When is a Greenhouse not a Greenhouse?

I’ve worked with communities for over 25 years. I’ve been assigned to some of the toughest neighbourhoods in the UK and I’ve also spent 4 years in post-apartheid southern Africa with the Kalahari bushmen.  I’ve witnessed bunfights over the Leylandii, race riots in Glodwick and death in the desert and yet, the recent situation in relation to Stamford Park Conservatory has rendered me ‘gobsmacked.’

I don’t want to minimise any of the tragedies that I’ve witnessed in other communities – because after all, the bulldozing of a greenhouse in a park hardly equates to the loss of human life – but there are a few, extremely important elements as to why over 10k people in this somewhat neglected side of South-East Lancashire have almost overnight morphed from ‘sleeping giants’ and into determined community activists.

For those of you who haven’t heard about the Save Our Conservatory campaign; here is the context. In 1873, a group of municipal socialist politicians (my great x 3 grandad, Robert Stanley – mayor and JP – being one of them) led thousands of local people to raise the money to purchase Stamford Park. It was one of the finest Victorian, people-owned parks of the era. In 1907, a Conservatory was bequeathed to the park on behalf of a local JP, John Nield. Shortly afterwards the local authority (now Tameside) took over the day to day servicing of the park. In the early 1980s, the Conservatory needed an overhaul and most of the original framework was replaced. In 2003, it was again in need of attention and renovations took place; with the original iron work, foundation structure, boiler-house and the 100 year old banana tree remaining. Take just a little hop to just 16 years later … and in 2019, the local authority announced that they were going to demolish it, because of the state of disrepair, the cost of needed repairs, the cost of ongoing maintenance and the clincher ‘health and safety’ due to disrepair.

In response to this, a group of – entirely unconnected – individuals got together in order to start a petition. Within a couple of weeks they hard nigh-on 5k signatures, with thousands more on their Facebook page. And many thousands more who supported them and who did not ‘do’ social media or online petitions.

In response, the official reply from the local authority simply said that the Council had set a demolition date, that these group of people were ‘hysterical’, were ‘politically motivated’ and then – most recently – that yes, the Council were willing to meet with a group of people IF they were properly constituted and only AFTER the demolition had occurred (hmmm… that’s rather like telling someone that you’ll have a nice chat with them, providing they wear a suit and tie. But only after you’ve had their head sliced off by the guillotine.)

Now, I’m not part of the committee that have been set up for the campaign – so in some respects, some might feel that I’m more of an independent observer. Fine by me, if that’s what folk want to think. And yes I do feel an attachment to Stamford Park – a huge one – but I have no axes to grind politically and I’ve got more than a little bit of experience of watching community politics unfold. But for what it’s worth – and if you’re of the mind that that folk getting their knickers in a twist over a greenhouse is all a little bit pathetic – these are the reasons as to why such outrage is being felt:

1. Disrepair i) The Conservatory is in need of repair and this is a costly job – so the people are told. But if this is the case, why haven’t the campaign leaders been shown round the cordoned-off building (with the necessary hard-hat and of course the Council has public indemnity insurance in place…) so that they can see this for themselves? And then the Council could surely reassure the campaign group to calm down all of this ‘hysteria’ stuff. This would have been a wise action to take.  Disrepair ii) Bit of a Tosh Repair Job? I mean, if my husband organised a nice Conservatory to be built for us in 2003 and then announced just this year, that it was totally crap and needed to be demolished … I would either be insisting on an independent inspection for the structure. Or a fast divorce. So, yes, an additional, independent survey. This would have been a wise action to take.
2. Cost: No doubt about it, the central Conservative government’s austerity cuts have been bleeding local authorities dry. But across the country there are hundreds of examples of local groups who have successfully taken over libraries, park etc. as volunteers; who have become registered community assets and who are – in fact – running them far better than the local authority ever did.  The problem with promoting this approach though, is that it runs counter to Party Politics. Because the more narrow-minded Opposition politicians feel that if they encourage locals to take over an asset, it will take away their political moral high-ground. It would mean that they will no longer be able to say; ‘See! You’ve lost all of these lovely services because of the nasty Tories! And also – because of those filthy rotters – we’ll have to choose between dementia patients and nursery services for toddlers!’ (I’m surprised that they didn’t add ‘and rescuing abandoned puppies and kittens and donkeys’ into that particular form of emotional blackmail…) Yet this sort of rhetoric is: a) not only highly insulting to the intelligence of Council Tax payers but it is b) Scissors-Nose-Face action.  Surely it would have been far better for a Council when they witnessed the abject horror of local people over closure/demolition, to have sat down with them and to say; ‘Look – we can’t run this place ourselves anymore – but if you think that YOU can, we’ll help you along, to sort a formal group out, get you some advice and support any funding bids.’ This would have been a wise action to take.
3. Obtaining Funding: I run an international charity, so I spend half of my life finding out about funding sources. And yup – there really ARE some big foundations out there who are desperate to give their dosh away to highly organised local groups with a robust business plan. So there is absolutely no need for a local authority to be telling its residents that the Conservatory has to come down because ‘We can’t afford it’. No, the message should have been ‘We can’t afford it – but there are lots of funding pots out there that will give the cash to a group of volunteers. Let’s support you, local folk, to make such funding bids!’ This would have been a wise action to take.
4. Definition of Heritage: One of the most frequently uttered arguments for demolition of the Conservatory has been that because it is no longer the original structure, it is therefore of no historical merit. Cobblers! This greenhouse contains the original ironwork, the banana tree, the foundations, the boiler house … and only a few yards away, the Council carried out a complete refurbishment of a set of stocks. Now, the stocks are a good example of this particular double standard. They don’t look like the sort of ‘refurb’ job that I would have chosen to have commissioned myself … but at least the Council actually bothered with them – rather than simply deciding to demolishing them and shoving a Costa Coffee stand or something in its place, which they could well have chosen to do (and drinking that Costa so-called ‘coffee’ stuff is far more unpleasant than having rotten fruit thrown at you, if you ask me). So, yes, the Council can claim that the new stocks jobby is evidence of them refurbishing ‘our heritage.’ But ah…Hang on. This one only cost a few thousand didn’t it? Yes, it’s much easier to claim ‘heritage’ when it doesn’t burn a bit of a hole in your pocket.  And furthermore, I would add that it is an outmoded and prehistoric (‘scuse the pun) attitude … to state that heritage is only something that is ‘listed’ or that is *pure* in terms of original materials.  Look at the Mary Rose … no more than a few rotten, fishy old beams. And how important is little aquatic find to the British nation? No – we need to get beyond the old fashioned ‘it’s old… it’s can only be the original infrastructure’ argument. Today, ‘heritage’ means this; the sum of the value of whatever something has come to mean for a community over the years, whatever physical parts of it still remain, and whatever essence a community wishes for it to have in a local area – in terms of physical presence and purpose. And the thing is, just a couple of weeks of chatting to local stakeholders of the park, in the 3 surrounding towns – would have flagged up just what a sense of heritage lies in that building. This would have been a wise action to take.
5. Too many historical buildings being demolished – and not enough transparency. This blog would keep me writing until midnight if I had to list all of the stunning – and not so stunning – places of heritage that have disappeared over the last few decades in our local area. Sure, not everything can be saved – but these days there are dozens of options of what to do with a historical building. Now … the problem begins when there is a whiff of the developers versus heritage issues.  Some 25 years ago, I actually STUDIED ‘Local Government’ before I went into it as a career. Seriously! I had to learn the difference between ‘consultation’ and ‘involvement’ and ‘empowerment.’ Local Councils are required to ‘consult’ their residents – but unfortunately for many, they try and get away with ‘putting our plans out there publicly, then ignoring feedback and … just doing what we were going to do, regardless.’ Do this too many times and you end up with a population of very angry people.

In short, a local authority  –  especially when confronted with a very emotive issue such as heritage (let’s face it, this simply means ‘our collective identity and what elements are of huge importance to us’) – are always best having regular, ongoing, involvement and empowerment task forces. Folk who get out there into communities, with the job of ensuring that every bit of a geographical area feels included and empowered. And if they say that they can’t afford to employ such people, they now know where to come for a group of volunteers who would do just that…

Yes. This would have been a wise action to take.

When too many of these ‘wise actions’ are missing – then suspicion, mistrust abide. And mass action begins to occur.

One thing that I’ve learned about groups of marginalised people – whether they are indigenous tribal groups in Africa, or from the poorer milltowns of the north of England – is that if you don’t genuinely bend over backwards to HEAR (which is quite different to just listening) – the people that you have been ignoring, sidelining (or poking in the eye with a stick) might well decide to bite back. And you can make matters even worse, if you insult a campaign group with patronising words, or a dismissive attitude or basically … telling them that you’ll do what you think is best, anyroadup.

The trick is – as a local authority – to sometimes own up to mistakes from the past. i.e. Yes, the refurbishment was a bit crap, yes we did bugger up on that housing development, yes we’re sorry about the lack of consultation over the Zebra Crossing etc etc. Because after all, a bit of humility can win both hearts and minds. Because no one likes a smart-arse. And most importantly of all, the definition of insanity is ‘doing the same destructive thing over and over again – and expecting positive results.’

FROM JOSEPH RAYNER STEPHENS’ MEMORIAL:

‘SCATTER THE SEED! THE SEED OF TRUTH
BELIEVING IT WILL GROW.
LOOK ON THE WILDERNESS IN RUTH
IT WAS NOT ALWAYS SO.
A GARDEN ONCE, IT MAY AGAIN,
A LOVELY GARDEN BE.
IT WANTS THE SUN IT WANTS THE RAIN,
OF GODLIKE CHARITY.
WE WORK AND WAIT, WE TOIL AND TRUST,
SURE THAT THE END WILL COME
THIS WILDERNESS OF EVIL MUST, BE CLOTHED WITH HEAVENLY BLOOM.
J.R.S.’