Rape and pillage; rinse and repeat…

“Those stupid yokels in Tysoe won’t be up for another fight,” says Fat Greedy Bastard No.1 (FGB1) to FGB2. “We almost won, last time,” is the reply, between loosely-gritted teeth; “and I’ve already noticed that there are a lot fewer objections”. “Perhaps it’s because no-one can be bothered to fight anymore… – just as we planned. I certainly haven’t seen any of those notices we had, last time, pinned to trees, fences and lamp-posts; nor any of those huge village meetings.”

“It’s in the can, then, isn’t it?” gloats FGB1. “Instead of eighty houses in one place, splitting them over two fields seems to have done the trick.” “I think you’re right,” smirks FGB2. “Those on the Oxhill side won’t give a flying duck about those in Middleton Close; and vice versa. Divide and conquer. That’s what I always say. Divide and conquer.”

“I do think it’s wonderful that we’re allowed to simply walk in to – and walk all over – a field that cost thousands to defend, and just do it all again. Attrition – that’s my keyword. Grind the buggers down; and they’ll just roll over, and let you do whatever you want. Attrition. That’s the beauty of brass!”

So, where are the leaflets, hand-delivered by the “neighbourhood champions”? Are the People’s Front of Tysoe – or whatever they called themselves (The People’s Front of NoIdea?) – still so pissed-off at being found out (or having the Riot Act read out to them) by the Parish Council, that they’re cutting off their noses to spite their faces… (apart from the Great Tew: from whom I must beg forgiveness…)? Or are all we so happy/pissed-off (delete according to political nous) ourselves at #Brexit that we just haven’t noticed? Great timing, innit?! Chilcot, anyone?

The deadline has passed for the planning application that would literally flood Middleton Close were it to come to fruition – which, to a cynic such as myself, just looks like trying to build houses for thirty families who could then traipse their children up the hill to the nearest nursery, raising even more cash for its progenitor. But, we still have until next Wednesday to object to Gladman Mk.II.

All the previous reasons for not granting this permission, last time, actually apply to both applications; and, if you can be bothered, most of the points made in the following comprehensive document (about a 20 Mb download, I’m afraid) – which I produced, with the help of several others, thirty months ago – actually still also therefore apply to both. Copy and paste as much, or as little, of it, as you wish into the links above; and then barrage your local councillor – and of course, Chris ‘Teflon’ Saint, with as much vitriol as you want. (By the way, has anyone seen our MP, recently… – apart from in this week’s Herald, looking rather fetching in one of George Osborne’s high-vis jackets and matching hard hat…?)

That the planning laws are a whole herd of mega-donkeys, in allowing us to keep having to defend the same parcel of land from rapacious invaders again and again, is in no doubt. But, last time, we showed what we were made of; and I pray we can do it again… rather than slip in it.

I am far too disabled to go through what I went through last time – not sleeping for days on end – continually researching the law; producing leaflets; collating contact details; starting this blog, even… – but we would be just as stupid as the two FGBs above assume if we were not to fight back; and we would just get what we deserve. So that’s me done. Sorry.

Joseph Ashby, my much greater and more virtuous predecessor, must be rolling in his grave. Me, though, I’m off to have my head scanned. Literally.

Remembers me of all his gracious parts…

I started writing this, relaxing in the warming Monday afternoon sun – between April’s typical “cruellest month” steely downpours… – listening to yesterday morning’s Radio 4 Sunday Worship – a service I attended, in Stratford-upon-Avon’s beautiful Holy Trinity Church: gently led by the humane, sincere and companionable Vicar, the Reverend Patrick Taylor.

The reason I was there (initially) was yet another appearance – in a week where they appeared to have set up home on the West Bank of the Avon (both at the church and at the RSC – the nearest thing Stratford has to a ‘cultural quarter’, I suppose) – by the indefatigable David Curtis and his Orchestra of the Swan (a very early start, after a late, celebratory night). However, come for the music, stay for the ceremony!

As I said to Revd Taylor, after the service, I simply cannot remember “the last time I sat on this side of the action”: first, having sung in cathedral and church choirs from the age of five; then having been a parish church choirmaster. When I have wriggled in worrying wooden pews since, it has always been for mainly secular music, or the inspiring architecture (and the atmosphere which that engenders); and yet – atheist that I am (although one with demonstrable admiration and respect for many aspects of faith, I hope…) – I found myself rapidly and happily immersed in the long-familiar liturgy; the consolatory customs of soothing ceremony. (It really did feel like – albeit oddly, at first – ‘coming home’.)

Admittedly, this was aided by the dominance of some truly beautiful English music (including Walton, Morley, Stopford, Finzi – Fear no more the heat of the sun, attractively communicated by David Pike – and Holst, as well as the church’s own wonderful Benedict Wilson); but I am happy to admit that I also effortlessly found ease within those sympathetic words of observance.

If thou hast any sound or use of voice,

Speak to me.

If there be any good thing to be done

That may to thee do ease, and grace to me,

Speak to me.

– Shakespeare: Hamlet (I.i.129-133)

The service – commemorating, of course, “the 400th anniversary of the death of William Shakespeare” – was entitled ‘From Grief to Glory’, and subtly followed the rites of the Church of England funeral service: from “the priest meeting the body at the church door” to “Paul’s absolute confidence in the resurrection”.

The service therefore opened with David Suchet powerfully proclaiming Constance’s lament for Arthur, her son – a possible reflection of Shakespeare’s own desolation at the loss of his own Hamnet, in August 1596, aged just eleven… – mourning, movingly, over Walton’s heartrending Death of Falstaff passacaglia, from Henry V –

Grief fills the room up of my absent child,

Lies in his bed, walks up and down with me,

Puts on his pretty looks, repeats his words,

Remembers me of all his gracious parts,

Stuffs out his vacant garments with his form;

Then, have I reason to be fond of grief?

Fare you well! Had you such a loss as I,

I could give better comfort than you do.

I will not keep this form upon my head

When there is such disorder in my wit.

– Shakespeare: King John (III.iv.93-102)

The first five lines would later be repeated in a radiant choral work by choirmaster Wilson; and we were also treated to a striking new anthem by Philip Stopford, with words by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’s Paul Edmondson (who also delivered the affecting sermon).

If I was surprised by my own reaction to such religion, one could only be astonished at the stamina of conductor and orchestra. (Although it has to be said, Curtis’ directing of the outgoing voluntary, from Holst’s St Paul’s Suite, was extremely laid-back… – and rightfully so!)

As I finished drafting this, I started listening (again) to Dobrinka Tabakova’s Immortal Shakespeare – which was broadcast on Radio 3, also on Sunday. Yet again, its power stopped me in my tracks. I therefore simply closed my eyes, and let the music flow through me – especially the compelling Never doubt I love (and its gobsmacking choral entrances). This, for me, seemed the most fitting way to celebrate Shakespeare’s life. (“Mine eyes smell onions, I shall weep anon.”)

Music! Awake her! Strike!

’Tis time; descend; be stone no more; approach;

Strike all that look upon with marvel. Come;

I’ll fill your grave up. Stir; nay, come away;

Bequeath to death your numbness; for from him

Dear life redeems you.

– Shakespeare: The Winter’s Tale (V.iii.98-103)

What a week that was! Happy Birthday, Bill!

Roses are red…

This book is different: it is a book about housing, but it does not advocate building many more homes. This book does not add more support to many of the usual solutions offered. It does not suggest that so-called affordable housing schemes are good, or that we necessarily need thousands of new ‘council homes’ to be built. It does suggest that the housing problem requires a more serious solution than merely building more homes. This conclusion has resulted partly from concerns about the near-future, not about the present. Solutions such as home-building, which look as if they might solve some of our present woes, may not be the panacea many imagine if we continue to allow a few to get richer and richer through exploitation of what the housing system has become. Building more may result in the wealthy owning even more houses, more families renting some of those homes, but more being empty at any one time and in greater future inequality, unless we address rising inequalities in how housing is shared out.
– Danny Dorling: All That is Solid: The Great Housing Disaster

This week's Herald – and its headline about the “number of homes [that] just keeps on rising” with each revision of Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s Core Strategy (about as strategic as this household’s weekly shopping list) – crystallized thoughts I have been having for some time; and is one of a continually-growing number of reasons why I now wonder if there is any point to Neighbourhood Plans (at least in their current form and lack of legal standing): especially when “The Government is very clear that it will not be possible to use [them] to stop development.” (They do not, therefore, as some appear to believe, “protect the village”.)

As long as we, as a community, as a district, as a country, continue to espouse the simplistic mantra that building more and more homes is the answer to life, the universe and everything, I cannot see any purpose in producing a “vision” for Tysoe that can then be crumpled and crushed in an instant by the Vogon triumvirate of government, property and finance. We may as well wield fly-swatters in the paths of oncoming bulldozers (or lie down in front of them wearing our dressing-gowns), as to mount a defence of the status quo (which is what I believe we are really trying to achieve – not many people are in a position to readily welcome change, in any form…) with a glossy, Panglossian compilation of complex protocols. Indeed, as I have written before: “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” – the latest in a long line of increasingly-bizarrely-named documents that, momentarily, repeatedly, give us the blurred illusions of localism, local power, local choice. When will we learn…?

And, from sage comments made (and quoted) previously on these pages, perhaps I am not the only one who thinks like this: “It doesn't even have to be the Neighbourhood Plan. It could simply be our plan. A plan for Tysoe.”

¶

I think I have (finally) reached Frost’s “Two roads diverged”; and, like him, will take “the one less traveled by”. I have spent far too much time critiquing our attempts at pulling a plan together (but not “together” with most residents of the village…); and making suggestions – long have “I stood And looked down… as far as I could” – many having fallen on fallow ground; a few, perhaps (if appearances count for anything) permeating the ears of our still-wet-behind-the-ears Parish Council.

Accordingly, I suppose, like the great poet, I should be “telling this with a sigh” – but I feel I have said all that there is to be said; and, now, it seems, about something with as many sharp bits as a ball-bearing. So: my main emotion is actually relief. And, as a result, unless there is a massive change in both process and direction, I no longer see any further sense in giving my opinions on it; and will focus my meagre resources and “lucid words” on things of importance to me. I will also, therefore, of course, be voting against it.

However, if you feel differently, then may I suggest that tonight’s PC meeting is definitely worth attending?!

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people’s lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it. It is not selfish to think for oneself. A man who does not think for himself does not think at all. It is grossly selfish to require of one’s neighbour that he should think in the same way, and hold the same opinions. Why should he? If he can think, he will probably think differently. If he cannot think, it is monstrous to require thought of any kind from him. A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose. It would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses.
– Oscar Wilde

The disintegrating power of a great wind…

I had believed that the man of few words, Chris Saint, in his struggle to find another Stratford-on-Avon District Council seat – after what Preston Witts recently described as “a classic case of turkeys voting for Christmas – but with public opinion holding a gun to their heads!”: that is “the district council’s membership… being reduced from 53 to 36, as part of a cost-cutting exercise” – was to be parachuted into Tysoe, in readiness for this May’s council elections. But it seems that his popularity within his party (as well as without) – apart from his use as sacrificial mutton – has vanished like a man overtaken by an avalanche: meaning that his desperate declaration that he was ready to “lead the campaign for all other Conservative party candidates” has probably gone unheeded (and possibly with some derision: bringing to mind David Simonds’ inspired reversal – Not quite behind you, Tony – of the famous Churchill cartoon, by David Low).

Here’s a little more background to Councillor Saint’s – deserved? – plight, from Preston Witts’ ‘special report’…

There have necessarily been major boundary changes, and councillors are having to fight it out among themselves to become the official candidates for their parties. For Cllr Saint this has not proved as simple as he might have hoped.

     He had already been defeated 25-0 in a vote among ward members following his bid to become the Tory candidate for the safe and expanded seat of Ettington. The victor there was Cllr Philip Seccombe, who currently represents Brailes.

     He was also beaten by former Tory leader Cllr Stephen Gray (Long Compton) in his bid to get the new Brailes and Compton candidacy. And then, just before Christmas, he lost out to local businessman Bart Dalla Mura in his attempt to win the candidacy for the new Red Horse ward….

… and it’s that last fact that woke me with a start from my depressing, now-happily-mistaken belief; and gave me hope – despite me standing quite a long way to the left of Bart (politically: which is why this was news to me, no doubt… – not literally: which, presuming he’s behind the till, would probably mean me standing somewhere between Barn Grounds and Lane End Farms; or, more likely, on Clopton Bridge).

¶

Nearly a year ago, I wrote about my definition of an ideal politician (and, yes, I know that sounds like an oxymoron):

If politicians – at all levels: from parish councillors to prime ministers – want to (and they should…) be held accountable, then they should not either need – or mind – being reminded of this, from time to time. They also should not act as if any contract they have with their voters ends the moment they gain power.

And this is – firstly – why I have faith in Bart doing a good job as our district councillor, when I am not remotely of his political ilk. Working in – and, most importantly, interacting on a regular basis with a large proportion of – our community means that he will, I hope (that is, not too tainted by his party membership), be more, ahem, representative than the average district councillor (especially one like Chris Saint: who seems, to me, to have been more interested in making deals, and getting his name mentioned – and not always in a good way – but you would obviously have to confirm that opinion with the worthy burghers of Tredington, Ilmington, Newbold; oh, and, of course, Shipston).

All Bart needs do to prove his worth, therefore (apart from, of course, continuing to run one of the best village shops I’ve ever encountered), is to use those regular interactions with his electorate – and the evidence they provide of our needs and wants as residents – wisely, publicly, consistently, and coherently. He wouldn’t even need to conduct dedicated surgeries – although wouldn’t it be nice to have a regular constituency-related cup of tea with him, say, every Friday morning? (Hint, hint.)

¶

Evidence, for any action, fact, plan, etc. is fundamental – and nowhere more so than in government: which affects every nook and cranny of our society. For example, if research demonstrates (which it does) that the accelerating growth in the number and usage of food banks is caused by an increase in benefits sanctions (as well as falling wages); and that benefit fraud is utterly miniscule – and will remain at that same miniscule level, whatever policies or targets you do or don’t implement (but that the use of food banks will increase concomitantly) – what is the point of implementing them? (An honest answer would be that there isn’t one – or that the Government is actually trying to wipe out a strata of society by stealth… – it is merely to sway opinion, and/or to make the Government look busy. The current political answer, though, is that it deters others – whoever those “others” are – and encourages ‘scroungers’ back into (non-existent) work.) Why not, instead, go after those who break the law with deliberate and serious intent – for example, those who actively avoid paying tax – and thus bring substantially more badly-needed money rightfully back into the economy?

In Monday’s Guardian, Zoe Williams wrote of ‘The strange new world of evidence-free government’:

From the point of view of governing… – it is illogical to make significant changes without research…. If you are taking even a medium-term view, it makes no sense to change systems without evidence….

     I begin to wonder whether the real radicalism we observe… is not political as much as formal: government with only the shallowest roots and no eye on the future, whose only interest is near-term PR wins. Is it a feature of coalition or of the new Conservatism to have no interest in an action’s consequences? Hard to say. But it is the antithesis of conservatism.

And I think it imperative that this axiom – that “it is illogical to make significant changes without research” – should be learned and repeated at all levels of government (and be at their heart): whether it be encouraging wind- and solar-power, to protect future generations’ enjoyment of our beautiful (whilst it remains so) planet; containing the rate of growth of our villages, for sustainability’s sake; or managing the economy in such a way that our rulers are not merely concerned with instant gratification and point-scoring. (In fact – digressing slightly – if I had my way, political parties would have to survive on their own merits (presuming they actually have any) – themselves governed by something like the comparative advertising rules which disallowed (in the UK, until 1994) ‘knocking copy’ disparaging your competitors – rather than simply whingeing all the time (often untruthfully) about how it was all the previous incumbents’ fault. And yes, I know asking for honesty, decency, logic and common sense in politics is about as pragmatic as asking louts not to litter; or most drivers on the A422 to obey speed limits… – but a bard can have dreams, can’t he…?)

¶

Secondly – getting back on topic – as well as gathering useful evidence, I would guess that the other half of my reason for having “faith in Bart” (T-shirt, anyone?!) chimes with many who support the idea of ‘mixed-member’ proportional representation: i.e. that if you have a good local (independently-minded?) spokesperson, then you would vote for them whatever their party; knowing that, nationally, you could then vote in line with your political allegiances. Good community service does not rely on political leanings; and can be – at least on the ground – quite neutral. Sadly, our antiquated ‘first past the post’ system – as well as probably leading to an endless stream of meaningless coalitions – neutralizes any chance we have of casting ballots that reflect such logic.

I do hope, though – with the taste of political success Bart will no doubt be rewarded with, come May, in Tysoe’s Tory heartlands (standing for the Conservatives at any level, here, is something of a turkey-shoot) – that it will not go to his undoubtedly wise head; and he will not be tempted by the trolling-spoon of two political posts (on top of his successful day job): i.e. representing us at both district and county levels – a vogue for which many of our local councillors seem to be keen; and which only adds fuel to the already-well-stoked fires of cronyism and political élitism. (Mind you, if you can be Mayor of London and an MP at the same time: what’s to stop you from adding county, district, town and parish councillor to your portfolio – especially if you pay so little attention, and put so little time and effort in to each rôle…? You might as well be party leader, as well. (But, please, for heaven’s sake, not Prime Minister… – that is the stuff of which nightmares are made.))

¶

In my earlier post, I wrote:

What I’m trying to get at – always naïvely hoping that others will try and live up to the expectations I have of them: because I would expect nothing less of myself (i.e. the curse of the idealistic perfectionist) – is that those curiosities (or nonpareils) who are voted in because they really do want to deliver what their constituents want and need, will always feel that – whatever public and private good they actually deliver – they are not doing enough; and what they are doing is not to a high-enough standard.

I therefore trust – remembering that my party membership card is of a different hue – that, however high those “expectations”, this is how we will learn to think of Bart’s political service to us; and that I have not misapplied my faith in either his abilities or his motives. We shall see.

To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers.

– Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

Nuns don’t wear high heels…

Last night when I told you all that stuff

About the way things are

You didn’t understand a word

But you said you did

– The Selecter: Missing Words

Whenever I read the proclamations of any politician (I tend not to listen, because of my deafness), I first – I suppose like many – engage my inbuilt bulshitometer™; and then, if my attention doesn’t drift away, will compare the message that they appear to be delivering, against what my gut, my intellect, my experience, my knowledge (if any) of them (their past actions, as well as their current words) and their subject, tells me they are really talking or writing about: not just attempting to ascertain the ‘truth’ – such an emotive word; although it is out there, somewhere – or decide if there is a hidden agenda; but also to try and learn more about those who govern us – as well as more widely, about politics – whether or not I should believe the orator in question (or give them the benefit of the doubt – at least for the moment…); and if, therefore, they are worthy of my support.

I am quite cynical in my approach, though – and therefore in no way partisan – as so much of modern (although it probably was ever thus) political rhetoric seems to be entrenched in defensive egotism: and therefore we are frequently subjected to disdain for those who disagree with or oppose the speaker (or writer); obvious obfuscation or omission of important facts – or, at worst, economies of honesty; plain falsehoods – and a pronounced attitude of condescension. Most politicians’ utterings, today, also lack any meaningful humour (which may be why they are the subject of so much satire).

¶

It was in such a frame of mind – mixed in with just a soupçon of eagerness: because local planning is so important to me – that I approached Stratford-upon-Avon Town and Stratford-on-Avon District Councillor Anthony Jefferson’s letter – “Emotion alone is not enough” – in last week’s Stratford-upon-Avon Herald.

As do so many politicians, he begins his pronouncement by setting out his credentials – thereby adding the appropriate amount of proficiency and knowledge, expertise and gravitas to his utterings – one of which is that he serves “on the Town Council’s Planning Consultative Committee”. This, I would have hoped, means that he has genned up on all the requisite planning laws – especially the umbrella National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): parts of which, even I, a mere proletarian, can recite from memory. In addition, knowing that this piece of legislation is pre-eminent, I would have hoped that he, too, would have had the following (“pre-eminent”) sentence engraved on his very soul…

At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

– NPPF: Paragraph 14

…if not, shouldn’t he have checked, first; done a little research, to ensure that, when he cited it, he didn’t omit the most important word [my unitalicized emphasis] – not only in that sentence, but probably in the whole document? Take away that core word – “sustainable” appears in the NPPF over a hundred times; and “sustainability” has eight mentions itself – and the whole nature of the phrase he believed(?) he had reproduced collapses, like an arch without its keystone:

These are ‘the rules of the game.’ Making the challenge even greater is a ‘presumption in favour of development.’

To make things even worse, this is then followed by…

To misquote[!?] The Hunger Games it often seems as though “May the odds be never in your favour”.

…which appears to confirm that he didn’t realize (or even know) that he had similarly reversed the meaning of his extract from the NPPF; and was unpicking its seam; removing its heart. (Perhaps he also wasn’t aware that sustainability was such a central precept; or perhaps he was playing Candy Crush Saga during that section of the Planning 101 course?)

¶

Now, normally, despite my recent bombastic utterings, I would have given him that “benefit of the doubt”; and might even have questioned if the Herald had actually omitted the word itself. But, from the rest of his letter – and its tone: which, to me, confirms a typical political arrogance and a need to frequently assuage the addiction to the sound of his own utterances (something which I may, too, be inclined to…) – I am quite confident that this is his ‘mistake’: especially as its fits in with his – to me – whole “calm down dear” approach. It may even be deliberate: as his argument would be weakened considerably with “sustainable” given its due place.

Indeed, he appears to be teaching his grandmother to suck eggs; whilst avoiding not only the most crucial word, but doing his best not to utter his true accusation of that-which-must-not-be-named – nimbyism – which, as far as I can tell, no opposition group to any planned development in Stratford-upon-Avon District could remotely be accused of; in fact, most such organizations seem to be more au fait with the planning ‘regs’ than the politicians; and are more than aware that “Emotion alone is not enough”: even if it is that which fuels them. They do not need telling so.

This, by the way, is the first appearance of the dreaded ‘n’ word in my blog – principally because it has never before been relevant. As I wrote to the Planning Inspector in charge of the Gladman appeal:

Before I continue, though, I must stress that I – along with all the other villagers I have spoken to – would not want to deprive others of living in this wonderful place. We know that we have to grow.

In fact, the whole argument – as it should be – against the development of Oxhill Road was not just evidence-based, but centred on sustainability: in all its various relevant guises.

¶

Unfortunately, apart from my positings above, I am at a loss to explain what, therefore, prompted Councillor Jefferson’s letter. Perhaps it was just a need to make his mark, being a relatively new councillor (which I can understand)? Or perhaps he had drawn the short straw during a meeting of the Stratford-on-Avon Conservatives: currently under siege, in the form of the rulers of Stratford-on-Avon District Council, for their dire mishandling of the Core Strategy?

Perhaps we shall never know – at least those of us who do not ‘think’ as politicians do. Perhaps it was just, simply, wishful thinking….

Something is rotten…

It used to be so good

On 25 October 2014, an article entitled Report gives a snapshot of life in the district appeared in the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald, discussing the State of District 2014 Report, presented to Stratford-on-Avon District Council (SDC) on 20 October.

Two of the sections in Preston Witts’ summary piqued my curiosity – one on employment; and one on population…

There has been a drop of more than 5,000 jobs in the Stratford district between 2006 – before the recession – and 2014. Figures presented to Stratford district councillors… showed that eight years ago the number of jobs in the district stood at 71,495. At the end of June this year it was 66,161, a fall of 7.5 per cent.

The projected population for the district in 2037 is 134,500, an increase of 11.5 per cent in the 25-year period from 2012.

…and one just made me laugh (as I banged my head repeatedly against the keyboard, in continuing desperation):

At least one statement in the report has triggered political controversy. This is the claim that the district council’s planning core strategy has been “delivered to timetable”.

No doubt I must have frowned

Being a wannabe investigative reporter, I decided to get hold of the complete document – as I couldn’t (unusually) find it on the council website (and still can’t…) – and eventually got in touch with Simon Purfield, Consultation & Insight Manager in the Chief Executive’s Unit: who was the Lead Officer for the report. (And, no, I don’t think I really understand that job title, either.)

The full report he kindly sent me contains expanded data for the predicted population growth…

The Quality of Life in Warwickshire 2013/2014 Key Messages, plus other reports from the Warwickshire Observatory had concluded that: The estimated population for Stratford District in mid-2013 was 120,767. Stratford-on-Avon was the only district to see deaths exceed births, largely due to its older population structure. Population growth here is therefore accounted for by net in-migration. The projected population for Stratford-on-Avon in 2037 is 134,500, which represents an increase of 11.5% from 2012 to 2037.

… as well as this paragraph on housing affordability:

The ratio of lower quartile house prices to lower quartile earnings reflects housing affordability, (25% of all house prices are below the lower quartile, likewise lower quartile earnings are those of the lowest paid 25%). In 2011, the lower quartile property price was on average 6.8 [9.8] times the lower quartile annual wage for a full time employee working in Warwickshire; but significantly, the ratio for the Stratford-on-Avon District in 2011 was 9.6 [13.54] – in 2001, the ratio for the Stratford-on-Avon District was 6.55.

(Some of these numbers were revised downwards in an addendum supplied with the report – “as the source of the data cannot be verified” – and the original figures are therefore in [square brackets].)

There is also information in the report on poverty and “fuel poverty” that may well bring tears (of sadness) to your eyes; as well as a blank statement that “The rate of road injuries and deaths is worse than the England average” – but no indication as to how this could, or would, be remedied.

Additionally, feedback from “The Stratford-on-Avon District Customer Satisfaction Index undertaken in March/April 2014” concludes that, for residents of the district, three of the five “Top priorities for improvement for the Council” are all, unsurprisingly, to do with planning – explanation of a decision made; the amount of information the Council provides on the future development of the District; and keeping promises and commitments. (Please stop laughing. Now.)

In a rich man’s world

So, taking this all into account – and shortly after the over-optimistic crystal-ball gazing that led the SDC Cabinet to be told on 2 December 2014 that there should be an “increase [in] the figures for housing supply in the Core Strategy from 10,800 to 11,300” – you do wonder if any of those present had actually read this State of the District report, and taken note of (or cared for) its implications; or had any knowledge of (or cared for) the wider world – especially when you consider that the act of buying a house (or renting a flat at a legally-defined ‘affordable’ rent) is becoming increasingly difficult (if not impossible) for a large portion of our society – especially locally (as the numbers above demonstrate).

As it said in The Guardian, earlier this week: “British workers may have to wait a decade to see their pay recover to pre-crisis levels”:

Wages are now rising faster than inflation for the first time in six years, according to official data, but the TUC – the umbrella body for Britain’s trade union movement – is warning that workers will have to wait until 2024 before they make up lost ground.

     Frances O’Grady, the TUC’s general secretary, said: “What is clear is that it will take a decade for wages to catch up in real terms to where they were before the crash. There are a lot of people who are now dipping into their savings – or, worse, getting into debt, to try to maintain a standard of living.”

     TUC research says the real value of the average full-time employee wage fell by £487 in 2014 and has fallen by £2,509 since 2010 – a decline of about £50 a week.

The gods may throw a dice

Now, let’s lob another – important – number into the mix. According to the Office for National Statistics, at the last census (2011), “The average household size in the UK was 2.3 people per household, compared to 2.4 in 2001.”

Therefore – even if you assume that this occupancy figure carries on falling to as low, say, as 2.0 during the period of the Core Strategy (or slightly longer) – if the population growth in the State of the District report is as accurate as it can be (and, remember, this is for six years beyond the remit of the Core Strategy: 2037 vs. 2031) – these 13,733 ‘new’ people will only need just under 7,000 houses: many fewer than SDC’s guesstimation; and yet very much in line with the conclusion of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) of “6,000 at most” (which I keep coming back to – but at least I now understand, and can justify, its origins).

In light of this, I would so love to see the justifications (and original(?!) calculations) of the “developers [who] claim the figure should be over 20,000”. I can only assume that they have special greed-incorporating devices which multiply any sensible and logical result by some special X (for excess) factor – a lesser (or perhaps hand-me-down) model being in the hands of our local district councillors.

And, of course, we mustn’t forget that there are several hundred empty homes in the district: which should reduce the total build requirement even further…. You would think that SDC would have an incentive to make these available as quickly as possible: as, according to the State of the District report, “the [net] average cost (staff time and any grant awards) of returning each of all [33, this year] (BVPI 64 qualifying and other lower level intervention) empty properties to use” is only £423.02; and yet the “Income generated by new homes bonus as a result of empty properties being brought back into use [over a six-year period] is £2,304,624” – an average profit of over £11,000 per house for the council (and that’s just using a bog-standard calculator…). Multiply that by the 543 that had been empty for over six months, as of last March, and you get over £6 milllion. If that isn’t an “incentive”, then I’m not sure what is.

The loser standing small

The sad thing, of course, is that none of this matters one jot if local people don’t have the jobs and incomes that enable them to buy or rent in the first place… (and the properties they require and desire haven’t been snaffled by the inbound, asset-rich retirees: whose numbers probably compensate(?!) for the loss of offspring from the district, as they disappear on a quest for property they can afford…). A situation that will not be improved in the austere dystopia that will overtake us if the current Government is re-elected later this year; and continues with its objective of plunging us back into the Dark Ages.

Vote blue, go mean.

¶

No more champagne

And the fireworks are through

Here we are, me and you

Feeling lost and feeling blue

It’s the end of the party

And the morning seems so grey

So unlike yesterday

Now’s the time for us to say…

Happy new year

Happy new year

May we all have a vision now and then

Of a world where every neighbour is a friend

Happy new year

Happy new year

May we all have our hopes, our will to try

If we don’t we might as well lay down and die

You and I

Sometimes I see

How the brave new world arrives

And I see how it thrives

In the ashes of our lives

Oh yes, man is a fool

And he thinks he’ll be okay

Dragging on, feet of clay

Never knowing he’s astray

Keeps on going anyway…

Happy new year

Happy new year

May we all have a vision now and then

Of a world where every neighbour is a friend

Happy new year

Happy new year

May we all have our hopes, our will to try

If we don’t we might as well lay down and die

You and I

Seems to me now

That the dreams we had before

Are all dead, nothing more

Than confetti on the floor

It’s the end of a decade

In another ten years time

Who can say what we’ll find

What lies waiting down the line

In the end of eighty-nine…

Happy new year

Happy new year

May we all have a vision now and then

Of a world where every neighbour is a friend

Happy new year

Happy new year

May we all have our hopes, our will to try

If we don’t we might as well lay down and die

You and I

– Abba: Happy New Year

On a line to nowhere…

On the day I started writing this, there had been no trains from Birmingham to Stratford-upon-Avon for four days; and the ongoing grumbling over Chiltern Railways’ revision of their London-to-Stratford service seemed to have been going on for months – although, as an astute anonymous letter writer to the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald (20 November 2014) pointed out: “The majority of tourists travel in and out of Stratford either as part of a coach party or by car, probably hence the congestion everywhere.”

But that’s about as ‘green’ as David Cameron, isn’t it – i.e. capitalism at its typical, selfish, evolved worst? And, with nearly (or “at least” – depending on your greed) 11,000 homes pencilled in to be dumped on the (wrong parts of the) district by 2031 – even though logic would dictate just over half this number – surely it’s time we had a more joined-up public transport system?

Sadly, though, such a system would require some joined-up thinking – and the only thoughts driving (ahem) such issues at the moment appear to be of self-aggrandizement and profit – although it also seems that, atypically, the public purse is being left unopened – even if that purse is logarithmically tighter, the farther you get from London. On top of this, national government investment in (sensible and appropriate) large infrastructure projects is declining. So, common sense and localism would both appear to have died a nasty, excruciating death – probably joining the mountain of both animal and human roadkill mauled by the wheels and bumpers of illegally speeding vehicles tailgating and overtaking on blind bends and summits on our many twisting country lanes.

¶

Apologies for tub-thumping bombastically like the worst sort of tabloid columnist: but, as someone who increasingly uses public transport – because of my (currently) intermittent and (hopefully, staying that way: at least until we have a better (more frequent, more targeted) bus service) occasional inability to drive – and believes that it is the most sustainable option (especially as – rather than “even though” – the district is largely rural: with many pockets of isolating poverty) – this is (and, to be honest, always has been) of great concern to me.

Infrastructure has always mattered. The industrial revolution was not just the story of cotton mills and iron foundries. It was about canals, railways and tarmacadam roads. Big changes to the way people and goods could move around the country boosted growth and transformed the economy.

     …there needs to be a recognition that the investment that matters is not always on prestige projects. As Stephenson proved 184 years ago [with the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway], it is sometimes the local schemes that make the difference.

– Larry Elliott: The Observer

After a public survey in 2011 that supported the redevelopment of the Avon Rail Link; two years ago (in October 2012), responding to an invitation to tender, a report by Ove Arup & Partners – Stratford to Honeybourne Railway Reinstatement – Business Case Study: seeking “to establish the feasibility of reinstating this link” – was presented to the Cabinet of Stratford-on-Avon District Council. A summary leaflet was also printed around this time, compiled by the Shakespeare Line Promotion Group – “which aims to promote travel along… the railway line between the City of Birmingham and Stratford-upon-Avon.”

Here are a few excerpts from the executive summary of the Arup report:

Since the old line to Honeybourne junction was closed in 1976, the Town has suffered from the lack of a rail connection to the east-west Cotswold Line (providing rail links to Oxford and Worcester) and onward to Cheltenham, Gloucester and the South-West. A further impetus for consideration of the reinstatement of the Stratford-Honeybourne link has been the significant growth in Cotswold Line traffic…. In a climate of national rail passenger traffic growth exceeding 7% p.a. and increasing awareness of the environmental sustainability arguments for rail, this Study was commissioned to examine the outline business case….

     …the rationale for the scheme would be to improve rail links, centred on Stratford, for local and regional demand, with potential to cater for longer distance movements…. There has been a long standing aspiration to improve the service between Stratford Upon Avon and Leamington Spa. Its provision as an extension to a Worcester to Stratford service was considered to have potential….

     The majority of benefits (almost 90%) are passenger time savings arising as the new line would provide a faster means of travel for existing rail passengers and those transferring from car. Movements between Worcester-Stratford, Evesham-Stratford and Stratford-Oxford provide the main sources of these benefits… (including reduced waiting time)….

     Additionally, there would be important economic benefits arising from rail freight, additional tourist spend and improved rail network resilience… especially when sections of the regional network are undergoing periodic maintenance….

     Overall, the results of the economic appraisal indicate that the Line is a promising candidate for reinstatement.

A later, more specific section on benefits adds:

To the extent that the new rail line generates more tourists, rather than a change in the choice of travel mode, it will contribute to additional indirect jobs. It will also provide a choice in travel mode for day visitors to the town, particularly those who live close to a station.

     A reopened Stratford-Long Marston-Honeybourne line could also attract heritage steam train services and visitors to/from the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Steam Railway when the planned extension northwards from Broadway reaches Honeybourne.

     The Global Gathering music festival takes place at Long Marston Airfield and via Long Marston station, many of the 40,000 attendees would be able to utilise train services to and from this summer weekend gathering. Participants in other events at the Airfield could also use the train service. This would relieve traffic congestion on local roads.

     In addition, with the new line completed, it will be possible for travellers to make a round trip following the Snow Hill-Stratford on Avon-Worcester-Snow Hill route.

I am not quite sure what has happened to this proposal – as it does not appear in the council’s latest Schedule of Infrastructure Projects appendix to the Core Strategy (which is obviously biased towards the greenfield Gaydon Lighthorne Heath “masterplan”, rather than the alternative, more appropriate, brownfield Long Marston development) – although an “enhanced business case” was produced in June last year, which details reduced capital costs for reinstating the railway line.

However, as well as the Shakespeare Line Promotion Group’s keen and organized support, there is also some brief evidence of sporadic online opposition – but this leads with a designed-to-dismay picture of a level crossing for Evesham Road suggested in a previous, outdated report (Halcrow Fox, 1996): which its 2012 successor details as unfeasible (because of delays to traffic), and therefore recommends another, more appropriate route (videos here and here). This is actually acknowledged on another page of the NoAvonLine opposition site – which then, of course, goes on to raise new arguments, whilst leaving the old, irrelevant image in pride of place. (Oh, the joys of nimbyism.)

I am sure you can tell where my support lies – particularly between the Gaydon Lighthorne Heath and Long Marston Airfield developments – especially as I have previously made no secret of it. But I also feel that, to disregard the proposed railway line reinstatement would be to ignore (I nearly said “play fast and loose with”) a key solution to many of Stratford district’s transport (and other animal) ills. But, as I wrote above, this “would require some joined-up thinking” – especially with regards to public and private transport – and I haven’t seen much evidence of that recently in government circles (local, regional or national). But then, how would I: when current politics is all about the parallel finance and power races to the top, rather than serving the (few) people who elected you…?

This post was initially prompted (as you may have guessed from the photographs) by my habitual trek across one of my favourite local landmarks, Stannals Bridge: which I seem to be watching rust into the Avon. The immense craftsmanship of brickwork, steel, bolts and rivets is hard to ignore, but easy to admire. (It is a skewed or staggered girder, truss, or ‘open web through-type’ bridge – a design so successful, it continues to be built all over the world.)

I can no better voice my concerns for it than local resident David Goodman did, way back in 2001:

Previous governments sought to reduce the rail routes and to this end sanctioned the closure of even major links. This left the old trackbeds with no rails but much of the civil engineering infrastructure in place, for example, the bridges and embankments.

     Fortunately many of these were purchased by the local authority for use as cross-country recreational trails suitable for cyclists and walkers. However this left the local authority with a major problem – how were they to find the funding to maintain those bridges and embankments? Certainly their recreational budgets were not designed to cope with this kind of expenditure.

     Now comes a major problem. Today there is developing a need for these rail routes to be restored but until such time as firm plans to do this are in place whose responsibility is it to maintain the bridges and embankments for possible reuse – a reuse which, as far as the local authority is concerned, may never happen? You and I may well say that it will, but one can see the point of a local authority refusing to sanction such expenditure.

     There is a prime example of this near here where the old Great Western main rail route south of Stratford crosses the River Avon on the steel girder bridge, known as Stannals Bridge. It is the property now of Warwickshire County Council and is in dire need of maintenance. If it is left, it will fail and be a total loss. Minimal regular maintenance now could keep it in a fit state for the line to be restored at a future date but the funds required are being denied. Should this be so?

Although it is an utterly beautiful sculpture in its “increasingly rust-ridden” state; as a usable structure, I fear it will soon lose its integrity, and therefore its ability to provide safe passage – for pedestrians and cyclists, never mind a railway line. However, imagine traversing it, rebuilt or restored to its former glory (as is posited in Arup’s report), in a steam train, overlooking the river, on your way into “Shakespeare-on-Avon” station. What’s not to love?

And, with only a single line being proposed between Stratford and Long Marston’s existing freight depot (or maybe even as far as Honeybourne), there is a chance that you could still walk and cycle over it, as you do today. You might even have fewer cars to contend with, as you then explore the town centre.

Personally, I think reopening the line to a large, new residential development at Long Marston (and beyond) is a solution from the School of the Bleeding Obvious. Which means, of course, that it will never happen. What a shame. What a travesty. What a wasted opportunity…. Just wait for the Herald to run it as its lead story, though, when our town becomes completely gridlocked; and Stannals Bridge succumbs to neglect: crumbling into the Avon, and injuring some innocent, holidaying bargee.

An open letter to Waitrose customer support…

Yesterday – as I have done on many Thursdays, since the store opened – I went to buy my weekly Stratford-upon-Avon Herald from your Stratford-upon-Avon store.

Usually, I would park my car in one of the many disabled spaces (I walk with a stick, because of various “neurological deficits”); amble the few yards to the front door; collect my paper; hand over my 60p to someone at either the basket tills, or, occasionally, the customer service desk; and then womble back to my car.

However, the store now seems to have given priority to coffee-drinkers (to which group I admit I belong…) over that of your disabled customers: and I had to fight my way through the checkout queues and other shoppers, and walk almost the full length of the store, to get hold of my paper – as they have been moved near to the café. The quick-check till operator would not let me pay there: so I had to make my way back to the basket tills, to hand my money over – again having to struggle past the checkout queues.

¶

This morning, as I am also deaf, I tried completing your online contact form. However, all I received in response was: “There was a problem. Your request could not be completed.” As the only alternative is to telephone you, as you can imagine, I was rather peeved; and, as I said to my partner, your “feeble attempts at accessibility suck big-time”.

However, refusing to be daunted by any of this – as this is not the first time (by a long way) I have encountered issues with contacting businesses over the Internet (which, obviously, in the retailing world, is too newfangled to operate correctly… – even though I somehow managed to institute a successful customer-facing website back in the early 1990s, with only one other colleague to help me…!) – I then went hunting for other means of access. (I am nothing if not stubborn.)

On this webpage you say: “If your enquiry is about something you bought in a Waitrose supermarket, please contact that store. Find the telephone number, address and email of all our Waitrose shops….”

However, on the subsequent page, there is no such email address – making the store even more inaccessible to the deaf and disabled (e.g. me).

So what’s a (deaf and disabled) man to do? Well, in this case, find a general email address, and hope that there is a human-being at the end of it.

Sooner or later, though, I will lose the will to keep writing such long emails, and will, instead, make use of the Equality Act 2010 – and let someone else deal with such issues. In the meantime, I suggest you get one of your colleagues to read the Act: so that, in future, you pay more than lip service to customer service.

An open letter to Councillor Chris Saint, leader of Stratford-on-Avon District Council…

Dear Councillor Saint –

Proposed development of land south of Oxhill Road, Tysoe [13/02515/OUT]

As you will be aware, Gladman Developments have formally appealed against the unanimous vote of Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s Planning Committee (East), on 8 January 2014: which rejected the proposal for outline planning permission for an estate of eighty urban-style houses on the edge of Tysoe – and a Public Enquiry will therefore be held at Elizabeth House in the near future.

I am writing to you, therefore, to ask what help you and the council will be giving to the inhabitants of Tysoe – particularly the Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group (TRNPG) – both in the run-up to this inquiry, and during it: especially in light of the staunch support Gill Roache provided for the initial hearing.

Background

In a meeting you held with one of the members of the Steering Committee of the TRNPG (of which I was then a member), just before Christmas, last year, you stated that you did not want to see this particular development happen; and that you were happy to be quoted in saying that Stratford-on-Avon District Council (SDC) would defend the decision if the committee voted to reject the application and Gladman then appealed – as they now have.

Additionally, in last week’s Stratford-upon-Avon Herald (20 March 2014), Peter Reading, vice-chair of Friends of a Rural and Sustainable Environment (Forse), detailed the following – from “a public meeting in Long Itchington”, where you gave “a compelling insight into [your] beliefs relating to to planning development and the preparation of SDC’s emerging core strategy…”:

He told us that there is no point in having isolated housing with no bus routes or employment and that communities should develop in an organic way which is sustainable. In response to a question, he assured us that he wants to keep boundaries around settlements and not join them. He said he is actively looking for opportunities for community identities and character to be maintained and will only allow development if villages have the existing infrastructure to support them.

Further, he went on to promise that our rural landscape is safe because special landscape areas are being introduced; that he wants the characteristics of that landscape preserved, not to have any houses built on it, and will resist any planning inspector who suggests otherwise.

Implementation

While I do not doubt either the sincerity or the passion behind these pronouncements, nor your integrity in making them, I am keen – as they are all pertinent (and parallel) to Tysoe’s existing defence against Gladman’s proposals (as detailed in the TRNPG’s briefing paper to the planning committee, Sustainable Tysoe?) – to learn:

– how you and the council plan to implement them;

– when they will be put in place; and

– what the legal basis is for their foundation.

As the Planning Inquiry is imminent – with written submissions having to be received by the Planning Inspectorate before 1 May 2014 – I would also like to know what part these statements – and their enaction – will play in your support of our village at that event; and what resources (e.g. monetary and manpower) the council will provide to enable us to successfully oppose Gladman’s wholly unsustainable and speculative proposals. Additionally: do you plan to be proactive in your/our defence; or do you intend to be reactive, and therefore led by the TRNPG?

Planning Practice Guidance

I am also curious to discover what role you think the new/revised planning guidelines have to play in the above: particularly the improved protection of Green Belt (which obviously echoes your pronouncements); and the reinforced arguments concerning prematurity – i.e. answering “In what circumstances might it be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity?”.

As far as the latter is concerned: although Tysoe’s Neighbourhood Plan is only just getting off the ground (i.e. is barely “emerging”), would you agree that the council’s Core Strategy is well-advanced enough “to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity” because “the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development”? If so, would you then also be prepared (in both theory and practice) “to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process”?

[As you may know: in January – before the new guidelines were announced – David Wilson Homes dropped plans for a legal challenge to an emerging Neighbourhood Plan in a village governed by Harborough District Council: which I believe had been detailed as one of the reasons for not giving planning permission. Admittedly, the plan was at the final referendum phase; but this does show, I believe, that prematurity arguments can be made to hold water. I also think that, at some stage (preferably soon), these planning guidelines will have to be tested; and that the Tysoe Planning Inquiry would provide a good opportunity to do so.]

Defending the district

Finally, it is obvious from the content of the Herald over the last few months that more and more bodies are springing up, throughout SDC’s jurisdiction, to fight what Nadhim Zahawi has described as “rapacious developers” – e.g. SHAPE, in Ettington; as well as Forse, and the TRNPG.

Although some of these groups (for obvious and comprehensible reasons) appear to be opposing the district council, as well as local development proposals, do you feel that SDC has a part to play in bringing them together – perhaps in alliance with our MP – to help them in their fight for true localism and truly sustainable development (which, of course, is the “golden thread” running through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF))?

If so: how? If not: why?

[I, for one, do not blame SDC for the position we find ourselves in – as you can read on my blog – but I sympathize strongly with the plight of those that do.]

Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy and complex missive. I look forward to receiving your detailed and comprehensive answers to my questions.

There may be lambs in Tysoe and Oxhill…

…already snuggling up to their mothers against the cold north-easterly wind; but there were none to be seen, yesterday afternoon, during my walk up to the Grade II listed Philips obelisk, and around the surrounding Welcombe Hills Country Park.

Towards the end of April, last year – making the time, each day, to go on an Expotition: for the twin sakes of my physical and mental wellbeings – I decided I’d try and take some ‘cute’ lamb shots (as I tried again yesterday – but failed…): so went up into the Welcombe Hills (although that makes it sound a bit like the Himalayas, rather than the North Pole…).

One of the first sheep I came across, though, was obviously in some distress: as, having already produced one healthy offspring, her next was stillborn. She tried to coax it into life by reflexively nuzzling and licking it: but to no avail. This also meant, of course, that she was ignoring her first lamb: who was still covered in blood and mucus; but had managed to get to its feet, and was investigating its dead sibling. Luckily, the farmer was only a few hundred yards away, and dealt with it all swiftly and calmly (and, sadly, routinely) – with me as token assistant, as well as summoner. An hour later, on my return, the ewe was busily fussing over her only baby; and all was well.

When I originally uploaded it, I made no apologies for the following photograph – and therefore make none, now. It represents the daily truth and challenges… of farming, specifically; and the countryside, in general. Having worked on a farm, this should have been nothing new to me. I realized, quite quickly, though, that it had made a major impact… – which is why I remembered it so vividly, yesterday, traipsing the same route.

The climate and terrain in the country park is that little bit more exposed (even though, at just over a hundred metres, the Welcombe Hills are pretty much the same height above sea level as Main Street) – witnessed by the views afforded to and from the obelisk – which is why the lambing is that little bit later. Not too long to wait, though, if the current girth of the ewes is anything to go by; plus their gathering close to Lower Welcombe Farm, and the preparation of paddocks for newborn singletons, common twins and infrequent triplets.

Although seventy metres or so above the Avon, many of the footpaths in the hills are still clogged with deep, dank, muddy puddles (as, therefore, were my feet); the fields still saturated with our wettest winter. It will take many, many more rainless and sunny days to even begin to dry these out (although, after hosing them down, I’m hoping my trusty walking boots will be ready much sooner). Such sustained weather would also encourage lambing, of course: with a ready supply of fresh grass and soothing warmth providing the necessary sustenance and comfort for mothers and children alike. (Sheep milk is extremely tasty and nutritious, by the way: and is perfect for ice cream, as well as cheese. Lucky lambs!)

Let’s hope, therefore, that next time I’m up there – there will be Pretty Baa-Lambs for me to capture!

PS: Goodbye, Bob Crow – possibly the last of the great union leaders (and the same age as me…). A true working-class hero: wrought out of a solid block of grit; and yet still imperceptibly fragile. “I’m not going to be hanging around for ever. I won’t be one of these people like Lenin in a mausoleum.”

Signing up to save our countryside…

CPRE charter

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is currently running a charter to Save our Countryside – asking for better protection for the countryside; a fair say for local communities in planning for the places where they live and work; and more housing – but of good quality and in the right places. You can sign the charter here.

Our campaign is a wake-up call for the Government. We are saying loud and clear that whatever their original intentions, the reformed planning system is not working.

Welford-on-Avon Parish Council e-petition

Additionally, as you may have seen in the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald, Welford-on-Avon Parish Council has lodged an e-petition on the HM Government website: to “Amend the NPPF now, before irreversible damage is caused to our communities” – following our MP, Nadhim Zahawi’s comments in the press. Although this petition was originally aimed at local councillors (parish, district and county), it is now open to all, and can be found here.