An open letter to our new Parish Council…

Dear Councillors –

Since I moved to Tysoe, four years ago – after falling in love with the place at first sight – I have not attended as many Parish Council meetings as I would have liked. Broadly, there are four reasons for this:

1. Like many other villagers, I was unaware of the important rôle the Council plays in governing the village; in caring for it (with hearts, minds, and actions); and ensuring that, pragmatically, it continues to develop in a way that respects its past, whilst incorporating the most appropriate of modern instruments and technologies. It is also the last formal bastion we have in defending the erosion of true localism against both large corporations and the extremely remote forces of national and international government – in other words, it is the nearest thing we have, in our small corner of rural England, to realpolitik and direct involvement.
2. Having said that, much of what occurs during the meetings I have attended has not felt relevant to me – and it took an outsider, Keith Risk (publically raising the threat that Gladman Developments posed to the village, and calling both residents and Councillors to arms), to make me realize how wrong I had been: and that it is each resident’s duty to play their part in continually supporting the Parish Council, however small that part may be.
3. Information on the Council’s meetings was not always easy to come by; and the procedures are somewhat arcane.
4. I am badly disabled – meaning that I struggle to sit down, without great pain, for long periods of time. I also struggle to navigate the narrow and labyrinthine entrance to the Reading Rooms, with walking stick in hand. In parallel, I am extremely hard of hearing (even with the latest digital hearing aids): and, therefore, when I do attend, I often miss large chunks of the proceedings; and then fail to understand the context of the bits I do hear.

I would therefore like to address each of these points in turn: with the joint aims of increasing residents’ comprehension and appreciation of the Parish Council (PC); and, thereby, increasing residents’ participation in the Council’s monthly meetings.

¶

Realpolitik

Having read the Parish Plan (PP), I was impressed by its cogent understanding of the place where we live, and its vision for our future. However, it has become increasingly obvious that the PC had neither the resources to implement it fully (and answer the questions that many residents had posed), nor the discernment to appreciate the ‘lot’ of many of those residents. I do not know how it was produced: but I do know that in responding to those unanswered issues, and applying the same ethos to the forthcoming Neighbourhood Plan (NP), the PC would do much to reconnect with the majority of villagers. More importantly, they would demonstrate that, unlike larger governmental organizations, they really are ‘in touch’ with the needs of their constituents.

In some ways, the NP should have been the ideal vehicle for this: but it is becoming increasingly obvious that it is not fit for its original purpose; and is actually creating greater distance between the PC and the people it claims to represent. It will therefore need the new makeup of the PC (hopefully elected by a majority turnout) to make some brave and direction-changing decisions – for instance:

• publishing the Terms of Reference that govern the relationship between the PC and the NP steering group and authors;
• having these audited by a neutral third party to ensure that all points are being abided by – and, where this is found not to be the case – publically remedying each and every issue discovered;
• as there is already a growing feeling in the village that the NP is being imposed on them from a great height, and that the document as it stands is even less relevant to them than its predecessor (the PP), such remedies may include either taking what work has been done, and repurposing it – once residents have all agreed how this should be done – or even starting from scratch (as with Graham Collier and Keith Risk’s small group meetings, that commence tonight (Wednesday)).

There are, of course, many other ways of involving the parish’s constituents: but it appears to me that the NP is the current, most pressing representation of the failing relationship between governing and governed. Demonstrating that residents are being listened to on this single issue would go a long way to restoring faith in the PC, and encouraging day-to-day involvement.

Relevance

Such action would also “go a long way” in demonstrating how necessary, how important, residents are to the PC in not only supporting them ideologically, but in helping them fulfil objectives that were identical to residents’ own aims and hopes for the village and its surroundings – that villagers’ active participation is required in carrying out both the small (such as repairing benches and kerbs) and the big (raising funds, where government stipends are not enough).

The current relationship between the PC and its constituents strikes me as strained and weak: not only because of the obvious class differences, but because there is a mutual lack of understanding and values. Only if both sides see that this relationship is important, and are willing to put the hard work in to mend it, will trust be reestablished. Concrete opportunities must therefore be presented – and continually – for each side to listen to (not talk at) the other.

Communication and procedure

Again, this overlaps with the previous point. The new community website has gone some way to improving matters – but it can still be difficult (if not impossible) to navigate, and find the information you need. Were a database to be built of those ‘parishioners’ who would prefer the PC to be proactive in disseminating minutes, reports, dates of meetings, etc. by email, say (i.e. in the way those residents preferred; not in the way that things were currently done; or in the way that was easiest), then I would be surprised if villagers did not, as a consequence, take more steps to be involved, even if they were initially reactive.

The monthly meetings themselves do not allow for much resident participation. And holding them in such a small space feels like the PC is excluding more than a few ‘regulars’ from attending. It is closed in capacity as well as in spirit.

For instance, we are allowed to comment on individual planning applications – but not on issues that are relevant or timely to our own lives or predicaments. If the PC are discussing the states of grass verges and easements (to take a recent example), why cannot a resident who is currently fighting their way through the complexities of the planning system for such access, not be given, say, three minutes, to have their say? At the moment, such an interruption is quashed by the chair – albeit politely – and then tabled for the end of the meeting: by which time, both relevance and momentum (not to mention interest) have faded away; and most people are doing their damnedest to leave the building.

Although I accept that there may be a slight impact on timings, and lengths of meetings, the whole process needs democratizing: for the sakes of trust, and efficiency.

Access

There was a wonderful snippet in the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald of 9 April 2015:

Disabled facilities are available at Tysoe Village Hall – paid for with £10,000 from Warwickshire County Council’s Investment Board….

     The money was made available under the Community Access for Disabled People: Changing Places and Sensory Areas Fund, and enabled the installation of toilet facilities that are suitable for wheelchair users, together with two new double doorways between the main hall and the committee room.

     In addition to this, the hall is now also fitted with a hearing loop to improve its accessibility for those with hearing difficulties….

Thanks must therefore go to Percy Sewell, in his rôle as chairman of Tysoe Village Hall Committee, for achieving all this; and for the importance I know he places on accessibility. (I just hope the loop system works; and has been tested by those, like me, who actually wear hearing aids – as many installations, sadly, don’t.) I believe – from what I could hear(?!) at last Monday’s meeting – that the Parish Council also helped; and I would therefore ask why PC meetings aren’t equally accessible?

Perhaps Percy – in his rôle as chair (I believe – or at least as an important trustee) of Tysoe Utility Estate – would like to similarly equip the village’s Reading Rooms, or the Village Hall committee room – so that I can hear all that is going on? (Or, perhaps, so that more people feel able to attend, PC meetings are held in the main hall itself?)

I will only mention the Equality Act in passing, as a slight dig; but approximately one in seven people in this country have hearing problems; and in a parish which is slightly skewed to the older resident (like me), I can only imagine that the local proportion is even higher.

¶

I appreciate that the new Parish Council, in establishing itself with many new members, will have much to learn, much to do. But I truly believe that the points I raise above – if addressed – will go a long way to involving residents, by encouraging them to get involved: thus making the lives of our Parish Councillors so much easier, because of the increased support for, and involvement in, the work they do.

In essence, the problems I raise, and the solutions I proffer, are all about communication – which is always a two-way process. Messages may be proclaimed: but, unless they are received, understood and acted upon, they may as well have been written on paper, shredded, and thrown to the four winds. If we all truly care for Tysoe, then that is an important commonality we can build from. We must make the most of it, whilst we still can.

Taking a stand (in the place where you live…)

Stand in the place where you live

Now face North

Think about direction

Wonder why you haven’t before

Now stand in the place where you work

Now face West

Think about the place where you live

Wonder why you haven’t before

If you are confused, check with the sun

Carry a compass to help you along

Your feet are going to be on the ground

Your head is there to move you around

Stand in the place where you live

Now face North

Think about direction

Wonder why you haven’t before

Now stand in the place where you work

Now face West

Think about the place where you live

Wonder why you haven’t before

Your feet are going to be on the ground

Your head is there to move you around

If wishes were trees, the trees would be falling

Listen to reason, season is calling

Stand in the place where you live

Now face North

Think about direction

Wonder why you haven’t before

Now stand in the place where you work

Now face West

Think about the place where you live

Wonder why you haven’t before

If wishes were trees, the trees would be falling

Listen to reason, reason is calling

Your feet are going to be on the ground

Your head is there to move you around

So Stand

Now face North

Think about direction, wonder why you haven’t before

Now stand

Now face West

Think about the place where you live

Wonder why you haven’t before

Stand in the place where you live

Now face North

Think about direction

Wonder why you haven’t before

Now stand in the place where you work

Now face West

Think about the place where you live

Wonder why you haven’t before

Stand in the place where you are

Now face North

Stand in the place where you are

Now face West

Your feet are going to be on the ground

Stand in the place where you are

Your head is there to move you around, so stand

– R.E.M.: Stand

I was originally going to use this song to headline a completely different post: but, even though Michael Stipe claims he “wrote the most inane lyrics that [he] could possibly write”, I believe that such innate simplicity (and from a naturally-gifted poet) contains some back-to-basics lessons for those misguided souls who seem to believe that each subsequent, more complex, less transparent, draft of the Neighbourhood Plan (and, my goodness, we’re only on the second one – so all I am saying is give the village a chance to get their heads around things…!) is worthy of submission to the authorities.

One of the problems in such prematurity, to me, appears to be a misunderstanding – either deliberately; or because of a too-deep involvement in, or love of, the technicalities that seem to swamp the current version – of the document’s original aims and objectives. Instead of asking the residents – and of a place that, along with its housing, has “developed on a slow, small-scale, organic development basis” – what they want; the authors have, instead, turned the whole thing on its head, and said we can only have what they seem capable of producing. That is – and forgive me for lapsing into the management consultant speak which peppers the current draft of the Plan – they are driven by their competences; not the wants and needs of their target audience (and employers, let us not forget) – i.e. us.

For a document whose second sentence begins “Investment and change in the years ahead will only be worthwhile if they are what the community wants”, this would be laughable, were it not for the fact that, firstly, we are assigning the future management of our village to a tiny proportion of its population, without any real checks and balances; and, secondly, the further the Plan’s creators move away in words, numbers, figures, tables, maps and technicalities from that phrase, the further they (literally) move away from this (increasingly) obvious lip service.

This is why, although the word “vision” makes around forty appearances in the main document (although that includes contents and summaries), no actual vision really becomes, ahem, visible – and what hints there are of such come across as being contradicted by the summary document that (supposedly) sits alongside it. It’s almost as if you can hear the authors panicking, deep, somewhere, in a candlelit garret, late one night – obviously in response to Keith Risk’s extremely salient question “Where is the vision?” (tabled in the appendices) – but not actually understanding it – all suddenly scrabbling around, trying to insert as many mentions of the dreaded word: like an infinite number of caged monkeys trying to produce Hamlet’s famous soliloquy.

¶

The answer, of course, to Keith’s query, is “out there”; and, as I am sure I have said before, not in the answers to some bureaucratic questionnaire-led exercise. Only from talking to people… Actually, scrub that: Only from listening to people – and every single one of us – will you find it. (I apologize for repeating myself: but, sometimes, that’s what it takes.)

Stand in the place where you live

Now face North

Think about direction

Wonder why you haven’t before

Now stand in the place where you work

Now face West

Think about the place where you live

Wonder why you haven’t before

If you are confused, check with the sun

Carry a compass to help you along

Your feet are going to be on the ground

Your head is there to move you around

Stand in the place where you live

Now face North

Think about direction

Wonder why you haven’t before

Now stand in the place where you work

Now face West

Think about the place where you live

Wonder why you haven’t before

Your feet are going to be on the ground

Your head is there to move you around

If wishes were trees, the trees would be falling

Listen to reason, season is calling

So, a little bit of free advice – not that I feel I am being listened to by those who should be taking it… – lift your head up from your papers: and see what the village really needs: not what you can provide. Ask not what you can do for your village; ask what your village wants from you.

And a plea to the village. Monday evening’s Parish Council meeting will not only be the last one for some very longstanding and dutiful members; but my gut tells me that a currently extremely vague tabled request from a resident may actually be used to try again to get the current poor, rough draft submitted to the powers that be – riding roughshod over what the village and its residents truly stand for.

If this is what you want: fine. But I struggle to believe that those hundreds who turned out in the pouring rain in Kineton, last January, to fight off Gladman – or in the freezing cold in the Village Hall at Keith Risk’s behest – really want “the place where they live” run by closeted pen-pushers.

We need vision and selflessness to succeed as a village; we need soul; we need reason, thought, and thoughtful, listening people: people who care. But, most of all, we all need to be in this together.

Fly me to the moon…

There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

– William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar

In yesterday’s Guardian, Timothy Garton Ash asks “What is Britain?” – particularly with regards to the structure of government, as defined by the forthcoming General Election (the willy waving of which already bores me…). He writes that “A serious response must involve devolving power, not just sideways but also downwards, to English local government.” But I would go one step further – in an attempt to bring real meaning and purpose to the currently hollowed-out, insincere concept of localism – and continue that devolution to village level: strengthening the remit (and budget) of the Parish Council; and introducing more accessible and democratic processes for making the decisions that affect only those who live here.

Obviously there has to be a flow of communication (information and legislation) both up and down the levels of legislature – “European, federal (British), constituent nation (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), regional, city, local” – to and from the parish; but we are not the same as other villages (however the current strata of government try to lump us into meaningless classifications such as “local service village”). Our relationships – geographical, personal, organizational, environmental, social… – are also different: in the way that no two people are alike, however many surface characteristics they may share.

¶

So the question I would ask is “What is Tysoe?”; and the only people who can answer this, fully, are those who live here – although it is also fundamental that this question be asked of our nearest and dearest: our neighbouring villages; the next layer up in this devolved form of government; those who we may work for; and the businesses that provide us with services, or are based within the parish.

And there is only one way of discovering the reality, the truth – both objective and subjective (otherwise, we might as well just be lumped in with other similar locales) – and that is to go out and ask. You cannot expect people simply to come flocking to you, just because you have been given some form or remit of power – you have to govern collegiately, govern by walking around: actively asking; actively listening; bouncing ideas around, and letting others add to them, criticize them, praise them, ridicule them. After all, your constituents should be your greatest asset – you wouldn’t be there without them (or not for long, anyway).

If you hide behind a desk – or even a customer service counter – people will only come to you with their (and maybe your) problems; or when they are in trouble and need your help (if they believe you can…). If you act as if you know better than they do, and have all the answers, without (valuing) their input, they may not even think about dragging themselves in your direction: and you will never learn what they think of you and your patronizing form of power. Only if you share your authority (however elected) with them, trust them, offer them transparent decision-making, will you know; and it will not come as a surprise, next time they have the opportunity (presuming you haven’t truncated their rights) to choose who will next have your power, that they do not choose you.

¶

You can probably see where I’m going with this – although my thoughts could also apply to all the higher levels of administration, of course… – especially following my recent post on the strange definition of “consultation” currently being practised by those producing the Neighbourhood Plan. This time, though, I was inspired to put stubby index fingers to keyboard (as well as croaky voice to microphone) by the sage comment (of which the following is an edited version) left on my freeform response to the original survey – not just to criticize (unless you take that in its wider, more positive, more constructive definition of simply observing and analyzing), but to demonstrate an alternative future – a third way, even – coloured by my experience of many years of finessing corporate (internal, as well as external) communication.

Is it worth it, this Neighbourhood Plan? Is it worth the effort…?

     Probably not if it’s dull, tedious hard work. Probably not, if it’s just to satisfy a remote government whim, or a local government box ticking exercise, or to indulge a few individuals’ theories. Probably not if we leave it to a few people wearily going through the motions of what they think should be done. Probably not if no-one asks you for your ideas, or listens when you offer them. Probably not if it is just another argument about what should be built here, or there, and everybody knows that ‘the planning department’ will decide anyway, whoever ‘the planning department’ is. Probably not if it doesn’t inspire us, however worthy.

     On the other hand, it doesn’t have to be like that. It doesn’t even have to be the Neighbourhood Plan. It could simply be OUR plan. A plan for Tysoe.

     It could be a plan for the village as we want it to be; how we want to be in it; what we want to keep and what to change; how we would look after ourselves and each other; how we could adapt it to the world around us; how we could feel we belong to it; how we could make it a wonderful place to grow up, and grow old in; how it could look, and work for us.

     It could be a plan that could outlive the political and economic winds that blow around us. It could be sensitive to, but not dependent on others – on officials and policies and obscure irrelevant impractical things that might otherwise be imposed on us. It could be a plan for our village to enable it to survive and thrive even in troubled times.

     It could be a plan that we would all enjoy playing our part in creating. It could be a plan of which we are all proud. It could be a plan created by grownups and children alike, a game for the whole family to play. It could be a plan made by fully sentient human beings, with extraordinary capabilities, and loads of common sense. It could be a model of how people can work together for a common cause.

     Is it worth it? I think so.

     Do we have the will? Dig a bit deeper and I’m sure we will find it, bursting to get out.

     Can we overcome the obstacles? No doubt, if we are strong and resolute.

     Is it possible? Yes.

     Now, I wonder what all that could look and feel like? Let’s start here.

     It’s not that hard. A lot easier than waking up tomorrow and it’s all gone. That would be really hard.

I find this utterly inspirational. It really defines what a Neighbourhood Plan could and should be – far removed from the “time- and money-consuming exercise: designed to keep us ‘plebs’ occupied” defined in the 2011 Localism Act: a definition which is at the root of our current woes (which you and I both need to get past before solutions are posited).

¶

For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen.

– Douglas Adams: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

At the moment (and I could not attend last night’s meeting, because of my continuing ill-health; and, to be honest, cynically only expected more of the same – despite valid proddings and protestations from various parts of the parish; and despite the fact that my urge is to keep on doling out chunks of doubting benefit…), all we are getting (being given) are dribs and drabs of information that appear to be made up on the fly. There is no visible strategy; no detailed schedule of events that we are all privy to. Something this important (which could refer equally to the Plan, the parish, and its residents) requires regular updates that say “This is what is going to happen”, and when; and how well the schedule is being kept to, or if it needs revising. The parish should also have been asked how it would like the ‘consultation’ to take place. The Plan (as the anonymous poster above points out) is not one person’s, or one group’s, document – it belongs to (and is made by) every single resident.

I think we should be receiving detailed (at least) monthly bulletins (a blog, maybe?!), containing this sort of information. There should be regular (weekly, fortnightly, monthly?) surgeries, at times and places convenient to different sectors of our population’s needs. Ideally, the ‘street champions’ would have been given the chance to demonstrate more skills than simply leafleting: so that everyone really understands what is going on in a way that can be communicated with and by those villagers involved, as well, of course, with those who aren’t (or currently don’t feel themselves to be). As a villager, do you know/feel/believe that you can ask questions, or give input, and that the reply will be constructive? If we have little faith in the process, and the people pushing it forward, it is because they have so far demonstrated (consciously or subconsciously) that they have little faith in the outcome if they involve us too much.

If there were effective communication channels in place – and an effective communication strategy – we wouldn’t have been taken by surprise; and we would have known that the current draft of the Neighbourhood Plan was the first, not the last, chance for consultation; and that the Plan isn’t being rushed to the implied premature conclusion. Being told this after the fact, though, is way, way too late. Before last night, all we had been told was that there was a deadline of 15 January. How, therefore, were we supposed to know any different? Were we supposed to guess that we might have a second or third chance to offer our opinion? (Sorry, my crystal ball has suffered one of its frequent power outages.) And why number those chances, anyway? We should be (and I am sorry to keep banging on about this) continually involved: not just when the spirit moves; not just by saying anyone can attend a meeting – but in any way that anyone wants to be. “Tysoe: how would you like to be involved in your plan? When would you like to meet up, and where, and how?” For goodness’ sake, ask people what they want, and then bloody well give it to them. Don’t act like another arm of the establishment that has led to current voter apathy/powerlessness, and expect us to be grateful in return. All you will do is split us into raging, revolting peasants (Russell Brand-stylee) and the silent, peeved majority, who think anything vaguely political is a waste of their time.

¶

Do you really know what the Plan’s purpose is? Do you agree with it? Or would you rather have something that meshes perfectly with all our area’s residents’ varied needs and wants – as described above? My guess is that the village (as I have said before) is survey- and plan-weary; and may think this is just being done to boost the egos of a few, rather than serve the many. Couch “the Plan’s purpose” in the terms of the above comment, and, soon, I predict, villagers will start to experience an emerging ownership, and feel properly involved; feel listened to – that this is something important and concrete that they must partake in, for the sake of Tysoe. At the moment, it just looks like a bureaucratic exercise, with the appeal of a dead slug garnished with bird droppings.

I don’t want to fill in a feedback form. Neither, I would guess, does anyone else. (They are only convenient for those issuing them.) This is too important to be a paper-shuffling exercise. It is personal; it is about our human futures, tightly tied in with the village’s future. It is not about bureaucracy. It is about people talking, discussing – shouting, if necessary – until their voices are hoarse, and they need a pint or three in the Peacock. I want to be listened to, appreciated, understood – my views, however individual, however off-the-wall, noted, incorporated, available for others to debate. I want an open – not closed – reiterative – not finite – honest – not obfuscated – collegiate – not selective – inclusive – not exclusive – process; one that belongs to us all, is participated in by us all… equally. What I want – what we need to succeed – is trust and transparency. Great bloody steaming dollops of both, please (and hold the slug).

¶

During the last few days, it has emerged that the “initial” draft of the Plan had not been seen (vetted, edited, approved) by anyone than a very select few – not even most members of the Neighbourhood Plan group; and certainly not any of our Parish Councillors – before being circulated (although I have been told several times, by several people, that actually getting hold of a physical or digital copy is not as easy as I had thought…). This is ludicrous. And, although apparently democratic on the surface, to me it shows that those élite involved in producing it either thought that their own efforts didn’t need such policing; did not understand the consequences of not having defined editorial/production processes in place; or were trying to rush the thing through (confirmed by the similarly ludicrous response deadline we have been given).

This is neither “democratic” nor fair. If the Parish Council – who are ultimately responsible for the document – had reviewed it, they (instead of Keith Risk) could have pointed out the flaws in it before the midden hit the windmill.

As I have said before, the workings-out must be highly visible. If you go directly to a fait accompli, then people will assume, rightly or wrongly, that things are being hidden from them. Where is the correlation between what 43% of us said on our survey forms and the now circulating (like treacle through a straw) extremely rough (for content, but glossy in appearance: looking like a final) draft of suggested policy?

I feel, personally, as if I we are being treated like children: children who don’t know what’s good for them (in the way that David Cameron usually addresses ‘his’ electorate). That we’re too stupid to understand all this technical planning stuff: so we’re not going to be told, or given the chance to learn about it, and comment on it, and discuss its merits. This has probably not been done on purpose; but, without “having defined editorial/production processes”, and a broad selection of reviewers, it was bound to happen. Wouldn’t it have been far better to say “this is what we’re thinking of doing – what do you think?”

People, generally, want leadership that listens to them; not bossiness that hides away, secretly machinating like some rural version of the KGB. What we really need, therefore, is another Joseph Ashby – certainly not the Wizard of Oz, manipulating things with no substance from behind the curtain. You can’t make decisions unilaterally. If we had all been treated like adults, and communicated properly with, from day one, our expectations would be realistic, and we would know what was going on.

When people who have our future in their hands make a decision, then they should tell us that they are about to make it; and how; and why. Not afterwards. And they must ensure that the village is a stakeholder in that decision. This is how conspiracy theories emerge. People fill in gaps in the paucity of information to try and mend it; make sense of rupturing gaps in the process. They are not the failings of those who try to listen; but those who are not listening. Openness and honesty at the outset – even stating that there were some key processes that would need refining later: “We’ve never done this before” – would have been readily and willingly accepted, I am sure.

The Tories’ desire to take the country back to the 1930s is beginning to look tame, compared with the current assertions of feudalism within the village – risking taking us all back to the 1330s. (At least, I suppose, our fields of ridge-and-furrow would be intact.)

[I was tempted to apologize for my anger – but others I have discussed this with feel similarly disenfranchised (and perturbed). I started this blog because I love and cherish dearly this unique place my partner and I have found to spend the rest of our lives in: and therefore want to help protect it, and its residents, in any way I can, from deliberate or accidental harm (my main weapon of defence, being disabled, being the gift of articulacy). I don’t want to wake up tomorrow and find “it’s all gone”. That would not only be “really hard”, it would be extremely painful. (And I have already known more pain in my life than many would know in ten of theirs.)]

¶

So… why does the first draft look so like a final draft (even though there are gaping holes in it)? Perception is everything; and only a constant two-way flow of information will quash that. Communicating effectively is blummin’ hard work, though; and requires valued expertise. As I keep saying, everything I plea for should all have been communicated in advance. I understand that this is the first time the village has done a Neighbourhood Plan; but we’re not the first place to do one. Why have there not been presentations to the village from others that have? Have there been visits to other areas further along in the process? I doubt it. But, if there have, then they should have been publicised, and open to anyone vaguely interested in getting involved.

Having received only 43% of the residential surveys back; and not having a full set of business responses; instead of producing a glossy document, the Neighbourhood Plan group should have taken the time to interact with that missing majority – to find out why they didn’t respond/weren’t interested, and address this. It would have improved their standing in the village; would have shown they were listening as well as telling; and would almost certainly mean that we wouldn’t now be in the situation we are in.

Communication. Communication. Communication. It is at the centre of any successful organization; and lacking from those that fail.

¶

This thing needs doing properly. I think the comment on my post, above, should be the manifesto (‘Manifestysoe’?!) that drives the Plan, drives the village. It could include all the things that the Parish Plan didn’t achieve. And, whatever its designation, it could be – as a Neighbourhood Plan is supposed to be (every five years) – a rolling document that captures the developing Zeitgeist and genius loci. It doesn’t need to be governed by external law. It can be the repository of all of Tysoe’s massive and deep wealth of knowledge, desires, needs and dreams – a sort of collegiate ‘Tyseaux Tapestry’ (or even Magna Carta) for the Internet age.

But this, above all – as wot the wise person wrote – requires imagination and graft. It also requires skill, leadership, and a willingness to acknowledge that wisdom can be found in the smallest and darkest of places. But, only by opening the process up to every single sentient thing that resides within the Parish boundaries, will that wisdom be found. It cannot be decided by kings in castles, lords in manors, monks scratching away at their parchments in ivory towers, separated from the seething, unruly masses by a moat of superiority. It needs an extremely personal touch – and, if necessary, walking around, getting mucky, wearing wellies: even talking to the farmers who steer the local agricultural-based economy: which, so far, hasn’t been given its central starring rôle in the Plan. It needs involvement, as well as hard work and cleverness. Intelligence that stems from without as well as within. This is a collegiate document, not one that is handed down from Mount Sinai, finalized, to be thoughtlessly obeyed. It requires your input to start it – which is partly what the comments section below is for; and what my email address is for. It also requires your input to ensure that it never ends.

We choose to produce a Plan for Tysoe and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

Don’t leave me this way…

A couple of weeks ago, on 19 December 2014, Keith Risk – who, almost exactly a year ago, with his hard work, wisdom and great fortitude, led the village to its first ‘victory’ against rapacious developers Gladman – sent out a well-reasoned document to the village, concerned that the imminent deadline (15 January 2015) for responses to the first (and, it now appears, only) “draft of the consultation document which would form the framework for the Neighbourhood Plan for Tysoe… does not allow enough time…”. I have to agree. But my plea will be more emotive: as I will be trying to engage you.

From the beginning, the Neighbourhood Plan group (or whatever it is that they are calling themselves, this week), seems to have defined ‘consultation’ purely as telling us what they are doing, and telling us what to do. As I have said far too many times in my life: communication is a two-way process – as well as giving out information, you have to ensure that people listen and respond; are involved in the process; and understand – and merely sending out one survey, setting up a poorly-designed and -visited website, emailing a few residents, distributing infrequent leaflets, and holding a couple of ill-attended meetings, does not remotely fulfil such a definition. It does not “engage”.

Or, as Keith stated:

Without proper consultation and discussion with the village as a whole, the proposals and policies this [draft Neighbourhood Plan] recommends risk being undemocratic.

     There is no need for this. This is a small village. There are many occasions when views on our vision for the village: what it is, and how we want it to develop, with accompanying objectives, could be found and aired.

     In so far as these views are not yet known, despite a number of efforts, further time and imagination needs to be invested to attract them. It may be difficult. There may be understandable cynicism, scepticism and apathy. That does not need to, must not, prevent it from happening.

     Without such real effective consultation the Neighbourhood Plan (NP), when put to the vote in the village referendum, is seriously at risk of failing to reflect the core purpose: that it expresses the views and interests of the neighbourhood – the village as a whole.

¶

My career – before I was forced to retire due to ill-health – was all about communication (and for some very large global companies, too…): so, when the Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group was set up, I thought it essential that, for us to be successful, we communicated effectively. To that end, one of my first acts was to draft a communication strategy – which has obviously been consigned to the dustbin by those that followed.

For instance, I stressed that the group “should be… building relationships with (and between members of) our local communities, local representative bodies and officials, and any relevant special interest groups, etc. – including maintaining sound links with stakeholders and supporters” (e.g. residents). I see no evidence that this has been done. There appear to have been plenty of one-night stands; but no relationships built or developed, as such. And certainly no engagement.

I also wrote that…

…communication (inwards and outwards) keeps everyone in the village informed, and, hopefully, motivated; as well as providing continual opportunities for everyone in Tysoe, and the vicinity, to join in, and contribute ideas and suggestions – feeling valued, and knowing that they can comment easily (without retribution or criticism) on what we do. (In essence, this is about understanding that communication is actually all about community....) [Communication] should be planned, cyclical, and at the heart of… the activities of the Group.

Do you feel valued? Do you feel engaged? Do you feel at all involved in the development of the Neighbourhood Plan?

¶

The next question is: Were you taken by surprise by the fact that, as Keith describes, “A proposal has been made to have… feedback and responses to the draft Consultation Document [completed] by 15th January 2015”? As it currently stands, therefore, the meeting to be held on Monday (5 January 2015) will be residents’ last chance to have any input into a document that will be a key part of their government for the next five years. (Well, unless, as with the Parish Plan and the Housing Needs Survey, it is rapidly superseded by a change of national Government or planning law.) As such, surely such an important meeting should have been organized by the Parish Council itself – and with a lot more notice: so that a lot more people could get involved?

Keith suggests “that this [date] is unnecessarily soon and unrealistic”; and recommends that a revised date, “of at least 3 months hence”, is agreed. Personally, I think six months is more realistic. Or even a year.

¶

So why the rush?

Well, as demonstrated by the attempted hijacking of December’s Parish Council meeting, there are those – who appear to believe themselves to be in power – who also appear to have gotten it into their heads that having a completed Neighbourhood Plan will somehow defeat Gladman’s attack (especially if we involve that exemplar of generosity, kindness and sympathetic localism, Eric Pickles).

Personally, I cannot get my head around such a fantasy; and I also have trouble seeing any connection between the challenge to Gladman’s proposed development on Oxhill Road and the development of a planning document designed for the whole parish. Is that supposed connection, I wonder, prompted by the fact that the majority of the key players involved in the production of the Plan all live within spitting distance of Mr White’s field? Or am I becoming paranoid, and the victim of baseless conspiracy theories?

¶

Trying to get my head around the real reason for the emerging emergency, I came across this document: which – as well as documenting the “Common Mistakes” the group has unwittingly fallen into making (“Only weak leaders think they need to instruct and to ignore the opinions of others”) – contains some pithy advice, including…

Organising and running community engagement… requires specialist skills. It is often done badly and too late due to the lack of such skills…. Specialist skills could either be provided by members of the community organisation producing the plan or could be provided by consultants or other external sources.

I also found this:

…it is anticipated that on average the [Neighbourhood Plan] process is likely to take around two years.

And yet, according to their own timeline, ours will have taken less than eleven months.

¶

So why the rush?

Well, there isn’t really one, is there? All that appears to have been done is the minimum necessary, in the shortest time possible, in order to play to certain people’s high self-regard and solipsistic objectives. I honestly pity those – which will now include the majority of innocent villagers – caught in its fallout; and those who have put their heart and soul into helping develop something they believed was for the good of the village. There are so many ways that this could have been done so much better: including allowing time for people to actually learn and understand – and engage with – the whole process.

¶

Back to Keith Risk, and the Background part of his emailed document – which is included here in full, as it says all that is needed to be said:

At time of writing the validity and timing of the Neighbourhood Plan process is in question.

• Stratford District Council (SDC) has not completed its Core Strategy, upon which a Neighbourhood Plan significantly depends.
• The draft Core Strategy as it currently exists is highly controversial. Key proposals do not have the full support of governing local political party officials. Planning Officers are severely under-resourced.
• There is clear indication that the Core Strategy will not be completed within the next 18 months.  
• Within that period there will be a general election, and elections for (new boundary) local district councillors.
• All these may have significant impact on the planning process. Specifically Core Strategy policies including: dispersal of developments throughout the District; and the definition of a ‘Local Service Village’, may change.
• Announcements of proposed central government funding cuts to local authorities and public services, to reduce UK borrowing levels, will have as yet unknown effect on economic activity, including housing and employment.
• Given this background, I suggest that the pressing need to have the NP completed urgently, within the currently proposed timetable, has been removed. This is important as it would allow creation of a much more detailed and comprehensive NP than current time pressures allow.

The secondary factor that recommends a change to this timetable is the potential impact of the NP on the current planning process. We have not yet heard the Inspector’s decision on the Gladman development. We do not yet know his attitude to the NP, and the planning weight given to it, in its current form; nor in any form, until the Core Strategy is approved.

     We do not yet know what weight the NP will have in planning decisions. I suggest we cannot, nor want to, rely on politically influenced decisions which might be made by the Secretary of State.

     Even if the NP were to have weight for the Gladman development, or any other planning applications, it may quickly become virtually redundant. New housing developments in Tysoe may already have met SDC’s suggested Local Service Village requirement (for 50-75 houses by 2030) before the Core Strategy or NP are published and approved.

¶

If you agree with any part of what I have to say – and I know from comments that have been made on other posts that I am not alone; nor even a lone voice… – or with what Keith has written, please turn up at the Pre-Submission Consultation Open Session that “will take place in the Reading Rooms on 5th January at 7pm” and say so. Or simply email this post to your friends.

This – apart from the referendum on the final version – really is your last chance to stand up and be heard; your last chance to be engaged with the Plan’s development – unless you (and only you) make it otherwise.

Further comments…

Like many others in our village, I was initially delighted to see that the surveys, carried out during the summer, have already begun to morph into a concrete first draft of our Neighbourhood Plan. I really do hope that this itself continues to evolve, though, as is promised – “to reflect the ongoing feedback we receive from further consultation” – before a final version is issued; and that the opportunity is taken to reflect more of the three Tysoes’ special character, arresting qualities, distinctiveness and realities – their true “spirit of place” – rather than producing something almost generic: that could apply to any such group of hamlets, anywhere in the country, as it currently stands (well, apart from self-righteously demanding that “All new dwellings must contain an element of local stone” – which is, of course, impossible, as I have stated before). I also hope that, in its final form, it will pay more than lip service to environmentalism and sustainability – especially with regards to energy and its generation – and not continue to be so proscriptive.

¶

Before I go into these issues in more detail, I do think that one of the two most obvious problems with the Plan, as it stands, is that it only captures – as with most modern voting systems – the views of a minority of the parish’s residents; and it would be worthwhile, I think, therefore, to use the street champions in one of the rôles they were originally created for – that is, going door-to-door – to discern the views of people who didn’t respond to the survey; as well as perhaps ascertaining why they didn’t respond. This may also help to gain stronger ownership of, and investment in, the Plan (if that is what people want); and, subsequently, to deliver a more substantial and decisive vote in the referendum – scheduled for early next year – which decides whether or not villagers accept its recommendations, and allow it to come into force as a statutory instrument.

The second major issue is how much meaning – presuming it actually gains a majority vote – the Plan will have; and for how long. As the current draft states (on page 4): “…all Neighbourhood Plans must be in line with… local policy, in particular Stratford [sic] District Council’s Core Strategy.” But how can this be? In all probability, the Plan will be completed well before the Core Strategy sees the light of day (if it ever does). And I remain to be convinced that the Localism Act (which this Neighbourhood Plan is derived from) will ever hold much sway, anyway – in a political climate where the goalposts seem to have discovered how to thwart the impossibility of perpetual motion – especially when previous surveys and plans produced by the Parish Council have been superseded again and again (through no fault of their own). I am concerned that this could just simply be yet another time- and money-consuming exercise: designed to keep us “plebs” occupied, and therefore from being able to interfere in, or protest against, Tory diktats.

Green crap

Under Getting Around, on page 5, the draft states that “The Plan… looks at a wide range of issues, including: encouraging Tysoe to become a ‘greener’ village [and] how we should protect our natural and built heritage assets” – but I don’t see much evidence of this, even under Environment & Sustainability (on page 13). For example, on page 7, it says: “Now, being one of the most remote settlements in the county, residents have to rely heavily on private motor car usage” – but I do not see much in the draft that addresses this. It even mentions, on page 8, that “Cycling is possible…” – and yet it was strongly argued, when fighting Gladman’s proposals for Oxhill Road, that cycling to local employment was almost impossible because of the distances and gradients involved: something I would concur with. We are not all Bradley Wiggins or even Lance Armstrong!

I also find it astonishing that the draft states that “Wind turbine generators that require planning permission will not be permitted unless it is possible to demonstrate minimal impact on the amenities of the village of Tysoe” (repeated on page 22). Why so draconian and narrow-minded? What are the reasons for this: when it has been proven that onshore wind power is one of the cheapest and most sustainable forms of energy; does not impact nearby house prices; and can be used to create meaningful UK-based employment? How are we “to ensure that developments which include affordable homes do not contribute to future fuel poverty; given Tysoe has no mains gas…” if we do not consider all forms of power? When we are supposed to be drastically reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, this seems extremely short-sighted and prescriptive. I presume, under these rules, that Tysoe’s most famous landmark – evidence that wind power is also quite reliable in this area – would never have been allowed? We are no longer living in the 17th century… – but perhaps the authors will change their tune when we suffer from frequent and regular power cuts. (Wind power could also provide the village with great financial returns, as well as cheap electricity, were we to invest in modern equivalents to the windmill – as I have previously written.) This, to me, smacks of politics and authoritarianism, rather than aesthetics or common sense; and is in direct contravention of the draft Plan’s own “Objective ES2: Encourage energy efficient and sustainable development”.

It is also stated, in this section, that “Residents can access the local services by walking. The services are within an acceptable walking distance of the majority of dwellings.” So what is to be done to dissuade people from – or penalize them for (as this is where we really need a little proscription) – driving half a mile (or less) to the shop, to collect their morning paper or a loaf of bread; from driving their ill-exercised children short distances to the school or pre-school; or even, astonishingly, from transporting their dog in their 4x4 – which I have witnessed far too many times – to a nearby field for a short walk (and so that their pet can defecate all over some poor farmer’s crops, as well as the local footpaths), as they currently do…? I am quite badly disabled, and yet make the effort to walk – albeit much slower, and in much more pain, than the “average person” – far beyond the distances outlined on page 20 of the draft: including regularly from Upper Tysoe to Lower Tysoe and back.

¶

Money’s too tight

Under the Housing objectives (page 12), I do not see any mention of affordable housing (although it appears, in passing, under Environment & Sustainability, on page 13; and again on page 19) – either as defined by law, or – preferably – as defined by local salaries. Prioritizing “1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings to encourage younger households to locate in Tysoe” is all well and good – but our local house prices are well above average for the region; and certainly not truly affordable to young people who would wish to stay here. (I know that the previous, superseded, Housing Needs Survey showed that there wasn’t much demand: but that is, I believe – from talking to residents with older children – only because they are conscious of the fact that “affordable” is a label, and does not reflect their, or their children’s, financial reality.) Do we not want to encourage local families to stay together? Surely the Town Trust could set an example, here…?

¶

Stone the crows

In Development Strategy (on page 15), the draft states that “All new dwellings must contain an element of local stone”. Why? The current village contains a wide mixture of building media; and such variety is a big part of its aesthetic and vernacular. Again, I state that “We are no longer living in the 17th century” – and modern building materials can be much more environmentally-friendly and cost-effective than stone; as well as ensuring that the village does not end up full of unimaginative, identikit buildings (which is the direction it is currently heading in). They can also “contribute to local character by creating a sense of place appropriate to its location” – providing, of course, that we think of “sense of place” much more widely than the materials delivered on the back of a lorry from the local builders yard.

What is “an element”, anyway? Will a foundation stone, suffice, or a doorstep? And what is “local”? The nearest ironstone – as I have written before – now comes from over the border, in Great Tew.

Finally – although going back to the Foreword, on page 3 – the draft states that “The development of the Tysoe Neighbourhood Plan, being led by the Parish Council, started back in February 2014.” This is not correct: as the initial meeting with regards to the establishment of Tysoe’s Neighbourhood Plan was between a representative of the Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group and “Fiona Blundell and Simon Purfield at SDC”, and was held on 14 November 2013 – as part of that group’s sterling work (which also included, of course, defeating Gladman Developments at the initial planning hearing). But this, to me, is just another attempt to disassociate the perceived success of the still-nascent Neighbourhood Plan from Keith Risk’s Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group – which, as I say, kicked the whole process off… – an act I think both sad and unnecessary; and which speaks volumes about its purveyors. It would seem that not only do the draft’s authors seek to write our future, but that they also wish to rewrite our past.

Ignorantia iuris nocet…

…or one rule for us, and six for the others…

Men’s hearts ought not to be set against one another, but set with one another, and all against evil only.

– Thomas Carlyle

When Keith Risk first stood up, in the village hall, just over a year ago, to ask for help in fighting the proposed development on Oxhill Road, one of his themes was unity: uniting the village residents in opposition; uniting with our neighbouring villages; and uniting with – and supporting – our Parish Council in their crucial and central gubernatorial rôle.

As with all councils or governments – national, regional, district, town, parish – Tysoe Parish Council only achieves its aims, its many successes, through longstanding rules and procedures: which define how it works, what its remit is, how meetings are held – i.e. due process. Surely, the only way we can win this battle is by playing by the rules?

However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last year that some people – perhaps because they live in big houses, and they feel this makes them important, and gives them an unearned (high) status: enabling them not only to flout these rules, but to render subservient people and regulations that stand in their way… – somehow believe that They Are The Law; and that What They Say Is Always Right; and that they can selectively pick and mix whatever legislation suits them; or just ride roughshod through anything that gets in their way. It seems that people who live in big houses do sometimes throw stones – but not necessarily in the right direction, or for the right reason. Did we really need to show a divided face to the Planning Inspector? Two faces do not make anyone more appealing.

¶

So it is that, at tomorrow evening’s Parish Council meeting, a hare-brained scheme to somehow win over Eric Pickles, the current Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – more “rapacious” even than the developers that our hard-working MP has christened – will be thrust forward: and without any warning whatsoever being given to our beleaguered Parish Councillors. There are rules for how much notice must be given for such things; and there are also the mores of common decency and politeness, of course. But none of these seem to matter to those who come across as thinking themselves above such things. In fact their actions give the impression that they envisage themselves as puppet-masters: attempting to take control and untangle the strings of what they must consider a hapless Parish Council – twisting their necks into agonized positions so that they can actually manage to look down on a peerless and humble group of people who work extremely hard in looking after this village extremely well.

“Due process” of course, also includes the fact that our Parish Council is democratically chosen, and involves the residents in its decisions. It is not self-selecting, dictatorial, or arrogant.

¶

What has prompted this anger is the following email: which has been sent under the guise of helping the village, when, to me (and many others) it shows obvious signs of self-promotion. (I have therefore removed the name at the top to protect both the guilty and the innocent.) It went flying around certain quarters of the village early today (fuelled by bigheaded petrol?); but appears not to have been sent to Parish Councillors (certainly not the PC’s chair), or those who are known to be democratic, or even, in my case, somewhat anarchistic (in that people have to earn their respect from me – admittedly not easily won – rather than expect me to get down on one knee and tug where my forelock used to be, just because they've told me that they are important).

…the rule 6 group intends to go to the parish council meeting on Monday to ask that the Gladman planning application be recovered by the Secretary of State. This would mean that the appeal inspectors decision, due by January 20th, would become a recommendation and the Secretary of State would then decide on in due course. The appeal can be recovered in the case where the site is “greater than five acres and would significantly impact upon the governments objective to secure a better balance between housing supply and demand and create high quality, sustainable mixed and inclusive communities.” Given the state of the neighbourhood plan which shows that the Gladman site is the least popular in the village, the village is not in favour of such a large scale development and the village wants more local involvement in development [the group] would argue that the Gladman application should be recovered.

[The group] would like the parish council to ask for the application to be recovered so as to add weight to any individual requests. A recovery would also buy more time for the neighbourhood plan. The Neighbourhood planning group [sic] would welcome any support on this matter at the parish council meeting on Monday.

There will be more information and explanation at the parish council meeting.

¶

There are many things wrong with this email – primarily that Eric Pickles (once nicknamed Jabba the Cut) is infamous for gobbling up little villages such as ours (the tragic case of our neighbour Hook Norton should be warning enough); and drawing his attention to our little corner of Warwickshire will do nothing to improve matters. In fact, with the Corporate Strategy on permanent hold – possibly until Councillor Saint or Sinner is held to account – then any attempts to delay a decision being made re Gladman’s desire to carpet-bomb us with little houses made of ticky-tacky will simply be futile. It is the modern-day equivalent of Oliver Twist asking the master for “some more”. (And eighty houses is much more than enough, thank you.)

Secondly, as stated above, as the Parish Council has not been notified of this agenda item in advance, how will there be time for “information and explanation”? If past meetings are anything to go by (and they usually are), this looks suspiciously like agenda-hijacking: with self-inflated egos launching their inflated hyperbole from their inflatable pulpits. It is high time someone took a ruddy big needle to puncture such people’s self-seeking narcissism. Living in a palace does not make you a king.

Thirdly, if you actually read the relevant legislation and recent associated guidance, it says:

A “recovered inquiry” is basically a planning appeal (against a local authority’s decision) which the Secretary of State can decide to determine himself, rather than allowing a planning inspector to take the final decision, as is the normal process. The law stems from section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

But the “local authority”, Stratford-on-Avon District Council (SDC), is on our side – isn’t it? So this is not against its decision… – unless, of course, you are in favour of, or even backing, the development: which would mean that the final nail has been driven into the coffin not only of unity itself, but also the pretence that there ever was any.

It is also hectares, not acres, by the way:

…proposals for residential development of over 150 units or on sites of over 5 hectares, which would significantly impact on the Government's objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities…

…and, although the application site itself comprises approximately 5.4 hectares, the “potential developable area” is only “3.9Ha (approx) for up to 80 houses” – so I do not know if this is relevant (surrounded as it is by Tory doublespeak).

Finally, the ‘note’ I am quoting from allows for the “Use of neighbourhood plans and housing”:

On 10 July 2014 the Secretary of State announced that he would like to “consider the extent to which the Government’s intentions are being achieved on the ground”, in relation to the neighbourhood planning regime introduced under the Localism Act 2011. For a period of 12 months the recovery criteria has now been amended to include: proposals for residential development of over 10 units in areas where a qualifying body has submitted a neighbourhood plan proposal to the local planning authority: or where a neighbourhood plan has been made.

But how is the email’s claim that “the village is not in favour of such a large scale development and the village wants more local involvement in development” going to sway Eric Piggles – when he has a track-record of paying lip-service to localism and treading roughshod over what villages want or need? And how is it going to “add weight to any individual requests”? And who are these individuals? And what are they requesting? More poppadoms…? You cannot appeal to a fellow dictator, and expect them to suddenly change their tune because they see their own arrogance reflected in your eyes. Do we really want to make a pact with the devil?

¶

The reason why the world lacks unity, and lies broken and in heaps, is, because man is disunited with himself.

– Ralph Waldo Emerson

This is not a decision for anyone to make but the Parish Council. And there is a good reason they have not proposed it themselves – not because they are unaware of it (their knowledge of the current planning régime is demonstrably excellent), but because they believe that it is the equivalent of tilting at windmills: pointless and self-defeating.

There is currently a great deal of apathy with regards to politics: and, sadly, it seems to have seeped to its very grassroots. This does not mean that we should just let ourselves be bossed around though, by usurpers, without questioning the motivations and knowledge of those who would claim to represent us. Instead, we should support the Parish Council: because they represent us. We should support them because they know what they are doing and are not in it for the glory. We should support them because, as a body with true power, they have the true needs of the village seared into their hearts and brains. We should therefore support them because they know what is right, and do the right thing.

There is more power in unity than division.

– Emanuel Cleaver

Pete Seeger: a tribute…

We shall overcome

We shall overcome

We shall overcome, some day

Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe

We shall overcome…

– Pete Seeger (3 May 1919 to 27 January 2014)

Pete Seeger’s music played the role of a mostly subconscious soundtrack to a large part of my life – from childish singalongs, to a burgeoning, teenage awareness that music could be political as well as emotional… – and it remained thus, in the background, until Bruce Springsteen released We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, in 2006. (Similarly, I had not taken much notice of ‘The Boss’, until I was given tickets for a gig at Sheffield United’s Bramall Lane stadium, in 1988: which was one of the most memorable – and wonderfully, thrillingly long – concerts I’ve ever been to; and which resulted in a sudden, large influx of vinyl onto my groaning shelves!)

That album awakened an active interest in Seeger – the man, his words and music; his story, and steadfast beliefs – and, at one stage, too many repeat playings of The Byrds’ version of Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is A Season) (notable for being an almost verbatim listing of lines from the Book of Ecclesiastes – with the addition, in the closing line, of “A time for peace, I swear it’s not too late”: preceding John Lennon, I suppose, by quite a few years…).

Seeger, along with quite a few other singers, also adapted an old gospel song to produce We Shall Overcome – and I think it would make quite a good (protest) anthem for the Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group: particularly with its line “The truth shall make us free”, and its applicability to that pivotal word, ‘sustainability’. As Keith Risk proclaimed at the planning hearing, three weeks ago: “Gladman may quote the word ‘sustainable’ in their application, meaninglessly; we give that word meaning.”

Seeger once said that he wanted “to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other”. Although I understand (and concur with) the sentiment, Tysoe, I believe, is proof that this already happens; and no looking backward is needed. That doesn’t make us unique, of course; but, in my experience, it does make us rather rare (but, hopefully, not endangered: as around 90% – and rising… – of the UK’s population lives in cities).

In the States, I accept, things may be different (although I like to imagine that all small North American towns are just slightly different riffs on Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon: “where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average” – not unlike our village, therefore…). Politicians would obviously like us all to believe that the almost sociopathic arrogance, selfishness and solipsism that they demonstrate, are attractive qualities, which are both prevalent and aspirational; but it is readily apparent that, in a small – and, dare I say, tight-knit? – community, such as ours, it is empathy and sympathy that bind most of us together.

Seeger also said: “Be wary of great leaders. Hope that there are many, many small leaders.” And we have many such generous “small leaders” in the village, working on our behalf – sometimes ceaselessly; sometimes silently; but often unpraised. It is easy to take them for granted (or even ignore them) – that is, until a crisis, such as the Gladman application, comes along: when we then expect those leaders to pull out all the stops, sacrifice their home lives, their work – their privacy, even – to charge in and rescue us (as did Keith Risk). We should, instead, be continually asking what we can do to support them – whether this is by similar hard work; or just acknowledging their presence even when all is well; all is quiet; and our environment is peaceful and undisturbed.

Until Gladman came along, the monthly Parish Council meetings had been ill-attended; and, already, the number observing their proceedings is rapidly and sadly waning (from the hundreds that attended October’s special planning meeting). PC chairman Mark Sewell – and his brothers David and Percy – contribute so much to the village, though: asking, it seems to me, nothing more than Tysoe’s continued wellbeing and prosperity in return. They are at the heart of this village; and their blood runs riverlike through it; and yet all three are intensely modest as to the parts they play. “Being generous of spirit is a wonderful way to live,” commented Seeger; and we should repay their generosity in kind, whenever we are able….

Thank you, Pete Seeger, for such inspiration. Your words, music, and spirit, live on; but you will be sadly missed. We shall overcome.

I feel most spiritual when I’m out in the woods. I feel part of nature. Or looking up at the stars. [I used to say] I was an atheist. Now I say, it’s all according to your definition of God. According to my definition of God, I’m not an atheist. Because I think God is everything. Whenever I open my eyes, I’m looking at God. Whenever I’m listening to something, I’m listening to God.

An open letter to Stratford-upon-Avon Herald…

Sir: On Wednesday night (8 January 2013), after over 360 letters of objection had been sent to the district council, hundreds of Tysoe residents then turned out, in the rain, to support their representatives at a meeting of the council’s Planning Committee (East) in a packed Kineton High School; and to hear, after a couple of hours debate, that their arguments for local heritage, suitability and sustainability had been listened to, and understood; and that the committee were voting unanimously against a proposed development of 80 urban-style houses on the edge of the village.

80 may not sound too big a number, when compared to other sites in the district; but, for Middle and Upper Tysoe, it would have represented an increase in houses of over 20%, and a population increase of around 30%.

The following morning (Thursday, 9 January 2013), Nadhim Zahawi – who, of course, has a house in Tysoe – warned of the “Coalition’s ‘legacy’ of rural harm” in the Daily Telegraph. I believe his actions could not have been better timed, nor his opinions better expressed. And, although our MP could not attend, last night, he has been supportive, throughout; and his condemnation, in these pages, of “rapacious developers” has, in large part, been driven by the quiet battle being fought here. I therefore congratulate him (and I am a member of the Labour Party) for his understanding and representation of both the issues and his constituents.

Although I agree in principle with what he has said, I believe that the current format of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is, in reality and practice, strong enough when defending against the corporate greed of those, such as Gladman Developments, who show no local understanding or sympathy. And this was clearly demonstrated, last night, on a local government level; and has been proven, without doubt, by the hard work of the members of the Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group, under local resident, Keith Risk; allied with the staunch work of Tysoe Parish Council, led by Mark Sewell.

And even if Eric Pickles does finally impose – as our local councillor, Gillian Roache has stated: “urban grain more suited to Peckham” – on our tiny, rural community, against English Heritage’s objection, and the council’s views and decisions – that is only because localism, as conceived by this Government, was obviously stillborn.

What is needed is for national government to help – rather than constantly hinder and harrow – local government: who have been trapped by national policy and hollow words, when it comes to localism and David Cameron’s purported Big Society. What is needed is for Government to stop outsourcing their duties and responsibilities. Please stop blaming Stratford District Council: they are not ignoring their constituents; they totally understand the issues – as Wednesday’s planning committee proved – and are trying, as demonstrated by their recent actions, to make the best of a lose-lose situation imposed from above.

“Where are those who will stand up for Stratford?” asked one of your letters, this week. Well, some of them are on the front page, in Preston Witts’ article. Others are working quietly, but effectively, in local parishes. If all those who kept complaining to your newspaper mobilized as the residents of Tysoe have, and turned their hundreds of words into hundreds of hours of action and all-night graft, then maybe there wouldn’t be the need for such a question.

I know this will inflame many of your readers (and probably members of my own party: with its obvious echoes of right-wing work ethic). But I make no apology. Instead of moaning, Tysoe got off its collective backside; educated itself thoroughly in the relevant national planning laws; and fought – and marketed – a memorable and strategic battle. We may not yet have won the war; but I do feel we have shown the way forward; and that our actions have spoken much, much louder than those who simply resort to words.

Think different…

Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently – they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.

– Steve Jobs

“Think different” was Apple’s slogan for a long time; and, those of us fighting Gladman’s proposed development on Oxhill Road did exactly that. Because we had to. And thus won the first battle of what may yet be a protracted war. (Again, because we had to.)

Last night, the district council’s Planning Committee (East) voted unanimously against the request for outline planning permission; and, in doing so, cited reasons almost identical to those we had listed in our briefing paper to them.

As far as I know, nothing like this has ever been produced before. But, when you are limited to six minutes of speech at such a meeting (three for the Parish Council – the wonderful Mark Sewell – and three for any objectors – in this case, the magnificent Keith Risk, of the Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group; flanked by resident experts Professor John Hunter, OBE, and Dr Michael Sanderson), surely common-sense would dictate that you detail your arguments in some way or other? One that is attractive, readable, and meshed deeply with the planning regulations the committee are to be reliant on? (And not just common-sense, neither. Think of this from a marketing perspective – or even from a lobbyist’s point of view – and suddenly it’s not such a difficult thing to justify. Obvious, really. Just – because it’s never been done before – bloody hard work. I’ve never seen a blank canvas quite as expansive and empty….)

There are no rules when it comes to campaigning. I think they have to be broken, and remade anew, every time – especially as each campaign is different, too. However, we did rely on some – those “planning regulations”, mentioned above – by using the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and throwing it back in the faces of those who would use it to justify development at any cost (or profit); but without considering that, at the heart of the NPPF, is a presumption in favour, only of sustainable development: “which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking”.

Not so crazy, then. Just a little, as our American cousins say, “left-field”.

Have we changed the world, though? Well, the jury, I’m afraid, is still out on that one….