St Christopher

Jennifer Pike and Tom Poster

Masterworks for violin and piano

Event 1
Friday October 3rd 2014, 8.00pm
Little Missenden Church


Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Sonata in G, K301
Thomas Hyde  Sonata for violin and piano, op14
Johann Sebastian Bach

Movements from B minor Partita BWV1004:

Allemande; Courante; Sarabande

Ralph Vaughan Williams The Lark Ascending
Miklós Rózsa Variations on a Hungarian Peasant Song, op4
 
Jennifer Pike violin  Tom Poster piano

We apologise for a late change in the the programme.  The Ysaÿe will not now be played.  Jennifer will perform three movements from Bach's B Minor partita, as above.

There are now only a few £8 seats left for this concert (restricted or obstructed view)

We open with two of this country’s most brilliant young performers.

Vaughan Williams’s Lark Ascending was written for piano accompaniment – the rising lark’s exquisite flights sound even more ethereal than in the orchestral version we’re used to.

The delightful Sonata in G is the essence of Mozart – effortlessly melodious, charming yet profound. A sprightly and joyous opening, then a gracious dance with a reflective minor key Sicilienne at its core.

Some of the finest music was written for solo violin – Bach’s solo sonatas and partitas are miracles of expression. Jennifer plays three movements from his superb B minor Partita including the very beautiful Sarabande.

Thomas Hyde’s three-movement violin sonata (world première), written for Jennifer Pike, was inspired by Philippe Petit’s 1974 tightrope walk between the Twin Towers.

These charming Variations on a Hungarian Peasant Song show Miklós Rózsa’s great affection for his native folk music.

Jennifer Pike is an exciting talent – youngest BBC Young Musician of the Year (2002), then a New Generation Young Artist. “Dazzling interpretative flair and exemplary technique” (Classic FM)

Tom Poster’s piano playing has won him many prizes, and many admirers. The Guardian called him a “young lion” of the piano.

“His versatility and unerring sense of what works best marks him out as a musician’s musician and everyone in the business should be beating a path to his door” (MusicWeb International)

www.jenniferpike.com     www.tomposter.co.uk

Tickets £20, £14, £8

Click here to go to the online booking page
Dear Jack

I've only seen one response to date, from Chris M, who had no objection.

I agree it's very disappointing.  I was really hoping we'd get something we could nod through.  I have neither time nor energy to prolong the debate.

My main worry is that Dorchester have included themselves on the list of applicants, in spite of all we have written and said about the reasons why that would not be acceptable - to us or (we believe) the District Council.

All the advice we have had from Mike Gilbert and the RTPI, as well as CDC's NP protocol, supports this view.  Apart from this there is a strong ethical principle, long-established in British public life, that people or organisations  should not act as principals in planning or policy making for matters in which they have a direct financial interest - as is clearly the case here.

You may say that we can leave it to Cherwell to decide this, but if we sign the letter as it is we certify that this is OK in our view, and declare that this application "has our full support" - which we won't be allowed to qualify.  Specifically we endorse point c) on p1:
c)    A statement that the organisation or body making the area application is a relevant body for the purposes of section 61G of the 1990 Act.
I don't know what Section 61G says, but this is clearly an endorsement of the composition of the list.  This is repeated in the last para on p2.

To be honest I think Dorchester are shooting themselves in the foot by including their name, because it invites CDC to throw the whole thing out. Much better for them to stand aside, let the PCs apply, and aim to influence the outcome, as they will have plenty of scope to do.  However it's not that which concerns me, it's being asked to endorse what seems a very irregular and at best doubtfully lawful arrangement.

I'm not so bothered about the inclusion of Heyford Park RA as a direct participant.  CDC may or may not accept it, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask.  However if we sign the letter we are endorsing that as well.

There are some passages in the document which read like marketing statements for Dorchester as developer, which seem neither necessary or appropriate - and in some cases contentious.  These have not (as far as I know) been previously discussed or agreed with the parishes.  What happened to transparency?

For example on p2 para 4 it says that Heyford Park "acts as anchor to the surrounding rural settlements by providing services and facilities to meet every day needs", "both now and in the future".  It isn't true now (with the possible exception of the Free School, which has already been discussed above).  It might conceivably become true, but the succeeding statement that "the parishes and communities identified within the boundary area that has been submitted are more logically likely to enter Heyford Park to access key amenities rather than traveling to Bicester, Kidlington, Banbury or Chipping Norton" is only likely to result from a massive increase in housing.  These are matters which the NP needs to discuss, not points which should be pre-empted at this stage.  It's not in case case necessary to say this to establish the case for an NP, which is supposed to be the intent of this letter. The coherence of the area is fairly self evident, since all the parishes are contiguous.

The 1st complete para on p3 contains precisely the kind of blank cheque statement that we said we would not support:  "Through the Neighbourhood Plan process, the partner Parish Council’s will seek to ensure that the majority of new development is directed to the Upper Heyford Site ".  We said quite clearly last night that we would only support this as far as seemed necessary and appropriate in the light of CDCs revised Plan figures.  It would be better to add the words "within in the Plan area" after "development", so it reads "Through the Neighbourhood Plan process, the partner Parish Council’s will seek to ensure that the majority of new development within the Plan area is directed to the Upper Heyford Site ".  This is consistent with what is said three paras later.  I don't think we'd have a problem with that.

In conclusion I don't think it's remotely acceptable to send out something as significant and potentially controversial as this to parish councils and demand a firm response with 24 hours.