Saturday 28 September 2013

Tadeo Cumella: the great all-father



Doing family history when you have an unusual surname should be a bit of a doddle. There have never been many people called ‘Cumella’ living in the UK, and all of them, as far as I can tell, are descendants of one man, Tadeo Cumella. Tadeo was a native of Barcelona and ‘Cumella’ is a Catalonian name, although it is also found in Western Sicily. This probably results from migration during the centuries in which Sicily and Catalonia were united under the Kingdom of Aragon. Most people called ‘Cumella’ in the Americas seem to be descendants of migration from Sicily.

The name ‘Tadeo Cumella’ is a shortened version of the rather more splendid ‘Tadeo Joseph Torebso Cumella y Alsina’. The ‘y Alsina’ suffix, in common with the usual Spanish custom, adds the maiden surname of his mother. If our family had followed this practice, I would be called by the less splendid name of ‘Stuart John Cumella and Smith’.

There is the usual information about Tadeo from censuses and other public records, but one unusual source is his application in 1874 to be naturalised as a British subject. This is now kept in the National Archives in Kew, and includes a summary of his life to that date, together with testimonials from various ‘natural-born British subjects’, and a statement from the Chief Constable of Liverpool that during his time in this country Tadeo “has borne a good character and moved in a respectable position in life”.

The biographical details on the application reveal that Tadeo was born in Barcelona on 16th April 1836, and worked from 1861 as a storekeeper to the engine room on a Spanish ship called the ‘Tajo’, which plied between Spain and England. He was married in June 1863 and in February 1865 finally settled in Liverpool. The application does not give the name of his wife, but other records identify her as Matilda Jane Davenport. The application notes that his wife was English and that they were married in St Brides Church in Liverpool. A marriage in the Church of England suggests that Tadeo had dropped any allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church by this time. This is in line with what I know of my family, who are not noted for their spirituality. By the time of the application, Tadeo and Matilda had five children: Tadeo Robert Hugh; John William; Ezra; Daniel; and Matilda Jane.

Tadeo’s first job on land was as a shipsmith with Caleb Smith & Co. But in November 1868, he went into partnership with a Basque living in Liverpool named ‘Juan Bautista Marcelino De Abaitua’. Their firm was known as ‘Abaitua and Cumella’, described as ‘shipwrights’. 1874 was an eventful year for Tadeo. After the naturalisation process was completed, the partnership was dissolved and Tadeo set up in business independently as a ships’ chandler. His wife and his son John William both died, but a new daughter, Ruth Davenport was born. It is possible that his wife died in childbirth, but I will need to get copies of death certificates to confirm whether this was the case. Tadeo married again, to Hannah Roberts, in 1877. They had one child, John Cumella, who was my paternal grandfather. Tadeo died on the 21st May 1900, and Hannah in 1904.

Beyond these records, I have little information about the Cumella family. My father was born after both his paternal grandparents had died, and I was born several years after the death of John Cumella. There was therefore no opportunity for the fruitful discussions across the generations that can take place between grandparents and grandchildren. I must therefore rely on any other records I will find in future.

I would like to thank the compiler of the de Abaitua family history on Ancestry.com for the photograph of Tadeo Cumella. I would also like to thank my son Andrew for gathering material at Kew and finding the de Abaitua website.

See also: Antoni Cumella: the greatest Cumella of them all

Wednesday 11 September 2013

Planning in Wonderland

Last week I went to a seminar on neighbourhood planning organised by our local Conservative MP, Harriet Baldwin. Like her previous seminar on rural broadband, it aimed to promote the achievements of the Government, but also revealed a great deal about how decisions are really made in our country.

The first speaker was John Howell, the Conservative MP for Henley-on-Thames and the man who had developed his party’s proposals for neighbourhood planning and ‘localism’. He told us that, thanks to the Localism Act, the top-down planning associated with the previous Labour government had been abolished. Thousands of pages of detailed planning guidance had been replaced by the 60 pages or so of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Districts councils were no longer bound by the targets for new house building in each district set out in the Regional Spatial Strategies drawn up by civil servants. Instead, each district council can now specify the numbers of houses it needs, based on its own estimate of population growth. These are then written into the district council’s local development plan. Any neighbourhood plans within the district have to conform to the strategic objectives set out in the district’s plan, but can vary the details. They can, for instance, change the recommended locations for new housebuilding.

After a few more speakers enthusiastically promoted neighbourhood planning, the seminar ended with Councillor Paul Swinburn, also a Conservative and the Deputy Leader of Malvern Hills District Council. I suspect Paul has never been a fire-breathing radical, but he spoke with a polite sort of anger about the real world of planning as experienced in our district. Our version of the district development plan has been developed in co-operation with two other district councils and is called the ‘South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP). After an elaborate series of consultation meetings, it has been forwarded to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) for an assessment by a planning inspector. A planning inspector is a civil servant acting in a ‘quasi-judicial capacity’ (ie he pretends to be an independent arbiter). The planning inspector will oversee an even more elaborate consultation process, until the SWDP is finally approved in about a year’s time. Paul said that while this process is underway, Malvern Hills and the other two district councils are receiving numerous planning applications from developers who propose to build houses on sites not specified in the SWDP. When the district councils turn down these applications, they are approved on appeal by a planning inspector on the grounds that the district council has failed to identify an adequate ‘five year land supply’.

The NPPF requires each district council to identify a ‘five year land supply’ (ie sites which have been approved for housing development sufficient to meet the estimated need for new houses over the next five years). But who decides the number of houses needed for the next five years? The planning inspectors could use the detailed estimates in the SWDP which, although not finally approved, has been agreed by the elected representatives of over 286,000 people in South Worcestershire. But the decisions of our elected representatives count for little with planning inspectors, who are continuing to use the higher figures from the old Regional Spatial Strategy, even though these have (allegedly) been abandoned by the Government.

Clearly, there are two worlds of local planning: there is reality, as experienced by the residents of South Worcestershire, in which housebuilding corporations can build what they like where they like; and there is the Wonderland of triumphant localism inhabited by some members of Parliament.

See also: How green was my village
Confessions of a parish councillor