Posted by Charles Sargeant on August 17, 2005 at 15:31:39 from 82.3.67.32 user hawsbank.
In Reply to: Re: High Yewdale (Tyson's?)/National Trust posted by Owen Roberts on April 14, 2005 at 14:14:16:
Coniston Parish Council,
The National Trust
and
High Yewdale Farm:
a personal report
Prepared for
Coniston Parish Council Meeting 20 June 2005
Accepted and endorsed by Coniston Parish Council
20th June 2005
Charles Sargeant, Clerk to Coniston Parish Council
Haws Bank House, Haws Bank, Coniston, Cumbria LA21 8AP
Telephone 01539441991 Email charles.sargeant@virgin.net
Although I am the Clerk to Coniston Parish Council and my involvement with this issue has been as the result of that office, these reflections can be no more than a personal response and cannot in any way be considered to be a statement on behalf of the parish council.
C. Sargeant
Coniston Parish Council
CPC’s involvement happened because it was asked by members of its electorate to represent them and work on their behalf. CPC has attempted to remain objective in its dealings, locally and nationally, with The National Trust and with the press; in listening to and representing its electorate; and, in working with those who have offered leadership and an experience and expertise beyond the usual levels of parish council operations.
CPC has at all times attempted to maintain good relations with all parties in order to sustain the debate: closure on any front is negative and unproductive. This has meant that the parish council has been criticised (unfairly) by a number of participants. However, that is the nature of local politics.
Having reduced the farms in the Yewdale valley, more recently from 15 to 5, councillors were concerned about the impact of further reduction on the social framework of Yewdale-valley farming. Councillors felt, and it was supported by one of the farming families, that the point had been reached when the ability of the farmers to be in personal control of their holdings was being pressurised to the point when efficiency would be lost.
Councillors, aware of how finances are likely to be affected by the changes in European agricultural policy, the uncertainty of central government support and the drive by the Director of the LDNPA to attain World Heritage Site status, formed the opinion that the decision about High Yewdale was ill thought out and unnecessarily hasty in its execution.
Unfortunately, CPC came late into the campaign and at a point where the Trust had already started to implement its proposal by negotiating the division of land and stock with the farmers and by reaching agreements with them.
Late or not, I am not confident that the parish council’s protest was ever going to have any effect. Large organisations, such as the LDNPA and the Trust, making decisions in private rather than in public is par for the age. Democracy is becoming impotent.
Council involvement: a chronology
February 21, 2005: Resolved that a petition would be organised and letters sent to important public figures
March 21, 2005: Resolved to invite a Trust representative to be the guest speaker at the next meeting.
April 18, 2005: Minuted that negotiations were in progress for councillors to meet Trust representatives.
May 16, 2005: Clerk reported that he had had a meeting with the Property Manager for Coniston and Langdale. It was minuted that an Action Group had been formed to press the case against amalgamation of farms in Yewdale.
June 8, 2005: Meeting with 4 Trust officers at Boon Crag, Coniston
June 17, 2005: Clerk and a councillor part of Action Group team to meet 5 Trust officers at The Hollens, Grasmere
The National Trust
The representatives of the Trust, those who have been contacted, have at all times, locally and nationally, been receptive to our approaches but unrelenting in their defence of the decision to amalgamate High Yewdale Farm with the four other neighbouring farms. They have been resolute in believing the decision is a correct one economically. Their talk of viability has at all times seem to be driven by economics: landscape, trees and tourism as a group come second; farms and farmers lag behind and do not seem to have ever been their priority.
Their failure to consult tenants meaningfully was a major faux pas. Their management skills have been influenced by a desire to make the right economic decision. There seems to have been no attempt to balance market trends with social considerations. This was certainly not even a reasonable involvement of those most affected.
The report produced by the Trust’s officers was drawn up at a distance away from Yewdale experience, used academic data from the Scottish Agricultural College resources and seems to have been selective in its coverage to make a superficially convincing argument to support a predetermined case. Its conclusions were based on a general overview and not on specific detail. Therein lies the weakness of the report: the figures used were too broad for a narrowly focussed problem.
The Trust was singularly remiss it not talking to its tenants about how they manage, physically, psychologically and economically. The psychological impact of their actions never once entered the thinking of The Trust. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that they have treated the tenants disdainfully. It was clear from the meetings I attended that the officers understanding of fell farming was negligible and certainly lacking in sympathy for the uniqueness of it and insensitive to the social structure it embraces.
At no time did I feel that the officers of the Trust were listening to us as if we were saying something of importance or relevance. Their minds were made up and whatever arguments we presented were resisted without consideration. Whenever someone who knew what they were talking about offered an alternative to the Trust’s proposal, they were dismissed as knowing less than the officers themselves. Their vision was the only vision; their judgement was all that mattered. Many of the epithets to be used of them are in the text: arrogant, closed, insensitive, biased, ignorant, inflexible, dictatorial, destructive, alien.
At the end of four hours of discussion, the only concessions made by The Trust were:
1. In other Lake District valleys there will be better consultation of and involvement with the farmers and the community in which they live and work.
2. The Trust officers will spend time with fell farmers to learn something of the intricacies and subtleties of their lives of which at present they are astonishingly ignorant.
3. To find a tenant for the farm house and buildings of High Yewdale the Trust will attempt to take into account local needs by working (as far as they can) with the parish council.
4. The Trust officers say they have been educated by the events surrounding High Yewdale Farm and will use a more appropriate management style in future.
These concessions are at best conciliatory and do nothing to address the problems they have created at High Yewdale.
High Yewdale
It would seem, that by the end of the twentieth century and for economic reasons, when the opportunity arose, the five farms in the Yewdale valley would be reduced in number. It was fortuitous and unfortunate that the best farm became vulnerable to that policy and, no matter how strong the arguments against amalgamation, the officers of the Trust were convinced, and still remain convinced, that what they have done is correct. The arrogance of their attitude has been exasperating.
High Yewdale has a hefted flock but it has been clear to those involved in the discussions with Trust officers that they do not fully (perhaps not even partially in some cases) understand the importance of that in terms of the heritage of the area.
It was said by one of the Trust’s officers that looking after herdwicks was not rocket science. The comment served to illustrate how far from an understanding of fell farming and hefted herds the decision makers were. There is a science, very precise and intricate, involved, and derisory and disrespectful comments like that demonstrated the difficulty of the task persuading the personnel of the Trust to be reasonable. They could not connect the significance of the herdwick flock to the landscape. They were not prepared to concede that by threatening the management of the flock, they were threatening the very essence of the Yewdale valley. They seemed to lack the vision that if the Lake District becomes a World Heritage Site, they will have jeopardised an important part of that heritage.
Concluding remarks
The Parish Council was very clear that there was considerable hostility from within the community to the proposals. Through the media important voices from across the world were expressing opposition to the Trust’s proposals. The organisation of a petition gauged the depth of feeling. However, it seems to have had no influence on the Trust when it was presented. Motivated to represent the opposition, the Parish Council attempted to effect a reversal of the policy affecting High Yewdale. To persuade the Trust to retain five farms in the valley much as they were at the end of the twentieth century was the council’s objective. That does not seem a likely conclusion now. Faced with the inflexibility of the Trust, the council has to decide what more it can do, if anything. To maintain a dialogue and a good working relationship with the Trust is essential for the good health of the parish and people of Coniston, for there are matters other than High Yewdale. To take a simple local view, perhaps we could encourage petition signers to resign their membership of the Trust as an economic protest as money seems to be the Trust’s major concern. Beyond that, the council should continue to support the tenants, as it should all its parishioners, at all times, and in whatever ways are feasible and appropriate.