more capable programs) buildings recently dropped in front of Church Farm Court (the usual entry, since it connects to the main road, the A422) have despoiled what was a perfect rural view: the combination of a large, ancient and venerable building (the church) and sensitively-developed housing (Church Farm Court) on one side; a working farm on the other; all wrapped in a ruffled green blanket of ridge-and-furrow (a particularly special type of land, which we are lucky to have in such quality and quantity – especially as, elsewhere, it is becoming an historical rarity).

Why anyone would want to destroy these places is utterly beyond me. Especially when there is no need (as defined by the Local Plan). The only explanation is greed: which saddens me; and leaves me waiting for God’s responsive wrath.

Q15
Although I think the desire for “affordable housing” is as realistic (and solid) as the fairies at the end of my garden – and pains my heart and mind – this appears to be one of the NDP committee’s rare semi-sensible suggestions (which is why I – just about – support it). However, I do not think we should be building outside the defined boundaries: as we should not be building anywhere (see previous responses). And if recent examples (such as on Oxhill Road) of development are anything to go by, the word “affordable” has lost its true definition (along with the Government’s definition of 80% of rental prices...). Only those offspring of the very, very rich could afford its smallest dwellings. We therefore need better pricing limits before even the thought of such development crosses the mind.

Q17
With one-bedroom properties on Main Street entering the market at over £200,000, the mathematics of this suggestion are built on false economies and shifting sands. (See also my previous answer.)

Q19
While I would agree with this in principle, it only appears to apply to those already well-monied... – a theme of the NDP that is beginning to raise its ugly head. (As I said in my previous answer: the ”mathematics of this suggestion are built on false economies and shifting sands”.)

Q21
However, please see previous answer....

Q23
Surely this clashes dead-on with the proposed developments of Roses and Herbert Farms? [Who wrote this b*ll*cks?!? It is rapidly losing any cohesion or sense.]

Q25
I have to support this: as The Bard of Tysoe proposed it in November 2014 (and I am obviously his most fervent disciple!):

“I have posted about Tysoe’s ‘rude interruption of sodium’ before; as well as describing my night-time peregrinations around the village: where ‘The pools of darkness, inbetween, highlight what a beautiful place we live in’. But I do accept, and understand, that, earlier in the night, there may be a need for street lamps – for example, where ‘continuity of lighting levels is important to pedestrians’ – although our neighbouring villages of Oxhill and Pillerton Priors manage without them (as did the village of Fovant, in Wiltshire, where I used to live: and where the nightly view of the Milky Way was so much more than compensation for the dark – but not consequently mean – streets).”

Q27
I would support this except for the omission of other forms of sustainability (see previous answer). Concentrating on SUDS is sensible in a village surrounded by springs and streams (as well as managed agricultural diversions); but it is a tiny, tiny slice of the environmentalist’s pie (and not a very tasty one).

Q29
Why does it need designating? It is obvious what it is; and has survived for decades, and in some cases centuries, despite all the meddling of people who devise plans and the like (and who really should know better). Anyone who considers a development that impinges on it in any way – especially through visual harm – should be taken to the village boundary (which will be somewhere near Pillerton Priors and Wroxton, if this muddle of a plan is accepted...), and kicked well over it by the seat of his/her pants. (Either that, or we refurbish the village stocks.)

Q31
I would support this if it weren’t several years too late (see my answer about the visual impact on the area surrounding St Mary’s Church, for example). It is a token gesture; and feels like it has been included just so all the right words for approval are included. As a member of the Green party, I have to laugh at its last-minute clumsiness.

Q33
Token gesture. Too late. Blah, blah, blah....

Q35
I would also add strategic planning to absorb more than just carbon (oxides?): such as particulates (PM2.5 especially; but also PM10), and gases NOx and SOx. Air pollution is an invisible killer. We should therefore also be monitoring farms for ammonia, and metering for ozone [especially during hot summer months (whatever they are...)].

It is not just fiddling with the soft/green environment that is crucial (the following statement obviously applying to the complete NDP): bringing people into the picture (which seems bonkers and thoughtless when I am two-thirds of my way through the consultation(!)) must be compulsory. Children increasingly suffer from asthma and other respiratory problems; but, as well as pollen and allergies, we need to make sure they (and their parents, obviously) are aware of all the chemicals/particles listed above [watch this space!]; and know how to ensure first-class protection is provided.

To be honest, less roads travelled by diesel- (especially) and petrol-fuelled vehicles would contribute enormously to reducing such pollution... – but, as I wrote earlier, any thoughts of sustainability (which, for example, links fighting the climate crisis with reducing pollution) apparently flew out of the NDP committee’s collective minds shortly after entering (perhaps): leaving no susceptible trace. We should therefore ensure that villagers are not driving to the pub/Bart’s/school/nursery and back when they could walk.

It is exactly two miles from the far end of Upper Tysoe to that of Lower Tysoe, following the crow along our public footpaths/rights of way; and many of our citizens already set a good example by using these regularly... – some saints, every day; some even aided by walking sticks. [We therefore need to ensure that all such routes are protected, as well; and that Upton and Compton Estates lead by setting a shining example – rather than setting barbed wire and electric fences across them (as ‘Spenny’ currently does). We can no longer rely on the council and its volunteers to monitor them... – a decade of Tory-imposed Austerity has ensured that what matters to those poor and weak (mentally, as well as physically) have been annihilated. I suggest, therefore, that the NDP committee members introduce themselves to these tiny green highways: therefore also “setting a shining example”, as well as establishing a routine that will greatly improve their health, as well as that of those who would (literally) follow them.]

Q37
Again I support. Again… it is far too late. The profanatory example of Red Horse Close (constructed from a box of leftover Lego) has, sadly, made any such rules unenforceable.

Q39
Again I support. Again… it is far too late. The profanatory example of Red Horse Close (constructed from a box of leftover Lego) has, sadly, made any such rules unenforceable.

Q41
Please see my earlier answer on heat pumps, etc..

Q43
Please see my earlier answer on EVs, EV chargers, etc.. This idea is incredibly weak; not thought through properly (if at all); and not well researched, either. It just appears to be a box-ticking exercise; and, like the rest of the NDP, it seems completely unaware of the rapidly-changing world that surrounds us. We can no longer live in a rural paradise where the huntin’ and shootin’ dogs bring our slippers to us, every evenin’; we pour ourselves a small Laphroaig or Grahams; whilst our lackeys garage our 1965 E-Types.

Bluntly put, we should be dissuading people from car ownership. With the advance of EVs and self-driving cars, it is likely that people will (eventually) rent ‘their’ cars by the hour or day. Such (let’s call them ‘BartCars’) will be attached to charging bollards that rise out of the edge of the pavement when needed; will be unlocked by mobile phone, or a chip embedded in our hands (usually between first finger and thumb) – at which point another automated BartCar will whift in noiselessly, or the bollard will quietly retreat once more into the pavement).

I would hope that public transport (also electric; possibly driverless) would have improved mightily – having been nationalized under a Keir Starmer-led Labour/Green coalition – providing a flawless network throughout the country, connected – just on time (JIT) – to electric trains, trams, ferries, etc.. Who knows? We may also have flying taxis... – all electric, of course... – but these will only appear when demand equals capacity.

Q45
Please see my answer to Q39.

Q47
Please see my answer to Q39.

Q49
Community assets surely include the visual impact of the village: meaning complete views (as with the AONB) are also protected. The list above would therefore include the complete built and green environments; and should, in theory, be infinite. We cannot therefore cherry-pick whatever comes to the minds of a self-selecting few people.

Why are the war memorials not listed; the stone seats and inscriptions; nor the village green? Why are the trees not listed? The absence of ashes will hurt at least as much as the absence of elms. Then, when the oak trees fall, what will we do?

Can we impose on the Compton Estate the public enjoyment of the windmill? Can we impose on the Upton Estate the view of Tysoe Hangings; as well for the use of our resident buzzards? Can new infrastructure – such as BartCar bollards; the row of generating windmills lining the Edge Hills... – be thusly protected? And who decides, anyway? (I’ll give you a clue: Every Single Villager!)

Whose fine village is this, anyway...?