Otford Society 
Latest
Newsletter
INDEX
1952-2002: AS A COMMEMORATION
of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee, the Otford Society suggested
a written account of how the village has changed during the last
half century, written by the former long-serving Chairman of the
Parish Council, Mr Reg Lythaby. The Parish Council took up the
idea, and has now published and distributed the booklet, “50
YEARS ON”. Ken Gunderson LIFE
IN THE WAR YEARS Ration books had been ready since 1938, and when food rationing began on 8th January 1940, retailers had to cut the coupons from their registered customers’ ration books and send them to their Food Office in order for their entitlements to be calculated and permits sent to them and to their wholesalers. Very soon Food Offices were knee-deep in coupons, staff cross-eyed with trying to count them, and the retailers at their wits end. Shopkeepers were already having to cope not only with demanding customers but with all the intricacies of a new system. Happily the Ministry of Food had wise advisers and, as they were to do throughout these early days, modified procedures to keep everyone sane. So no more cutting out of coupons; they were only to be cancelled by the shopkeepers. One instance of the Ministry’s pragmatic approach was to decide early in 1940 that restaurants, cafés and pubs serving meals would not be rationed by customers’ coupons, but would receive permits for rationed foods on the basis of number of meals served. This would keep the wheels of business turning, satisfy people, and modify some of the effects of wartime shortages. The amounts of rationed foodstuffs permitted were very small; meat, for example, was only calculated on main meals, though game and fish was also available for some restaurants. It is easy to understand that their returns to the Food Office of meals served were closely scrutinised and often investigated by F.O. staff. One small café in Sevenoaks gave details of a very flourishing trade. With a colleague I went there for a meal. To spy! The food was excellent and very imaginative, demonstrating what could be done with vegetables and fruit and using all the advice provided by leaflets from the Ministry of Food. I like to think most people played fair and understood the sacrifices of the Merchant and Royal Navies in keeping food supplies coming to Britain to meet the “Basal Diet” worked out by the powers that be, and keep the nation fed and health maintained. The inspired establishments of British Restaurants in 1941 gave everyone a chance to eat out at a reasonable cost. There was an excellent one in Sevenoaks at the Cornwall Hall. Meals were prepared, I think, mostly by voluntary workers and subsidised by local government at a cost of 10d or a shilling each. One was opened at Penshurst – I remember cycling there for the opening – and, of course, all the necessary permits for supplies had been issued. A week or two later I had a phone call from a very important voluntary worker demanding a permit for anchovies. “I cannot possibly serve cod without anchovy sauce” I was told. But she had to. Such luxury imports were a thing of the past. She was lucky to have cod to serve. The allowances of rationed food-stuffs were continually changing and more food put on ration. Even soap was rationed with special permits for industrial and farm workers. A “points” system was introduced to give everyone a measure of choice with certain foods, and there were allocations of eggs, dried egg powder, dried milk and corned beef as supplies were available. I seem to remember one, once, of bananas! Woe betide any “foreigner” who tried to get these items and fruit from shops they did not normally frequent. Firm tactfulness was needed by shopkeepers, but I do not remember any fights. I suppose it would be called “shop rage” nowadays. There were no sticky labels or calculators then; envelopes had to be addressed by hand. It was a real and continual chore. In my department we had a long table for volunteers who came to help. Women, it was discovered, could, and did, manage responsible jobs not previously thought right and proper for them to do – despite experiences of World War One. Now they were being conscripted for war work from the age of 18 years. There was a Land Army Hostel for women farm workers at the bottom of Tudor Drive, where houses have now been built. Their contribution to the labour force was very valuable as more and more men were called up.
Anderson shelters were available for gardens, and many were decorated with vegetables and flowers. Later Morrison shelters were provided for indoor use. They had to be erected against an inside wall, were about the size of a double bed with the top a sheet of steel supported by iron legs with mesh at the sides. My husband polished the top of ours and put a Persian carpet on it. (His “anti-Hitler” gesture!) The steel top is now the base of my garden shed, and the legs support fences. The war-time “waste not want not” is not forgotten. The various Ministries responsible for our welfare produced many leaflets giving advice on how to survive. Booklets like “The Kitchen Front” and recipes for corned beef hash and even how to make whale meat palatable were widely distributed. DIG FOR VICTORY and the importance of using vegetables in our diet (carrot cake was delicious) was stressed continually. The Radio Doctor gave daily advice from 1941, and vitamins, cod liver oil and concentrated fruit juices were produced for children. MAKE DO AND MEND was another precept even from before the introduction of clothes rationing – also in 1941 I think. This was kept very secret, foreknowledge would have wrecked the scheme. Food stockpiling had been bad enough before rationing began. One other important slogan was widely displayed – CARELESS TALK COSTS LIVES. How little time and information we had to gossip about! There was, however, a very great need for secrecy and discretion. Signposts as well as station names were removed to hinder an invading enemy or agents. And, of course, we
had the HOME GUARD! The flurry of letters to the Sevenoaks Chronicle suggests that some residents believe that proposed remedies are worse than the present situation, and further, would harm the visual appearance of Otford. Andrew Barber gave the facts in our last Newsletter, and the Otford Society has said that residents themselves must decide what, if anything, is to be done. Whatever the outcome, there will not be 100% unanimity, that is certain. The BABTIE report is not yet published, at the time of writing (9th September) but is due at any moment. Julian Cooke, who has replaced Iain China in managing the publication of the plans, is unfortunately not free to speak to our Autumn meeting on October 3rd [now October 24th ed.], but we hope to arrange for a representative from the Highways Department to answer questions and explain the plans at that meeting, 8.00pm, in the Memorial Hall. (Please watch local press.) Roger Fogden, a former member of the Executive Committee, has been corresponding with the S.D.C. and the Parish Council on the matter, and he gives his opinions below. At the time of writing, there is nothing concrete to report since Andrew Barber’s item in the June Newsletter. The County Council have asked outside consultants, Babtie, to provide a detailed specification, which the Parish Council has promised to make available for further public consultation, but this is not expected before the beginning of September at the earliest. As Andrew mentioned, the scheme at present under consideration (advocated by the S.D.C./Iain China Report) has as its main feature ten (yes, TEN) pairs of humps (euphemistically called “cushions”, although the very reverse of soft and cuddly) arranged at 40-60 metre intervals between the Pond roundabout and the Darenth River bridge – on the pattern of those in Bullfinch Lane, Riverhead. This scheme will be neither effective nor fair, and will be disproportionate to the problem. Although it will curb the speed of smaller cars, because the humps will be restricted in width to allow buses and ambulances to straddle them for the comfort of their passengers, they will also be straddled by lorries, vans, and many larger cars. Motorbikes will simply weave round them. Moreover, the presence of the humps will “drag” traffic towards the footways at times when vehicles might otherwise move over to give pedestrians a wider berth. To the majority of drivers, the humps will be an unwelcome distraction, an added hazard to be surmounted; and I confidently predict that to a few, they will be seen as a challenge, and they will vie with one another to see who can go over them fastest! The effects will be suffered most by those who lie at the west end of the village, who will not only be faced with negotiating 20 humps (10 going, 10 coming back) every time they go by car to the Post Office or Sainsbury’s, but still be terrorised by White Van Men and other drivers of the largest and most menacing vehicles when walking their children to school. The only counter argument against the “straddle syndrome” I have heard is that vehicles which are unable to straddle the humps will force following traffic to go slower; but that presupposes that traffic through the village is nose-to-tail all day, whereas the China Report states that traffic flow is 4,000 vehicles a day, which translates into an average of only about four a minute (over a 16 hour “day”), a low flow. Everyone knows that at School Run times, the village centre is so congested that it is hardly possible to go through at 5 m.p.h., let alone 20; whereas the School Run times constitute only a tiny fraction (less than 5%) of the working week, and at other times, pedestrians are few and far between, so it is perfectly safe and unthreatening to them to drive through at the present speed limit of 30 m.p.h. And what of the wear and tear, waste of petrol and environmental effects of multitudinous brakings and accelerations? The present proposals stem from the objective of reducing speeds to 20 m.p.h. (not achieved by the experimental “buildouts” last summer), and that is based on the statistical probability that if you are hit at that speed, you are more likely to survive than if you are hit at 30 m.p.h. or more; disregarding the statistical likelihood of being hit in the first place (very low according to the accident record as conceded in the China Report – the figures for 2000 place the U.K. at the bottom of the league in Europe for road deaths), or the chances that if you do survive, you might be in unenviable shape. This 20 m.p.h. criterion is laid down under a Government-inspired and funded “initiative” for reducing child mortality on the roads, which in some parts of the country is said to be too high. But I gather from the County Council that funds are available for other calming measures independently of this “initiative”. Clearly calming measures are desirable, especially at the west end of the High Street, between the millstream and river bridges, where the footway is narrow and drivers are tempted to put their foot down. I have put forward the suggestion that a sufficient degree of calming would be attained by a full-width platform ramp across the road just west of the river bridge, serving to check the speeds of all vehicles in both directions in that vicinity. Such a ramp might also be placed at the opposite end of the High Street (say, outside the cottage called “Boddington”) to check the speed of vehicles coming off the Pond roundabout. Naturally there should be appropriate signage, sympathetic to the conservation area, warning of narrow footways, the ramps and so on. I see no need for the draconian steps now being contemplated. If there are the occasional “tearaways”, they must of course be reported and dealt with by the police. But they should not be used by those in authority as a pretext for measures which will only vex the law-abiding, responsible, silent majority. When the opportunities for further consultation arise, I strongly urge readers to make their views known. Roger Fogden
Ian Thomson, author of our article printed in the last Newsletter, has pointed out that a few lines were missing, which highlight the contribution made by this vessel to the war in the Atlantic, and the significance of its sinking to the Allies. These are the lines that were unfortunately omitted:
(It will be recalled
that the Captain went down with his boat.) This pleasant annual
event was held in the lovely grounds of Broughton Manor, one of
Otford’s grandest Listed Buildings. The Society was made
most welcome by Mr and Mrs D. Brown, and members enjoyed the warm
sunshine strolling around the gardens. The Society was pleased
that Michael Fallon MP and his wife were able to attend, as was
the Parish Chairman, John Allen. 3rd
October [now October 24th
ed.] – Autumn meeting – 8.00pm –
Memorial Hall |
||||||
It
has to be remembered that there was no television in those days.
News was heard from the radio, and there were news-reels at the
cinemas, if they could be reached in those days of petrol shortage
and the black-out. There were newspapers, of course, consisting
of just four pages, as a rule. Black-out regulations were very
strictly enforced by A.R.P. (later Civil Defence) wardens. We
had special light-proof curtains or shutters, with sticky paper
on the glass panes to lessen damage by flying splinters.