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

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

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

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

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

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

Labouring under the allusion…

Patrick O’Kane (Caravaggio) – photo by Ellie Kurttz © RSC

For too many of us it’s become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and sh are the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions.
     The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste – all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that’s out there.
– Barack Obama

I resigned from the Labour Party on Monday night – and then (convinced myself that I) comforted myself by cutting my membership card into itsy-bitsy pieces. Well, it was some form of catharsis, I suppose – if not any true kind of compensation. I had been a full member for many years; and a supporter and voter for even longer; had backed Jeremy Corbyn with joy in my heart… – but was finally floored by the following sentence in the Guardian –

Jeremy Corbyn will use his first speech of 2017 to claim that Britain can be better off outside the EU and insist that the Labour party has no principled objection to ending the free movement of European workers in the UK.

I wrote in response that “I cannot support a party that does not support the free movement of people.” To me, the words “no principled objection” just came across as “no principles”; and – as a result of what feels bitterly like betrayal – I now mourn the lack of a truly socialist party whose ethos meshes with my own; and who can represent me, as well, especially, as those many others desperately in need of compassion – those deprived of moral, political and social assistance and validation. (You may call me an idealist. But I’m not the only one. And – truthfully? – being disabled soon knocks pragmatism into you more efficiently than a beating in a back alley for wearing the ‘wrong’ school tie. Or, indeed, a Work Capability Assessment.)

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.

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

NP-headed…

An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish.

– Eric Hoffer

Perhaps I am feeling peeved; perhaps it is the headache and spatial disorientation I am experiencing after reading well over a hundred pages of phrases such as “topography and water courses with historical settlement foci lying in the valley base”; “new residential development, including windfalls”; and “the NDOs will then be agreed with SDC”. But why are Keith Risk’s and Simon Forrester’s – admittedly cogent – emails produced in full in the latest version of the Neighbourhood Flan (it appears to be made up of many excellent individual ingredients: but, somehow, having been baked, now emerges from the oven tasting of nothing, and resembling soggy cardboard); but my blog post is reduced to six highly-condensed table entries and a footnote consisting solely of a link?

Considering, as well, that only thirteen other people (out of a parish of “about 1500 people”) appear to have commented on the first draft, then how (even though it has grow’d like Topsy) can this reflect “the thoughts and feelings of local people”? And were their – these select few – comments equally redacted? After wading through the plethora of links that pepper the document, who (meaning the final inspector) is going to type this long address (accurately) into their Web browser to see that my comments (as well as those provided in response to the original questionnaire) were actually a lot more nuanced than their subjective and summary executions would have you believe?

It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

– Shakespeare: Macbeth

I am also insulted by the two-page ‘Easy-read’ Summary and the childish Purple Stars of Aspiration (and will be trying to scrub the patronizing implications of these from my flesh for many weeks): but have not yet worked out if the relative microscopic size of the not-really-an-abstract-more-an-excuse is because the authors believe us all to be simpletons, incapable of understanding their mighty handiwork; they don’t want us to realize what a complex mess the NP actually is when we (try to) wade through it; or this is yet another of their pathetic attempts at “consultation”. And yet, I am told, again, that the group behind the Plan – as with the first version – believe this is ready for submission: even though it is peppered with notes and gaps (especially with regards to that consultation – or, should I say, almost complete lack of it).

To be honest, if it is supposed to represent the village and its residents, it should not need such a noddy guide. But the group seems incapable of anything but making the readily transparent utterly opaque. Therefore, a lot of the language is similarly prodigiously obscure. For instance what does this – selected at random – actually mean…?

The Tysoe NP is the de jure plan-making process referred to. The sites are ranked through a prioritisation process. This ranking is described in Appendix B6. The questionnaire (Appendix B3) conducted as part of building the evidence base for this plan contributed to the prioritisation process.

It is no wonder so few people have commented.

¶

I could say so much more. But – aside from, as previously stated, the fact that I think this document openly represents the biases of a small élite within the village; that it will probably soon be superseded, like its predecessors; and will have about as much power as a cardboard flan in a Force Nine gale – my blood pressure is already at boiling point. If anyone else in the village agrees, and doesn’t want the NP in its current form representing them, either: then they can say so on the Plan’s website; comment below; or email me and/or the Parish Council. (Remember: the final vote on the Plan only requires 50% of the turnout – not 50% of the village – to say yea….)

Talking of the Parish Council: perhaps the new one (to be elected on 7 May) will consider how its predecessor doled out its claimed “official approval” for the Plan’s development – and whether that should be modified or revoked. Is there a contract governing this relationship? If so, surely it should be in the public domain? And I, for one, therefore, would like to see it: as I feel very under-represented by a document that could, theoretically (however unlikely), govern the next thirty or forty years of my life.

PS Note to the Neighbourhood Plan creators – I would like both this post and my previous two (first and second) to be included in full, please, in the next draft. Thank you.

Wall of separation – housing…

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

– Deuteronomy 7:6

Having ‘reasoned’ in the previous post in this series that the Green Party were the Almighty’s “chosen” – or, at least, to my atheistic way of thinking, more in tune with God’s earthly, Anglican representatives than the other major political parties – I wanted to return to my original objective: of trying “to delve deeper into [the House of Bishops’] letter… examining… some of its statements and manifold themes; and the way these contribute… to my feelings about, perspectives on, and connections to, current politics” – but, this time, attempting to ascertain how some of the Green’s published policies specifically relate to the statements made by the Church of England: hopefully proving my supposition correct (or at least “reasonable”)!

So, having already discussed environmental issues, I thought it logical to move on to housing – with an emphasis on its social dimensions (which are also the bishops’ principal concerns) – especially as the sustainability aspects – having initiated this blog just over fifteen months ago; and informed many of its earlier posts (because of its centrality in the fight against Gladman Developments) – have already been dealt with in great depth (and at great length).

By the way, the main reason I will only be discussing, politically, the Green Party’s policies (apart from my blatant bias; and the views I believe they share with the House of Bishops) is that the Conservative Party doesn’t appear to be very good at sticking to its promises; nor understanding the true definition of ‘localism’; and the Labour Party seems overly keen on fabrication, fabrication, fabrication – just for the sake of it. (And I can’t remember who the LibDems are.)

The Tories have had five years in Government to come up with something less divisive and disastrous than encouraging unaffordable, unsightly, sun-blocking tumescences rising like bubos across London’s incurable, infected skyline: gleefully descending into planning hell via the rickety helter-skelter that they constructed on the foundations of the short-sighted sweetener of the 1980 Housing Act (when Margaret Thatcher – aided and abetted by Michael Heseltine – introduced what Owen Hatherley has described as “The sinister right-to-buy housing policy”). But, as Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP recently stated: instead, they “have overseen some of the most brutal cuts, to the most vulnerable people, meted out in modern history.” I shall therefore be giving them no shrift whatsoever.

¶

In Who is my neighbour? – a title which feels immediately germane, if not essential, to this post’s topic – the bishops, in their accompanying guide, first focus on paragraphs 50 and 51, from the section ‘A Community of Communities’ (the phrases and sentences they cite are again highlighted in bold, below). But I’m also including the preceding paragraph because of the importance I too (repeatedly) place on its companion theme: the significance of a genius loci, and our attachment to it:

[49] It would be easier for people to forge strong social bonds if we could recognise that a sense of “place” helps to form people’s identity in community. Information technology may mean that physical presence is no longer necessary for many purposes. This has often been positive, and has made many kinds of human interaction easier. But people cannot so easily be uncoupled from the geographical spaces they inhabit.

[50] People are not so much divorced from place as seeking a place where they can be most at home. Following the great rehousing boom of the 1950s and ’60s, numerous studies explored the effect of dislocation on people and communities. Strong social bonds, forged in the adversity of poor housing, frequently did not translate to the new estates, despite their better conditions. And today, attempts to address the shortage of suitable housing will create new problems if they neglect people’s attachment to particular places and the social networks they create there.

[51] The Church of England has always had a strong commitment to place through the parish system. We are present in every community of England. We therefore see day by day how important “place” is to all kinds of people. Social policies which assume that everyone is happily mobile and footloose miss the crucial point that “place” is not just about territory but about informal networks which people build to make life sociable, neighbourly and worth living. Policies which are careless of this attachment to place do not serve people well.

Additionally, in the section ‘Strengthening institutions’, they write:

[83] …Housing Associations work best when there is “buy in” from a broad social spectrum. They are institutions with a strong unifying potential.

[84] We are living through both a banking crisis and a housing crisis….

Perhaps because it is more of a concrete (hmm) subject, limited to certain undertakings – unlike disability, and the environment – the bishops do not stray beyond these two sections: and there is no specific mention, elsewhere in their letter, of “homelessness”, for instance.

¶

In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

– John 14:2

Sadly, God’s will isn’t yet “done in earth, As it is in heaven” – and there appear not to be enough “mansions” here to satisfy demand. This “housing crisis” – at least under the current rules of the richer rich versus the poorer poor that fuel its existence – therefore shows no signs of abating; and, unfortunately, in their letter – understandably – the House of Bishops proffer no solution. I have written before, however, about the primary school mathematics that would make this an ostensibly simple problem to crack (thereby removing that “understandably” from the prior sentence):

…there is actually more than enough housing to go round – at least for the moment. Not only in the UK (which has more than 700,000 empty homes); but in the rest of Europe, too (with more than 11 million empty, in total – “enough to house all of the continent’s [4.1 million] homeless twice over”).

     …the reported lack of available homes [is a terrible problem] that is – I am told – at the root of the carpet-bombing of proposals to cover our green fields with swathes of unsuitable, unsustainable, identikit boxes: with a legislated proportion being ‘affordable’ to almost no-one that would qualify for their residence, or actually needs them to live in….

But, of course, it isn’t really as straightforward as simply parachuting families or individuals in need of accommodation into those empty properties. Even if they are rendered habitable, they are unlikely to satisfy most “people’s attachment to particular places”; or complement readily-available employment opportunities. Then, of course, there is the contentious matter of affordability (either to purchase or to rent – the latter fragilely combined with security of tenancy) – which the Greens describe as “a basic human need” [policy HO101] – and the fact that 80% of an extortionate rent (often calculated behind closed doors) is still “an extortionate rent” – however generous such a legal definition may appear to its wealthy proponents. (The perspective from on high is always skewed.)

In rural locations such as Tysoe, this problem is aggravated by a “change to planning rules slipped through by communities and local government secretary Eric Pickles at the end of last year, [meaning] that affordable housing no longer has to be part of the mix on small-scale developments… at a time when [Hastoe, the biggest single provider of affordable rural homes in England] is receiving calls from parish councils every week asking for affordable homes to be built in their villages.”

¶

What is lacking here, I believe, is a set of meaningful connections between all of these requirements (needs and wants) – which I believe can be supplied by understanding and appreciating the original intentions behind the development of social housing (we do not all need to be homeowners): whether that be almshouses; council houses; or, perhaps most appositely, workers’ villages – such as the stunning Port Sunlight; or, more locally, beautiful Bournville. This latter example, of course, was informed by the Quaker beliefs of the Cadbury brothers: and therefore followed on, in essence, from the provision of almshouses – which were usually provided by religious orders (and usually Christian) with a real, pragmatic desire to support those less fortunate (in the same way that Sikhs now feed the homeless – of all faiths). It is also proof that caring for your workers (as governments should care for their constituents…) is beneficial to both employer and employee – as any fule kno. And yet this appears to be a fact that we are incapable (through reason and/or greed) of grasping in our zero-hours world.

Returning to the Green Party – the ‘Background’ section of their Housing policy similarly states…

[HO104] Commonly owned and social housing includes: housing owned and/or managed by local authorities, housing provided by or managed by housing associations primarily funded by the Housing Corporations, and co-operative and CoHousing projects. The emphasis must be on local provision for local needs, more decentralised forms of housing management, and the empowerment of tenants.

…which, to me, begins to pull together those “meaningful connections”. However, they are not as non-judgmental as the bishops when it comes to their views of housing associations – even though their concerns and posited ‘solutions’ are, I think, extremely similar (the Greens are considerably more detailed, as you would expect; and, of course, look to future solutions – whereas the House of Bishops limit themselves, mostly, to outlining the zeitgeist):

[HO105] Housing associations are potentially effective providers of housing to rent. However, in their present forms they are deeply flawed. In particular in financial decisions which affect rent increases they are answerable to private investors. They must be democratised, with a fundamental shift of power in favour of tenants and increased accountability to the local community, aided by reduction in size.

[HO106] Housing Co-ops should be encouraged as effective providers of low cost housing with good participation by tenants. Some housing co-op principles would be well taken on board by local authorities and housing associations. However a true housing co-operative is co-operatively owned not just co-operatively managed and is in a position to use any assets to support the development of more co-operatives.

¶

You could argue (as do housebuilders, of course; and, almost unbelievably, the Labour Party, still Tory-lite in their approach…) – despite the availability of sufficient existing, empty properties – that we simply aren’t building enough (and failing to do so by a huge margin – probably calculated using the same greed-propelled “mathematics” that the Core Strategy housing supply is based on…). I would only go so far as to agree with that argument by tagging the emotive words “council houses” on at the end (and then only in the right locations – i.e. where there is employment; where there is family; where there is a deep connection to the land, to “place”). But, as we have seen, there can be problems with rented social housing when handed over to the private sector, or made available for sale.

Realistically, though, a mixture of publically- and privately-funded accommodation is probably the only way forward. And, despite the incontrovertible fact that a small, fluffy bunny dies every time a noddy-house is built; and my non-Nimby heart breaks at every single tiny despoilment of the English countryside; I accept – as the residents of Tysoe did in their briefing paper against Gladman, Sustainable Tysoe? – that we – as a village; as a district; as a county; as a country – “must evolve and grow”.

The Green Party’s desire to provide housing in large numbers therefore is described in terms much more nuanced than Ed Miliband’s eager “non-stop drive to build” – propelled, as it is, by the “real, pragmatic desire to support those less fortunate” and the “social dimensions” discussed above:

We want to build half a million more homes, available at social rent levels, funded both by a change in tax-relief for landlords and by fully lifting the artificial restrictions on councils borrowing against their assets.

     We estimate it will cost an extra £4.5bn a year. This would be a major investment in a national asset, which would create jobs and stabilise the economy. The policy is radical, it is different, but it is fully costed….

– Natalie Bennett: The Guardian

Although this discussion was at the centre of Natalie Bennett’s much-vaunted “brain fade”, it doesn’t make the Green Party’s approach – demonstrated most clearly by their policy section entitled ‘Local Authorities’ – any less valid:

[HO403] The Green Party believes in public ownership under the control of elected representatives as part of mixed provision for social housing. Council housing and the secure tenure it affords is an essential form of social housing provision. National Government must ensure adequate and good quality council housing stock is retained and provided by every local authority. It should also ensure that sufficient funding is available to councils for the provision of effective repairs and maintenance services.

However, I think that a large portion of this funding could also originate from “modifications to Council Tax” (Green Party policy HO607) – for example: “creation of new Council Tax bands above H to ensure that as property values get progressively higher so does the tax paid on them; [and] reform of the multiplier rates applied to the bands, to make the tax paid more proportionate to the value of the house” – which would result in increased local government funding; rather than Labour’s proposed Mansion Tax: the revenue from which would go straight into central government’s coffers. Now, that can’t be right….

¶

But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality…

– 2 Corinthians 8:14

Because it affects us all (either in its provision or lack), there is so much more that could be said – both politically and theologically – about housing, planning, architecture: but I am writing a blog, not a book (although I have made my view on these subjects quite clear many a time – just click on those links…). Personally, though, if you want to dig deeper – especially into the social and economic aspects – I would recommend Danny Dorling’s devastating All That Is Solid – which investigates that outwardly commonplace (certainly calm, to all appearances) statement from Who is my neighbour? that “We are living through both a banking crisis and a housing crisis”:

Housing was at the heart of the financial collapse, and our economy is now precariously reliant on the housing market [and] is the defining issue of our times. Tracing how we got to our current crisis and how housing has come to reflect class and wealth in Britain, All That Is Solid radically shows that the solution to our problems – rising homelessness, a generation priced out of home ownership – is not, as is widely assumed, building more homes. Inequality… is what we really need to overcome.

I would be very suprised if both the Green Party and the House of Bishops hadn’t studied this book intensely.

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.

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

I’ve tried walking sideways…

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

– Mark Twain

Despite the Tysoe Parish Plan 2010 only incorporating a smattering of “suggestions” and “requests” tied to each section; over five pages of comments were included as an appendix in the 2012 Tysoe Housing Needs Survey; and, although I am not suggesting that these form some sort of substantive precedent, I do think that – considering that other aspects of our village’s governance (e.g. submissions to planning applications; as well as most county, district and parish council decisions) are subject to full disclosure – the Neighbourhood Plan has to follow suit: and allow residents to ascertain the current ‘mood’ of the village; and to understand how their peers feel about both the status quo and our possible futures.

I believe, therefore, that the preliminary version, released online a few weeks ago, is unfit for purpose, because of its astounding brevity. And, if we are to take comfort from the final version; have confidence in it; and be convinced that we have been listened to (and understood), it is a prerequisite of such a significant publication that – rather than simply jumping straight to the answer – it shows (as many maths teachers have instructed) its ‘workings out’, line by line by line. This means that any future – and certainly the final – version of the Neighbourhood Plan, to gain validity, must be extended to include both the full quantitative results (i.e. the selections made against each question) and the full qualitative results (i.e. all the views expressed pertaining to specific questions; as well as those freeform ones under Other comments at the end of the survey). This is not a request – it is surely a democratic obligation.

¶

The Survey Results publication dropped through letterboxes – which was described as a selection of “Highlights” – was itself quite parsimonious (and more than by definition, I suspect); and the large font used meant that very little information was included. It would therefore be interesting to learn what the criteria used for selecting the contents – “results [chosen] where 70% or more of respondents expressed the same view or similar preferences, together with the highest scoring elements” – actually signified (as it is natural to suspect a strong element of subjective sifting); as well as how the full dataset of responses was transmuted into the draft Plan.

As I have said before, “I know how difficult it is not to ‘reflect’ your own loves and hates… – especially if you are not aware of your own innate biases; and these are not caught in the review process…” – and I am concerned that such presentational bias has crept into (or perhaps invaded?) the analysis of survey results; how this is promulgated; and how it is used in an attempt to drive (rather than gently guide) the village forward. Not only do I worry that the analysis is “prescriptive” – but also quite selective (and not just because of its meagreness…).

¶

Looking at this from the other side, for a moment: perhaps it doesn’t help that, according to this first draft of the Plan (on page 37), the “next steps consultations” that were arranged at the end of November were so poorly attended (only seventeen people at the first; and thirty-five at the second). Were these merely held at inconvenient times, or (more likely, at this time of year) without enough notice; or do they reflect the same apathy that resulted in only a 43% response rate to the survey? And what is at the root of this? Is it that – with this being the third such exercise in four years – like me, many people wonder “how much meaning… the [Neighbourhood] Plan will have; and for how long”? Or – having seen, for example, very few of the Parish Plan “Actions” come to fruition (for a multiplicity of reasons) – are people not only survey- and action plan-weary; but also – witnessing how a bunch of privileged toffs currently run national government purely for the sake of themselves and their monied chums – demonstrating little or no faith in any kind of establishment or authority (earned or not); and doubting that it has their best interests at heart, anyway…? Or, is it just a simple side-effect of poor local Internet access? [As I write this, an email pops up – and a flyer pops through the letterbox – with notification of another meeting on 5 January 2015. Will more of the same make any difference, I wonder?]

I honestly don’t know the answer to any of the above; and it doesn’t seem worth (jumping to conclusions) polling the village to discover if this is true…! All I know is that the people I discuss this with have very little faith in the Neighbourhood Plan realistically achieving anything meaningful – especially with suspicions already emerging that, whatever the outcome of the planning inquiry, Jabba the Cut will just rubber-stamp Gladman’s plans, with no regard for the village’s needs and wants – which returns me to what I said earlier: that this appears solely to be “yet another time- and money-consuming exercise: designed to keep us ‘plebs’ occupied”. What looks like an open consultative process, on the surface, appears – on paper, leastwise – to be producing discriminate and, not unjustified, but perhaps slightly opinionated, or (sub)consciously desired, conclusions. I can’t put my finger on it, yet: but something, somewhere, seems awry.

¶

“Full disclosure” would remove many – if not all – such suspicions. It would certainly, notwithstanding my scepticism, lead to the Neighbourhood Plan – even if it doesn’t fulfil its core, designated purpose – being valuable in other ways: even if that is only to capture the Tysoe Zeitgeist, as do the previous Parish Plan and Housing Needs Survey – thus contributing to an expanding and evolving picture (modern history, even) of village life.

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