I admit that I don't shop that often. I wouldn't say that I was the main shopper in our household. Yet I did find myself authorized to do some food shopping before Christmas and I found myself experiencing nostalgia not really for the items on offer but the methods of shopping.
I'll start with a general gripe. The expression 'stocking fillers' in bold type seemed to me to send out the wrong signals to any young child who could read but still believed in Father Christmas.
Then there is the question of customer service. However good the training, it just is not possible to get sufficient information, sufficiently easily if you are shopping in an aircraft hangar of a building that sells a huge variety of goods and cannot therefore have so much expertise on tap. Specifically on food however there was something about being able to smell and examine vegetables and fruit for example without them being wrapped and packed and plastered in stickers, which has now disappeared from many shops.
I stuck lucky in Crediton- our local market town. Firstly I could drive right into the centre and park. There were spouts available in sufficient quantity and loose and not in shrink wrapped packets of six! There is, Alleluia, a cheese shop selling, amongst others, local cheeses that the 'big' food retailers now seem to have withdrawn from their shelves ( not surprising that the dairy farms are struggling). There is an ironmonger too.
Do you remember those card games of 'happy families' that we played as children? Mr Bun the Baker for example. The pack of cards would be small today.
Much has been said about the 'death of the High Street' and I accept that urban planning is challenged in this area. Product price is an issue as is convenience and cheap or free parking. I just wonder whether there is a model that allows independent shops to come together and offer a combined facility for customers which will enable them to survive against the advantages of the large retailers.
There would need to be a way of drawing in outside investment and the independents too would need some equity share and the planners would have to be on side. It would provide a more secure and sustainable outlet for those farms who supply farmers markets. #justsaying
I hope that you had a good Christmas and that 2016 is good for you
Saturday, 26 December 2015
Saturday, 24 January 2015
Two great men
This coming Friday will see the funeral and memorial service for Henry McCreath in Berwick-upon-Tweed. This coming Friday is also the 50th anniversary of the funeral of Winston Churchill.
I make no apology for mentioning them in a blog about rural matters.
Henry McCreath was born in June 1915 in Berwick.
Most of his career was in the grain trade- early on in the family grain business and, after the war, in the same business that he resurrected with his brother Geoff (another great man) who was my father-in-law (H.G.McCreath & Co). He had a distinguished career being well known to farmers in the Borders and Northumberland, being President of the UK Agricultural Supply Trade Association in 1972/3, being a J.P. and chairman of the bench and finally being given honorary Freedom of Berwick at the age of 96, three years ago.
He was a man of great determination which not only served him well in business but also in his greatest challenge; surviving the Japanese Prisoner of War Camps in Changi and along the Burma/Siam railway and the river Kwai. He was taken prisoner only a week after arriving in Singapore as a Captain in the 9th Northumberland Fusiliers yet throughout his incarceration was committed to the men who served with him.
For many years the only people with whom he could talk about his horrendous experiences were the others who knew what it was like- the members of his local FEPoW (Far East Prisoners of War) group for example. I suspect that farmers too were good to deal with in that respect- straightforward, no-nonsense and not too obviously emotional. Farming is a fairly solitary occupation after all.
I was at school near Westerham in Kent where Winston Churchill lived for the last few years of his life near his beloved Chartwell.
I remember, as a young boy, going to wave up at his upstairs window at which he appeared on his 90th birthday. I remember too the activity surrounding the date of his death, the church service in the local church and then the pageantry of his funeral.
In some ways flawed, in others inspirational, he too will be associated with the 2nd World War. Like Henry he too appreciated the countryside whether it was portraying it in his painting or encouraging the farmers and Land Girls in their wartime production.
So it is time to remember two great men; leaders in peacetime and in war whose funerals coincide 50 years apart.
I make no apology for mentioning them in a blog about rural matters.
Henry McCreath was born in June 1915 in Berwick.
Most of his career was in the grain trade- early on in the family grain business and, after the war, in the same business that he resurrected with his brother Geoff (another great man) who was my father-in-law (H.G.McCreath & Co). He had a distinguished career being well known to farmers in the Borders and Northumberland, being President of the UK Agricultural Supply Trade Association in 1972/3, being a J.P. and chairman of the bench and finally being given honorary Freedom of Berwick at the age of 96, three years ago.
He was a man of great determination which not only served him well in business but also in his greatest challenge; surviving the Japanese Prisoner of War Camps in Changi and along the Burma/Siam railway and the river Kwai. He was taken prisoner only a week after arriving in Singapore as a Captain in the 9th Northumberland Fusiliers yet throughout his incarceration was committed to the men who served with him.
For many years the only people with whom he could talk about his horrendous experiences were the others who knew what it was like- the members of his local FEPoW (Far East Prisoners of War) group for example. I suspect that farmers too were good to deal with in that respect- straightforward, no-nonsense and not too obviously emotional. Farming is a fairly solitary occupation after all.
I was at school near Westerham in Kent where Winston Churchill lived for the last few years of his life near his beloved Chartwell.
I remember, as a young boy, going to wave up at his upstairs window at which he appeared on his 90th birthday. I remember too the activity surrounding the date of his death, the church service in the local church and then the pageantry of his funeral.
In some ways flawed, in others inspirational, he too will be associated with the 2nd World War. Like Henry he too appreciated the countryside whether it was portraying it in his painting or encouraging the farmers and Land Girls in their wartime production.
So it is time to remember two great men; leaders in peacetime and in war whose funerals coincide 50 years apart.
Sunday, 14 December 2014
Christmas 1914
100 years ago this Christmas the allied forces were bogged down in trenches facing the German Army. In the trenches at Ploegsteert, near Ypres, with the London Rifle Brigade was my 21 year old grandfather George whose initial euphoria about going to war was fading. In letters written in December a century ago to his mother Charlotte here in Cadbury he said “ the flat country, the awful mud and wet- in fact I feel sometimes what is it all for.. I feel so homesick so often and then fancy death.” The barrage of the guns was unceasing and relentless. Then a wonderful thing happened...
100 years ago this Christmas the allied forces were bogged down in trenches facing the German Army. In the trenches at Ploegsteert, near Ypres, with the London Rifle Brigade was my 21 year old grandfather George whose initial euphoria about going to war was fading. In letters written in December a century ago to his mother Charlotte here in Cadbury he said “ the flat country, the awful mud and wet- in fact I feel sometimes what is it all for.. I feel so homesick so often and then fancy death.” The barrage of the guns was unceasing and relentless. Then a wonderful thing happened...
In George’s own words in letters to his mother and his
father written at Christmas in 1914 he said “It was the most extraordinary
thing I have ever known was the Christmas Day truce. I will tell you about it
when I return. I gave a match box that Harriet gave me years ago to a German
officer as my souvenir. I hope to get it back.
I had to superintend
my platoon working in front of some trenches on Christmas Eve. It was freezing
as hard as nails just as you were burning the log at Fursdon. How I thought of you. But the Germans did not fire at
all. Instead they had 3 huge Christmas trees (of course we did not fire) and
they sang hymns and then we in our trenches sang carols and we cheered each
other and then they had a cornet and played different tunes which we encored
and applauded. Thus passed Christmas Eve. Yet to think that 6 hours before we
were trying to kill each other.
Then on Christmas morning we put our heads over the trenches
and waved to one another (no firing) and as we had 5 German dead in front of
our trenches I walked out with a corporal and signalled to the Germans to meet
us half way- the trenches are only 50 yards apart-they came out and they spoke
English and I explained and they were pleased. One of the men I spoke to was a
hairdresser in Liverpool Street. They spoke very good English and they were not
keen to start fighting again. So we carried their dead half way out and they
took them and buried them. They then had a short service and their officer made
a short speech in which they thanked us for our kindness and then we exchanged
souvenirs, shook hands and went back to our trenches. Thus there was a mutual
truce on Christmas day. Afterwards we still waved etc and still the truce
continues".
I am going to read this passage at our village Carol Service on 18th December and it will be followed by the carol “Silent Night” which was
one of the carols sung that Christmas in Flanders. We hope that the choir will be singing
the opening verse of the carol in German.
Sunday, 23 November 2014
Only one chance to get it right
Just as people often justify investment in land by saying 'they don't make it any more' so when people build in the countryside that will be an irreversible change not least because of the value that building has added to the underlying land. It is hardly surprising therefore that debates about the future of the countryside have become so heated with the fires stoked by the planning reforms introduced by the coalition Government.
At the HHA AGM last week Simon Jenkins, immediate past Chairman of the National Trust, spoke about his idea of listing the landscape in the same way as buildings are listed grade I,II or II*. I remember debating this on the Today programme in 2007 when I expressed my doubts about this- doubts which I still have.
One of the advantages of our current listing system is that it is moderated by English Heritage which ensures some consistency of approach. It is salutary when a building which you or your local council think is particularly important is revealed by English Heritage to be one of many and not as unusual as you think. As with other designations (SSSIs for example) listing is sometimes used as a tool by those opposed to development whether for personal or aesthetic reasons so the procedure must be robust.
Listing the landscape would immediately introduce a flood of applications from wealthy incomers to rural areas determined to oppose development which might spoil their view whether it was for a necessary agricultural building, a discreet development of affordable homes or an inappropriate sprawl of identikit modern houses. Left to determination at a local level would leave the system exposed to abuse when the rules would be set and enforced by understaffed and harassed local authorities without the bigger picture and with the inherent risk of acting as judge and jury. Set nationally it would require a body such as Natural England- itself starved of resources- to set the rules.
What would those rules be? It is difficult enough with listed buildings where variations in building styles and materials have varied through time and with geography. Yet it has become possible through the application of expert historical, architectural and archaeological knowledge to develop some rules. With land it is a much more subjective judgment that may be less about physical form and more about interpretation and individual appreciation.
Whether we are talking about buildings or landscape we cannot create museum pieces. They must live. Simon Jenkins himself has been a strong advocate of bringing life back to National Trust houses- something I have been delighted to see happen in the last few years. Just as I have been a strong advocate of finding a viable use for historic buildings (to provide an income stream for their repair and maintenance) so would this be necessary for landscapes, which carry the strong imprint of man.
A friend of mine who is keen on music and an opera lover told me how he now finds music without the human voice less fulfilling. Many consider that the stone walls and barns of the Yorkshire Dales do the same for their stunning landscapes.
If we were to list what we consider our 'best' landscapes then I feel sorry for those who would end up looking out on those that were at the bottom of the pile. How could planners prevent the inevitable rash of development on these unexceptional but important landscapes which perhaps provide important green space for those living nearby.
All this highlights the complex and changing nature of the factors which bear on the development of our landscape. We have developed a somewhat tortuous but generally effective system of planning in the countryside which had become perhaps too stultifying and may now have become too loose. In my view to set the future of our landscape within the straitjacket of a listing system would be a mistake. This is not to say that I disagree with Simon about the need to protect our wonderful countryside and the settings of some of our iconic buildings. I believe that we need the pendulum to swing back so that we can develop a planning system which is consistent, fair and appropriate and resourced appropriately. Perhaps it is this question of resourcing that needs the most attention.
At the HHA AGM last week Simon Jenkins, immediate past Chairman of the National Trust, spoke about his idea of listing the landscape in the same way as buildings are listed grade I,II or II*. I remember debating this on the Today programme in 2007 when I expressed my doubts about this- doubts which I still have.
One of the advantages of our current listing system is that it is moderated by English Heritage which ensures some consistency of approach. It is salutary when a building which you or your local council think is particularly important is revealed by English Heritage to be one of many and not as unusual as you think. As with other designations (SSSIs for example) listing is sometimes used as a tool by those opposed to development whether for personal or aesthetic reasons so the procedure must be robust.
Listing the landscape would immediately introduce a flood of applications from wealthy incomers to rural areas determined to oppose development which might spoil their view whether it was for a necessary agricultural building, a discreet development of affordable homes or an inappropriate sprawl of identikit modern houses. Left to determination at a local level would leave the system exposed to abuse when the rules would be set and enforced by understaffed and harassed local authorities without the bigger picture and with the inherent risk of acting as judge and jury. Set nationally it would require a body such as Natural England- itself starved of resources- to set the rules.
What would those rules be? It is difficult enough with listed buildings where variations in building styles and materials have varied through time and with geography. Yet it has become possible through the application of expert historical, architectural and archaeological knowledge to develop some rules. With land it is a much more subjective judgment that may be less about physical form and more about interpretation and individual appreciation.
Whether we are talking about buildings or landscape we cannot create museum pieces. They must live. Simon Jenkins himself has been a strong advocate of bringing life back to National Trust houses- something I have been delighted to see happen in the last few years. Just as I have been a strong advocate of finding a viable use for historic buildings (to provide an income stream for their repair and maintenance) so would this be necessary for landscapes, which carry the strong imprint of man.
A friend of mine who is keen on music and an opera lover told me how he now finds music without the human voice less fulfilling. Many consider that the stone walls and barns of the Yorkshire Dales do the same for their stunning landscapes.
If we were to list what we consider our 'best' landscapes then I feel sorry for those who would end up looking out on those that were at the bottom of the pile. How could planners prevent the inevitable rash of development on these unexceptional but important landscapes which perhaps provide important green space for those living nearby.
All this highlights the complex and changing nature of the factors which bear on the development of our landscape. We have developed a somewhat tortuous but generally effective system of planning in the countryside which had become perhaps too stultifying and may now have become too loose. In my view to set the future of our landscape within the straitjacket of a listing system would be a mistake. This is not to say that I disagree with Simon about the need to protect our wonderful countryside and the settings of some of our iconic buildings. I believe that we need the pendulum to swing back so that we can develop a planning system which is consistent, fair and appropriate and resourced appropriately. Perhaps it is this question of resourcing that needs the most attention.
Monday, 25 August 2014
Climate Change- what does it mean for rural business?
The climate change debate is like a boxing match. In the red
corner are the climate change ‘enforcers’ and in the blue corner the climate
change ‘deniers’. Both ‘boxers’ have been training in separate gyms. They have
issued their own statements to the pre-fight press conference. They don’t speak
and then the bell goes and they start hitting each other. No communications can
the heard except for grunts and the noise of glove on jaw.
It is hard for the majority of people to know where to start
in this debate although that doesn’t stop some individuals from pronouncing
with great certainty. It is hard because it is so complicated and the climate
is a model with so many moving parts. Think of how sophisticated climate
modeling computers are and how they still struggle with a forecast that is
more than 10 days away.
As I try to make sense of it I remember the flawed
information on climate change from the University of East Anglia apparently
supporting the notion of climate change, the fact that the weather recordings
over the last 20 years or so have shown negligible temperature increases and
the snow falls that have taken place in this country together with ships have becomes locked
in pack ice in the Arctic recently.Yet I also note that passages through the ice
have opened up for the first time for many years, that some glaciers have
retreated miles and that some plants are flowering in the middle of winter.
Then there is the question of what to blame if you do accept
that the climate is changing and, if so, what should be done about it and by
whom. Is it CO2 or is it methane? Is the problem the drying out of peat or
emissions from agriculture or from power stations? In a world climatic system
how can one country influence another? Is this done by example or treaty?
Should countries economic growth be held back when such growth can save lives?
What is the ‘whole-life’ carbon cost of new technology that hasn’t been fully
tested and while CO2 emissions from burning wood balances its absorption by growing trees, is that the right way of looking at it?
I tend to feel that the greater the professed
certainty that people have in this debate the more uncertain I become. Without
the benefit of huge computers and scientific laboratories I have to rely on my
own experience.
What I have noticed is that we are suffering more extremes,
in both directions. This is not a surprise in a country that sits on the edge
of the European continent and whose climate is artificially controlled by the
operation of the Gulf Stream. The jet stream seems to need oiling to restore
its flexibility. If you live in the country you see it at first hand. If you
are farming the impact is raw. How much summer feed can you make and how much
will you need in the winter? How many pests and diseases will affect your crops or trees
and how will you protect them. If you run a tourism business, the weather
impacts on visitor numbers not only for day visitors but also holiday makers. These questions all therefore, have £ signs against
them. Naively I thought that after the storms of 1987 and 1990 most of the
mature trees that were going to come down had come down. These trees were destroyed last month by a lightening strike.
Whatever the experts say we are definitely living in more
challenging climatic times and anything that we can do to help the situation we
should. Whatever may be happening to the climate naturally we don't want to make it worse. What we need however is clarity, open debate, scientific consensus and
this then needs to be translated into clear political consensus around which we
can coalesce. Am I too optimistic? In the meantime we need to work out how to
mitigate the effects of this variability. Farming and tourism will be in the
front line.
Sunday, 2 March 2014
Support from Conservation organisations
We recently had a visit from Harry Barton, the Chief
Executive of the Devon Wildlife Trust. We have been members of this excellent
organisation for over 30 years. I nearly sold them Downes Mill near Crediton
when I was auctioning the property in a previous life which they wanted as
their HQ.
He was affable, helpful and friendly as we discussed plans
for creating a wild-flower meadow and some over-wintered stubbles.
We also discussed the relationship between the Conservation
societies and the farming and landowning community- something that has been in
the news recently with the debate about the effects of and possible solutions to
the floods on the Somerset levels.
Rather like the debate about religion, conversations about
the environment become infiltrated by extremists on both sides. I noted some
wild comments on Twitter from some understandably frustrated farmers (although
not, interestingly, in Somerset) accusing the Environment Agency of pandering
to the environmental lobby by refusing to dredge the rivers Parrot and the
Tone. Quite rightly the RSPB pointed out that, replacing grazed pastures with
flood water and then dead vegetation when it disappears (if it ever does) will
not favour wildlife. The problem in Somerset is about cash and the Environment
Agency doesn’t have enough to go round. Whether that is because they are
wasting money elsewhere or because the public expenditure costs have been too
harsh is a difficult call to make without knowing more of the detail- something
that it is hard for laymen to work out!
The Environmental lobby does have its extremists too and to
some of them those who farm and own land constitute the problem and not the
solution, rather like they are or were to Robert Mugabe. Some of these
protagonists are unhappy with the concept of property rights for the
individual. The problem is that alongside property rights goes the confidence
to invest in property and for many responsible property owners that includes
protecting and enhancing the environment. This can include taking some
responsibility for some preventative measures on the Somerset Levels and
elsewhere. In a property owning democracy we need a balance between the rights
of the state and the individual.
As I discussed with Harry however it would be helpful if the
Conservation lobby was able to lobby more often in partnership with those whose
businesses are located in the countryside. The fallen beech tree that brought
down our phone and internet lines (see my last blog), was a hedgerow tree which
contributed hugely to the biodiversity of its immediate area. The fact that my
business and no doubt other people’s too are now suffering and we can’t get a
sensible answer from BT should be an issue for the Conservation bodies as much
as for those that represent rural business like the CLA or NFU.
Monday, 10 February 2014
Technology and the Countryside
After a prolonged absence from blogging due to time pressure
I have decided to start again. This is prompted particularly by a series of
technology frustrations that began with a brave idea to upgrade my mobile
phone.
It’s a long and boring story but in the saga of lost data, a
lost password, a dud iPhone and a blame-shifting game between o2, Apple,
Eclipse internet and our IT support company which continued until the phone was
replaced I realised that the real frustration was not being able to speak to
anyone to help sort the problem unless you can go into real live premises. With
Eclipse I had to type my questions in a form of telephone tennis and wait for
an answer so that something that could have taken 5 minutes took an hour. If
you live in ‘deep country’ getting to live premises isn’t easy (if they will let you in at all) although I have
to say that the Apple store in Exeter have been excellent.
Life has become more complicated since the recent storms
brought down a beech tree and, with it, the telephone line which of course
carries the internet connection. We run a holiday business as well as the farm
at home and, gloriously peaceful as the radio silence is, I can’t help but
think that we are losing business. We only just got the tax and VAT sorted out
in time (sadly!) There must be others in the same boat. My replacement phone
cannot be backed up now because we have no connection. Thus my last lifeline
has been severed and the saga continues!
Of course you can’t
speak to anyone who can really help at BT.I am planning a gentle ambush of a telephone engineer to get his mobile number which I will auction for charity. You can get in a queue to speak to
someone in Mumbai but then you get general answers not specific to your
locality. I would just like to know when they are going to mend the line.
Apparently someone has been out to look at it and has decided that a survey is
needed. What rubbish! The tree broke the line. It needs to be mended. We could
have told them that.
A privatised BT beholden to its shareholders may have saved
the public purse lots of money and made its investors wealthier but there needs
to be a balance. An effective monopoly providing basic infrastructure to rural
businesses needs to provide a better and more accessible service and send its
employees on the sort of customer service courses that tourism businesses use.
It is the ‘old fashioned’ concept of personal communication using the spoken
word that has been lost. Technology encourages this. On-line bookings dealt
with remotely, reliance on texts, emails and social media, the lack of phone
numbers displayed on websites- too much is for the convenience of the provider
rather than the customer.
Better
broadband speeds will be welcome in the countryside but not if it means that
essential service providers forget that their customers can feel very cut off
and their businesses vulnerable if there is no-one to talk to!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






