Introduction to Rural Planning (Natural and Built Environment)

Introduction to Rural Planning This book provides an overview of rural (spatial) planning for students on planning, ge...

Author: Nick Gallent

86 downloads 1972 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Introduction to Rural Planning

This book provides an overview of rural (spatial) planning for students on planning, geography and related programmes. It charts the major patterns and processes of rural change affecting the British countryside, its landscape, its communities and its economies in the twentieth century. The authors examine the role of ‘planning’ in shaping rural spaces, not only the statutory ‘comprehensive’ planning that emerged in the post-war period, but also planning and rural programme delivery undertaken by central, regional and local policy agencies. The book is designed to accompany a typical teaching programme in rural planning and considers:

• the nature of rural areas and the emergence of statutory planning in England • the agents of rural policy delivery and the potential for current planning • • • • •

practice to become a ‘policy hub’ at the local level, coordinating the actions and programmes of different agents economic change in the countryside and the influence planning has in shaping rural economies social change, the nature of rural communities, and recent debates on housing and rural service provision environmental change, the changing fortunes of farming, landscape protection and the idea of a multi-functional landscape made by forces that can be shaped by the planning process key areas of current concern in spatial rural planning, including debates surrounding city-regions, the rural–urban fringe and local government reform the challenge of managing rural change in the twenty-first century through new planning and governance processes.

Introduction to Rural Planning provides comprehensive coverage of the forces, processes and outcomes of rural change whilst keeping planning’s influence and role in clear view at all times.

The Natural and Built Environment Series Editor: Professor John Glasson Oxford Brookes University

Introduction to Rural Planning Nick Gallent, Meri Juntti, Sue Kidd and Dave Shaw

Urban Planning and Real Estate Development John Ratcliffe and Michael Stubbs

Regional Planning John Glasson and Tim Marshall

Landscape Planning and Environmental Impact Design Tom Turner

Strategic Planning for Regional Development Harry T. Dimitriou and Robin Thompson

Controlling Development Philip Booth

Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment John Glasson, Riki Therivel and Andrew Chadwick

Partnership Agencies in British Urban Policy Nicholas Bailey, Alison Barker and Kelvin MacDonald

Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment Peter Morris and Riki Therivel

Development Control Keith Thomas

Public Transport Peter White

Introduction to Rural Planning

Nick Gallent, Meri Juntti, Sue Kidd and Dave Shaw

First published 2008 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2007. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2008 Nick Gallent, Meri Juntti, Sue Kidd and Dave Shaw All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any efforts or omissions that may be made. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Introduction to rural planning / Nick Gallent ... [et al.]. p. cm. — (The natural and built environment series) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Rural development—Great Britain. 2. Great Britain—Rural conditions. I. Gallent, Nick. HN400.C6.I68 2006 307.1´2120941—dc22 2007029185 ISBN 0-203-93343-5 Master e-book ISBN ISBN13: 978–0–415–42996–2 (hbk) ISBN13: 978–0–415–42997–9 (pbk) ISBN13: 978–0–203–93343–5 (ebk) ISBN10: 0–415–42996–X (hbk) ISBN10: 0–415–42997–8 (pbk) ISBN10: 0–203–93343–5 (ebk)

Contents

Illustrations About the authors Preface Abbreviations

viii xii xiii xvi

PART I

Rurality, planning and governance

1

1 Introduction Learning outcomes Introduction How to use this book What do we mean by ‘rural’ and ‘countryside’? What is the role of planning in rural areas? What are the special challenges faced in rural areas? The inter-connectivity of places: re-thinking urban and rural through strategic planning Conclusions

3 3 3 5 6 12 24

2 Rural governance and spatial planning Learning outcomes Introduction The development of post-war rural policy and planning Rural governance Local government reform and the new planning system Spatial planning and the mechanics of the 2004 planning system Conclusions

30 30 30 32 35 48 51 56

26 28

PART II

The rural economy 3 Economic change Learning outcomes Introduction

59 61 61 61

vi

Contents

Key debates Emergent issues Conclusions

73 83 87

4 The farming economy Learning outcomes Introduction Key debates: the development and rationale of agricultural policy from the post-war years to the present day Emergent issues: the present challenges for policy and planning in the agricultural sector Conclusions

90 90 91

106 111

5 New economies Learning outcomes Introduction Key debates Emergent issues Conclusions

113 113 114 118 127 138

97

PART III

The needs of rural communities

141

6 Community change Learning outcomes Introduction Key debates Emergent issues: the role of (spatial) planning Conclusions: community change and ‘sustainable communities’

143 143 144 146 156 163

7 Rural housing: demand, supply, affordability and the market Learning outcomes Introduction Key debates Emergent issues: planning for future housing supply Conclusions

165 165 166 171 183 196

8 Living in the countryside Learning outcomes Introduction Key debates Emergent issues: the planning response Conclusions

197 197 198 199 217 224

Contents

vii

PART IV

Environmental change and planning 9 A changing environment Learning outcomes Introduction Key debates Emergent issues Conclusion: towards an integrated approach 10 A differentiated environment Learning outcomes Introduction Key debates Landscape conservation designations Emergent debates Conclusions: a key role for spatial planning

227 229 229 229 235 253 255 258 258 259 259 267 282 289

PART V

Governance, coordination and integration

291

11 (Re)positioning rural areas Learning outcomes Introduction City-regions: a new strategic framework for rural planning? (Lessons from) the rural–urban fringe Governance, scale and reform in rural England Asserting rural interests Conclusions

293 293 294 297 300 306 311 313

12 Conclusions: integrating agendas, coordinating responses Learning outcomes Introduction Making sense of the reforms Integration across agendas Planning moves to centre stage

315 315 316 318 320 333

Bibliography Index

335 355

Illustrations

Figures 1.1 ‘The Fox’, Loxley, Warwickshire 1.2 Village church, Alderminster, Warwickshire 1.3 Farming landscape viewed from Irvinghoe Beacon, Bedfordshire 1.4 Classification of urban and rural census output areas in 2004 2.1 DEFRA’s delivery landscape map 2.2 Local governance, community strategies and planning frameworks 2.3 The new planning framework 3.1 Howard’s analysis of country life 3.2 Howard’s garden city model 3.3 Footpath across a field of oilseed rape in the Chiltern Hills 3.4 The structure of rural employment in England in 2001 3.5 Cumbria Rural Enterprise Agency, Penrith 3.6 Rheged near Penrith 3.7 Public service agreement areas 3.8 Cumberland Pencil Company factory in Keswick 4.1 Former agricultural workers’ cottages, Alderminster, Warwickshire 4.2 Farm income fluctuations 4.3 Agriculture’s share of annual GVA 4.4 A farm in the Chiltern Hills, Bedfordshire 4.5 A farming landscape, the Chiltern Hills, Bedfordshire 4.6 Farming policy network 4.7 Allocation of the EU budget in 2006 5.1 The rural image packaged: Bourton-on-the-Water, The Cotswolds 5.2 Former chapel converted to office space, Newbold-on-Stour, Warwickshire 5.3 Angling, the Grand Union Canal, Hertfordshire 5.4 A ‘kissing gate’ on the Ridgeway long distance path, the Chiltern Hills, Bedfordshire 5.5 A typology of rural England (and Wales), 2001 6.1 The counter-urbanisation cascade 6.2 Village events, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire 6.3 Wellesbourne Village Hall

7 8 8 11 44 51 54 65 65 67 75 76 76 82 88 93 95 96 97 100 102 106 115 117 123 124 132 145 147 148

Illustrations ‘The Old School’, now converted to residential use, Alderminster, Warwickshire 7.1 New terraced housing built on the car park of a former public house, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire 7.2 ‘Full planning permission for replacement dwelling’, Loxley, Warwickshire 7.3 Council homes, Loxley, Warwickshire 8.1 Loxley Primary School – ‘voluntary controlled’ 8.2 ‘Business for sale’, Newbold Stores and Post Office, Newbold-on-Stour 8.3 ‘The Old Post Office’, now a private dwelling, Loxley, Warwickshire 8.5 The shopping precinct, Wellesbourne Key Settlement 8.6 A larger centre: the medieval market town of Warwick 8.7 ‘The Talbot’, a former public house converted into apartments, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire 9.1 Britain’s upland/lowland divide 9.2 ‘Natural areas’ in the north-west of England 9.3 ‘Countryside character areas’ in the north-west of England 9.4 Government agencies responsible for conservation of the countryside environment 9.5 Aldbury Nowers AONB, land owned by Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust 9.6 Change in countryside character 1990–1998 10.1 Conservation status of SSSIs in England 2003–2006 10.2 Population of wild birds in England 1970–2004 10.3 An approach to developing ecological networks 10.4 A provisional ecological network for Cheshire 10.5 ‘London Going Out of Town’ or ‘The March of Bricks and Mortar’ 10.6 Key landscape conservation designations 10.7 Lake Windermere in the Lake District National Park 10.8 A café, Ambleside, the Lake District 10.9 Stile providing access to farmland, Ivinghoe Beacon, Bedfordshire 10.10 Footpath leading to Ivinghoe Beacon, Bedfordshire 10.11 Green belt designations in England and Scotland 10.12 River basin districts and regional planning boundaries 11.1 A theoretical city-region 11.2 The rural–urban fringe, New Acres, County Durham

ix

6.4

Boxes 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2

Conceptualising rural areas Land-use planning The 1947–2004 planning system Spatial planning Key differences between ‘land-use’ and ‘spatial’ planning Dimensions of rural disadvantage The reports underpinning modern planning Plan making and development control

154 179 181 184 206 212 215 221 222 223 231 233 234 237 252 254 263 263 265 265 267 269 271 273 274 275 279 287 297 300

7 15 16 18 20 27 33 34

x

Illustrations 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 9.1 9.2

Countryside vision/ten ways to make a difference Objectives for rural areas Objectives of DEFRA’s Modernising Rural Delivery Programme Planning policy statements/guidance provided by DCLG Natural England’s strategic priorities Rural development in the East of England The changing structure of local government in England Development plan documents Government’s productivist view of the countryside The crisis of productivism EU rural development regulation 2007–2013 England Rural Development Plan Food security Post-war agricultural policies: a summary Five CAP principles – and related mechanisms Principles of organic farming A differentiated countryside Delimiting rural economies – key variables Typology of rural England Key rural economy features of PPS 7 Recommendations for a proposed strategy for planning for sustainable rural economic development International migration and its rural impact Conflict resolution and South Bedfordshire’s Green Belt Review, 2006 Affordability The changing policy landscape since 2003 The national housing challenge A sustainable rural community Common forms of migration pressure Summary of arguments against rural house building Direct grant funding to registered social landlords Improving housing access and increasing effective supply Planning and affordable housing: policy development 1971 to 2006 Planning and affordable housing: general/exceptions approaches Affordable rural housing policy in Hambleton District Council Changing the approach to planning for housing Cornwall County Council’s Local Transport Plan 2006–2011 Rural community transport schemes in Oxfordshire Factors contributing to rural educational disadvantage ‘Overarching global social and economic processes, and national and regional factors’ affecting local services Appleton and East and West Hanley Community Shops The planning contribution to achieving LAA outcomes What is landscape? Timeline of key protected area designations in the United Kingdom

37 38 39 42 45 47 50 55 66 74 78 80 92 99 101 121 130 131 133 136 137 153 159 167 168 170 172 173 180 183 185 187 189 190 193 203 205 207 211 214 224 235 239

Illustrations 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4

Countryside character Key nature conservation designations Criteria for designating sites of local biological importance PPS9 biodiversity and geological conservation objectives Principles of the ecosystem approach Statutory purpose of national parks in the United Kingdom Strategic objectives of the Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007 Vision for the Lake District National Park 2006–2030 Wye Valley AONB Management Plan 2004–2009 The development of green belt policy Key aspects of green belt designation in England, Wales and Scotland Barker Review of Land Use Planning The multiple functions of landscapes A multi-functional analysis of green infrastructure North-West Landscape Strategy A framework for integration in rural planning Territorial cohesion and functional regions Functional interdependencies between town and country ‘Multi-functional’ spatial planning for the rural–urban fringe, and the wider countryside Spatial planning at the fringe, in the wider countryside and within the context of functional or city-regions

Tables 1.1 Population share by settlement type (2001) 3.1 Distribution of employment by type and county 1961–1971 4.1 Net farm income by type of farm 7.1 The components of external housing pressure 7.2 The perceived effects of ‘external housing demand pressure’ 7.3 Affordability index for English regions, 2004 8.1 Geographical availability of GP practices, 2005 8.2 Geographic availability of broadband, 2004 10.1 National parks in the United Kingdom 10.2 Heritage coasts in England

xi 241 261 262 264 266 270 272 272 275 278 280 282 284 285 288 289 295 296 305 307

9 72 94 175 177 177 210 216 268 276

About the authors

Nick Gallent is Reader in Housing and Planning at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London. He has research interests in the areas of planning for housing, rural housing and countryside planning and is the co-author of several previous books on these subjects. He is a chartered town planner and a chartered surveyor. Meri Juntti is a senior research associate at the Centre for Economic and Social Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University of East Anglia. She conducts research into the integration of environmental objectives to EU agricultural and rural development policies. She is also a visiting lecturer at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London. Sue Kidd is a senior lecturer in the Department of Civic Design at Liverpool University. Her research interests focus around integrated planning and management. She has a particular interest in exploring ways in which environmental considerations may be more effectively combined with economic and social concerns in policy making. Sue is a chartered town planner. Dave Shaw is a professor and Head of the Department of Civic Design at Liverpool University. His research interests focus on the way that the new spatial planning system is being operationalised, particularly in relation to the opportunities it offers for integrated planning and management for the countryside.

Preface

Each of the authors of this book has coordinated or contributed to a course in ‘rural planning’ for at least the last five years (and some of us for a good deal longer). And we all recall attending similar courses as undergraduate or postgraduate students. This experience – as students and teachers – has brought home the fact that there has been no recent textbook in this field that has systematically dealt with all aspects of planning’s role in moderating and influencing rural change. There have been, and are, many fantastic books on the market. Ray Pahl’s Whose City? is a favourite amongst teachers of rural planning and geography and never seems to show any sign of aging or losing its relevance despite having been written between 1965 and 1970. Later contributions to this field from Hugh Clout and Howard Newby still regularly see the light of day, and Andrew Gilg’s Countryside Planning (1978 and 1996) remains an authoritative text. Today, the most useful books available to students include Michael Woods’ Rural Geography (2005), Cloke et al.’s Handbook of Rural Studies (2006) and Bishop and Phillips’ Countryside Planning (2004), which all outline key themes and thinking, but which stop short of offering a comprehensive analysis of the recent role of planning in rural areas, or the way in which this role is evolving and the direction(s) it might take in the future. In all cases, this is because these texts are not directly or wholly concerned with planning and rural change. Whilst the need for a single text covering these concerns is perhaps questionable (surely students should be encouraged to consult a wide range of literature), we have all been acutely aware of the lack of any book mapping the borders of planning’s influence in rural community, economic, or environmental change. Part of the problem has been the limited scope of ‘land-use planning’ (i.e. planning as constituted in 1947 to deal, by and large, with the ‘built environment’ and with land and property use, and which has limited influence over agricultural, landscape and environmental issues). It is far easier to illustrate planning’s role in shaping community change when that change is manifest in issues of service provision, housing supply and built form. But those elements of rural courses dealing with the environment or the economy (and especially farming) tend to lose sight of planning’s influence: it disappears over the horizon and may seem less relevant. On the one hand, its reduced influence is factual: land-use planning was effectively stripped of any systematic power over agricultural land-use by the 1947 Act, which reduced its potential for achieving coordinated environmental or landscape regulation. Thus, planning’s role in agriculture has been indirect, helping to maintain the position

xiv

Preface

of farming as a predominant activity in the countryside, but preventing land-use changes that might undermine farming’s status. But there have been recent signs that this role could change: several rounds of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform have resulted in a new debate over the rationale of agricultural production and what to do with ‘redundant’ or potentially redundant agricultural land (see Hall, 2001). This book is, in part, borne of frustration. When introducing the role of planning to students, surely it is important to appreciate the parameters of planning’s influence: i.e. where its influence begins, where it is greatest, where it becomes less certain, and where it ends? Sometimes these parameters are clear; at other times, they are more subtle and it is the relationship between planning policy and other policy areas and programmes – the interfacial relationships – that determine how planning and thinking about planning shape the countryside. Our aim in writing this introduction to rural planning is to provide comprehensive coverage of the forces, processes and outcomes of rural change whilst keeping planning’s influence and role in clear view at all times. We also believe that this role will become more pervasive in the years ahead. 2004 saw the introduction of a Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act in England and Wales, and one which came on the back of a protracted debate over the failure of the post-war planning system to deliver positive change or provide a clear vision of how places might develop – and become more competitive, equitable and liveable – in the future. It was suggested that planning had retrenched into bureaucratic process, reacting to but never leading development. As a consequence, it was argued that the system should be overhauled: it should become an enabling force in society, and one able to build consensus around visions for ‘place-shaping’. Achieving this jump (this ‘step-change’ as the UK government sometimes labels it) means moving from ‘land-use’ to ‘spatial’ planning. At the moment, there is no broad agreement over what ‘spatial planning’ means in practice (Nadin, 2007), but it is likely that future planning will be less public-sector led and that communities will become more directly involved in the process and practice of ‘planning’, broadly defined. This is certainly the expectation of the 2004 Act and of ongoing reforms to the structure of local government, and the processes of local governance The consequence of this shift in the countryside could be profound, with planning playing a more pivotal role in the relationship between different interest groups: it may become less concerned with governing land-use change (as a principal function) and more interested in assuming a mediatory role, heightening its authority and legitimacy in future decision making, and making it a more central part of the machinery of modern governance. These musings are taken forward and developed in the twelve chapters of this book, which we hope will provide a comprehensive introduction to rural change and planning. We owe a debt of gratitude to many individuals who have helped bring this project to completion. The referees providing comments of the original proposal for this book (back in early 2006) have, we believe, helped us to develop a more robust and better structured text. Commentaries and advice on earlier chapters were provided by Keith Hoggart, Paul Selman, Janice Morphet, Mark Tewdwr-Jones, Geoff Wilson and Vincent Nadin. The constant guidance and encouragement of Kate McDevitt, Jane Wilde, Eleanor Rivers and Katy Low at Taylor & Francis

Preface

xv

has also been invaluable. At UCL, we would like to thank Judith Hillmore and other members of office staff for their constant support. At the University of East Anglia, Karen Crockett’s assistance with the transfer of graphics from rough drafts to polished end-products in Chapter 4 was invaluable. And at Liverpool, Sandra Robinson pursued the various permissions for images reproduced in this volume, and Suzanne Yee led on the redrawing of original and reproduced art-work. All four of us would like to thank a number of family and friends for their encouragement, support and patience over recent months: to Manuela Madeddu – tanti baci amore mio: scriveremo qualcosa sulla Sardegna presto!; Yuki Yoshioka – thanks for support and sustenance in the form of food and music; Vicky, Andrew and Matthew Shaw – thank you for your love, support and the ability to provide distraction from work. Meri would also like to acknowledge the ESRC’s support for the Environmental Decision Making Programme at the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, UEA. Some material gathered for this programme is drawn upon in this book. Finally, Nick would like to pay special tribute to Bill Edwards, whose excellent guidance during doctoral research in the early 1990s has since provided a solid foundation for a subsequent research and academic career. He was a truly inspirational supervisor and a model for those of us who continue to supervise research students. However, despite all this support and guidance over the long and short term, any errors, omissions or shortcomings that remain, are the responsibility of the authors alone. Nick Gallent Meri Juntti Sue Kidd Dave Shaw London and Liverpool, July 2007

Abbreviations

AAP ADP AMR AONB ARHC BAP BME BSE CA CAP CBD CCW CEC CLA CLT COA COPA CoR COREPER CoSIRA CPRE CPRW CPT CQC CRC CS CSD CUV DARD DCLG DEFRA DETR DG DoE DPD

area action plan advanced development programme annual monitoring report (part of the LDF) Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Affordable Rural Housing Commission biodiversity action plan black and minority ethnic bovine spongiform encephalopathy Countryside Agency Common Agricultural Policy (United Nations) Convention on Biological Diversity Countryside Council for Wales Commission of the European Communities Country Landowners Association community land trust census output area Committee for Agricultural Organisations in the EU Committee of Regions Committee of the Permanent Representatives (acronym relates to French) Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas Campaign to Protect Rural England Council for the Protection of Rural Wales Central Place Theory Countryside Quality Counts Commission for Rural Communities community strategy Committee for Spatial Development current use value Department for Agriculture and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland) Department for Communities and Local Government Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Directorate General (of the European Commission) Department of the Environment development plan document

Abbreviations DSL DTI DTLR E+SC EA EAFRD EAGF EAGGF EEDA EP ERDF ERDP ESA ESDP ESF FAO FE FoE FSA FWAG FWPS GATT GCSE GDP GO GVA HAG HAZ HC HDA HE HFA HIP HPDG ICT LAA LBAP LDD LDF LDS LEADER LFA LGA LGIU LGMA LGWP LLL LNR LPA/LA

xvii

digital subscriber line Department for Trade and Industry Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Economic and Social Council Environment Agency European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development European Agricultural Guarantee Fund European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund – superseded East of England Development Agency European Parliament European Regional Development Fund England Rural Development Programme environmentally sensitive area European Spatial Development Perspective European Social Fund Food and Agricultural Organisation (of the United Nations) further education Friends of the Earth Food Standards Agency Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group Farm Woodland Premium Scheme General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs general certificate in secondary education gross domestic product Government Office gross value added housing association grant health action zone Housing Corporation Health Development Agency higher education hill farming allowance Housing Investment Programme housing and planning delivery grant information and communication technology local area agreement local biodiversity action plan local development document local development framework local development scheme Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l’Économie Rurale less favoured areas Local Government Association Local Government Information Unit Local Government Modernisation Agenda Local Government White Paper lifelong learning local nature reserve local planning authority/local authority

xviii Abbreviations LSP LTP MAA MAFF MKSM MMG MPG MRD MS NAO NCC NDPB NE NERC NFU NGO NHS NIMBY NNR NPA NPPG NPS NRDSP NSA ODPM OECD OELS ONS PCFFF PCPA PGP PGS PINS PIU PMGS POS PPG PPS PSA PV PWP RA Ramsar

RCC RCEP RDA RDC

local strategic partnership local transport plan multi-area agreement Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (until 2002) Milton Keynes South Midlands (Sub-Regional Strategy) Marine Minerals Guidance Minerals Planning Guidance Modernising Rural Delivery (Programme) member state National Audit Office Nature Conservancy Council non-departmental public body Natural England Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 National Farmers’ Union non-governmental organisation National Health Service Not In My Back Yard national nature reserve National Park Authority National Planning Policy Guidance (Northern Ireland) national policy statement National Rural Development Strategy Plan national scenic area Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Organic Entry Level Scheme Office for National Statistics Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Planning Green Paper planning gain supplement Planning Inspectorate Performance and Innovation Unit Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme Planning Officers’ Society planning policy guidance planning policy statement public service agreement planning value Planning White Paper regional assembly Wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention (the convention was signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971. The first UK sites were designated in 1976) rural community council Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution regional development agency Rural Development Commission

Abbreviations RDR RES RES RICS RIF RPA RPB RPD RPG RSAP RSL RSS RTB RTPI RWP SAC SBDC SCI SCS SEA SEERAD SFP SICRAS SMEs SNH SPA SPD SPG SRC SSSI TAN TCI TCPA UNESCO UTF VAT VDS WAEPC WAG WGS WTO

Rural Development Regulation (EU) regional economic strategy Rural Enterprise Scheme Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors regional infrastructure fund Rural Payments Agency regional planning body residential delivery points regional planning guidance Rural Stress Action Plan registered social landlord regional spatial strategy right to buy Royal Town Planning Institute Rural White Paper special areas of conservation South Bedfordshire District Council statement of community involvement sustainable community strategy strategic environmental assessment Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department single farm payment Small Industries Council for the Rural Areas of Scotland small and medium size enterprises Scottish Natural Heritage special protection area supplementary planning document supplementary planning guidance short rotation coppice site of special scientific interest Technical Advice Note (Wales) total cost indicator Town and Country Planning Association United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Urban Task Force value added tax village design statement Welsh Assembly Environment, Planning and Countryside Welsh Assembly Government Woodland Grant Scheme World Trade Organisation

xix

Part I


1

Introduction

This opening chapter outlines the aims of this book. It explains the overall structure and sequencing of sections and chapters and introduces the key topics to be covered. It also examines some of the main changes in thinking on rural planning and rural studies in recent years, examining the delimitation of ‘rural’ areas and the purpose of planning, but paying particular attention to the transition away from ‘landuse’ to ‘spatial’ planning, the emergence of ‘multi-functionality’ as a rationale for thinking about rural places, and the treatment of rural areas as separate entities or, as is increasingly the case, as components of wider functional regions.

Learning outcomes This chapter aims to: • •

•

•

Provide an introduction to what we mean by ‘rural’ as opposed to ‘urban’ areas; Introduce the broad role of planning in these areas, linking this understanding to the changing objectives and rationale of planning, especially in the context of recent planning legislation, which has shifted the substantive focus of the system away from ‘land use’ towards ‘spatial’ planning; Outline the special challenges – economic, social and environmental – that confront policy-makers, planners and communities in the countryside, and which are explored in later chapters; Introduce the idea that rural areas are not isolated from cities, but are part of a regional planning context which needs to be fully understood before effective spatial planning becomes possible.

Introduction The planning systems of the United Kingdom have been subject to considerable review and reform over recent years. The arrival of a Labour government in 1997 brought the promise of political devolution to the various nations of the union, a promise that was quickly fulfilled. Since the late 1990s, England, Wales and Scotland – and also Northern Ireland – have followed their own trajectories, albeit from the common base of post-war ‘comprehensive’ planning. The different countries – perhaps with the exception of England, which does not as yet have its own political institutions

4


– have sought to bend planning towards their own particular circumstances and needs, creating a new territorialisation of the system and of governance. Over this same period, the nomenclature of planning has also evolved. The idea of ‘town and country’ planning has been replaced with the concept of ‘spatial’ planning which, as we shall see in later chapters, is thought to be more an integral part of ‘spatial governance’ than a tool of local government, used to police land-use change. Indeed, in a recent contribution to discourse on the nature of spatial planning, Nadin (2007: 43) argues that the concept expresses an ambition to ‘put planning at the centre of the spatial development process, not just as a regulator of land and property uses, but as a proactive and strategic coordinator of all policy and actions that influence spatial development; and to do this in the interests of more sustainable development’. Spatial planning is more ‘integrated’, ‘joined-up’, and concerned with coordinated service delivery: it connects places and does away with the old divisions. Being more ‘spatial’, it seeks to be part of governance processes – perhaps across ‘city-regions’ – that are less concerned with labels such as ‘town’ and ‘country’, or ‘rural’ and ‘urban’, and which instead seek spatially integrated solutions. However, despite the new vocabulary, the idea of town and country planning survives (DCLG, 2007a: 97) as do debates over the efficiency of the system and the need for improvement (Nadin, 2007). It is also acknowledged that ‘rural’ areas, although integral parts of wider territories, retain their own specific challenges which are economic, social and environmental in nature. This book, which aims to provide an introduction to rural planning – or the rural dimension of, and challenge for, spatial planning – is primarily concerned with England. It deals with English institutions and processes, though it also addresses generic concerns and so, where appropriate and useful, references are made to issues and practices in other parts of the United Kingdom. A parallel aim, as noted in the preface, is to provide comprehensive coverage of the forces, processes and outcomes of rural change whilst keeping planning’s influence and role in clear view at all times. Hence the book is structured, as we shall see in a moment, around these forces and outcomes and deals, in its various chapters, with the capacity of planning to steer positive change within rural economies, communities and environments. But planning is taken to mean not only the ‘statutory system’, defined by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and now updated by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004, but also the sum of programmes, projects and actions progressed by different groups with an interest in rural areas. Bishop and Phillips (2004: 4) argued, before the arrival of the 2004 Act, that planning in the countryside extends beyond the boundaries of ‘town and country planning’ (a combination of local authority planmaking and development control) to embrace the initiatives that are taken forward by other actors – including central government departments or agencies, and by different local partners – and which aim to ‘shape’ the countryside through policy, project and programme intervention. In recent years, ‘spatial planning’ has come to encapsulate the idea that planning is the statutory system plus other actions and interventions – public, private or community-led – which ‘make’ or ‘shape’ places. Hence, our core focus is on planning broadly defined (but with a special interest in the 2004 system and its governance context), on patterns of rural change (which planning responds to and directs), and on England as our principal case study. We aim to provide an introduction to rural change and planning which is accessible and comprehensive.

Introduction 5

How to use this book The direction and characteristics of economic change are fundamental to the current state of rural communities and the rural landscape. The structure of this book is predicated on this fact. Across three central parts, we chart the processes of change affecting the countryside and consider, in eight ‘thematic’ chapters, what role planning plays in moderating or managing economic, community and environmental change. But the book has five main parts in total:

Part I: Rurality, planning and governance The first part provides an introduction to rural change and planning, and also introduces the various institutions and governance structures that provide the backdrop for the issues explored within the thematic chapters.

Part II: The rural economy Part II maps out the economic changes that have affected the countryside over the last 100 years. Three chapters explore the general direction of economic change in the countryside (and the forces driving this change), the evolving role of agriculture in the rural economy, and the emergence of a new economic diversity (based on a mix of productive industries and a consumption shift) which is closely linked to a social differentiation of rural communities.

Part III: The needs of rural communities The third part explores community change and its implications in terms of conflict, housing consumption, social exclusion and service provision. This part of the book looks broadly at the challenges faced in modern rural communities and at the role of different planning and governance processes in mediating conflict and supplying (or facilitating the supply of) different key services.

Part IV: Environmental change and planning Part IV considers the landscape and environmental implications of economic and social change. In this part of the book, landscape is conceived as the interaction between nature and society, and the rural landscape is seen to express an evolution of popular and political thinking since the Second World War, particularly with regards to conservation and protection in response to the economic and social changes explored in Parts II and III.

Part V: Governance, coordination and integration The final part brings this introduction to rural planning to a conclusion by looking firstly at the position of rural (planning) debates within wider governance discourses, which are increasingly emphasising the interdependency between town and country, and secondly at the major themes and concepts which emerge from this book.

6


The chapters contained in Parts I and V – including this current chapter – provide introductory or concluding remarks and commentary on key themes. The middle chapters – Parts II, III and IV – each follow a broadly similar structure. They all begin by introducing the content of the chapter before discussing major concerns in the topic area, under the heading ‘key debates’. Each then has a further section of ‘emergent issues’, in which some of these debates are explored in greater depth and planning’s role in influencing change, or dealing with challenges identified in the preceding section, is considered. All twelve chapters begin with a summary of content, and a list of learning outcomes reveal the structure of the chapter and what students can hope to take away from the text. This introduction to rural planning is intended to provide a comprehensive (if not exhaustive) course accompaniment, but each chapter references a great many other sources: books, documents and websites that students will inevitably need to consult in order to fully appreciate the complexity of rural change, and the policy responses, in England during the twentieth and into the twenty-first century.

What do we mean by ‘rural’ and ‘countryside’? Box 1.1 contains a basic definition of what is meant by ‘rural’ – across three ‘theoretical frames’ – taken from a recent Handbook of Rural Studies (Cloke et al., 2006: 20–1). Although we tend to take for granted what we mean by ‘rural’ or a ‘rural area’ (a term often substituted by the word ‘countryside’), there has been a long-running debate surrounding the use of this word and its value in the context of ‘spatial planning’ which, some commentators contend, should be about seeing beyond traditional ‘urban/rural’ divisions and thinking about space in a more holistic way; and certainly not erecting false walls against which the strategic objectives of planning might founder (Chapter 11). In a sense then, the word is divisive, suggesting a division between ‘town and country’, or between ‘nature and worldliness’ as Williams (1973: 46) puts it. But after more than a century of debating what is meant by ‘rural’, we can never quite escape from the view that there is something distinctive about rural areas. This reality seems patently obvious, not least because they have a particular ‘look’ (see Figures 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3) and a particular ‘life’. It is also the case, as we shall see later in this chapter and elsewhere in this book, that a number of genuinely unique economic, social, and environmental challenges confront communities and policy-makers outside of cities. The fact that the processes of change have impacted differentially on town and country has been particularly obvious in the centuries since the industrial revolution: national and global shifts in the ‘focus’, ‘locus’ and ‘mode’ of economic production has brought massive and significant change to the countryside. A change in focus meant a swing towards urban industrialisation and away from agrarian production; this resulted in a new locus of production, away from the countryside and to the new urban industrial centres. And both of these changes were accompanied by a new mode of production, more reliant on machinery and less dependent on manual labour. The industrial revolution was the catalyst for unprecedented population shifts. Though the number of people living in the countryside was stable between the mid-nineteenth century and the 1960s (Allanson and Whitby, 1996), its relative share of population plummeted as cities grew. Fifty years ago, the countryside was characterised by a nineteenth-century population level in a twentieth-century economy: there have been some increases since – on the back of housing investment, retirement, and commuter in-migration

Introduction 7

Box 1.1 Conceptualising rural areas ‘Rurality’ is often conceptualised through one of three ‘theoretical frames’: 1 Functional concepts of rurality: the delimitation of rural areas based on land-use mix (notably farming and forestry), settlement structure (small settlements of low order and an ‘extensive landscape’), a way of life characterised by cohesive identity linked to an extensive landscape; 2 Political-economy concepts: expressions of broader political-economic process creating an observable ‘rural dimension’ leading to a ‘spatial debate’ surrounding population change, employment patterns and so forth. The rural political economy is seen to be characterised by a particular political ideology (favouring private and voluntary action over public intervention), by different patterns of production, by dispersion and difficulty in providing public services, and by low consumption and economic inactivity (especially retirement); 3 Social constructions of rurality: drawing on post-modern and post-structural thinking, and concerned with ‘socio-spatial distinctiveness’, rurality may be defined by the ‘interconnections between socio-cultural constructs of rurality and nature […] and the actual lived experiences and practices of lives in these spaces’ (ibid: 21). This frame sees conceptions of rural areas as being social-constructed, with many different perspectives on and meanings attached to ‘rurality’. Source: Cloke et al., 2006: 20–21

Figure 1.1 ‘The Fox’, Loxley, Warwickshire

8


Figure 1.2 Village church, Alderminster, Warwickshire

Figure 1.3 Farming landscape viewed from Irvinghoe Beacon, Bedfordshire

Introduction 9 Table 1.1

Population share by settlement type (2001) – output area level

Settlement type

Context

Percentage of total persons Urban Less sparse Sparse Rural Small town and fringe Less sparse Sparse Village Less sparse Sparse Dispersed Less sparse Sparse

Wales 2,903,000 (100%)

England 49,139,000 (100%)

England and Wales 52,042,000 (100%)

62.3% 1.9%

80.4% 0.2%

79.4% 0.3%

12.8% 3.3% 7.0% 5.2% 3.2% 4.2%

8.6% 0.4% 6.7% 0.5% 2.8% 0.3%

8.8% 0.6% 6.7% 0.8% 2.8% 0.5%

Source: Countryside Agency et al., 2004 (uses 2001 census data, but is referred to as a 2004 classification, as an independent verification of types, through open consultation, delayed its final publication)

– but four-fifths of the population of England and Wales is now ‘urban’ (see Table 1.1). Lower population densities, the slow decline of the farming sector, and more recent population movements are the drivers of significant social and environmental change – and the consequent challenges – faced in the countryside and examined in later chapters of this book. The view that the countryside is home to particular challenges (annually catalogued in the Commission for Rural Communities’ State of the Countryside reports: see CRC, 2005; 2006a; 2006b) has prompted periodic attempts to delimit ‘rural’ (using UK census units) from obviously urban areas so that tailored policies might be designed and applied. One of the earliest attempts to measure ‘rurality’ (employing a mix of ‘functional’ and ‘political economy’ based measures) for such a purpose took place after the 1971 Census. Cloke (1977) developed an ‘index of rurality’ comprising sixteen variables: the first three variables dealt with population density, engagement in primary rural industries (such as farming) and commuting patterns (to jobs located outside the immediate area). Added to these key variables were data on age structure (rural populations tend to be older because of out-migraton of the young and inmigration of the retired), migration, household amenity, housing occupancy rates, and distances from larger settlements of different sizes. Nine years later, Cloke and Edwards (1986) re-applied the index using 1981 Census data, but became more selfcritical, arguing that although statistical evidence can be used to identify areas with the outward characteristics of ‘rurality’, rural areas are not static over time and it is over-simplistic to suggest that a data profile alone can provide an adequate measure of what we consider to be ‘rural’. This criticism of the ‘reductionist’ view of rurality (reducing rural areas to their statistical profiles) has been commonplace in rural studies ever since. Some researchers, for example, have suggested that while ‘rural’ might be seen as a geographical state, the term ‘rurality’ should be attributed to a mindset or behaviour style (Hoggart, 1990) and treated as a ‘social construct’. Halfacree (1993) adds that all-purpose definitions of ‘rural’ are increasingly difficult to find, and perhaps unwarranted. In reality, many disciplines – from geography, through sociology to architecture and planning – seek their own definition of what constitutes ‘rural’. Indeed it has ‘[…] become apparent that definitions of “rural” constructed for particular purposes, by specific disciplines,

10


and for specific circumstances are being applied to current situations for which the fit is debatable’ (Racher et al., 2004: n.p.). Racher et al. (2004) summarise this debate by suggesting that conceptualisations of ‘rural’ or ‘rurality’ (they conclude that the two words may as well be used interchangeably), fall into four categories: descriptions, dichotomies (emphasising the urban–rural divide), typologies (definite), or indexes (showing the different shades of ‘rurality’). Geographers in the UK – who have been at the forefront of this debate – were initially disciples of ‘indexing’ but now tend towards ‘description’ usually concluding that ‘rural is what people recognise as rural’ (Troughton, 1999) or what is ‘socially constructed’. Policy-makers on the other hand claim a need for greater clarity and have traditionally argued for the existence of dichotomies and sought definite typologies. This tendency towards dichotomy may fade in the future as spatial planning is applied across larger territories, and a desire to understand interconnectivity grows (Hoggart, 2005). Indeed, in the recent past, academics and policy groups alike have been refining their rural definitions, creating new and more sophisticated typologies in the hope that rurality can be better understood and that policy will, as a result, be more appropriate. At the time of writing, one of the most recent ‘rural and urban area classifications’ was undertaken by a team of academics from the University of Sheffield and Birkbeck College (in 2004). The study leading to this descriptive classification was sponsored by a number of government departments and advisory bodies: namely, the Countryside Agency (CA), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM: now superseded by the Department for Communities and Local Government, or DCLG) and the Welsh Assembly Government. Rather than classifying whether wards or COAs (census output areas: the smallest enumeration areas from the 2001 UK Census) were urban or rural, this classification split England and Wales into hectare grid squares, undertook an analysis of ‘settlement form’ (‘each hectare grid square is associated with a particular settlement type: dispersed dwellings, hamlet, village, small town, urban fringe and urban (>10,000 population)’, Countryside Agency et al., 2004: 4) and ‘sparsity’ (‘each hectare grid square is given a sparsity score based on the number of households in surrounding hectare squares up to a distance of 30 km’, ibid: 4), before using the analysis to classify a total of 175,434 COAs according to the scheme set out in Table 1.1. This provides a basic statistical classification of rural–urban England and Wales. Almost 80 per cent of the population resides in what are considered to be ‘urban areas’. Of the remaining 20 per cent, just over 9 per cent (nearly half of the rural population) live in small towns within the rural–urban fringe (the hinterlands of larger towns and cities: see Chapter 11), about 7.5 per cent in villages, and a little more than 3 per cent in output areas with a ‘dispersed’ character: i.e. a settlement pattern comprising smaller hamlets and single or small groups of homes. The distribution of these urban and rural areas is shown in Figure 1.4. Despite the uncertainties noted above, national and local government is now able to delimit the ‘countryside’ for policy planning. At a national level, various agencies distribute funding on the basis of such definitions. The Housing Corporation (responsible for channelling funds to the providers of social housing: see Chapter 7) has a ‘rural programme’, and therefore an official separation of rural from urban areas is important. Different agencies also have different responsibilities. Natural England (NE) and the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) (see Chapter 2), for instance, need to know – geographically – where their responsibility begins and

Introduction 11

Figure 1.4 Classification of urban and rural census output areas in 2004 (on 2001 Census base) Source: Generated by DEFRA, 2005 © Crown copyright

12


ends. But there are two obvious criticisms of this approach. First, it ignores a vast body of literature which argues that rural places and experiences are more than the sum of a few statistical measures: demographic and land-use classifications are inherently onedimensional. But this is only a problem if single ‘rural policies’ are applied uniformly across those areas judged rural by such top-down classifications. If policy-makers – and planners – take time to understand the particular needs and challenges that exist in different places (and classifications are seen to provide, at best, approximations of what is meant by ‘rural’) then inappropriate strategies and policies can be avoided. And second, rural–urban classifications emphasise supposed difference and can suggest separation whereas, in fact, rural and urban areas are interconnected in terms of economic activity, population movements, leisure, housing markets and a whole host of other issues (see Hoggart, 2005). Rural geographers have attempted to address this shortcoming through typologies that capture the increasingly ‘polyvalent rural scene and regulatory structure’ (Marsden, 1998: 107). These typologies focus on regional and local variations in the power of agricultural, residential and other commercial interests and the disparate institutional influences affecting the governance of rural areas. In a recent attempt to capture the increasing diversity of rural England for the purposes of strategic policy decision making, Lowe and Ward (2007: 3) have devised a typology that captures the socio-demographic diversity as well as ‘the symbolic importance attached to rurality’, which is an important driving force in the rural economy (Chapter 5). This typology is constructed from the following variables: • •

•

•

demography (population density/change and age structure); economy (overall vibrancy in terms of employment and income levels, and the state of the knowledge, tourism, managerial/professional and primary production sectors); interactions between residential location and wider economy/society (personal transport, commuting activity, knowledge and managerial/professional employment); signs of rural symbolism – national heritage sites, tranquillity etc. (Lowe and Ward 2007: 15).

The resulting spatial categories of rural England are discussed in detail in Chapters 3 and 5 and produce a foundation on which to explore economic and social change. It is important that planners, in particular, seek to understand both the uniqueness of place (and not assume characteristics or challenges on the back of any top-down classification) and the linkages between different areas and communities. This issue of understanding is returned to throughout the chapters of this book.

What is the role of planning in rural areas? Before introducing the role of planning in shaping or managing change in rural areas today, it is perhaps worth standing back and looking at the scope and purpose of planning per se. Only in a full history of the planning system would it be possible to recount the complete story and origins of planning: a story that would inevitably draw heavily of Patrick Abercrombie’s seminal Town and Country Planning ([1933] 1943 edition quoted below) and begin with some theological comment on God’s planning of the Garden of Eden (ibid: 9) before reviewing the ancient practices (Egyptian, Greek, Roman and medieval) of city building (ibid: 28–52). But space does not permit such

Introduction 13 an extensive retelling of the story, nor would this be necessary or desirable given the volume of works already dedicated to this topic. Our coverage of planning’s scope and purpose is therefore considerably more modest. The intention here is to begin with a basic definition and to look at two key junctures in the development of UK planning: the creation of the ‘modern system’ in 1947 and the arrival of what many commentators judge to be the biggest overhaul of the post-war planning system (and the emergence of ‘spatial’ planning) in 2004. We end this section by introducing some of the peculiarities of planning in rural areas, and by looking across the contents of this book. A more comprehensive treatment of spatial planning – linked to local government reform – is provided in Chapter 2.

The purpose of planning ‘Planning occurs when mankind […] makes a definite and conscious attempt to model or mould his [sic] environment’ (Abercrombie, 1943: 9). Two key issues arise from this basic definition of planning: first, that those who plan are conscious of what they are trying to achieve and organise on the basis of some understood rationale; and second, they deal with the ‘environment’ or context in which human activity takes place. On the first issue, we can say that planning is an act of organisation, undertaken by those unwilling to accept the status quo, usually for economic, social or environmental reasons (though it can, at times, be hijacked by interests bent on preserving this status quo at all costs, as we shall see in Chapter 7). This brings us to the issue of the environment (the subject of planning), with its underlying economic system, its social patterning, and its ‘natural’ and ‘made-made’ attributes. Planning can be conceived as a response to the ‘environment’ (seeking to lessen environmental constraints, handing it a reactive quality) and a desire to shape the future out of the present (a proactive quality). Abercrombie’s view (1943: 10) was that a tendency to plan is a characteristic of any rational society recognising and unwilling to accept the economic and social inequalities that arise within all societies, ancient and modern: though popular concern for equality and social justice really gained momentum in the nineteenth century. As Cherry (1974) notes, ‘modern planning is […] very much a child of our recent economic, political and social history’ (ibid: 7) and pressure to create a ‘political’ economy in which market processes would be moderated by public intervention took root in the Victorian period. It is generally acknowledged that planning in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is rooted in the nineteenth (Cherry, 1974; 1978; Hall, 1996; Ward, 2004; Gilg, 2005; Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones, 2007). During the era of industrialisation and associated rapid urban growth, it became apparent that the various reform movements – with interests in land rights, housing and economic justice – shared common concerns, and needed to coordinate if they were to bring about lasting change (Horsfall, 1904; Hall, 1996; Sutcliffe, 1981). By the beginning of the twentieth century, driven and inspired by domestic urban problems – poor public transport, uncoordinated infrastructure provision, bad housing and low levels of public health – and foreign remedies, the UK had become home to an emergent ‘Garden Cities’ movement (Howard, 1898) which encapsulated the practice of ‘moulding the environment’ to achieve social, economic and environmental ends. The first ‘town planning act’ arrived in 1909, and reflected the moral, social and technological concerns of the high-Victorian thinking on which planning in the early years of the twentieth century was to be based. In introducing the bill that preceded the act, government argued for a need to ‘[…] provide a domestic

14


condition for the people in which their physical health, their morals, their character and their whole social condition can be improved by what we hope to secure in this bill. The bill aims in broad outline at, and hopes to secure, ‘the home healthy, the house beautiful, the town pleasant, the city dignified and the suburb salubrious’ (House of Commons, 1908: Column 949). The legislation that followed – the Housing, Town Planning, Etc. Act 1909 – charged local authorities with the preparation of ‘schemes’ for new housing development. The idea of ‘planning’ was carried on the back of a housing agenda (Cherry, 1974: 72). Indeed, a second act – the Housing and Town Planning Act 1919 – pursued this same agenda and despite ‘lip service to the idea of town planning, the major advances made at this time were in the field of housing rather than planning’ (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002: 16). In the first half of the twentieth century, planning was ‘gingerly tried’ but never ‘indulged in to excess’ (Ashworth, 1968: 108) largely because powers were untested and local authorities were loathed to interfere in private matters. A new impetus was needed: something which would catalyse the case for planning. The Second World War provided this impetus, with wartime armament requirements creating an ‘acceptance of the need for economic planning’ (Simmie, 1994: 2), and subsequent reconstruction providing a context for a system of land-use planning, which would provide the necessary coordination behind post-war economic and social development. Before the fighting had ended in Europe, the wartime government published a White Paper on the ‘Control of Land Use’ (HM Government, 1944) which quietly ushered in the era of ‘land-use’ planning intended to advance public interest (in general and through participation in the processes of planning), protect private property and balance social, environmental and economic interests. These were to be the key objectives of planning. The 1944 White Paper was a precursor to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947: the corner-stone of the ‘modern’ planning system, and centrally concerned with ‘provision for the right use of land, in accordance with a considered policy’. Bruton (1974) suggests that although the 1947 Act was essentially a ‘land plan’ (dealing predominantly with land-use control), it had other ‘limited and unstated social and economic objectives’ (ibid: 15). Referring to Colin Buchanan’s (1972) interpretation of the Act’s consequences, he posited that planning since 1947 was largely concerned with: • • • • •

ensuring equality of opportunity, prosperity and standards throughout the whole country […] getting the urban areas into shape […] ensuring a sufficient and economical transport system for people and goods. conserving the nation’s natural resources […] conserving the nation’s heritage […].

Arguably, issues of equality have – in many rural areas – often been at odds with issues of conservation (perpetuating patterns of ‘rural disadvantage’ – see Box 1.2) and this is an issue we return to throughout this book and especially in Chapters 6, 7 and 8. Overall, and despite wider ambitions in 1947, the system of ‘town and country planning’ operated after 1947 was dominated by a land-use approach, with the control of land seen as central to achieving or controlling different ‘planning outputs’ including housing numbers ‘rather than broader goals or outcomes in terms of more sustainable development or economic growth’ (Nadin, 2007: 48). As Bruton

Introduction 15

Box 1.2 Land-use planning Focused on ‘statutory planning’, as defined in ‘town and country planning’ legislation, which establishes or reinforces the responsibility of local authority planning departments to engage in ‘plan-making’ and subsequent ‘development control’ in the context of an adopted plan. Land-use planning is viewed as the direct responsibility of the public sector, though authorities should consult on the content of their local planning framework. Delivery against policies is through development control by the local authority, with success measured against ‘planning outputs’. Land-use planning is fundamentally concerned with controlling land-use change in the light of wider objectives, for instance, relating to housing growth or the demand for new infrastructure. Its narrow focus has arguably created few opportunities to integrate across other policy areas, limiting its capacity to deliver against or coordinate a range of economic, social or environmental objectives.

(1974) has pointed out, planning was supposed to be about more than land, but the system that evolved after the Second World War developed an increasingly narrow focus. Why this happened – together with the evolving nature of ‘land-use planning’ (which we have also referred to as the ‘1947–2004 system’) – is now considered in more detail.

Land-use planning The planning system, as constituted in 1947, involved the nationalisation of development rights with (almost all) subsequent land development being subject to ‘planning permission’, the creation of a system of area-wide ‘development plans’, and the vesting of planning powers (to grant or refuse development permission) with county councils as incumbent ‘planning authorities’. The principal function of this system was the control of land-use change either through new development or ‘material change’ (from one use to another). The 1947 Act defined development as ‘[…] the carrying out of building, engineering, mining, or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land’, and this definition of development remained unaltered by subsequent key legislation enacted in 1971 and 1990. Between 1947 and 1971 a system of development planning was bedded in based on two key local planning authority (LPA) functions: planmaking and development control. The former involved ‘forward’ planning sections of planning authorities drawing up ‘development plans’ which identified ‘white land’ (farmland where development would not be permitted), existing use areas (where only small changes were anticipated), development and redevelopment areas (anticipating major change), and ‘war damage’ areas subject to reconstruction (Gilg, 2005: 10). Plan making was to be followed up with implementation and the programming of works through master planning (with local authorities exercising compulsory purchase powers and acting as developer) and with development control. But as Gilg (2005) points out, development control was only ever intended as a marginal activity, dealing with a small number of anticipated planning applications from the private sector (ibid: 10). The 1947 system was predicated on the belief that local authorities would be the principal developers.

16


However, by the 1950s, the total volume of private house building (for example) was exceeding public output. This meant that ‘plans became guides for development control rather than as intended development plans for local authorities’ (ibid: 11). This also meant that the inherently ‘negative’ business of development control (a supposedly marginal function) suddenly became a major activity of planning authorities in rural areas and many critics argued that planning had lost sight of its strategic objectives. The problem was that the rate of economic growth and population increase had made the 1947 system redundant within a decade of its inception. In hindsight, its retrenchment into (land-use) policy control might have been foreseen given this context: the system was designed for public-sector development and was out of place in a world dominated by private developers. By the late 1960s, consensus had built around the need for remedial action, with planning given a more strategic focus. The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (consolidating earlier legislation, especially from the Town and Country Planning Act 1968) handed the task of preparing ‘structure plans’ to county councils and dropped development plan responsibility to the level of district and borough authorities (Chapter 2). The broad intention was that the district plans would set out the framework for local development (providing a blueprint for development control) and the structure plans would offer a more strategic overview of objectives and aspirations (with district plans and structure plans being in ‘compliance’). The system that was born in 1947, modified in 1971 and updated in the late 1980s with the introduction of ‘guidance notes’ setting out how planning authorities might transform the increasingly complex raft of planning legislation into local policy, has been analysed and reviewed countless times in recent years. But the essential messages that we need to be aware of at this point are summarised in Box 1.3. Essentially, planning’s focus has narrowed. The system’s potential – to coordinate reconstruction and economic growth ambitions – in the immediate post-war world seemed substantial, but early hopes were undermined by rapid social and economic changes. In fact, the game rules seemed to change to such an extent that many

Box 1.3 The 1947–2004 planning system • Between 1947 and 2004, the underlying principles of the planning system were established, modified and consolidated; • the system was predicated on the dominance of public sector development, with the opening up and control of land for this purpose; • planning was not meant to be fundamentally concerned with policy control, but this became its prime concern as public sector development was eclipsed by private sector development; • as development programming and master-planning activities (tied to public sector development) faded, development control (a response to private development) activity soared (planning retrenched into statutory duty); • the system became gradually less strategic and more concerned with the ‘control of land’; • despite some tinkering with the system, it has become increasingly bureaucratic (and remained narrow in scope) over the last 60 years.

Introduction 17 commentators, looking back on the system from a current vantage point, have claimed that the 1947 system was always doomed to fail. This failure occurred because as the system’s focus narrowed, so too did its influence, to the point where economic, social and environment agendas were pursued despite the planning system rather than because of it. The system failed to coordinate or influence these agendas and as the development control function of planning became relatively more important, reactivity became the dominant feature of planning itself and people no longer perceived the system to be forward looking or thinking. These criticisms of the 1947–2004 planning system are well rehearsed – a negative system, with declining influence, increasingly bureaucratic – and none of this bodes well for planning in the countryside: a topic that we turn to shortly. A broad definition of ‘land-use planning’ is contained in Box 1.2. This outlines the focus of the 1947–2004 system. The post-2004 system, examined in the next part of this chapter, is the product of a fundamental re-think of planning’s purpose: a ‘back to formula’ look at planning’s role in achieving sustainable development. It is introduced below, but examined in greater detail in Chapter 2.

Spatial planning Land-use control remains an important component of the statutory planning system in England. Indeed, planning continues to play a crucial role in regulating the ‘development and use of land in the public interest’ (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2006: 2). But the same authors note that from 2004, ‘a much wider purpose has been added: to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development’. The result has been to clarify some of Bruton’s ‘unstated objectives’. Following the UN Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, 2004 saw the launch of the UK Government Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production (DEFRA, 2004a: 1). This defined ‘sustainable development’ as ‘[…] continuous economic and social progress that respects the limits of the Earth’s ecosystems, and meets the needs and aspirations of everyone for a better quality of life, now and for future generations to come’, emphasising the need to better coordinate the social, economic and environmental dimensions of development (DEFRA 2004a: 10 ). Realising planning’s ‘much wider purpose’ and especially its role in coordinating the different dimensions of development (a role that emerged in 1947 – see Simmie, 1994 – but which was subsequently eclipsed by a preoccupation with land-use control) now appears ‘mission critical’ in relation to the goal of sustainable development. In this section we briefly consider planning’s journey away from its ‘land-use’ focus to a broader ‘spatial’ agenda, which has coordination at its heart. Planning discourse, across the UK, is currently focused on the need to invent an entirely different process and purpose for the planning system, which is less preoccupied with policing land-use change, and more able to coordinate the different policies, programmes and projects that impact on places. At the moment, there is no universally agreed definition of ‘spatial planning’ (though the definition in Box 1.4 captures its concern with coordination of policy delivery). Usually, it is viewed as the antithesis of land-use planning: as a ‘coordinating function’ re-engaging with those interest groups – in housing, local communities, the environment, health care, architecture, development, finance and so forth – who had become increasingly distanced from the old system and weary of its narrow land-use focus. In contrast to local land-use planning, it is also claimed that spatial planning has a fundamental

18


Box 1.4 Spatial planning Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function. That will include policies which can impact on land use, for example by influencing the demands on, or needs for, development, but which are not capable of being delivered solely or mainly through the granting or refusal of planning permission and which may be implemented by other means. (ODPM, 2004a: Para 30) Spatial planning is fundamentally concerned with the coordination of different programmes, policies and projects which deliver against objectives agreed by a range of different partners. Objectives can be varied, relating to communities, the environment and local economies. Unlike land-use planning, it is not only the responsibility of a local authority, but of a wider range of agencies. Land-use control remains important, but is only one means of delivering against local ambitions.

concern for forward looking ‘strategy’ and avoids the past mistake of focusing on reactionary ‘policy control’ (especially land-use control). But debate at the moment is primarily focused on what spatial planning could and should be as the new system is yet to yield any tangible results, either in terms of complete ‘spatial strategies’ (regional) or ‘development frameworks’ (local) in place, or outcomes on the ground. In this section, we look briefly as what ‘spatial planning’ might be. In Chapter 2, we deal with potential processes (of spatial planning) and outcomes in greater depth. And in subsequent chapters, we reflect on what the transition from land-use to spatial planning will mean in rural areas. Since 2004, planning has not moved away from its statutory duty (to control the use of land) but it has taken on a wider remit: a more central coordinating role in the machinery of ‘governance’: see Box 1.4. The rhetoric backing up spatial planning’s bigger purpose usually makes one or more of the following claims: that spatial planning is an enabling force which mobilises wider support (that is, community and interest groups support) behind visions of what places might look like, and how they might function in the future; spatial planning is not public sector driven but instead built on strategic and local partnerships; and finally, that spatial planning plays a central role in reconciling competing interests and resolving conflicts (a topic examined more closely in Chapter 6). It does much more than control the use of land. The term itself is rooted in management theory and vision statements, originating in the United States (Albrechts, 2001: 294; 2004: 744) and merging with European traditions of spatial planning that encompass the ideals of collaborative, community-centred action that aim at consensus building (Healey, 2003: 120; Abram and Cowell, 2004: 210). A key difference, in England, between the post-2004 and the pre-2004 planning systems is that now the land-use control function has been relegated behind a ‘corporate agenda’ focused on the coordination of policies and programmes – delivered by different sectors and agencies – that ‘shape’ places. This role for planning is arguably closer to that envisaged in 1947 than the land-use system that evolved in post-war Britain. Drawing on the work of Kunzmann (2000) and Healey (1997), Albrechts suggests

Introduction 19 that strategic ‘spatial planning is a public-sector-led socio-spatial process through which a vision, actions, and means for implementation are produced, that shape and frame what a place is, and may become’ (Albrechts, 2004: 747), and this definition seems to capture the spirit of English spatial planning. In the UK, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has joined many others in criticising past land-use planning, and in lauding the potential of spatial planning. It has suggested that ‘too often plans are made and planning decisions are taken on a restrictive land-use basis, without proper integration with other policy objectives. Planning needs to be developed on a more consistent, cross-cutting and collaborative approach’ (RTPI, 2001: 3). Spatial planning is subsequently defined by what it should seek to achieve: • Spatial planning should take account of a much wider set of issues currently excluded from its remit, including inequalities in health and education, energy policy, the rural economy and urban design; • Spatial planning should integrate and be an integral part of the full range of public, corporate and community strategies and initiatives; • Spatial planning should be carried out according to coherent, functional areas and at local, regional and national levels, rather than being constrained unnecessarily by artificial administrative areas (Chapter 11); • Spatial planning should be linked to delivery mechanisms through the expenditure programmes of all relevant government and corporate agencies (Chapters 3 and 5); and • Spatial planning should bring together a wider range of professional skills and disciplines. (RTPI, 2001: 3) Some of these aspirations for spatial planning are compared, in Box 1.5, with the focus of-land use planning. A significant shift has occurred in planning during recent years. This shift has affected the framework and institutions of planning. It has altered the content and form of plans, as well as the planning process and the delivery of planned outcomes. The move or transition to spatial planning – and the substitution of a land-use control focus with a broader coordinating role for planning and planners – has many potential implications for rural areas, with planning hoping to become a means of pulling together rural policy and coordinating the programmes and projects of different agencies.

Rural planning and multi-functionality A theme that we pick up at several points throughout this book is that of ‘multifunctionality’: dealing with rural issues across a broad canvas. What do we mean by ‘multi-functionality’ and how has the concept been expressed in recent writing on rural and environmental planning? Put simply, multi-functionality is about seeing a range of challenges – linked to differing values, rural communities, the economy, environmental change or the state of local services – as interrelated, and subsequently responding (and enabling others to respond), through policy design and planning that is both well coordinated and integrated. On the face of it, this appears to be a sensible strategy, but past policy has not always followed this model. In our introduction to the scope and nature of ‘land-use’ planning, we suggested that the system of planning which evolved after 1947 came to be increasingly ‘one dimensional’, focused on a strategy of

20


Box 1.5 Key differences between ‘land-use’ and ‘spatial’ planning

Land-use planning The planning framework

Spatial planning

Narrow scope Scope prescribed by statute and case law; set out in the various planning acts. The framework has a narrower focus and has been largely concerned with controlling the use of land

Broad scope Scope significantly broader and involves a range of different partners; the position of ‘spatial planning’ in relation to ‘community strategies’ was set out in the 2006 Local Government White Paper, indicating that planning becomes embedded in a broader ‘spatial governance’ framework Tight boundaries Loose boundaries Boundaries are arguably simpler, and familiar Boundaries to be established, with a to planning departments and officers definition of ‘spatial planning’ still proving difficult to agree (Morphet et al., 2007). Spatial planning is viewed as the ‘practice of place shaping’ (ibid: 1) but what this means in reality can be difficult to define The institutional arrangements Local authority driven Plans often prepared in isolation from other agencies; planning authorities ‘go it alone’

Topic based Plans reflect departmental interests and delivery; housing, health etc. are treated as discrete ‘topics’

Local authority owned Plan owned by the local authority

Planning peripheral Planning and planners not always viewed as central to local authority activity; land-use planning treated as peripheral and as having only an ‘influence’ on other policy areas

Collaborative approach Requires a collaborative approach with a range of agencies involved in preparing ‘spatial strategies’ or local frameworks. Agencies include other public authorities (including health, housing and education) as well as other private and voluntary interests Integrated Predicated on council having an integrated approach to strategy and delivery (this means that issues are integrated within a strategy and projects or programmes are delivered in an integrated way) Partnership owned The local authority leads preparation on behalf of a Local Strategic Partnership and a range of agencies; the plan forms part of a suite of integrated strategies owned by the wider community Planning central Expects planners to be engaged in corporate strategy and policy making; spatial planning at the heart of coordinated policy delivery

The contents of plans and strategies Lacks vision Planning does not offer a comprehensive ‘vision’ of the future; it is process rather than outcome led

Shared vision A shared vision is central to spatial planning; it is driven by the pursuit of this goal

Introduction 21

Land-use planning

Spatial planning

Land-use objectives Objectives are invariably linked to landuse; to the policing of land-use change, or to influencing change through rules and regulations affecting the use of land Land-use policies Site-specific and defined areas for operation of policies, again tied to land use change; non site-specific policies are possible but will be concerned with delivering against planning policy through generic approaches to planning gain, design and so forth Hierarchically compliant Requirement for compliance with higher-level planning strategy (usually a structure plan)

Diverse objectives Spatial planning should deliver against diverse and more fundamental objectives; it is not tied to land-use concerns

The planning process Legal A legalistic process, strictly defined and choreographed with different groups and interests ‘inputting’ into the processed at prescribed points Consultation Consultation with communities focused on proposals or the ‘preferred options’ offered by the planning authority Limited inputs Consultation with agencies on proposals

Limited monitoring Monitoring a limited suite of data

Implementation and delivery Narrow mechanisms Delivery mainly through development control by the local authority Planning outputs Focus on allocations and what gets built: focus on narrowly defined ‘outputs’

Multiple policy tools Can contain non site-based policies, and can reference objectives that will only be achieved if other agencies deliver against local area agreements (i.e. the planning of ‘non-planning interventions’) Integrated General conformity with regional spatial strategies, but now an added requirement to have regard to the community strategy and – after 2006 – to be integrated with that strategy Project managed A managed process, which is ongoing. Greater flexibility in timing of inputs. The process is important in itself, as a means of generating a shared vision and building consensus around this vision. Engagement Early and ongoing engagement with communities, focused on needs, concerns, problems, aspirations and ambitions Building consensus Requires consensus with agencies on strategy, integration and delivery; the process operates in the context of local strategic partnerships Continual review Monitoring performance on delivery of objectives across the board, and against objectives agreed by the partners within the new planning process Broad mechanisms Delivery through a range of channels and a range of agencies Broad outcomes Focus on delivery of objectives and all the elements which go together to achieve them: focus on broad ‘outcomes’ defined by the local strategic partnership and agreed in a local area agreement: broad outcomes – including ‘sustainable development’ – rather than planning outputs (i.e. achieving a fixed target of housing completions)

Source: Adapted from POS, 2005: http://www.planningofficers.org.uk

22


‘policy control’, concerning itself with issues of land and property use. ‘Comprehensive’ planning had been conceived as a means of coordinating development (applying the language of ‘spatial’ planning, it should have been about ‘managing space’). But its postwar emphasis on land and on policy control meant that planning authorities tended to use the system to achieve a range of objectives through restriction. In particular, the practice of rural planning was characterised by a general brake on development, designed to achieve environmental protection and to protect the interests of farming. We look at the outcomes of this land-use and policy control throughout this book. But its most obvious consequence has been to generate an almost constant friction between planning and the market. In the post-war period (and beyond), the strength of desire to protect rural areas (by, for example, promoting near zero-tolerance to housing growth in local plans, and refusing all planning applications on this basis) has only been matched in many areas by the strength of housing demand and need (Chapter 7). This strategy – focusing on the single dimension of ‘land-use’ – has worked contrary to the interests of local communities (displaced by incomers able to compete in an increasingly constrained housing market) and local economies (starving them of local labour). Observers of this evolving situation have fallen into two camps, either deriding the whole practice of planning, claiming that it is out of step with community need (which has often been the case) or arguing that the market has run riot, and that government should have imposed tighter planning restrictions and acted sooner to protect ‘local needs’. The argument hinges on whether there should be ‘more planning’ or ‘less planning’, but fails to identify the need for a different approach, one that focuses across a range of needs rather than sticking doggedly to its limited emphasis on the release of land. It has failed – as we shall see in later chapters – to coordinate the interests of local communities with a wider economic strategy, or to link the needs of existing rural residents with the desires of incomers. Indeed, its control focus has often pitted different groups against one another. This lack of coordination – and a failure to see the ‘broader canvas’ mentioned above – has affected a range of other rural issues. For example, despite their exemption from planning regulation, developments in agriculture and forestry have been governed by a plethora of often uncoordinated UK and EU policy. Arguably, the planning system might have played a bigger role in integrating policies towards these primary rural industries, at a regional and local level, with other socioeconomic or environmental interventions. These brief examples suggest that planning has either been too restrictive, focused on environmental protection, or too hands-off, failing to coordinate different policy arenas. But more fundamental than the extent of planning intervention – whether it is pervasive or adopts a light touch – has been its failure to provide a comprehensive system and to look across the different policies and interventions that shape the rural scene. The environment is a stage on which a range of different players vie for attention: it is a ‘multi-functional’ space. Without direction, the resultant discord can prove problematic: homes but no jobs or vice versa; development in the midst of environmental degradation; communities that lose their cohesion and become mere dormitories for urban commuters, lacking all necessary services; or a ‘chocolate-box’ countryside, devoid of economic opportunity. Brandt et al. (2000) are amongst a number of recent writers who have called on policy makers to recognise the multi-functional nature of the spaces which planning must manage. These spaces are inevitably areas of ‘production’ with an economic function; they are also ‘living spaces’, not only for people but for plants and wildlife, which must share the environment; they are spaces of ‘consumption’ for recreation and leisure; and, more broadly, space is also a socio-

Introduction 23 cultural entity, where people interact and where communities take shape, history unfolds, and people develop a sense of identity and belonging. The concept of multifunctionality articulated by Brandt reinforces the argument introduced earlier that planning has a key role in coordinating policies and interventions that allow spaces to function in different ways, linking economic needs to community development and environmental enhancement: again, thinking across the broad canvas. As an aside, in relation to agriculture and forestry, multi-functionality has been assigned a more particular meaning. For forestry, it is often used in reference to the ‘multiple objectives’ of maintaining woodland (Winter, 1996); for agriculture, it encapsulates the idea of balancing ‘landscape and environmental values’ with the need to produce food (Marsden, 2006; Wilson, 2007). Differing uses of the term are explored throughout this book, though the broad definition employed by Brandt – referring to the coexistence of space-using functions – is returned to, especially in Chapters 10 and 11, and linked to planning’s changing role in the countryside. The new ‘approach to planning’ emerging from the 2004 legislation seems to create opportunities for a more coordinated model of space management, one that extends beyond the control of land and property. However, the approach recognises and acknowledges that conflict will occur as multiple functions compete for land. The role of planning, therefore, is often to mediate between different interests. We shall see in the next chapter that a framework has been introduced that aims to link the practice of planning more directly to communities (and ‘community strategies’) on the one hand, and to regional economic concerns (via ‘regional spatial strategies’) on the other. Spatial planning will be concerned with coordinating different agendas: the major challenges – set out in later chapters – will include: •

•

•

•

•

•

managing housing growth by working with communities, housing professionals, developers and other groups, perhaps by finding new solutions – including higher density, better-designed homes, or building conversion – rather than simply defending a status quo through control policy and generally rejecting new housing; securing an economic future for the countryside by working with communities, entrepreneurs and investors, rather than seeing the rural economy (i.e. agriculture) as being outside its remit; managing leisure and recreational pressures by working with the private sector and local groups to ensure that such pressures do not place too great a strain on local infrastructure or natural resources; promoting liveability by ensuring that rural services have a context in which they can thrive; this might, for example, involve a more positive position in relation to new housing and to new forms of economic activity, but will also include assisting communities who wish to provide their own community services; enhancing the environment, through a mix of sustainable development and conservation, rather than remaining in the mindset that says all development in the countryside is inherently negative; ensuring that such sectoral objectives are coordinated (across different interest groups and actors), ensuring that the future countryside is ‘multi-functional’, and that the system ‘gets rural areas into shape’ (in the same way as the 1947–2004 system tried to ‘get urban areas into shape’: Buchanan, 1972) by tackling rural disadvantage while, at the same time, dealing effectively with the management of natural resources.

24


Spatial management, coordination, multi-functionality and sustainability: these are all terms that we return to throughout this book, and which are used to articulate the evolving mission and objective of planning in the countryside.

What are the special challenges faced in rural areas? As well as having a central concern with the planning system itself, this book is about the special challenges faced in rural areas. These challenges are examined in eight thematic chapters (Chapters 3 to 10) arranged in three middle parts (Parts II to IV), dealing with the changing ‘economies’ of rural areas, ‘societal’ shifts resulting from these economic changes, and consequent ‘environmental’ issues. The sectional divisions were explained earlier in this chapter. The intention in the ‘thematic’ chapters is to provide overviews of the principal issues facing rural areas.

Part II: The economic challenge Chapter 3 – the first thematic chapter – establishes that economic shift is fundamental to social and environmental change in the countryside. Here, we provide an introduction to how the economy of rural areas has changed over the last 100 years, and look at how policy and planning intervention has influenced economic shifts. The chapter extends our introduction to the changing planning system in Chapter 2 by looking at how planning has shaped the economy of rural areas since 1947, particularly through its emphasis on key settlement policy and its non-intervention in significant economic activities such as forestry and farming. This leads into a more detailed analysis of the farming sector in Chapter 4. Here, we consider the shifting fortunes of agriculture, establishing that farming change has been pivotal to social and environmental shifts in the countryside. We look at the idea of a ‘productive countryside’ (as the key economic feature of rural areas in the post-war period) and how policy towards farming – first set out in the Agriculture Act 1947 – granted statutory planning very limited influence in the countryside, and led to a gradual ‘disembeddedness’ of agriculture. The chapter also looks at modern farming and returns to the concept of ‘multi-functionality’, arguing that food production can comfortably co-exist with agriculture’s ‘ancillary’ functions – such as landscape management, linking forward to wider social and economic goals – and that such co-existence can be facilitated by spatial planning. Indeed, perhaps the most important topic dealt with in Chapter 4 is how ‘production’ as a central farming rationale has declined (reflected in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)) and how this is leading to questions over the future of farming land. Chapter 5 – the last of our ‘economic chapters’ – examines recent shifts in the economy of rural areas, beginning with the rise of a rural economy grounded in ‘consumption’. Here, we deal with emergent economic strands: multi-functional, quality-orientated agriculture such as small-holding and organic farming and the concept of local food; a re-emergence of traditional industries; tourism and recreation industries utilising the economic value of the ‘rural idyll’; and the role of in-migration – of people and businesses – in supporting rural regeneration. This chapter traces the emergence of a more diverse economy, and considers the role of spatial planning in mediating between today’s more complex array of economic activities found in rural areas. The role of spatial planning in creating and sustaining a more robust and more diverse rural economy is the key focus of this chapter.

Introduction 25

Part III: The social challenge Chapter 6 provides an introduction to community change in the countryside over the last century, mirroring the economic trends introduced in Chapter 3. It considers the ‘evolution’ of rural communities from more ‘traditional’ (land-based) types to more ‘encapsulated’ forms (Newby, 1979) in which ‘traditional’ local groups may become marginalised relative to the ‘power’ (economic and political) of newcomers. It links community change to service needs (taken up again in Chapter 8) suggesting that as communities have become increasingly diverse and differentiated, it has become more difficult to plan for their needs and manage intra-class conflict. The changing relationship between communities and planning is of particular concern, and in Chapter 6 we examine the rhetoric of ‘participative governance’ contained in recent planning reforms and what this means relative to the social and demographic changes generating new social exclusions in the countryside. The empowerment of communities via local strategic partnerships and community strategies (creating a new mode of governance) is given particular attention. Chapter 7 then looks at housing questions in rural areas and especially the way the planning system has responded to a variety of housing pressures in recent times. This chapter examines external interest and incursions into rural housing markets – in the form of second home buying, commuting, retirement and investment – as well as wider housing concerns and planning’s evolving response. In terms of planning, the chapter has two key foci: the first is on local need and how this has traditionally been dealt with by the land-use planning. Hence ‘local needs mechanisms’ (negotiating the inclusion of ‘affordable homes’ in speculative developments and granting planning exceptions for local needs housing) are briefly reviewed. The second focus is the changing planning system, post2004 (the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and the Barker Review of Housing Supply, 2004) and what ‘affordability based’ planning – potentially pushing up the level of housing provision – might mean for housing delivery in rural areas. This chapter asks whether land-use planning has really been problematic in relation to housing supply (starving rural areas of developable land), and whether spatial planning and the ‘Barker agenda’ (considered in detail in Chapter 7) represent what Glen Bramley (2006) has called ‘belated enlightenment’, dealing with land release in a more effective and equitable manner. Chapter 8 – the final chapter of Part III – offers a broader examination of the problems some groups may face when ‘living in the countryside’ including accessibility to key services, to jobs and to transport. As Bruton (1974: 15) notes, the post-war planning system sought to remedy spatial disadvantage and to create equality of opportunity in terms of job, homes and services. But a recent review of the difficulties of living in the countryside conducted by the Commission for Rural Communities (2006c) reveals several areas in which rural communities are persistently disadvantaged relative to their urban counterparts (Box 1.6). In Chapter 8, we extend the discussion from the previous two chapters. Spatial planning and new forms of governance promise to deliver new solutions in rural communities: planning will no longer react to development proposals (defending vested interests and a status quo: see Evans, 1991), but will take a long-term view of community need (such is the rhetoric): but can it deliver positive change? Will it deliver enough housing, build support around the need for new activities (perhaps industries that were previously opposed in the countryside), and support the delivery of services and of sustainable growth? In the foreword to a recent Affordable Rural Housing Commission (ARHC) report (2006), Elinor Goodman (the Commission’s chairperson) has argued that planning, because of

26


its emphasis on control, has frozen communities in aspic (ibid: 6). The inference is that future planning should to be far more proactive and responsive to community needs. What this might mean in practice is the critical question addressed in Chapter 8.

Part IV: The environmental challenge Chapter 9 looks at the rural environment and landscape and considers how these have changed over the last 100 years, directed by economic shift and changes to the farming economy. It establishes the idea of the landscape as ‘man-made’ and debates the need to maintain a role for farming in the management of the landscape; and also introduces the role of planning in influencing environmental change and managing landscape assets. It pays particular attention to the post-war planning system and its capacity to address environmental concerns directly as opposed to indirectly (through the containment of development). In Chapter 9, we establish that planning’s primary role has – arguably – been to advance environmental goals, by limiting social and economic ones. We consider whether this might be considered a progressive approach, or whether planning might take positive steps to achieve greater balance. This chapter provides a context for a more complete discussion of spatial planning and ‘multifunctional’ landscape and environmental management in Chapter 10. Chapter 10 addresses two themes: the first is landscape diversity. There is great diversity in rural areas – from upland landscape to chalk downlands; from the semi-wild to the heavily farmed; and from the remote to the rural–urban fringe. Planning faces a range of different scenarios and different challenges: in particular, it faces a special challenge in the rural–urban fringe when pressure for urban development comes in direct conflict with a desire to preserve ‘open countryside’, often through local containment policies and green belt. But, we suggest that whatever the context, spatial planning has a central role in integrating environmental and socio-economic objectives, rather than prioritising one above the other. Spatial planning – dealing with space as an ‘integrated system’ – views people and the environment as interdependent. The second theme of this chapter is landscape designation and the future of the tools – including areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), national parks, green belt (not a landscape designation, but examined in Chapter 10 as a planning tool impacting on the nearurban landscape) and so forth – currently available in the UK. We look at the roots, rationale and possible future development of these tools and evaluate their impact on the landscape, on the economy and on the development of rural communities. This final thematic chapter looks again at the argument that rural planning has been largely one-dimensional ignoring the interdependencies that should become central to an emergent spatial planning framework.

The interconnectivity of places: re-thinking urban and rural through strategic planning This book is not only concerned with rural spaces, but with the positioning of rural areas and issues within broader spatial frameworks. In particular, we are concerned with integration (of the different challenges faced in the countryside), coordination (across policy areas and how spatial planning might play a major role in future coordination), and interconnectivity between town and country within different strategic spatial planning frameworks. These themes are given special attention in Chapters 11 and 12.

Introduction 27

Box 1.6 Dimensions of rural disadvantage (defined as ‘an inability to participate fully in society’) Financial disadvantage A household in poverty is defined by an annual income of less than 15 per cent of the English median. Roughly 22 per cent of rural households are in income poverty, including a fifth of all rural pensioners and rural children. This is frequently because incomes are lower in rural than in urban areas, largely because of the nature of jobs and employment opportunities (see Chapter 5). Employment disadvantage Unemployment rates are generally lower in rural areas than in urban areas, but tend to be higher in sparse rural areas. There is also a pattern of seasonal employment (linked to tourism, and also linking forward to low pay and financial disadvantage). Indeed, the following are key features of rural employment: seasonal or casual jobs are commonplace; many jobs are semi-skilled; the quality of jobs tends to be lower than in urban areas; self-employment is common; and jobs (and training) can be difficult to access (see Chapter 8). The employment market is dominated by manufacturing, agriculture or tourism depending on proximity to key centres. Educational disadvantage Levels of attainment among people in rural areas are generally higher than among those living in urban areas and rural schools often achieve higher performance than urban schools. Nevertheless, attainment is variable and access to both pre- and post16 education can be problematic. Training programmes also tend to be patchier in the countryside. These issues are also explored in Chapter 8. Housing disadvantage The number of households in rural districts accepted as homeless and in priority need in 2004/05 was 18,754, a rate of 3.8 per 1,000 households. This was lower than in urban areas, but the number has been growing faster in rural than in urban areas in recent years. House prices are generally higher in rural areas and have been rising quickly. The CRC has estimated that 30,800 new affordable dwellings are needed between now and 2011 to meet existing and newly arising housing needs. Problems of housing supply and affordability are picked up in Chapter 7. Health disadvantage By most general measures, such as infant mortality and life expectation, health rates appear to be better in rural areas than in urban areas. But health care can be more difficult to access in the countryside, and there are persistent concerns over stressrelated illness (Chapter 8). Retail disadvantage There has been a sharp decline in the number of local food shops across rural areas. Access to shops – and to other services such as post offices – can be problematic in many areas and is compounded by poor public transport. Transport disadvantage Car ownership is higher in rural than in urban areas. In 2004, only 11 per cent of rural households had no car compared to 25 per cent of households in all areas. Car dependency is an important challenge for planning in many parts of the countryside, as is a lack of public transport alternatives (Chapter 8), which can reinforce patterns of disadvantage and social exclusion. Source: CRC, 2006c: adapted from summary produced by LGIU, 2006 in Jones, 2006.

28


Current policy debate in the UK and across the developed world is focused on the interdependence of rural and urban spaces within functional regions (Chapter 11). Spatial planning, especially at the regional level, is centrally concerned with this interdependence. There is an emergent rural–urban fringe agenda (see, for example, Hoggart, 2005) which deals directly with interfacial relationships (especially between communities and economies). Natural England has argued that the countryside needs to be allowed to penetrate urban areas, re-creating the balance that Ebenezer Howard sought through the promotion of the ‘garden city’ model (Chapter 9). In addition to this, the ODPM published research in 2006 on ‘city-regions’, proposing that the connections between spaces are key to understanding growth and economic development. Therefore, rural planning is being reframed and this reframing is being undertaken in the context of thinking on spatial planning and multi-functionality. The latter occurs at all spatial scales: from an individual land unit to an entire city region. It reveals that rural spaces are increasingly important to regional economies and to environmental quality and liveability (key themes of government’s sustainable communities plan: ODPM, 2003). Therefore ‘interconnectivity’, strategic spatial planning and the city-regional agenda are of central concern in the evolving practice of rural planning. Rather than viewing rural spaces as peripheral, they should be viewed as integral, and these issues are explored in the book’s closing chapters.

Conclusions This chapter has introduced four major themes: the nature of ‘rural areas’; the purpose of planning (and the transition from its emphasis on land-use control to a broader spatial function) and its role in coordinating different interventions and functions; the economic, social and environmental challenges which are specific to the countryside; and the interconnectivity of places and consequent value of viewing rural issues within a wider frame of reference. All of these issues are examined more fully in later chapters. A number of questions and unresolved debates have also been introduced. In relation to rural areas, is it possible to understand the nature of ‘rurality’ through statistical profiling? For that matter, can any place be fully understood through a reliance on demographic, employment or other data sources? This is a long-standing debate in rural studies. Profiling is important as a means of gaining a broad grasp of structural conditions, but closer investigation is necessary if the nature of place is to be revealed or if local planning is to reflect the needs and aspirations of communities. In terms of the planning system, the system’s stated aim is to achieve a balance between public good, private interest and between different social, economic and environmental interests. Since the enactment of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, this aim as been expressed as the pursuit of ‘sustainable development’ and in this chapter we have suggested that promoting coordination to achieve ‘multi-functioning’ places is key to achieving that aim. Land-use planning (the 1947–2004 system) sank into a regulatory mindset as rapid social and economic change rendered it obsolete. It was designed for a world dominated by public-sector development, using policy control to manage a residual amount of private development. But as the private sector eclipsed the public, policy control became a primary activity of the system, creating a planning process which was increasingly seen as negative and bureaucratic. The promotion of ‘spatial planning’ has been viewed as a solution to this problem, with ‘planning’ less about policy control and more about coordinating the activities of other groups

Introduction 29 and building consensus around the way places might function in the future. How this system will work in practice, and whether it will lead to a clean break with planning’s ‘regulatory mindset’, is the subject of immense speculation at the current time. The challenges faced in the countryside, as elsewhere, are underpinned by fundamental economic shifts and these are explored in the second section of this book (Chapters 3 to 5). The position of the farming economy in rural areas has altered dramatically over the last 50 years. Peter Hall (2001: 110) has suggested that farming’s continuing demise – as a result of an almost inevitable slashing of agricultural subsidies – will result in a new challenge for planning: what to do with ‘surplus agricultural land’. Any future strategy that grapples with this question will have inevitable consequences for rural society (consequences that are explored in Chapters 6 to 8) and for the environment and landscape of England’s countryside (Chapters 9 and 10). But almost as important, is the way we think about rural areas and plan for their future. Although England currently has no national spatial planning framework, regional planning has been strengthened and city-regions are being viewed as an appropriate level for future strategic planning (ODPM, 2006a). If spatial planning is anything, it is planning which reflects an understanding of place linkages and results in coordinated strategies and leads the process of ‘place shaping’ (Lyons, 2007). This book – written at a time of transition and uncertainty for the UK’s planning systems – aims to provide not only the basics needed to understand the nature of planning outside of cities, but also aims to reveal the interdependencies that shape both town and country.

2

Rural governance and spatial planning

In this chapter, we explore the way that spatial planning is emerging as a potentially integrative and coordinating tool for rural policy delivery. We begin by profiling the post-war development of rural planning, before exploring the changing ‘institutional landscape’ (comprising a raft of organisations, government departments and agencies) for rural policy delivery. Having examined the agencies responsible for, or wielding influence over, rural issues, the chapter concludes that the 2004 planning system – built on a foundation of local government reform – could provide a means of coordinating the social, environmental and economic objectives and policies explored in later chapters. The key elements of the 2004 system are also outlined in this chapter.

Learning outcomes This chapter aims to build context for later thematic chapters, developing: • • •

•

an appreciation of the development of post-war rural policy and planning; an understanding of the actors and agencies involved in rural policy development, and how these have evolved from the late 1990s; and linking forward from this an overview of the changing role of local government in rural planning, and how a switch to ‘participative governance’ provides a context for the emergence and delivery of spatial planning; and an outline of the 2004 planning system, linked to local government reform, and presented as a coordinating ‘hub’ in future rural policy.

Introduction ‘Statutory’ – or ‘town and country’ – planning in the UK evolved as a response to the social and physical problems faced in Victorian cities, especially in London (see Cherry, 1978; Hall, 1996; Ward, 2004; Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones, 2007). A preoccupation with urban issues remained a dominant characteristic of planning for much of the twentieth century (Cloke, 1979; Ratcliffe, 1974; Cullingworth, 1976). The first planning acts to make explicit reference to rural matters were the Town and Country Planning Act 1932 and the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935. The motivation behind such legislation was the desire to protect the countryside from

Rural governance and spatial planning 31 the sprawl of towns and cities: essentially to preserve the nation’s ‘natural resources’ (Abercrombie, 1926). During the first half of the twentieth century, two planning systems emerged. The first was very much an ‘urban system’ and proactive in the pursuit of development opportunities. The second ‘rural system’ (which became more clearly defined after the 1932 and 1935 Acts) tended towards containment, regulation and conservation. An early concern for rural conservation – which remains a key feature of rural planning today – eventually entered thinking on the development of a system of ‘comprehensive planning’ during the 1940s, and received attention in a number of influential reports examined below. Within these reports a variety of competing rationales and priorities for rural policy and planning found expression, and these eventually became embedded in their own ‘policy regimes’, which in turn became the responsibility of different agencies and government departments, many of which are examined in this chapter. These different regimes aimed: • • • •

to promote primary production (i.e. agriculture) in rural areas; to protect and conserve the most valued landscapes; to protect sites and species that had significant interest from a biological diversity perspective; and, to manage and control development in the countryside.

The priorities emerging from early debate (during the 1930s and 1940s) and legislation (in the 1940s) have, in recent years, been expressed in the complexity of rural policy governance, with different agencies handed responsibility for economic development, for conservation of the ‘natural’ landscape, and for social and community well-being. Conflicting priorities 60 years ago have evolved into considerable fragmentation today, but this may be remedied in the years ahead through a combination of reform affecting, first, the agencies of rural policy delivery; second, the processes of local governance; and third, the scope and purpose of ‘comprehensive’ spatial planning. Building on the introduction provided in Chapter 1, we begin this chapter by suggesting that ‘land-use planning’ (the post-war system) has been focused on trying to manage and prevent development in rural areas, through its emphasis on containment and a presumption against development in the ‘open countryside’ (Blacksell and Gilg 1981; Cloke 1983: see Chapter 1), thereby maintaining the chocolate-box image of England’s rural areas which has always been ‘[…] much nearer to the jolly village green on the pantomime stage than reality’ (MacGregor, 1976: 524). Emergent ‘spatial planning’ – also introduced in Chapter 1 – provides a focus on, and an opportunity for, greater policy integration, particularly if allied with institutional change aimed at de-fragmenting rural delivery (Haskins, 2003) and connected to a form of local governance that hands planning a central role in coordinating the different strands of policy, and the various ambitions and needs of local communities. The ultimate aim of this chapter is to position ‘spatial planning’ in new local government structures and to introduce its role in integrating sectoral policies and programmes – hitherto split between the ‘natural’ and ‘built’ environments – by becoming a focal point in ‘rural policy and planning’, broadly defined.

32


The development of post-war rural policy and planning Post-war development The Town and Country Planning Act 1947, the cornerstone of the land-use planning system, emerged from the need for post-war reconstruction. The war itself had compounded the effects of two decades of economic recession during the 1920s and 1930s, catalysing ‘[…] acceptance of the need for economic planning’ and coupling with a desire to deliver a ‘morale-boosting vision of post-war society’ (Simmie, 1994: 2). The reconstruction agenda was central to the creation of a stronger, more pervasive system of land-use planning, the case for which was established in a series of significant reports (Box 2.1) produced in the run-up to the 1944 Planning White Paper, and which paved the way for primary legislation. Three key themes – establishing the parameters of ‘rural planning’ – emerged from the reports listed in Box 2.1: •

•

•

The primacy of agricultural production, freed from central planning or control, was recognised within a policy context which promoted agricultural productivity designed to promote self-sufficiency and food security. The Agriculture Act 1947 was consequently intended to promote a prosperous and stable agricultural industry. The principle that all development should be regulated and managed by the state, with the administration of such activities undertaken by local authorities. Local authorities should prepare strategic plans which outlined where development could occur. ‘Development’ would henceforth require permission from the state before it could proceed. These principles were encapsulated in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. The identification of specific areas which were of national importance set out in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (following on from the Addison, Scott, Dower and Hobhouse Reports) which led to the creation of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty designated, at that time, by the National Parks Commission.

When the 1947 Planning Act came into force, development rights were nationalised and all land ‘development’ (defined in the last chapter) except ‘permitted’ agricultural land-use changes, became subject to planning permission. County councils became the gatekeepers of this system, charged with the production of area-wide development plans, which provided the frameworks for their new ‘development control’ function (Box 2.2). This was a core purpose of the system, with planning authorities controlling land-use change arising from either new development or from ‘material use changes’ to existing buildings. The planning system, until the 1970s, was operated at a single level – the county – with a simple division between plan-making (incorporating master planning) and development control (Box 2.2). This was the framework for planning in the immediate post-war period. By the early 1970s, evidence of a diminished ‘strategic’ outlook within the system prompted a move to two-tier planning. In 1968, a Labour government had brought forward the idea of dual plans (strategic and developmental) in a new Town and Country Planning Act, but had envisaged these being produced by a single authority. This responsibility would have been defined in further legislation. However, Labour was

Rural governance and spatial planning 33

Box 2.1 The reports underpinning modern planning The Barlow Report The pre-war Barlow Report (published in 1940) was principally concerned with urban areas and problems associated with unbalanced regional development and the means of dealing with the diseconomies of scale associated with urban concentration. After the war, the idea of greater national control over strategic and local development – rooted in Barlow – became a core principle of the planning system, enshrined in the idea of ‘development control’. The Uthwatt Report Prepared in 1941, the Uthwatt Report was concerned with the implications of nationalising development rights (and how landowners would be compensated) and with the concept of ‘betterment’ suggesting that there ought to be a tax on the land value gains associated with planning consent. This issue has rumbled on ever since, with debate in the 1980s and 1990s focused around the contribution that developers and landowners should make to local infrastructure through ‘planning obligations’ and now around the idea of a ‘planning gain supplement’ (PGS) to run in tandem with contributions raised through planning obligations (see Chapter 7). The Scott Report The ‘Report of the Committee on Land Utilisation in Rural Areas’ (1942) focused primarily on agriculture. It argued strongly that farming land should be exempted from planning regulations and indeed that agricultural land, wherever possible, should be protected from urban encroachment. A minority report, prepared by S.R. Dennison, dissented from this view arguing instead that all land in the countryside should be included in planning schemes, and no interests of national importance should be excluded from the aims of planning. Dennison argued that ‘it should not be accepted as a necessary principle that construction in our countryside must be prevented in order to maintain agriculture, to preserve rural communities, or to preserve amenities’. But this point was lost, and agriculture acquired special status and exemption in the post-war planning system. The Scott Report also recommended the creation of national parks (as part of a ‘national limitation of land areas’) taking forward an idea set out in the Addison Committee Report of 1931. The Dower Report and the Hobhouse Report The Dower Report (on National Parks in England and Wales, 1945) and The Hobhouse Report (of the National Parks Committee, 1947) paved the way for the creation of National Parks in England and Wales (see Chapter 10).

defeated in the 1970 general election. The incoming Conservative government introduced its own legislation (the Town and Country Planning Act 1971) with a similar two-plan split, but with responsibility divided between different local government tiers. A subsequent Local Government Act in 1972 handed county councils the task of preparing ‘structure plans’ (overarching county-wide plans dealing with broad priorities, for infrastructure etc., rather than development detail) and dropped development plan responsibility to the level of district and borough authorities.

34


Box 2.2 Plan making and development control Plan making (and master planning) The production of ‘development plans’ by forward planning sections, with plans distinguishing between (a) ‘white land’ (farmland), (b) existing use areas, (c) development and redevelopment areas, and (d) war damage (reconstruction) areas. The purpose of the plan-making function was to identify areas of change and opportunity (c and d) and make clear the policies and restrictions that would apply in areas of restraint and more limited opportunity (a and b). Plan making was to provide a basic outline of opportunities and to be followed up with master planning – led by local authorities – aimed at shaping and directing future development. It was anticipated that forceful use of compulsory purchase powers would give the public sector a key development role in post-war reconstruction. Development control The development control function (operated against the backdrop of the development plan) was expected to be a marginal activity, dealing with a small number of private planning applications. At the time of the 1947 Act, it was thought that the lion’s share of future development would be master-planned and progressed by the public sector. This expectation proved false and by the 1950s, private house building was exceeding public output. Development control (an incremental and sometimes negative activity) therefore came to occupy a greater share of planning authority time than the more strategic business of master planning. Today, ‘development control’ has been recast as ‘development management’ within the context of the 2004 system.

Planning in the 1980s In more recent times, there have been calls to lift the ‘burden’ of planning on private sector development interests. In particular, the argument that a slow and bureaucratic process has been stifling entrepreneurial enterprise (and putting economic growth at risk – see Barker, 2004) has gained support, and this is an issue that we return to later in this chapter. But this is nothing new: an anti-planning pro-market philosophy began to build momentum during the period of Conservative government in the 1980s (Thornley, 1991). Economic liberalism was an ‘essential strand’ of Thatcherism and was grounded in a view that ‘[…] only the market can deal with complexity and encourage innovation and hence all decisions should be based on market principles’ (ibid: 208). A potent market ethic resulted in a simplification of planning procedures, ‘decentralism’ and general ‘anti-bureaucratic sentiments’ throughout Margaret Thatcher’s years as prime minister. In the countryside, ‘New Right’ thinking on the purpose of planning was exemplified by conflict over green belt policy in the early 1980s. In 1983, two separate draft circulars – one on ‘land for housing’ and another specifically on ‘green belt’ – both questioned the wisdom of rigid adherence to green belt policy when ‘long-term development needs’ might be threatened (Elson, 1986: 235). They seemed to open the door to regular reviews of structure plans (and green belt boundaries) but were met with strong, cross-party, opposition that eventually resulted in their withdrawal (late in 1983) and replacement with more acceptable Circulars in 1984. Frictions between ‘market’ and ‘planning’ perspectives, introduced in Chapter 1, are commonplace in rural discourse, with the ascendancy of one over

Rural governance and spatial planning 35 the other often leading to the claim that some groups are either favoured or prejudiced relative to others. This is an issue that we return to in Part III.

Planning under Labour Economic liberalism lost this particular battle – over the apparent relaxation of green belt restrictions in 1983 – but not the war, and this same liberalism survived the arrival of a Labour government in 1997. In introducing the 2001 Planning White Paper (PWP), government argued that […] some fifty years after it was first put in place, the planning system is showing its age […] A system that was intended to promote development now blocks it. Business complains that the speed of decisions is undermining productivity and competitiveness. (DTLR, 2001) Labour’s goal since 2001 has been to try to make the system work for both business (delivering greater speed and efficiency) and local communities (ensuring that people are ‘sufficiently involved in the decisions that affect their lives’, ibid.). Even oblique attacks on green belt seem more palatable under New Labour than they did under the New Right, with Kate Barker calling for local reviews of green belt boundaries in 2006 (Barker, 2006). Although this call appeared to go unheeded, and was not reflected in the 2007 PWP (DCLG, 2007a), the likely simplification of planning procedures (affecting local planning and strategic planning for infrastructure), and continued opposition to such moves, reveals the persistency of the tension between planning and the market, and also between environmental and developmental interests (Chapter 7). The recent transformation of statutory planning is a subject we return to later in this chapter. For the moment, however, we turn to the wider issue of ‘rural policy’, and its delivery at different levels and by a variety of agents. This examination of the broader policy canvas – and especially the institutions of rural governance – provides a context in which to examine the integrating and coordinating function of emergent ‘spatial planning’, and general planning reforms initiated by the Labour government.

Rural governance The broader context for rural policy and the ‘third way’ Despite the early dominance of urban issues in UK policy debate, there has been a resurgence of interest in rural policy over recent years. A 1995 Rural White Paper (RWP) – Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside (DoE and MAFF, 1995) – claimed that England’s most enduring character was to be found in its countryside, though this countryside was now subject to rapid changes which demanded a coherent management response. Such a response, according to Lowe (1995), was long overdue. Within two years of the 1995 RWP, responsibility for formulating a programme of action passed to the new Labour government, and according to Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones (2006), the UK entered a period of intense interest in policies of decentralisation (and devolution of political power) with important implications for rural areas. Whether a move from more centralised

36


government to territorial governance marks a significant break from the past is a topic of considerable debate (with some commentators maintaining that an ‘urban bias’ remains). However, what has become known pejoratively as the ‘third way’ (Giddens, 1998; 2000) in how government and governance is ‘delivered’ returns us to the idea that planning and service-delivery should be based on ‘[…] equality of opportunity, prosperity and standards throughout the whole country’ (Bruton, 1974: 15 – see Chapter 1). Indeed, this ‘third way’ is said to be built on four core principles, which echo and augment Buchanan’s (1972) analysis of what planning should, in part, have always been about: • • • •

promoting ‘social justice’ and equality of worth between citizens; creating ‘opportunities for all’, with its spatial implications; promoting ‘social responsibility’, underpinned by the right to expect the state to deliver against key needs (including services, welfare, health and so forth); working ‘collaboratively’ towards agreed goals, with individuals engaging with ‘the state’ and positively influencing the outcomes that affect people and communities.

In 2000, another RWP – Our Countryside – The Future: A Fair Deal for Rural England (DETR and MAFF, 2000) – was published. This was the first time in over 50 years that the broader aspects of countryside policy had been reviewed in a coordinated manner. The 2000 RWP was the outcome of a process which recognised that the policy framework for rural policy, which had its roots in the 1940s (see above), was no longer fit for purpose (PIU, 1999). A consultation document, ‘Rural England’, was published in 1999 which provided the opportunity for over 2,000 individuals and rural community groups to have a say in developing the broad aspirations contained in the 2000 RWP (see Box 2.3). And in order to deliver these aspirations, a ten-point action plan addressing each of the four themes of the ‘vision’ was developed (points 1 to 10 in Box 2.3). The publication of this document signalled an acknowledgement and renewed commitment from government to meet the diversity of concerns and needs of rural communities and places, and to deliver against the broad agenda of social justice, opportunity, responsibility and collaboration now being embraced by government. The RWP 2000 emerged from two departments – the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) – coming together to define the broader challenges facing the countryside, yet at this time, there was no overarching body with the powers needed to deliver any integrated vision, or (arguably) the expertise needed to understand the full complexity of these challenges. The then Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries had a longstanding interest in serving the interests of the farming lobby and other rural concerns appeared subservient to more pressing, more visible, and more vocal, urban agendas. However in the late 1990s, and into the early part of the twenty-first century, a number of damaging and high profile crises in agriculture challenged the extent to which MAFF was fit for purpose. A BSE crisis affecting cattle, swine fever affecting pigs and recent outbreaks of the foot and mouth disease (in 2001 which continued into 2007) affecting both sheep and cattle proved to be critical in accelerating the demise of MAFF and prompting the establishment of a new department with a broader, more integrated remit. In 2002 the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) was created, which assumed some of the responsibilities of DETR, which by this time had


Box 2.3 Countryside vision/ten ways to make a difference (linking the vision to action) • A living countryside with thriving rural communities and access to high quality public services; 1 Support vital village services 2 Modernise rural services 3 Provide affordable housing 4 Deliver local transport solutions • A working countryside with a diverse economy giving high and stable levels of employment; 5 Rejuvenate market towns and a thriving rural economy 6 Set a new direction for farming • A protected countryside in which the environment is sustained and enhanced and which all can enjoy; 7 Preserve what makes rural England special 8 Ensure everybody can enjoy an accessible countryside • A vibrant countryside which can shape its own future and with its voice heard by government at all levels; 9 Give local power to country towns and villages 10 Think rural. Source: DETR and MAFF, 2000

replaced the DoE: see below), combined these with MAFF’s ‘food and fisheries’ remit, and moved into the broader realm of ‘rural affairs’. Since its creation, DEFRA – along with other ministries – has become more centrally concerned with the pursuit of sustainable development, and in recent years, the issue of climate change has taken centre stage. But greater emphasis on rural policy, marked by the publication of two English White Papers (and equivalents in other parts of the UK) and the creation of more integrated ‘rural’ ministry, has not silenced criticism of either government’s handling of rural issues or its broader delivery framework. Getting the framework right was viewed as critical if the objectives set out in the RWP 2000 were to be achieved. In 2002, a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Haskins was asked to examine the existing framework and to consider how DEFRA’s function of rural policy-making could be more effectively delivered. Lord Haskins was asked to formulate a strategy for: • Simplifying or rationalising existing delivery mechanisms and establishing clear roles and responsibilities and effective coordination; • Achieving efficiency savings and maximising value for money; • Providing better, more streamlined services with a more unified, transparent and convenient interface with end-customers; and, • Identifying arrangements that [could] help to deliver DEFRA’s rural policy and Public Service Agreement targets cost-effectively. (Haskins, 2003:7)

38


Many of Haskins’ eventual recommendations were fed into a ‘Rural Strategy’, published in 2004 (DEFRA, 2004b). This took account not only of the Haskins Review, but also wider changes in planning and local governance, agricultural restructuring and CAP reforms, the promotion of sustainable communities (ODPM, 2003), the advancement and implementation of biodiversity action plans and calls for a lower carbon economy. The strategy positioned rural areas in a broader context, with priorities for the countryside seen as part of a wider social, economic and environmental vision, again linked to Labour’s broad interpretation of a ‘third way’. The policy priorities set out in the Rural Strategy are listed in Box 2.4. The strategy focused on ‘evidence’, ‘users’, ‘visions’, ‘coordination’ and ‘delivery’, and these same words are commonly used to differentiate spatial from land-use planning (see Morphet et al., 2007: 1–3: see also Chapter 1) and to describe new forms of ‘rural governance’, based upon partnership approaches (Edwards et al., 2001), user or community involvement (Mackinnon, 2002). The Rural Strategy was, in large part, concerned with the institutional (and ‘governance’) framework in which future spatial strategy and spatial planning will operate, and it prompted significant organisational change to some of the key agencies of rural policy delivery: changes that evolve rural policy beyond the regimes that emerged in the 1940s.

Key agencies and groups in rural policy delivery The are a number of key actors, agencies and groups that are actively involved in shaping the way that rural policy initiatives and programmes are framed and ultimately delivered. The desire to streamline delivery and to ensure that different agencies, departments and tiers of government are working in unison towards shared goals provided the impetus behind the Haskins Review. The review also prompted DEFRA’s Modernising Rural Delivery (MRD) Programme (Box 2.5), which ran from 2004 until 2006, but which has ongoing objectives.

Box 2.4 Objectives for rural areas (guided by five key principles) • Economic and Social Regeneration – supporting enterprise across rural England, but targeting resources at areas of greatest need; • Social Justice for All – tackling rural social exclusion wherever it occurs and providing fair access to services and opportunities for all rural people; • Enhancing the Value of Our Countryside – protecting the natural environment for this and future generations These were to be built on the following key principles: 1 2 3 4 5

Delivering services more efficiently; n a more streamlined and customer focused way; Through a smaller number of organisations; With clearer and more accountable roles; Working in partnership within an overarching sustainable development framework.

Source: DEFRA, 2004b: 5


Box 2.5 Objectives of DEFRA’s Modernising Rural Delivery (MRD) Programme The five core objectives of the programme: 1 Streamlined funding programmes deliver efficiently managed and effective funding streams with high levels of customer satisfaction; 2 The creation of Natural England [leading] to improved conservation, enhancement and management of the natural environment; delivered more efficiently, effectively and with greater customer satisfaction; 3 Increased capacity of the delivery framework to enable a vibrant rural economy with successful and sustainable rural businesses, helping to support vibrant and inclusive communities with fair access to services; 4 Rural communities, groups and their representatives are provided with a clearer voice through the establishment of the Commission for Rural Communities and the enhancement of the Regional Rural Affairs Forums; 5 The Modernising Rural Delivery programme delivers annual efficiencies of £13m by 2007/08, rising to £21m by 2009/10. Source: DEFRA, 2006a

(NB: the creation of ‘Natural England’ is examined below)

The MRD has brought about significant reform and restructuring, not only of the agencies involved in rural delivery, but also in their delivery programmes. It is part of ongoing efforts to enhance effectiveness and efficiency, and links to broader scales of delivery from Europe (as an overarching framework) all the way down to specific communities, and how they engage with the different pan-national, national, regional and local agents and apparatus. It is important to appreciate the influence and responsibilities of these agents and frameworks, in order to understand how different agendas are shaping rural places. We now examine these agents and their roles in rural policy.

European Union The European Union plays an influential role in moderating rural change (Williams 1996; Tewdwr-Jones and Williams 2001). The aspect of EU policy having greatest impact on rural areas has been the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Until the reforms of 2003 (see Chapter 4), the objectives of CAP support had been to ensure European ‘food security’, increase productivity, enhance agricultural efficiency and support rural communities primarily through support for the farming economy. Its mission has been remarkably similar to that of the Agriculture Act 1947. Today, CAP support is becoming more geared towards land management activities (again, see Chapter 4). Another important source of funding for rural areas derives from EU Cohesion Policy, intended to promote ‘[…] the harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, and in particular the development of competitiveness and economic innovation’ (CEC, 1999: Para. 4). The aim of this policy is to create a level playing field: to assist laggard regions and bring them closer to European averages in terms of economic performance. But it is perhaps the EU structural funds that are best known amongst the myriad European funding opportunities. Structural and cohesion

40


funds have a shared purpose: to support poorer regions, and to integrate Europe-wide infrastructure. The structural funds have three objectives: • •

•

Objective 1: promoting the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind; Objective 2: supporting the economic and social ‘conversion’ of areas facing structural difficulties (and which has subsumed and expanded a former ‘5b’ programme running between 1994 and 1999, which focused more narrowly on rural diversification); Objective 3: supporting the adaptation and modernization of policies and systems of education, training and employment.

Across Europe rural areas have and continue to benefit from EU structural funds, and in England many of these areas draw down either ‘Objective 1’ or ‘Objective 2’ funding. For example, in the funding round running from 2000 to 2006, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly – with a GDP of less than 75 per cent of the EU average – had ‘Objective 1’ status. During this period, some £350 million of European funding flowed into this area. Less lucrative in cash terms, but significant for rural areas, has been the ‘Objective 2’ designation (replacing an earlier designation – ‘Objective 5b’ – which had roughly the same purpose). These are areas, urban or rural, experiencing ‘structural difficulties’ arising from economic change. In the 2000–2006 funding round, parts of Devon and of Norfolk and many rural areas north of a line passing between the estuary of the River Severn and the Wash were designated ‘Objective 2’ areas. Coupled with these broad ‘structural’ programmes are the INTERREG (interregional) programmes, designed to promote cross-border partnerships, and the more locally focused LEADER+ programme (following on from LEADER I, 1992/93, and LEADER II, 1995–1999). ‘LEADER+’ – Liaison entre actions de développement de l’économie rurale (links between the rural economy and development actions) – is more directly concerned with rural areas and with the funding of local partnerships which pursue ‘integrated, high-quality and original strategies for sustainable development’. Financed through the structural funds, this is a source of money for ‘local action groups’ wanting to promote the products and services of rural areas, improve quality of life, add value to local products by facilitating access to markets, or encourage best use of ‘natural and cultural resources’. These general European programmes impact either directly or indirectly on rural areas. There are also sectoral initiatives, directives and bodies that frame UK policy towards its own countryside, one important one being the EU Directorate-General for the Environment which, as its title suggests, deals with environmental matters, framing UK environment policy relating to nature, biodiversity and water resources. Its mission is to promote sustainable development, and it brings together concerns expressed in previous EU directives, including the Birds Directive (1979: which designated special protection areas (SPAs) aimed at protecting nesting grounds and banned the hunting of certain species) and the Habitats Directive (1992: which provided broader ‘habitat’ protection through the designation of special areas of conservation (SACs)). Where such EU-level designations are made, national planning policies must be brought into compliance, with the area under designation protected from development, unless there are overriding human health or national security interests to consider (Hughes et al., 2002).

Rural governance and spatial planning 41 The European impact on rural areas varies in type and scale. The CAP – administered at EU level by the Directorate-General for Agriculture – has had a profound effect on rural economies for many years (Chapters 4 and 5), but other programmes and other objectives are becoming increasingly important (Chapter 3). Some of these are ‘structural’ in nature, treating parts of the countryside as peripheral and laggard. Others are community-centred, dealing with local action and quality of life concerns. Environmental policy also plays its part in influencing the actions of national governments: national policy takes on a ‘European dimension’, affecting the planning system as much as any other policy area.

Central government and executive agencies Since 1997 there has been constant review and reform of central government functions in an attempt to ensure that government machinery fits with current need. For example, the governmental department that has primary responsibility for planning has been through several changes. Planning is currently (in 2007) the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG); DCLG took over from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), which emerged as part of the re-organisation involved in the creation of DEFRA in 2002 (see above). The ODPM was a re-manifestation of the Department for Local Government, Transport and the Regions (DTLR), which developed out of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) created in 1997 to replace the Department of the Environment (DoE), itself created in 1970. In the space of just ten years, five different ministries have controlled the planning system. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The DCLG has a broader remit than its predecessors. It was created in 2006 and is concerned with a range of ‘local government’ issues, attempting to integrate concerns and policies relating to planning, social exclusion, neighbourhood renewal, social mobility and economic inclusion. But this broader remit cannot be delivered independently and it is recognised that DCLG needs to forge effective partnerships with other key departments. In rural areas, it needs to work closely with DEFRA. In terms of planning, DCLG provides essentially aspatial and generic policy advice on a range of themes and topics. Its predecessor, the DoE, began issuing ‘planning policy guidance’ (PPG) to local government in the late 1980s, following the recommendations of the Nuffield Report (1986) and after a key government minister successfully argued that planning authorities needed more guidance on the interpretation of planning legislation and how it should be translated into effective local policy. The PPGs are gradually being replaced by thematic planning policy statements, designed to be more ‘principle-driven’, less prescriptive and in keeping with the ethos of ‘spatial planning’ (see later discussion). The current PPS/PPG notes are listed in Box 2.6. Other generic guidance to planning authorities, relating to minerals and to marine minerals (minerals planning guidance – MPG – and marine minerals guidance – MMG), is also provided. And on top of this guidance, the DCLG issues additional advice notes and circulars. For instance, the recent PPS 3 on housing (DCLG, 2006a) was accompanied by specific advice on ‘Delivering Affordable Housing’ (DCLG, 2006b: see Chapter 7).

42


Box 2.6 Planning policy statements/guidance provided by DCLG (June 2007) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) (Government’s overarching planning policies) Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green belts (1995, amended 2001) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (2006) Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial, commercial development and small firms (1992) Planning Policy Guidance 5: Simplified planning zones (1992) Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (2005) Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004) Planning Policy Guidance 8: Telecommunications (2001) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2005) Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies (2004) Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks (2004) Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (2001) Planning Policy Guidance 14: Development on unstable land (1990) Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the historic environment (1994) Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and planning (1990) Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002) Planning Policy Guidance 18: Enforcing planning control (1991) Planning Policy Guidance 19: Outdoor Advertisement Control (1992) Planning Policy Guidance 20: Coastal planning (1992) Planning Policy Guidance 21: Tourism (1992, cancelled 2003) Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable energy (2004) Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004) Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise (1994) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (2006) PPG21 was replaced by a ‘Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism’ (DCLG, 2006c); government plans to publish a further PPS on ‘planning and economic development (DCLG, 2007a: 24), possibly in 2007/08. national policy statements (NPS) on major infrastructure were also proposed in the PWP 2007.

THE DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

DEFRA is also critically important and has a broad rural agenda. We noted above that DEFRA took on MAFF’s agricultural portfolio in 2002, but its areas of responsibility are broad, embracing: • • • • •

climate change and energy; sustainable consumption and production; protecting the countryside and natural resource protection; sustainable rural communities (see Chapter 7); sustainable farming and food, including animal health and welfare (DEFRA, 2006b).

Rural governance and spatial planning 43 The final three of DEFRA’s strategic priorities have a direct link into rural and countryside planning, and the first two have significant rural implications. Yet with the current preoccupation with climate change, following the publication of the Stern Review report (2006) and the need to manage resource consumption, production and waste disposal more effectively, it might be suggested that specific rural concerns are being eclipsed by broader priorities. But DEFRA remains a key player in rural and agricultural policy. EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES

These key departments fund – and are, in turn, supported by – a number of independent executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), perhaps the most important executive agency being the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) linked to DCLG. PINS is responsible for providing independent advice to the secretary of state on local planning frameworks and on applications that have been ‘called in’ (i.e. are so significant or controversial that the secretary of state has decided that the local authority should not make the planning decision), or have been refused and subsequently appealed within an independent inquiry. A non-departmental public body (NDPB) is an organisation that plays a significant role in the delivery of national policy, but is not formally part of the structure of government. Again, these are usually identified with a specific department. Most ‘rural’ bodies are associated with DEFRA, though the Housing Corporation (which will become part of a broader ‘new homes agency’ in 2009) and the Audit Commission (both linked to DCLG) wield important influence over rural affairs. The former channels funding to a rural housing associations (see Chapter 7) and the latter is responsible for ensuring that public money is spent economically, efficiently and effectively to ensure high quality public service delivery. But DEFRA is the ‘parent department’ of most ‘rural policy’ bodies and agencies (see Figure 2.1). Amongst the oldest (non-executive) ‘bodies’ funded by DEFRA are the national park authorities. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 provided the enabling legislation for the creation of national parks in England and Wales. The purpose and powers of national parks are set out in the Environment Act 1995. In addition to ‘[…] conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage [and] promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public’ (HM Government, 1995), the park authorities are also charged with fostering the ‘social and economic well being of local communities within the national park’. National parks are examined in more detail in Chapter 10. As well as re-establishing the purpose of the national parks, the Environment Act 1995 also created the Environment Agency (an NDPB), with its broad remit to protect and improve the environment of England and Wales. The Agency is charged with pollution control and prevention, waste management, managing open water bodies and protecting people from flooding. The Forestry Commission (falling into the ‘other’ category in Figure 2.1) now derives its powers from the Forestry Act 1967 (though it was established by the Forestry Act 1919) and is concerned with expanding Britain’s woodlands and increasing their value to society. The Commission – with devolved agencies for England, Scotland and Wales – is charged with protecting woodland, whilst the management of public woodland is the responsibility of ‘Forestry Enterprise’ and monitoring activities are in the hands of ‘Forest Research’. Two new NDPBs

44


Figure 2.1 DEFRA’s delivery landscape map (November 2006) NPA = National Park Authority Source: DEFRA, 2007a © Crown copyright

were created in 2006 following government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Haskins Review: these are Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC). The two bodies are, broadly speaking, concerned respectively with the natural environment and with the needs of rural communities: a division that emerged from the future policy debates occurring in the 1940s. Natural England and the CRC formally came into being on 1 October 2006 following the enactment of a Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (which took forward the recommendations of the Haskins Review). Natural England is primarily concerned with land management, and aims to ensure that the ‘[…] natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations thereby contributing to sustainable development’ (Natural England, 2006). Through a mixture of advocacy, advice, incentives and regulations this new agency it is expected to deliver against four key strategic priorities (Box 2.7).


Box 2.7 Natural England’s strategic priorities (2006) • A healthy natural environment: England’s natural environment will be conserved and enhanced; • Enjoyment of the natural environment: more people enjoying, understanding and acting to improve, the natural environment, more often; • Sustainable use of the natural environment: the use and management of the natural environment will become more sustainable; • A secure environmental future: making decisions, which collectively, secure the future of the natural environment. Source: Natural England, 2006

Natural England was created by merging three separate bodies: English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service. English Nature, established in 1990, had been charged with promoting and protecting England’s wildlife and wild areas. It primarily focused on the protection and management of areas considered to be of national significance (including sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) and national nature reserves (NNR)) or European and international significance ((SPA), special areas of convervation (SAC) and ‘Ramsar’ sites). It also engaged in the development and implementation of biodiversity action plans (BAP). Elements of the Countryside Agency (CA), created in 1999 by merging the Rural Development Commission (RDC) with the Countryside Commission, were also incorporated into Natural England (other parts went into the CRC). The CA had an expansive remit. It was concerned with landscape issues; it was charged with promoting access to the countryside for all; it had a responsibility for promoting social equity and economic opportunity for all rural inhabitants; and it also acted as an advocate to ensure that rural issues and agendas were properly reflected in government policy (though a ‘rural proofing’ process: see Chapter 11). In 2006, its responsibilities for landscape management and countryside access passed to Natural England. Finally, the Rural Development Service (an arm of DEFRA charged principally with delivering an ‘England Rural Development Programme’ (ERDP)) became part of the new agency. The Commission for Rural Communities became independent and fully empowered on the same day as Natural England was created. The role of the CRC is to ‘provide well-informed, independent advice to government and ensure that policies reflect the real needs of people living and working in rural England, with a particular focus on tackling disadvantage’ (CRC, 2006d). The Commission aims to be an ‘advocate’ for rural interests, an ‘advisor’ on government policy, and a ‘watchdog’ monitoring policy delivery. These roles have been inherited from the Countryside Agency. However, the rural development function of the Countryside Agency was not transferred to the CRC: rather, this was distributed amongst England’s regional development agencies (RDAs: see below), which occupy the ‘outer rim’ of DEFRA’s ‘delivery landscape’ (Figure 2.1) The structure of rural policy-making by central government has been transformed following the Haskins Review. DCLG and DEFRA play central roles, but other agencies and bodies (especially the executive NDPBs) appear increasingly important within an ever-more complex policy landscape. The recent slicing up of the Countryside Agency,

46


with ‘landscape’ moving to Natural England, policy-monitoring to the CRC, and rural development to the RDAs has attracted some criticism. The Countryside Agency appeared to bring together ‘natural’ and ‘built’ environment concerns; however, it was the judgement of Lord Haskins that environmental, community and development concerns should be devolved to expert bodies, but with DEFRA itself providing an integrating hub. This is the current framework of policy development and delivery in England.

Regional government One of the overarching mantras of New Labour has been to try to ensure that policy making is decentralised and devolved so that it can be tailored to meet the needs of particular places (Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones, 2006). In policy design and in outcome, government has committed itself to achieving ‘distinctiveness’ (ODPM, 2004b) and the role of the regions in shaping policy has been considerably enhanced in recent times (ODPM, 2004a). At this level, there are three critical bodies that have a significant role in shaping regional policy. Government offices (GOs) for each region were established in 1994 with the expressed objective of creating a ‘real governmental locus away from Whitehall’ (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2006: 58). Each GO combines a number of central departmental functions and responsibilities (including communities and local government, and environment, food and rural affairs) and is charged with coordinating area-based initiatives and programmes which meet the specific needs and agendas of the region, providing a regional perspective to inform central government and trying to ensure that complementary programmes are joined-up. The government offices are not ‘implementation’ agencies but facilitate the activities of other regional stakeholders. Amongst these other stakeholders, the regional development agencies (RDAs) are arguably the most significant. The RDAs are empowered to promote economic development in the regions for which they have responsibility (and in 2006, inherited additional rural development responsibilities from the Countryside Agency). These agencies, funded by a number of central government departments with resources channelled through the government offices, have a central role to play in regional economic development. The amount of money available to England’s nine RDAs has been significant in recent years (rising from £2.1 billion in 2005/06 to £2.3 billion in 2007/08), and this has important implications for rural areas (see Chapter 3). The Rural Development Commission (which became defunct in 1999 – see above) had responsibility for rural regeneration until the formal launch of the RDAs in April 1999 (following the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998). The creation of the regional development agencies resulted in a concern that rural needs would be overlooked and relegated behind urban agendas. In 1997, the chairman of the Rural Development Commission resigned following the announcement by government that rural regeneration work would be transferred to the new agencies (Shaw, 1999). But in practice, the RDAs are required to give special attention to rural regeneration within their regional economic strategies (RESs) which provide strategic development visions for at least ten years; identify the main priorities for development, analyse areas of weakness and opportunity; and provide regional economic intelligence intended to guide government’s regional policies. An example of rural development activity by one RDA – the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) – is given in Box 2.8.


Box 2.8 Rural development in the East of England Some 80 per cent of the East of England, by area, is classified as rural and these areas contain 40 per cent of the population. For the East of England Development Agency, rural activities are at the heart of the regions prosperity. For example, two in every five businesses are located in rural areas and 14% of the regional economy is based on food and drink and the associated supply chain. Rural activities are therefore seen as important and integral to the development of the region’s four key policy priorities namely: • Business Support – improving small business productivity • Enterprise Hubs – designed to create centres for innovation and knowledge transfer including investment in information technology • Investing in Communities – focusing public private and voluntary sector resources to tackle multiple deprivation from struggling communities • Regional renaissance – including investment in the market towns and their hinterlands From 2007 onwards the EEDA will be managing the implementation of the England Rural Development Programme (approximately £125 million over seven years) focusing on eight priority areas, business efficiency; new markets and products; new businesses and enterprises in the rural economy; resource protection; conservation of the natural and built historic environment; access and recreation; and, rural community capacity. Source: East of England Development Agency, 2006

Finally, with the exception of London, where there is a directly elected body, all the other eight regions of England have regional assemblies (RA) that have representatives from local government, business organisations, public sector agencies, education and training bodies, trade unions and co-operatives together with the voluntary and community sector. The regional assemblies were created at the same time as the development agencies and, in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, are now the designated regional planning bodies (RPB). The assemblies are also the ‘regional chambers’, designated as such under Section 8(1) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. This legislation gives them the responsibility, noted below, to scrutinize the work of the RDAs. It also charges them with the coordination of different regional strategies. The Assemblies have been funded directly by central government since 2001 and now have four key functions: 1

2

Regional planning – as regional planning bodies, assemblies are responsible for preparing statutory regional spatial strategies including regional transport strategies; Regional housing – they are responsible for taking an overview of the housing markets in their regions, for producing the regional housing strategies and for advising ministers on the distribution of resources to support new housing, and improvements to existing stock;

48


3

Advocacy and policy development – representing regional interests nationally and at the European level, assemblies also provide a focus for integrating regional strategy development. Scrutiny –monitoring and examining the work of regional development agencies.

4

At the regional level, government offices facilitate the partnership between the assemblies and the development agencies. This is a critical partnership, with the two bodies charged with linking spatial strategy to an understanding of the regional economy, designing investments and policies that have a potential to make huge differences to rural communities at a local level. Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, there has been further debate on the future form of regional government and governance. Two issues have emerged: •

•

With the abolition of structure plans in 2004 (see discussion on the ‘mechanics’ of the 2004 system), there has been growing interest in the function of ‘subregions’ (Bianconi et al., 2006), how these might be organised, and what role they might play in the process of spatial planning (LGA, 2007). ‘Sub-regions’ can be conceived as a middle tier of coordination between regional and local government. The Local Government Association (2007) has suggested that they should comprise ‘functional areas’ in which local authorities with common interests come together (to achieve shared goals relating to infrastructure, housing and so forth) by perhaps developing ‘multi-area agreements’ (Morphet et al., 2007, 44–5). Sub-regions are likely to be defined by local partnerships, and by these common interests, becoming a flexible part of the local–regional interface rather than distinct planning tier with defined powers and fixed responsibilities. Subregional planning will be jointly coordinated by the RPBs and local authorities; The second issue relates to the overall structure of regional government, whether the current model of nine regions (fixed to historic county boundaries) is meaningful given the economic changes that have swept across England and the UK in the twentieth century. Indeed, a key discourse in planning at the present time concerns the redefinition of ‘city-regions’: these may take the form of new regional frameworks connecting economic hinterlands to core cities in order to enhance the alignment between planning and the market and to achieve greater economic competitiveness on a global stage.

Significant changes are likely to affect regional and sub-regional government in the years ahead, with important implications for the planning system. These issues are explored further in Chapter 11.

Local government reform and the new planning system Local government – comprising district, borough or unitary authorities – provides the critical context for the new planning system. Spatial planning is largely concerned with delivering against objectives and ambitions that emerge from a process of ‘spatial governance’. For this reason, it is important to see local government reform as a context for the emergence of the new planning system. The evolving mechanics of ‘local governance’ connect directly to planning processes, and to the goals of the planning system. Local government is a key player in rural policy delivery and

Rural governance and spatial planning 49 recent policy debate and since 1997, has focused on how to enhance its effectiveness, bringing local government ‘closer to people’ (achieving a process of ‘governance’) and improving policy delivery tools – including through planning. The way that local government performs its central functions, is organised and structured (see Box 2.9), has been in a state of constant flux since the Second World War. Local authorities have been regularly accused of inefficiency – especially cost inefficiency – relative to private sector organisations. For this reason, public services have been subjected to ever greater levels of scrutiny, challenge and change, leading to a transformation in the way these services are defined and delivered (Bichard, 1994; Marquand, 2004). Increasing efficiency and effectiveness of local delivery has been a key aim of Labour’s ‘Local Government Modernisation Agenda’ (LGMA) which, at a practical level, is concerned with delivering more coherent and integrated local services across different departments – basically producing ‘joined up government’, with services such as health, housing, education and planning brought together in a coordinated manner. Local Government White Papers in 1998 and 2001 – preceding new Acts in 1999 and 2003 – contained twenty initiatives – including Best Value, Local Public Service Agreements (PSA now evolved into LAA: see below) and e-government – collectively known as the ‘Local Government Modernisation Agenda’, though this term is now used to denote the entire raft of reforms instituted by the Labour administration, aimed at bringing the machinery of government closer to people. There has been a rootand-branch review of local government since 1997 (Pratchett, 2002) with subsequent reforms aiming to achieve a new coherence in policy delivery (Cowell and Martin, 2003). A desire to achieve greater cost efficiency in the public sector was inherited from previous governments, as was the aim of cutting bureaucracy, encouraging joint working and ensuring that different policy sectors operate as one (Rashman and Radnor, 2005). To this end, Labour has focused on ensuring ‘best value’ in local services (Carmona and Sieh, 2005), which often means separate departments working together more effectively, ensuring, for example, that health, housing and planning policies are aligned and pursuing shared outcomes such as sustainable healthy communities. The LGMA has been concerned with five key objectives: service improvement, community leadership, service provision which is ‘in touch’ with community aspirations, local accountability and public confidence. These are all closely related and have had a profound effect on planning. At a local level, planning has long been seen as ‘intervention’ with planning decisions reached behind closed doors, and solutions imposed on communities (Carmona et al., 2003: 197). But modernisation, and a movement from ‘government’ (removed from communities) to ‘governance’ (by, or heavily involving, communities) has resulted in a new debate over the nature of planning: who controls the system and for what purpose. Can ‘planning’ – a word weighted with ‘interventionist’ connotations – become a means by which communities shape their own futures? This is one aspiration of the LGMA, which has become closely identified with planning reform. Changes in the mechanics of local government under Labour provide a critical ‘governance’ context for spatial planning. Indeed, the creation of local strategic partnerships (LSP) and then community strategies (CS) through the Local Government Act 2000 (see Chapter 1) can now be viewed as the first steps towards seeing planning not as the formulation of professional solutions (to ‘development problems’ of the type set out in the Scott Report), but as a means by which local communities can actively drive a process of ‘spatial governance’, using planning to achieve local outcomes. LSPs were initially established to spearhead the process of improving public sector provision,

50


Box 2.9 The changing structure of local government in England Running alongside changes in function, the broader framework of local government in England has also been subject to reform. For most of the country there is a two-tier structure and this covers the majority of rural England. Here, county councils (34 in total) provide ‘county functions’, retaining prime responsibility for minerals and waste issues. Below the counties there are 237 district councils which have responsibility for most planning functions except where there are national park authorities assuming this role. Elsewhere the local authority structure is a unitary one. This structure is characteristic of the main metropolitan areas, although even these places often have significant areas which can be described as countryside or rural. There are also a number of provincial towns and rural areas which have a unitary structure, for example Herefordshire Council or Rutland Council. Hence the framework of local government and the way it relates to rural areas is complex, and subject to ongoing review. In October 2006 a new Local Government White Paper (LGWP) was presented to Parliament (DCLG, 2006d) which carries forward the modernising agenda and questions whether the current structure of local government remains fit for purpose. It invited proposals from local authorities for new unitary authorities. This invitation was pitched at rural areas where a dual county and a district structure persists, and belies government’s belief that a unitary model might deliver enhanced strategic leadership, and provide increased value for money (DCLG, 2006e). The move to unitary structures, and its implications, is considered in Chapter 11.

especially within severely disadvantaged and deprived communities. The idea was that by forging a partnership between the local authority (as facilitator), key delivery agents, private interests and the community, agreed solutions could be pursued and a broader ‘planning process’ could be developed that was aspiration-led and goal orientated. These ideas have now evolved further. The question that local government is currently grappling with is how to ensure that planning frameworks (discussed in the next section) connect with community strategies, essentially becoming the tools with which to deliver community aspirations (DCLG/RTPI, 2007; Raco et al., 2006; Tewdwr-Jones et al. 2006; Lambert, 2006) and secure local solutions to local problems. Planning is increasingly being viewed as part of the machinery of effective local governance involving the integration of different service sectors around a planning ‘hub’. A guide to integrating planning frameworks with the work of local strategic partnerships – ‘Planning Together’ – was published by DCLG and the RTPI in 2007. This highlights the relationship between planning and related frameworks (Figure 2.2). Local government is being reconstructed with a stronger community focus though we question the extent to which strategic necessity and local aspiration can be fully reconciled in all instances in Chapters 6 and 7. Spatial planning, at the very least, is embedded in the rhetoric of local empowerment. At all levels – European, national, regional and local – the delivery of rural policy has been in a state of flux. This is an issue which we refer back to throughout this book, appraising the position of rural issues within wider frameworks in Chapter 11. At the European and national level, the focus of effort and policy design mechanisms have been re-appraised; at the regional and local level, integration of policy sectors


Figure 2.2 Local governance, community strategies and planning frameworks Source: DCLG/RTPI, 2007: 14 © Crown copyright

and frameworks has been the key objective with planning playing a pivotal role a drive to greater integration. But it is at the local level where spatial planning is becoming a means of delivering against shared objectives (shared across communities and different partners) and of coordinating the policies and programmes (European, national and regional) of partner agencies. Spatial planning has the potential to become a coordinating focus within local governance.

Spatial planning and the mechanics of the 2004 planning system An integrative, positive focus Planning is an integral part of local government and, as such, has been reshaped by the modernisation agenda both in terms of its own functioning and its place in local and regional governance. In this section, we focus on operational changes to the system. By the end of the 1990s ‘[…] whilst there was general support for the positive role that planning can play, there was a consensus that the system was falling far short of meeting its objectives’ (Nadin, 2006: 5), which were outlined in Chapter 1. Government therefore prepared a Planning Green Paper (PGP) – Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change (DTLR, 2001) – outlining both the problems of the existing system and proposing a programme of reform. The PGP paved the way for the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and resulted in both operational changes to the system (examined below), and general efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery. Authorities have been increasingly judged in terms of the speed with which they process planning applications resulting in an ‘audit culture’ (Carmona and Sieh, 2005). This has been matched, however, by a desire to see a qualitatively better system, able to deliver more of what communities need – housing, schools, infrastructure and so forth: by integrating policy regimes and providing a key delivery vehicle. The PGP 2001 put the development planning system under the spotlight and a range of groups joined forces to push for change. It was argued that planning had become marginalised and was no longer central to local authority strategic planning (LGA, 2001); it was further suggested that the plan-making process was slow and

52


bureaucratic; that different activities within local authorities were frequently duplicated and sometimes conflicting; that there was little coordination within local authorities resulting in ineffective planning (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 2002); and – fundamentally – that development plans were often the result of limited community involvement. Nevertheless, it was also recognised that ‘good planning can have a huge beneficial impact in the way we live our lives’ (DTLR, 2001) and it became government’s intention to promote ‘good planning’ through new legislation in 2004, which introduced a fundamentally different role, function and method of planmaking. It was argued that if planning was going to make a more positive contribution to achieving society’s goals then it must become:

• A more dynamic and timely plan and decision making process that enables planning to positively shape rather than report outcomes; • A more inclusive and effective process of participation and consultation that lends confidence to plans and decisions; • More effective collaboration with other policy makers in other sectors and stakeholders that leads to integrated objectives and joined up policy; • More positive, evidenced-based reasoning in the formulation of strategies and policies managing change; • Focus on the delivery of wider priority outcomes defined at national regional and local levels, so that it can truly make a difference. (Nadin, 2006: 5–6) Planning should be ‘mainstreamed’ and embedded in the machinery and practices of local governance. This is an issue that we touched upon in the last section, and is encapsulated in the idea of ‘spatial planning’. Rather than being narrowly defined and focused, – on land and property use – planning should become a hub through which to deliver a broader public service and planning agenda: in other words, coordinate different policy programmes. Indeed, spatial planning as a concept ‘[…] goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they can function’ (ODPM, 2004a: Para 30). This is critical in rural areas where the narrow land-use focus of planning (Chapter 1) – concentrating on the ‘built environment’ – has tended to limit planning’s role in integrating different policy areas and delivering a wider rural agenda.

The 2004 planning system The idea that [good] planning should be about coordination is not new, and echoes a hope that preceded the 1947 system, but which went unfulfilled. The 2004 system is intended to provide plans that can be shaped according to the specific needs and aspirations of particular places. More particularly, spatial planning should: • • •

Focus on achieving shared goals by emphasising the outcomes of plan-making; Inject an understanding of the specific characteristics (spatial or territorial) of places to help joined-up policy and action; Engage communities and stakeholders more effectively in the planning process to create new policy communities that reflect the realities of spatial development and its drivers. (Nadin, 2006: 17)

Rural governance and spatial planning 53 The form of ‘spatial plans’ is different from the old-style development plans. Under the old system, development plans (‘local plans’) at a district or borough level were linked (or needed to be ‘compliant’ with) strategic plans (‘structure plans’) at the county level. Within unitary authorities, a ‘unitary development plan’ performed the functions – strategic and developmental – of both local and structure planning. Local plans were guided by the content of structure plans which were, in turn, influenced by ‘regional planning guidance’ (RPG) though there was no compulsion for structure or local plans to be ‘in compliance’ with this regional tier: it was merely there as ‘guidance’. Under the new system (summarised in Figure 2.3), regional planning has been strengthened. ‘Regional spatial strategies’ (RSS) are prepared by regional planning bodies (see earlier discussion) and are a statutory part of the planning hierarchy, with lower-level plans needing to be in conformity with the RSS. County structure plans have been abolished, although the RPBs are encouraged to develop sub-regional priorities that may or may not align with county boundaries (Bianconi et al,. 2006: see also above). At the local level (district, borough or unitary), planning authorities are now charged with the production of a ‘local development framework’ (LDF). The LDF is not a plan in itself, but a portfolio of local development documents (LDD) which collectively provide a clear statement of a local authority’s planning strategy. Included in the portfolio are two types of document: ‘development plan documents’ (DPD) and ‘supplementary planning documents’ (SPD). These have different importance or ‘weight’ within decision-making processes. Approved ‘development plan documents’ – which have passed a ‘test of soundness’ (set out in paragraphs 4.23 and 4.24 of Planning Policy Statement 12: ODPM, 2004c) – are formally part of the development plan and any decisions relating to development control ‘[…] should be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’ (HM Government, 2004: Section 38: 6). Principal and ancillary DPDs are set out in Box 2.10. Additional SPDs can also be used to support planning decisions, but because they are relatively easy and quick to produce and because they are not subject to the same level of scrutiny and review they carry less weight. It has been suggested, for example, that parish plans and village design statements (see Chapter 8) could be taken forward in this way, and fed into ‘integrated strategies’ (see Figure 2.2) as part of the spatial planning evidence base (see above). As well as DPDs and SPDs, the local development framework must contain three other critical documents. A local development scheme (LDS) should provide a public statement of how a particular authority will ‘project manage’ the production of the local development documents which form the local development framework. In particular, it will set a timetable for the production of each LDD. A statement of community involvement (SCI) should establish how and when communities and other stakeholders are involved in the preparation of the local development documents, and the means by which the local authority will facilitate this engagement. The DCLG has recently indicated that the statement of community involvement should connect with a broader ‘community engagement strategy’ linking the preparation of the local development framework with the preparation of the sustainable community strategy (DCLG/RTPI 2007: 13). And finally, an annual monitoring report (AMR) will judge performance against the LDS and provide an indication as to whether the LDF is being successfully implemented and having the desired outcomes. The 2004 Planning System has brought a number of significant breaks with the past. First, the new portfolio of plans is significantly different in terms of form and structure compared with the single document plans of the past. The new system is

54


Figure 2.3 The new planning framework Notes: * Prepared in the context of a ‘Regional Sustainable Development Framework’ ** ‘Spatial Development Strategy’ in London Source: DCLG 2007a: 6 © Crown copyright


Box 2.10 Development plan documents (DPD) The principal documents • Core strategy which provides a long term (at least ten years) spatial vision for the development of the area covered by the plan. It should also include broad locally specific policies required to implement that vision (in other words there is no need to repeat or reiterate national or regional policies); a clear statement on how this vision and policies fit with other sectoral policies and with neighbouring authorities; provide means for implementing the strategy and mechanisms for monitoring progress. This is seen as the key LDF document and all other DPD and SPD should flow from this strategic framework; • Proposals map is seen as a separate document and must be updated every time a new DPD is adopted. This is a geographical expression of all of the adopted policies, including areas to be protected from development; locations and sites for particular types of land-use and areas to which specific policies apply; • Site specific allocations are another development plan document which provides detailed allocations of land. It is not part of the core strategy, but instead can be updated in the light of changes to local circumstances or changing policy contexts. Plus additional documents • Area action plans have been re-introduced into the system (they were originally introduced via the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 but have been infrequently used), and can be prepared for areas where the local authority thinks there is a need for more detailed policy either to manage significant change or the need for careful conservation. ENTEC UK (2005) consider that these instruments could have significant value in dealing with many of the area-based initiatives associated with rural planning. For example: managing change in market towns, providing a statutory planning framework for managing AONBs or providing a positive coordinating framework for the rural–urban fringe (Gallent and Shaw, 2007); • Other development plan documents: cover a range of possibilities that might be specific to a particular place and it is up to the local authority to decide whether they are needed or not. These could include thematic documents related to housing, retail, transport and so or, or they could include generic development control policies. These in turn can either be parts of other documents or freestanding DPD framing how a local authority makes particular decisions.

potentially more responsive to change: new documents can be added – and old ones deleted – within the planning cycle, enabling authorities to more easily respond to changing conditions. SPDs can be added very quickly. DPDs, however, are subject to greater scrutiny with a ‘test of soundness’ (outlined in PPS12: Local Development Frameworks) used to ensure that they are fit for purpose. This test asks: first, whether the correct procedures have been followed in the preparation of the DPD; second, whether the product is in conformity with national policy and with the RSS (and whether it aligns with the sustainable community strategy); and third, whether it is coherent, consistent and effective, giving due consideration to viable options and

56


having decided on the best course of action. Although procedural in nature, the test of soundness can be seen as a first step to ensuring that DPDs provide a platform from which to deliver effective spatial planning. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) is now using the test of soundness for this purpose (PINS is responsible for judging whether the test has been passed), looking for evidence of: flexibility within the documents; ‘front-loading’ (i.e. seeking consensus around issues early on); strengthened community involvement; use of ‘sustainability appraisal’; clear strategies for the delivery and management of [integrated and coordinated] objectives. These are viewed, by PINS, as attributes which need to be demonstrated if the PPS12 test is to be passed (PINS, 2005; see also Rozee, 2006). In a recent study examining the parameters of ‘effective spatial planning’, Morphet et al. (2007: 1) argue that the new system should: • • • •

Enable a vision for the future of regions and places that is based on evidence, local distinctiveness and community derived objectives; Translate this vision into a set of policies, priorities, programmes and land allocations together with the public sector resources to deliver them; Create a framework for private investment and regeneration that promotes economic, environmental and social well being for the area; Coordinate and deliver the public sector components of this vision with other agencies and processes.

The idea that spatial planning is centrally concerned with coordination and is a means of delivering across different policy areas is important, especially in the countryside where there has been considerable fragmentation of responsibility and jurisdiction as we saw earlier in this chapter. It suggests that planning will be able to integrate a range of concerns and priorities, re-connecting the built and natural environments. This is an idea, and a question, that we return to throughout this book.

Conclusions Less than a decade ago, it had become clear that local government was sometimes operating – delivering its key services – despite the planning system and not because of it. ‘Land-use planning’ had been sidelined and was seen as a brake on change, rather than a positive force that could be used to shape communities. Today, there is a hope that local authorities can become ‘place shapers’ (Lyons, 2007) and can use ‘spatial planning’ to achieve this end (Morphet et al., 2007). This is because spatial planning is about more than plan-making and development control: it has, at its core, the idea of coordination and joined-up governance. Planning is adopting new tools, instruments, methods and processes in its attempt to become an integrated part of local government. It is trying to re-position itself at the hub of local service delivery. And if it can assume a coordinating role at the regional and local level – and rediscover its lost potential – then its stature is likely to increase in the years ahead. A key feature of reform over recent years has been the mainstreaming of the planning agenda. Central government wishes to coordinate service delivery across space and between different sectors and agencies. This is evidenced in the emergent debate over city-regions (see for example Marvin et al., 2006; Local Government Association, 2006; Lloyd and Peel, 2006) and in the 2006 LGWP’s call for the creation

Rural governance and spatial planning 57 of larger, strategic, unitary authorities for rural areas (Chapter 11 deals with both of these issues). It believes that spatial coordination is best served by a restructuring of regional and local governance, potentially binding together rural and urban spaces to their mutual advantage. Coordination between sectors and agents has been promoted through a rural delivery review nationally, and through local government reform. Again, planning’s role in coordination is seen as mission critical, suggesting that the system will play a more pervasive part in all future service delivery. Rather than confining itself to development planning, it will assume a corporate strategic role with planning becoming a broader function of regional and local government rather than a bureaucratic activity of marginalised ‘planning departments’. Rural places are changing rapidly as a result of a complex interplay of factors. They are characterised as much by their diversity as their commonality (as we see in the next chapter): they interact with nearby or more distant urban areas (Hoggart, 2005); and they are shaped by underlying economic forces, by agriculture and by the changing expectations and needs of local communities (Chapter 6). Rural places are often contested and defined by the relationship between different groups who come to share this space (Woods, 2005a). Because planning is increasingly embedded in community debate, it also carries the hopes and expectations of these communities. It has a potentially bigger role in resolving conflict and achieving compromise between environmental and developmental interests (see Chapters 6, 7 and 8) by coordinating and integrating different agendas, rather than allowing them to fragment. Attempts to avoid such fragmentation have already been made at the national level, but only time will tell whether the new agency arrangements will deliver greater coordination of rural policy. Hopes for coordination at the local level now rest on the shoulders of the planning system. Planning’s objective is to shape better rural places: to bring together the different agents of change – including communities – in the pursuit desired social, economic and environmental outcomes. New opportunities have been created through planning and local government reform, though it remains to be seen whether these will be grasped. The opportunities for effective spatial planning in rural areas are considered in the next three parts of this book, which focus sequentially on the rural economy, rural society, and the environment.

Part II

The rural economy

3

Economic change

This – the first thematic chapter – provides an introduction to the changing face of the rural economy during the last century and explores how public policy interventions have influenced economic shifts. In particular, it examines how planning has related to rural economic affairs from its origins in the early twentieth century to the present day. It also discusses how economic change is inextricably linked to social and environmental change in the countryside.

Learning outcomes This chapter aims to: • • • •

provide an introduction to economic change in the countryside over the last 100 years; outline how public policy has influenced this economic change; examine the particular role of planning policy in shaping the rural economy; and explore how economic shifts have interrelated with social and environmental change.

Introduction In sharp contrast to our understanding of towns and cities, there is a popular conception that rural areas remain serene and timeless, as Howard Newby put it ‘a source of peaceful certainty in an ever changing and uncertain modern world’ (Newby, 1988: 1). However, if we care to look beyond the picture postcard images and rosy accounts of rural life we may be surprised to find that the countryside is undergoing rapid (possibly revolutionary) change at the present time and that this in fact has been a recurring feature of rural areas for the last 300 years. In the next three chapters we argue that economic factors have been central to this experience and, in combination with shifting political priorities, these have played a key part in shaping not only the varying fortunes and makeup of the rural economy, but also social and environmental change in the countryside. Until recent times, ‘town and country planning’ was seen to have played a relatively detached part in these processes. This partly reflects its limited remit in relation to key sectors in the rural economy, agriculture and forestry, but perhaps more critically ‘a preoccupation with land-orientated issues and the absence

62

The rural economy

of a coherent overall policy framework for rural areas’ (Cherry, 1976: 265; see also the previous chapter). The new system of spatial planning does, however, present an opportunity to rectify this situation. As government policy is shifting from a focus on agriculture to a much wider rural policy framework, there is also evidence of a more direct concern for rural economic matters within current planning practice. This chapter sets the context for a deeper analysis of different dimensions of the rural economy by providing: an introduction to the changing nature of the rural economy over the last 100 years; examining how governments of different political persuasions have responded to and influenced these changes; and outlining the part that planning policy has played in shaping the countryside economy we can see today. Chapter 4 then explores in more detail the changing fortunes of the farming economy while Chapter 5 focuses upon the development of the new economy based on consumption.

The rural economy before 1940 The first agricultural revolution Rural Britain was amongst the first areas in the world to be exposed to the forces of capitalism and globalisation with both having profound impacts on rural livelihoods and the pattern of rural life from the beginning of the eighteenth century onwards. By 1750 the gradual movement from feudal to capitalist agriculture, which had been occurring over past centuries through the enclosure of open fields and wild lands, accelerated to a revolutionary pace (Hoskins, 1955). Through private acts of parliament, the final clearing up of the remnants of the open field system took place and brought with it the end of peasant land rights and their replacement with a new agricultural order, based on rent and wages. As a consequence, by the end of the nineteenth century approximately ‘half of the cultivated land in Britain was owned by 5,000 families, and nearly one-quarter by only 400 families’ (Cherry, 1976: 262). However, while the new landowners prospered and became increasingly politically powerful, the lot of the new tenant farmers and labourers was often very different. Disputes related to rents and leases and wages and the right to form unions abounded. For many, agricultural employment was arduous, incomes were low and uncertain, and rural unemployment was high. This situation was paralleled by a burgeoning of better-paid jobs in the factories and workshops of the rapidly growing towns and cities and in new opportunities to relocate to the developing colonial territories. Sustained migration from the countryside to urban areas and overseas was the result. This trend accelerated in the latter years of the nineteenth century when British agriculture saw its traditional national market monopoly eroded by a flood of cheap food imports from North and South America and the Russian steppes (Hobsbawn, 1968). Moreover, Britain’s colonies often held a relative advantage in agricultural production and thus acted as importers of cheap food (Winter, 1996). Unlike many other European countries which sought protection for their home producers through the imposition of high tariffs on imported food, under the free-market philosophy of the British government of the day this approach was not adopted. Indeed the import of food from overseas was seen as a critical part of maintaining export markets for British industrial goods. As a consequence, by the beginning of the twentieth century the majority of the nation’s food was imported, less than one in ten of all workers were employed in agriculture, and farming in Britain seemed to be in terminal decline. This contrasts with the picture only 100 years earlier when agricultural employment accounted

Economic change 63 for one-third of the British workforce and agricultural output and productivity were increasing rapidly (Cherry, 1976).

The emergence of a more mixed rural economy The above account summarises the shift from an agrarian to an industrially based national economy that occurred in Britain over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although this brought some signs of diversification in the economic base of the countryside, growth in these new rural industries was often shortlived. While, employment in agriculture declined, rural areas saw an increase in jobs in mining and quarrying, and manufacturing and transport, as the countryside became an important source of raw materials fuelling industrial development that concentrated in urban areas (Gilg, 1976; Murdoch, 1996). However, in many instances, easily winnable mineral reserves soon became depleted and British mining and quarrying companies, as with agriculture, found it increasingly difficult to compete with the growing sources of cheap imports from elsewhere in the world. Similarly, rural areas saw a decline in rural manufacturing employment over the early years of the twentieth century. More often than not as traditional industries (frequently based around the availability of water power) became outmoded they failed to be replaced with dynamic new industries (including the developing service sector) which increasingly sought the locational advantages of towns and cities.

Early approaches to rural economic development It is against this backdrop of declining rural employment (most acute in the more remote rural areas of Scotland, Wales, the Lake District, the northern Pennines, East Anglia and the South West) that the Development Commission (renamed the Rural Development Commission in 1987) was established under the Development and Road Improvement Fund Act 1909. The commission was responsible for administering a fund which was designed to facilitate the development of agriculture and rural industries, forestry, land drainage and reclamation, rural transport, harbours, internal navigation and fisheries. The creation of the commission represented a first significant step towards state intervention in rural economic affairs. In the years leading up to the Second World War the primary focus of the commission’s work was the promotion of agriculture. However, it also supported the work of county agricultural committees in formulating schemes for developing rural industries, and in 1921 established the Rural Industries Intelligence Bureau charged with offering training and advisory services to revive rural craft-based businesses (Rogers, 1999). Despite these efforts, over the first part of the twentieth century the disparity between the economic trajectory of London and the South East and much of the rest of Britain widened. Declining employment was not just a feature of rural areas, but also spread to the traditional manufacturing heartlands of the North, South Wales and Scotland and there was mounting public concern over the social, economic and strategic consequences of the concentration of employment and population growth in and around London. The climate of war also brought into sharp focus the strategic disadvantages of a reliance upon imported primary goods, particularly food and timber. There was growing concern about the weak state of British primary production, the pace of urban expansion and loss of countryside around London from both a production capacity and an amenity perspective. Together with the aspiration to protect the

64

The rural economy

faltering manufacturing industries, these concerns paved the way for a much more protectionist post war approach to agricultural policy (Winter, 1996). The Barlow and Scott Reports (1940 and 1942: see previous chapter) reflected an emerging political consensus that the state should play a more active role in directing economic affairs. The recommendations outlined in these documents set the scene for a much more interventionist stance by government in the post-war years which was to profoundly affect the fortunes of rural areas.

Pre-war planning and the rural economy The emergence of town and country planning as an activity of government in the early twentieth century was one reflection of this trend. We now consider the ways in which the embryonic planning system in Britain responded to the economic problems of rural areas. A useful starting point for this discussion is the analysis presented by Ebenezer Howard in his classic text To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform (Howard, 1898: see Figure 3.1). Although this was a mainly a diagnosis of urban ills, it also included a powerful account of the rural economic problems of the period which included agricultural decline (land lying idle), long hours, low wages, rural unemployment (hands out of work) and consequent rural depopulation (deserted villages). However, his proposed marriage of town and country, through the creation of garden cities did, on the face of it, do little to address the economic plight of rural areas. As Cherry comments ‘with hindsight, we can appreciate today that this was a planning solution which was a form of urban exploitation of the countryside’ (Cherry, 1976: 6). A slightly more charitable view is presented by Abercrombie (1959). He saw Howard’s model of garden cities (see Figure 3.2), in which both urban and rural workers would be housed, as key to protecting the integrity of the surrounding agricultural belts and for stemming the outflow of rural population. As he states ‘the farm worker instead of living his isolated life is to have the benefits of a social existence in large centres of population situated conveniently for access to his work’ (Abercrombie, 1959: 178) However, the spirit of Abercrombie’s subsequent remarks perhaps more accurately reflect the focus of countryside planning at the time. It is the last thing that is necessary for the preservation of the countryside that it should be depopulated; there is nothing more antagonistic to the beauty and seemliness of typical country than the untidiness of uncultivated ground, unless it be the indiscriminate scattering over its face of discordant urban elements. (Abercrombie, 1959: 178) These remarks reveal a central concern with the aesthetics of open countryside, a belief in the key role of agriculture in providing appropriate environmental stewardship (and employment) for rural areas and the identification of urban concentration and containment as a core feature of good planning for the countryside. It is this view of rural affairs that is reflected in the planning legislation of the interwar years, as noted in Chapter 1. The first act to recognise a rural role for planning was the Town and Country Planning Act 1932 which extended the scope of planning schemes to cover all land (urban and rural) and the objects of planning to cover the preservation of places of natural interest or beauty (Abercrombie, 1959). Further planning powers to limit urban encroachment of the countryside were provided under

Economic change 65

Figure 3.1 Howard’s analysis of country life Source: Howard, 1898: 9

Figure 3.2 Howard’s garden city model Source: Howard, 1898: 13

66

The rural economy

the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935. In both cases, it can be seen that the economic dimension of rural life was only indirectly addressed.

The productivist era (1945 – mid-1970s) During the years of the Second World War (1939–1945), many rural areas experienced a marked revival in their economic fortunes. In line with the war effort, the government initiated a ‘ploughing up campaign’ in order to reduce reliance on imported food. New factories, including munitions plants, were located in areas with surplus labour and military establishments were built well away from towns and cities which were the target of German bombing campaigns. These initiatives reflected a hasty adoption of many of the recommendations set out in the Barlow and Scott Reports, and paved the way for a transformation in the government’s approach to the rural economy in postwar years. A Cabinet Office report provides a useful overview of what this entailed (Box 3.1). It is within this political context that the rural economy entered into what some commentators have described as its ‘productivist’ era, where government policy was explicitly concerned with the preservation of rural land for agricultural production and with the increase of the productivity of the primary industries (Halfacree, 1999). Mounting tensions between East and West and the development of the Cold War (Thomson, 1964) meant that issues of national security continued to be key amongst the drivers of government policy throughout this period. As a consequence, a raft of measures was introduced designed to boost production of primary industries in rural areas and reduce Britain’s dependence on foreign imports.

Support for agriculture and forestry Government support for agriculture was the main focus of attention. The Agriculture Act 1947 set the scene for a ‘second agricultural revolution’ which saw fundamental changes in the nature and structure of the farming industry in Britain (Walford, 1999). The overall aim was to increase agricultural production at the same time as keeping

Box 3.1 Government’s productivist view of the countryside At that time, the government had a clear view of what the countryside was for, and could command a wide consensus of support for this view. It saw agriculture as the primary function of rural areas and, therefore, as their key economic sector; and it viewed agriculture’s primary role as to ensure security of food supply. It assumed farmers, as the stewards and shapers of the countryside, could be relied upon to protect the quality of the rural environment. It assumed the shift in population from rural to urban areas would continue, and therefore that the greatest threat to the environment would be around the fringes of urban areas. And it believed that rising output from agriculture and other primary sectors in rural areas, combined with universal models of public service provision, would generate sufficient wealth to tackle rural poverty. Source: Cabinet Office, 1999: 5

Economic change 67

Figure 3.3 Footpath across a field of oilseed rape in the Chiltern Hills

food prices low. As we will see in Chapter 4, increased production did, however, come at a cost. Contrary to the government’s initial expectations, growth in output was accompanied by continuing decline in agricultural employment (full-time, part-time and seasonal) as farmers increasingly mechanised their activities. Between 1945 and 1965 North and South Wales, the South East and parts of the Midlands all saw a 50 per cent decline in agriculture jobs and all areas experienced losses of 35 per cent or more (Gilg, 1976). The increasing capital intensity of farm production and the continuing search for improved economies of scale, stimulated the amalgamation of farms, and there was a parallel decline in the number of farmers, from around 450,000 at the beginning of the 1960s to approximately 250,000 in the mid-1970s. At this point in time agriculture reached the paradoxical position of being the most extensive land user in Britain and the single largest industry in terms of output, but only directly employing about 2 per cent of the population (Gilg, 1976). In reality, the net employment effects of this second agricultural revolution were not as black as these figures might suggest. The income level of the remaining farm workers increased substantially from the very low level of the interwar years and the transformation of agricultural production had been accompanied by a growth in companies supplying farmers with various goods and services (Britton, 1990). Gilg (1976) estimated that if the whole agri-food sector was taken into account then the real agricultural labour force in the mid-1970s could account for around 10 per cent of Britain’s working population. Significantly though, much of the agriculture-related employment was based in urban rather than rural areas. Agriculture was, however, not the only rural sector to receive substantial support under the productivist regime. Forestry, too, saw significant government involvement. The origins of this date back to the First World War when the German blockade of Britain highlighted the need for a strategic reserve of timber. The Forestry Act of 1919 saw the establishment of the Forestry Commission charged with creating new woodlands, encouraging private forestry and helping to maintain a timber trade. The Forestry Commission was to act as a public body providing advice, granting aid and

68

The rural economy

regulating the private sector. It later acquired control of the crown forests as well. Later still, national committees for England, Scotland and Wales were formed, and this decentralisation process continued in the following years and led to considerable strengthening of private interests within forestry administration (Winter, 1996). Between 1919 and 1939 the commission supported 291,000 hectares of new forest planting, 240,000 hectares of which was undertaken by the commission itself. Despite these efforts, little of the new reserve was available for use in the Second World War, due to the slow growing nature of forest resources. Reflecting upon this situation, in 1943 a Government White Paper recommended increasing the national forest estate to around 2,000,000 hectares over a 50-year period, bringing the extent of woodland cover to 10 per cent of Britain’s land area (Gilg, 1996). Interestingly, the justification for these proposals extended beyond issues of national security and included a recognition of the employment that new forests could bring to areas of population decline as well as to the urban poor. A series of Forestry Acts in the immediate postwar period reinvigorated the work of the Forestry Commission and extended its powers to purchase and manage land. In the period 1945 to the early 1970s the commission was responsible for around 22,000 hectares of new planting each year while private sector planting rose to an annual rate of around 15,000 acres, supported by grant aid and a helpful tax structure. Government concern to protect the most productive agricultural land meant that post-war afforestation activities were directed towards the remoter, upland areas of Britain, many of which were experiencing population loss because of the decline in local employment opportunities. Accounts of the period indicate the significant role that forestry could play in reviving the economic fortunes of these areas (e.g. Matthews et al., 1972). Although direct employment in forestry varied according to a range of factors (including the size of forested area, nature of the terrain, and age of the forest stands), studies undertaken for the Forestry Commission in the mid-1960s showed that between 4–10 people per 400 ha could be engaged in planting, management and harvesting activities. These figures were higher than those generally achieved by pastoral agriculture in these locations. However, the employment generating potential of forestry was significantly increased by the development of associated forest industries. The co-location of pulp, paper and board mills as well as enlarged sawmilling activities could provide an additional four to five jobs for every person employed within forest management. The economic regeneration dimension of new forest developments informed the direction of the Forestry Commission’s activities for the first 50 years of its existence. However, in the early 1970s a Government-funded study concluded that there was no longer a defence case for new afforestation. Equally, it called into question the employment arguments in favour of extending areas of planting. Although it recognised that afforestation could generate more jobs than the hill farming it often replaced, it concluded that this was achieved at a high cost to the Exchequer (Gilg, 1976) and that more cost-effective employment generation schemes could be found. As a result, new forest planting was scaled back. Nevertheless, until the late 1980s, forestry remained heavily subsidised through tax cuts in return for forestry investments. However, an environmental critique was initiated in the 1960s as a response to intensive cultivation of foreign tree species that were not supportive of ecological or landscape values normally attached to British woodlands. This played a role in government’s decision to withdraw the tax benefits in 1986. Subsequently, the only surviving incentive for new planting was a limited system of grant support, and the extent of new plantations decreased significantly.

Economic change 69 The 1990s saw the birth of the principle of ‘multiple objectives’ of forestry and the concept of environmentally sustainable forestry gained ground within government policy (Winter, 1996). This involved greater coordination of forestry and wider environmental objectives (particularly objectives linked to farming), led to the introduction of ‘forestry strategies’, and gave English Nature and the Countryside Commission a greater role in developing forestry policy. More recently, forests have come to be viewed as a potential carbon sink, capable of absorbing the most abundant greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

Support for other primary industries In contrast to the level of government attention directed towards agriculture and forestry in the productivist era, the other primary industries of fishing and mining and quarrying received a more mixed pattern of support. Fishing, which was still important to the rural economy in parts of the South West, West Wales and the North West and North East coasts of Scotland in this period, saw a marked loss of employment as a result of increasing international competition, the development of bigger and more technologically sophisticated trawlers, and the consequent reduction in the size of the deep-sea fishing fleet (Gilg, 1976). Government incentives to stimulate new fishing businesses (and employment), associated with the expanding demand for higher value prawns and shellfish and the farming of salmon and trout, saw some successes, particularly in Scotland, but overall did not stem employment decline in the sector. A more interventionist stance was evident in Government approaches to mining and quarrying. The nationalisation of the coal industry in 1946 reflected a recognition of the strategic significance of the sector, and following the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act planning authorities were charged with ensuring that the exploitation of important mineral reserves was not jeopardised by new development. Mineral extraction (other than coal mining) is predominantly an industry of rural areas. Many of the richest mineral deposits in Britain are to be found in the older, more geologically disturbed rocks of the remoter parts of rural Britain. However, as noted earlier, the most easily winnable reserves were often exhausted in the years up to the First World War and the economics of exploiting the remaining reserves continued to be highly volatile in post-war years reflecting rapidly changing world commodity prices (Gilg, 1996). The problems of the sector were compounded by the fact that many of the reserves were located in national parks and other areas of landscape protection which attracted increasingly stringent planning controls (see Chapter 6) and these acted as a restraint on growth. So while minerals employment remained locally important, particularly the extraction of building aggregates in rural–urban fringe areas, again the sector could little to offset the decline in agricultural employment in rural Britain.

Post-war rural economic development activities It is against this backcloth of continuing employment decline in primary industries, that government renewed efforts to stimulate new job opportunities in other sectors of the rural economy. This intervention took a number of forms. These included the designation of ‘development areas’ in localities suffering from high unemployment and consistent population decline. Initially established in the 1930s, the name, coverage and focus of government activity related to development areas went through numerous modifications in the years following 1945, prompting some industrialists to voice

70

The rural economy

concern about the volatility and complexity of government actions (Gilg, 1976). From a situation where most development areas were urban in character, by the mid-1960s (following the 1966 Industrial Development Act) 40 per cent of Britain’s land area was covered by these designations, including all the remote rural districts. Within the development areas a number of forms of government support were available: • • • • •

firms could receive government financial assistance towards new capital investment; local authorities could obtain grant aid for the reclamation of derelict land for subsequent reuse for industrial development; government controls over the location of industrial (and latterly office) development favoured these localities; support was available for industrial retraining; regional variations in employment taxes in effect provided job subsidies in the designated areas.

The Development Commission (supported by its subsidiary agencies the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas – CoSIRA – and the Small Industries Council for the Rural Areas of Scotland – SICRAS) was responsible for a range of related activities, including: • • • •

the provision of an advisory, intelligence, and training service and credit facilities for small rural manufacturing and service businesses; a programme of advanced workshop and factory building; support for voluntary bodies to stimulate the social and intellectual life of rural areas; and carrying out research related to the rural economy (Rogers, 1999).

The Commission often worked hand-in-hand with local authorities which increasingly initiated ‘grass roots’ action to stem rural employment decline in their areas. The pioneering Mid Wales Industrial Development Association established in 1957 is a noted example of early partnership working in rural regeneration (GarbettEdwards, 1972, Pettigrew, 1987). Supported by the five mid Wales county councils, the association was charged with taking direct action to create and maintain jobs with the objective of stemming the outflow of population and attracting people from elsewhere to live and work in the area. This and similar initiatives such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Pennines Rural Development Board (Gilg, 1976) made a significant contribution to the economic fortunes of the rural areas they covered. This included some notable successes in bringing new manufacturing industries to outlying rural districts and supporting the growth of service industries, including those related to tourism which, as we shall see in Chapter 5, was an increasingly prominent source of rural employment in postwar years (Dower, 1972). Equally, through experimentation and innovation they encouraged greater sophistication and professionalism in approaches to rural economic development and marketing. In particular, they began to highlight the case for a more locally sensitive approach to rural development and the valuable role that regionally based agencies could play in addressing economic and population decline (Pettigrew, 1987). The system of regional economic planning councils (eight in England and separate councils for Scotland and Wales), established in 1965 illustrate growing acceptance of this argument. Charged with producing

Economic change 71 advisory plans and programmes of expenditure for government (Gilg, 1976), the councils did, however, lack the implementation role that was a key feature of the Mid Wales Industrial Development Association, the Highlands and Islands Development Board (Scotland) and other similar organisations. The changing balance of rural employment over the productivist era is highlighted in Table 3.1. This illustrates that in many rural counties in this period, employment in the primary industries (‘Industrial Groups’ I and II) continued to be significantly above the national average, although this sector accounted for a declining share of rural jobs between 1961 and 1971. In contrast, the proportion of employment in manufacturing and construction (Industrial Groups II–XVII) lagged well below average levels for England and Wales, but there was modest growth in this aspect of the rural economy in the post-war years. Interestingly, the table highlights the long-standing importance of service sector employment in rural areas, particularly in distributive trades and associated sectors (Industrial Groups XX–XXIII) with most counties seeing proportionally higher levels of employment in this area than the national average by 1971.

The productivist era and planning But how did the post-war system of town and country planning interact with these developments? Perversely, it could be argued that the interaction was quite strong and that the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act put in place a planning system that was entirely consistent with the government’s productivist ambitions for the countryside, which aimed to preserve so called ‘white land’ (Chapter 2) for the use of agriculture so that it could freely develop into a strong export-oriented economic sector. A central point here is the fact that agriculture and forestry were exempt from planning control and therefore the vast majority of land in rural areas was not of direct concern to the new county planning authorities. The focus of their attention was directed instead to the villages and towns, but even in this context, development plans were required to minimise the impact of development on good agriculture and forestry land and to cause minimal damage to farm units. As Travis (1972: 188) puts it: ‘it appears to have been assumed that the 1947 Agriculture Act and government control by subsidies, incentives, etc, could achieve both the best economic and spatial arrangement for the countryside’. Moreover, the Scott Report, which informed much of the approach of the 1947 Act saw the beauty and pattern of the landscape to be a direct result of soil cultivation and therefore perceived no antagonism between productivist agriculture and landscape values (Allanson and Whitby, 1996). This understanding of agriculture as the bedrock of a healthy rural economy also pervaded the focus of planning attention in rural settlements in the early post-war years which tended to centre on questions of amenity and conservation rather than nurturing economic (or indeed social) well-being. Travis cites a document produced by West Suffolk County Council as indicative of rural planning at this time. This set out a series of policies under the following headings: • • • •

concern with safety; conservation of agricultural land and trees; general amenity conservation; control of building development – its location form and arrangement; landscape control;

72

The rural economy

Devon

Kent

Norfolk

Westmorland

Radnor

England and Wales**

Distribution of employment by type and county* 1961–1971

Year

Table 3.1

Groups I–II Primary

1961

17

6

27

17

40

6

1971

15

5

16

13

28

4

Groups III–XVII Manufacturing/construction

1961

22

38

21

26

10

43

1971

25

35

32

30

22

40

Groups XVIII–XIX Gas, electricity, water transport/ communication Groups XX –XXIII Distributive trades and miscellaneous services Groups XXI–XXII Insurance, banking, finance, professional/ scientific services Group XXIV Public administration and defence

1961

8

9

5

8

8

9

1971

5

8

4

6

5

8

1961

32

26

26

30

22

24

1971

33

26

27

30

24

22

1961

13

13

9

13

11

12

1971

16

19

15

17

12

16

1961

8

8

11

5

8

6

1971

6

7

6

4

9

10

Type of employment in each group

Notes * Excluding county boroughs ** Including county boroughs Source: Gilg, 1976: 127

• • •

control of mineral workings, etc; conservation of villages of national architectural significance; and caravan sites (Travis, 1972: 188).

It was not until the 1960s, that planners began to show a wider interest in rural economic affairs and an appreciation of issues related to rural decline. These concerns were most typically reflected in the identification of a settlement hierarchy of towns, small towns, ‘key villages’ or ‘king villages’ which were defined as key service centres and ‘growth points’ (Cloke, 1979). Travis (1972) suggests that these might have been more accurately described as ‘holding points’ because their chief rationale was to stem the strong trend of population and economic decline that continued to be a feature of many rural areas in this period. The development of this approach reflected Walter Christaller’s Central Place Theory (CPT: Christaller, 1933) which held that economic efficiencies could be achieved by nucleating public services and infrastructure and maintaining suitable levels of supporting population; new centres could, in turn, then provide more viable locations in which to retain existing employers and attract new businesses. A further development of this approach was the creation of new ‘central places’ in the remoter rural areas, such as the Moray Firth Urbanisation Programme in Scotland and the development of Newtown (designated under the New Towns Act 1946) in mid Wales. These were planned as major new regional employment centres, designed to stem the exodus to the cities, particularly among the younger sections of the rural population.

Economic change 73

Key debates The shift from production to consumption This search for new sources of rural employment beyond the primary sector was illustrative of a shift in thinking about the rural economy that gathered momentum in the 1970s, and heralded the beginning of the consumption-oriented era for the countryside (Halfacree, 1999). This shift reflected a number of developments. These included: fading national security imperatives to maximise home production of primary goods; mounting concern about the environmental damage being caused by intensive agriculture and about growing food surpluses; and increasing questioning of the validity of continuing government aid and other special support for farmers, as Britain weathered a series of economic recessions and public sector purse strings began to tighten (Box 3.2). Running alongside these issues, a new realism about the relative importance of farming as a source of rural employment began to emerge. Continuing decline in the agriculture workforce was paralleled with job growth in other sectors. Measures to attract new manufacturing saw success in many rural areas over the latter part of the twentieth century, an experience that was in marked contrast to that of urban areas over the same period. The rural service sector also saw job growth. Recreational and tourist use of the countryside which blossomed in the 1950s and 1960s (Dower, 1972) was responsible for much of this growth (Chapter 5). This reflected a number of significant social trends in the post-war era including: rising affluence, increased mobility, shorter working hours, improved education and the growing influence of the media in developing wider awareness of the countryside (White, 1976). It also marked the increase of the ‘marketing value’ of the ‘rural idyll’, a crucial factor in the shift to a consumption-orientated rural economy. The popularity of rural areas as leisure destinations was paralleled by what Cloke and Goodwin (1992) described as service class in-migration. After years of population decline, many rural areas, including even some remote districts, began to experience a steady influx of population from the 1970s onwards. Studies revealed that, together with the improvements in transport, communications and utility networks, ‘quality of life’ issues were an important factor influencing location/ relocation decisions (Murdoch, 1996). As Halfacree so aptly describes, all this presented a major challenge to the old productivist regime. While the shift away from productivism remains much debated in academic literature, one crucial aspect of it is evident from economic data: the rural economy is no longer dominated by the land-based sector (Winter and Rushbrook, 2003). The years straddling the beginning of the new millennium have witnessed the search for a new consensus regarding the role and future of the countryside and, as in the past, economic considerations have formed a prominent part of this debate. This search has been reflected in a number of key government reports and consultations including the Rural White Papers of 1995 and 2000 and the Haskins Review (see Chapter 2 for discussions of these documents). The intensity of debate has been fuelled by the experience of a number of food safety crises such as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001, which have prompted a re-examination of the place of agriculture within rural economies (North, 2001). More recently the publication of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change has made a significant input into thinking on the economic future of the countryside (Stern, 2006) with rural spaces increasingly considered as places for ameliorating or mitigating the impacts

74

The rural economy

Box 3.2 The crisis of productivism The crisis in productivism is not just of significance to the agricultural population, as it also signals a crisis for all those implicated in the productivist era. It suggests the hegemonic domination of rural areas and rural society by agriculture, which, of course, dates back further than 1945, is itself coming to an end. Hence, postproductivism signals a search for a new way of understanding the countryside. New interests and actors are coming on the scene in an attempt to create a rurality in their image. Halfacree, 1999: 69

of climate change. Their role might be that of ‘carbon sinks’, absorbing greenhouse gases; similarly tree planting in river catchments might form part of a strategy aimed at managing flood risk. What has emerged through recent policy debate, in part built on new science, is a very different understanding of the current nature of the rural economy and new government thinking on its future role within the wider national economy.

The rural economy today A recent account of the current structure of the rural economy was given in the UK Government’s 2006 submission to the European Union in its Rural Development National Strategy Plan. This notes ‘to a great extent, rural areas in the UK have changed from being places of primary production to ones in which they are associated with a multitude of consumption and production activities’ (DEFRA, 2006c: 3). From a situation in the post-war years when agriculture was regarded as a sector of critical importance to the UK economy, the report indicates that in 2005 farming only accounted for 1.8 per cent of the UK workforce, and its contribution to UK gross value added (the government’s current measure of the significance of different sectors of the economy) had fallen from 2.9 per cent in 1973 to 0.5 per cent in 2005. Although the proportion of the rural workforce employed in agriculture is often locally significant relative to other sectors – particularly in remoter locations – the aggregate pattern of rural employment has gradually begun to resemble the much broader based structure of urban areas (Figure 3.4). In England, for example, over 80 per cent of rural jobs are now in distribution (which includes wholesale, retail, hotels and catering); public administration, health and education; manufacturing; and real estate (including business and financial service providers) (Countryside Agency, 2003). However, despite the similarities in sector structure, in other respects rural areas continue to have very different employment profiles. Unlike urban areas, the rural economy tends to be home to a large number of micro-enterprises (employing 10 or fewer workers), including those established by farming families in their efforts to generate supplementary income and also by people moving from urban areas to the countryside. Around 90 per cent of all rural businesses in England fall into this category (Countryside Agency, 2003). The prevalence of self-employment partly accounts for this picture and it is a particularly significant feature of the countryside economy, accounting, for example, for around 25 per cent of the workforce in the South West

Economic change 75

Figure 3.4 The structure of rural employment in England in 2001 (jobs) Source: Countryside Agency, 2003: 21 (from Annual Business Inquiry, 2001); 2001 total farm labour figures from June Agricultural Census, 2001.

and over 40 per cent in some smaller rural settlements and more sparsely populated areas (CRC, 2006a). As further discussed in Chapter 5, these factors have contributed to an emerging, and perhaps surprising, new view of the countryside as a hive of entrepreneurial activity which the government is keen to nurture, through business support, training and other activities in its efforts to maximise national economic growth. Nevertheless, although net inflow of new inhabitants moving from urban to rural areas – combined with a high number of small businesses and relatively low levels of unemployment experienced in most rural areas – presents quite a healthy picture of the countryside economy in the early part of the twenty-first century, the view is not uniformly positive. In general, rural areas still have an above-average dependence on low value-added sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing. Income levels, particularly in the more remote rural areas, often lag well behind the national average, and there is evidence that the disparity between these localities and the rest of England is increasing. For example, between 2004 and 2006 the proportion of low-income households (earning less than 60 per cent of the English median household income) in sparsely populated areas increased from 26 per cent to 30 per cent (CRC, 2006a). This situation partly reflects the dependence in many rural areas on low-paid, part-time and seasonal employment associated with the tourism industry. Rural self-employment also presents a very variable experience and includes an estimated 75,000 people on very low earnings, many of whom are what have been termed ‘reluctant or necessity entrepreneurs’ (Countryside Agency, 2003a: 40), who start up businesses because they have no alternative work prospects. Beyond the general trends and statistics lies a deeply complex picture of local variation in the economic circumstances of rural areas. As discussed in Chapter 1 and further explored in Chapter 5, this increasing diversity and economic polarisation (underpinning pockets of social exclusion) is reflected in a number of new typologies of rural Britain. The need to respond to growing inequalities and to support the diversifying economic base of rural areas has also prompted a number of policy responses that aim to reflect local circumstances and experiences.

76

The rural economy

Figure 3.5 Cumbria Rural Enterprise Agency, Penrith, offer business and farm support services for start-up and existing companies and farms

Figure 3.6 Rheged near Penrith: giant screen cinema, exhibition centre, speciality shopping, indoor play area, restaurant and café

Economic change 77

Rural development strategies and programmes The European dimension Since the early 1970s, government activity in relation to rural development has been strongly influenced by membership of the European Union. This has multiple dimensions but three are particularly significant in the current context. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – introduced in the last chapter, and analysed in greater depth in the next chapter – has for many years been the largest single source of public-sector funding for rural development in the UK, amounting to approximately £3 billion (less taxes and levies) in 2005 (DEFRA, 2006c). While CAP funding has traditionally been directed towards supporting different types of agricultural production, the merits of this type of support have come under increasing attack (Chapter 4). As a consequence, a radical overhaul of the system of CAP payments is underway, shifting the focus of support from food production to land management. The EU’s structural funds (including the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund) are an important contributor to this widening perspective in agricultural subsidies. Northern Ireland and the Scottish Highlands and Islands, Wales and Cornwall have all attracted Objective 1 status (receiving the highest levels of support) since the inception of the structural funds in the 1980s, while South West England, together with a number of other rural areas have also seen substantial levels of funding under Objective 5b and more recently Objective 2 programmes (Chapter 2). The structural funds are aimed at raising levels of economic performance in areas that lag behind the EU average and have stimulated a new approach to rural economic development in many areas (Ward, 2000). Important features have been the requirement to produce single programming documents and to develop local partnership arrangements to deliver related initiatives. These new structures have served as a useful precursor to those now required under the EU’s Rural Development Regulation (Garrod and Whitby, 2005). In addition, the structural funds have encouraged a growing sophistication in the scope of rural regeneration. For example, much emphasis has been given to strategic infrastructure improvements, notably road building and telecommunications, in an effort to better connect rural areas with wider markets (see Chapter 11). Similarly, business support and education and training programmes, including investment in new higher education institutions have benefited from enhanced levels of support. These initiatives form part of efforts to up-skill the rural workforce, improve the efficiency and competitiveness of rural business, stem the outflow of young people, and provide new nodes of economic growth in some of the poorest rural areas. Following the ‘Agenda 2000’ reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in 1999, a new Rural Development Regulation (EC 1257/1999) was established. This expanded the scope of activities financed from the agricultural budget (now the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, EAGF, previously EAGGF) beyond farming to wider rural concerns and economic diversification, and these now form the ‘second pillar’ of the CAP (Buller et al., 2000; Garrod and Whitby, 2005). In September 2005 a separate European rural development budget was established to reflect this situation. The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) was separated from the EAGGF to finance the rural development programmes established by member states (EC Regulation 1698/2005). The national programmes are subject to co-financing, which means that, depending on location (either in Zones 1 or 2 or in ‘Convergence

78

The rural economy

Box 3.3 EU rural development regulation 2007–2013: strategic priorities 1 To contribute to a strong and dynamic European agri-food sector by focusing on the priorities of knowledge transfer, modernisation, innovation and quality in the food chain and priority sectors for investments in physical and human capital. 2 To protect and enhance the EU’s natural resources and landscapes in rural areas, contributing to three EU level priority areas: Biodiversity and the preservation and development of high nature value farming and forestry systems and traditional agricultural landscapes; water, and climate change. 3 To contribute to the overarching priority of the creation of employment opportunities and conditions for growth. 4 To contribute to the horizontal priority of improving governance and mobilising endogenous development potential of rural areas. 5 To encourage synergy between structural, employment and rural development policies. Source: DEFRA, 2006d: 18–19

Zones’, where average income is less than 75 per cent of the EU average), between 20–80 per cent of their costs are funded from the EU budget (the EAFRD) and the rest is paid for by national funds (CEC, 2004). The amount of funds directed towards wider rural development objectives can be further increased through an arrangement known as ‘modulation’, which allows member state governments to independently redirect some of the budget allocated to the CAP subsidies to the rural development programmes. Strategic guidelines for the national programmes – covering a six–year period – are provided by the EU Agricultural Council. Complementing CAP and the structural funds, the EU’s Rural Development Regulation (RDR) has been strongly supported by the UK government and now forms a core element in its strategies to tackle problems of agricultural decline and the restructuring of rural economies (Ward, 2000). The strategic priorities of the current RDR – which covers the period 2007–2013 – are set out in Box 3.3. These provide a framework for the production of national, regional and local level strategies related to rural areas which form the current basis for distributing RDR financial support.

Diversification and rural development policy The need to counteract increasing economic polarisation in rural areas is a concern that is recognised in all EU member states. The recent EU-level policy reviews pave the way for a shift from agricultural towards rural policy in terms of funds and objectives at the European level. The EU’s strategic priorities for rural development have been translated into the United Kingdom’s Rural Development National Strategy Plan for 2007–2013 (DEFRA, 2006c) and the separate rural development programmes for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These reflect, in different ways, tailored interpretations of the RDR priorities. A key understanding underlying the development of the UK’s approach is the importance of maintaining and enhancing the environmental quality of life in rural areas as a means of achieving economic and

Economic change 79 social as well as environmental objectives. This overarching ambition frames the key aims of the UK’s approach to its rural development strategy which are to: • promote, encourage and reinforce competitive and sustainable agriculture and forestry management; • work with demographic trends in rural areas to promote a thriving socially inclusive and diversified rural economy with high quality employment opportunities; • contribute further to EU strategic objectives for the environment, in particular through increasing biodiversity, reducing water, soils and air pollution and meeting the challenge of climate change. (DEFRA, 2006c: 17). National rural development programmes have been drawn up to guide the use of these funds in the member states. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have independent rural development programmes and administrative bodies responsible for managing them. These are the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), The National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) and the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) respectively. The UK National Rural Development Strategy Plan (NRDSP) forms an overarching strategy with which the national programmes comply. For example, the England Rural Development Plan comprises ten regional development programmes that are implemented in the form of national schemes through which money is allocated towards a number of measures defined at EU level. Box 3.4 lists the measures and schemes of the England Rural Development Programme. The Rural Enterprise Scheme, the Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme and the Vocational Training Scheme are the most significant in terms of economic volume in the England Rural Development Plan (DEFRA, 2006d). A discussion of the new view of the UK rural economy that is implicit in these objectives is presented later in this chapter. Beyond the UK Strategy Plan and the respective national rural development programmes, in England the regional development agencies (RDAs) are now charged with incorporating rural issues within their regional economic strategies (RES). Unlike their 1960s predecessors – the regional economic councils – the RDAs combine a regional economic advisory and policy function with substantial budgets and therefore implementation capacity. The regional economic strategies, in tandem with regional spatial strategies and regional housing strategies, form the core of a suite of public policy documents that now guide regional affairs (Chapter 2). Within many of these documents, the RES included, the government requires particular attention to be paid to ‘public sesrvice agreement’ (PSA) areas. Those for rural England are shown in Figure 3.7 and they represent those areas that have demonstrated consistently poor economic performance and are therefore lagging significantly behind the rest of rural England. The public service agreements involve public sector agencies directing their activities towards achieving specified improvement targets in relation to a range of local deprivation indicators which include those related to employment. These areas represent a current iteration of the Development Area concept that has been in existence since the 1930s.

80

The rural economy

Box 3.4 England Rural Development Plan: prescribed measures and schemes Measures (EC Reg. 1257/99)

Schemes in England

Investment in agricultural holdings

Rural Enterprise Scheme Energy Crops Scheme

Training

Vocational Training Scheme

Less favoured areas

Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance (2000) Hill Farm Allowance (HFA)(2001–2006)

Agri-environment

Environmental Stewardship Schemes (Entry Level Stewardship, Organic Entry Level Stewardship and Higher Level Stewardship)

Processing and marketing of agricultural products (PMGS)

Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme

Afforestation of agricultural land

Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (FWPS) Woodland Grant Scheme Energy Crops Scheme (Short Rotation Coppice (SRC))

Other forestry measures

Woodland Grant Scheme Energy Crops Scheme (SRC and producer groups)

Setting-up of farm relief and farm management services Marketing of quality agricultural products Basic services for the rural economy and population Renovation and development of villages Diversification of agricultural activities etc. Agricultural water resources management Development and improvement of infrastructure etc. Encouragement for tourist and craft activities Protection of the environment in connection with agriculture

Rural Enterprise Scheme

Source: adapted from DEFRA, 2006d

Economic change 81

Current planning activity related to the rural economy What is evident from the above is that a wide range of organisations are now involved in economic planning for rural areas. So where does spatial planning fit into this picture? If we follow the line of argument outlined in Chapter 2, we would expect to see the new spatial planning system at the heart of rural economic development efforts, as spatial planning agencies embrace a much wider spectrum of concerns and play a more central role in directing and coordinating regional and local affairs. Although, it is still too early to be really clear about whether this transformation is actually happening, an insight may be gained by examining some of the documents to emerge from the new system. Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (ODPM, 2004d) is the current government guidance related to the countryside and is an example of the new breed of guidance that form part of the revised planning system. It is interesting to note, therefore, that concern for the wider rural economy forms a central plank of PPS7. Indeed many aspects of the guidance are acknowledged to be underpinned by economic considerations. This contrasts with government planning perspectives in the productivist era discussed earlier, when planning concern for economic as opposed to social and environmental matters in rural areas was much less prominent. However, PPS7 does in fact carry forward a concern to foster rural economic diversification which was first introduced in planning guidance in Circular 16/87 (DoE, 1987a) and was developed in the predecessors of the current guidance, PPG7 published in 1988 and its revision issued in 1992 (see Gilg, 1996: 147). These various documents reveal an increasing emphasis on the need for planning to play a positive part in facilitating economic change in rural areas. In line with this changing perspective, PPS7 requires regional spatial strategies and local development documents to encourage a wide range of economic activity in rural areas and identify priority areas and sites for employment regeneration and growth. Although the guidance continues to place a strong emphasis on focusing new development in or near local service centres (the latest version of central place thinking, but now justified on energy efficiency and climate change grounds as well as on social service and economic efficiency grounds), it does contain signs of a slightly freer approach to economic development elsewhere in the countryside than its predecessors. For example, it proposes that planning authorities should allow limited development, even in remote villages that have poor public transport links, in order to maintain the vitality of these communities. It also encourages them to develop criteria for permitting economic development in other locations, in order to enable the expansion of existing business premises and to facilitate economic diversification. Similarly the reuse of redundant buildings in the countryside is supported, particularly for economic development purposes. Beyond these general principles, PPS7 includes specific sections on agriculture, farm diversification, equine-related activities, forestry, tourism and leisure development, each of which stresses the economic potential of the sectors concerned and encourages planning authorities to support development subject to certain criteria being met. The nature of criteria being used to judge whether a development is acceptable or not is obviously crucially important. In the past it has been argued that planning’s concern for landscape preservation and conservation of the built heritage, have significantly constrained economic change in the countryside. For example, the Performance and Innovation Unit, in a review of the rural economy, noted that the

82

The rural economy

Figure 3.7 Public service agreement areas Source: DEFRA (2007) Rural Atlas – on-line maps available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ ruralstats/rural_atlas/, accessed 19 September 2007 © Crown copyright

Economic change 83 planning system ‘can impose a heavy burden of compliance costs […] and may have significant effects on competition and innovation (economic dynamism)’ (PIU, 1999: 138). In a similar vein, a comment noted in the 2006 report of the Rural Advocate for England highlights a not uncommon view among small rural businesses. I want to expand my business, but I can’t. The planning system won’t let me. If I expand I’ll have to move to an urban area – and then what happens to the people who work for me here? (CRC, 2006e: 11) In recognition of this type of criticism, it is worth noting that PPS7 does require that development in the countryside should ensure that the quality and character of the wider landscape is protected, that new buildings should contribute to a sense of local identity and that conservation of the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage should be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions within national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It could appear, therefore, that there are some inconsistencies in the government’s planning ambitions for the countryside. We will return to this point in the next section. Despite this caveat, the picture to emerge from PPS7 does suggest that the government is keen for planning to take a lead role in rural economic development over the coming years. It is therefore perhaps surprising to note that the guidance makes no reference to how the RSSs and LDDs, should relate to the wider rural economic development environment, perhaps most notably in the form of the regional economic strategies. Given that integration is intended to be a core attribute of the new spatial planning system, this does appear to be a key omission.

Emergent issues So what can we discern from the account of rural economic affairs set out above? A number of key themes emerge. These relate to the changing nature of the rural economy and government’s interaction with these changes as well as to the role of planning in supporting the economic life of the countryside.

Intertwining of economic and social and environmental factors One of the points emphasised at the beginning of this chapter was that change has been a recurring feature of rural areas over the last three centuries and that economic factors have closely intertwined with political, social and environmental factors to shape the various transformations in rural life that have occurred. Since the agricultural revolution of the eighteenth century, we have seen that the countryside economy has undergone successive periods of change. These have included the intense agricultural depression of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; the dramatic expansion of agriculture in the productivist era after the Second World War; the quieter revolution of the years straddling the new millennium when the structure of the rural economy, at least superficially, began to converge with that of urban areas; and the diminishing role of agriculture as a source of rural employment was finally recognised as the countryside economy moved towards a consumption oriented phase. Paralleling these economic changes have been significant social shifts. Declining rural employment, particularly associated with agriculture, saw an outflow of population to the burgeoning industrial

84

The rural economy

towns and cities over the course of the nineteenth century, and this was to remain a feature of most parts of rural Britain until the last third of the twentieth century. At this point the general trend reversed. Prompted by sharply changing economic fortunes of Britain’s industrial cities, more affluent sections of the urban population increasingly looked to the countryside for an improved quality of life, and many rural areas began to experience a slow but steady increase in population. It is partly this service-class in-migration (Cloke and Goodwin, 1992) that has been responsible for a revival in the economic fortunes of many rural areas, and, as we shall see below, this is now viewed as critical to their continuing economic wellbeing. Paradoxically, though, the same group is also considered to be the source of some of the countryside’s most intractable social problems, including the shortage of affordable housing (Chapter 7).

Complex pattern of economic well-being This interweaving of economic, social and environmental factors is, however, a highly differentiated process and the distinct variations in experience evident across the UK will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. In general terms, those areas closest to cities or of high environmental quality are experiencing the greatest pressure for in-migration and are economically buoyant, even if income levels are below national averages in those areas attracting a large retirement population. Conversely more remote areas and those of lesser environmental quality, (perhaps due to past industrial activity) have very fragile economies (often still underpinned by agriculture), high proportions of people surviving on very low incomes and these areas appear unable to attract significant new economic activity without government support. This understanding of a differentiated rural economy is reflected in a continuation of a longstanding feature of government intervention in economic affairs: the targeting of resources to areas of greatest need. In their latest form in England, particular attention is given to reviving the economic fortunes of the public service agreement areas identified in Figure 3.7.

Urban–rural relationships What is also evident from the changes described above is a significant pattern of urban–rural relationships with the economic fortunes of many rural areas increasingly tied to towns and cities (Hoggart, 2005). For those parts of the countryside within commuting distance of London and the provincial cities, urban areas tend to be the key source of employment for many rural residents. Perversely, the economic fortunes of other parts of the countryside also seem to be closely linked to urban areas. Here the extent to which areas are capable of attracting urban people as tourists or in-migrants, and thereby benefiting from the influx of spending power, intellectual energy, different skills and contacts with the wider world seem to be key determinants of their economic fortunes (see Marsden, 1998; Lowe and Ward, 2007). Those rural areas with the weakest connections to urban areas seem to be those with the weakest economies. The nature of this interconnectivity, and implications for rural governance, is a concern that we return to in Chapters 5 and 11.

Economic change 85

A new government paradigm for the rural economy? The above factors are evident in a new understanding of the economy of the countryside by government and this is influencing its view on the forms of state intervention that are appropriate in the early years of twenty-first century. An insight into this understanding can be discerned in the Countryside Agency report Rural Economies, Stepping Stones to a Healthier Future (Countryside Agency, 2003). This identified five areas for action. The first of these – ‘secure winners in all sectors’ – stresses the importance of the four key employment groups of distribution, public administration, manufacturing and real estate/banking to rural economies. The Agency recommended that regional development agencies and sub-regional economic partnerships should increasingly look beyond farming and tourism and take steps to further the contribution of these other key sectors to the economic health of rural areas. ‘Attract the in-migrant’ is the second area for action. This reflects the new understanding of the important role of in-migrants in new business formation and employment growth in rural areas. The Agency advocated the establishment of funds, business support and training programmes for in-migrant households and the active promotion of self employment opportunities for these groups in rural areas. ‘Act by household’ reflects a new appreciation of the complexity of rural incomes which often combine contributions from pensions, state benefits, employment and self-employment and pull together inputs from different family members across several generations to achieve viability. The focus of attention in this context is to raise household disposable income by raising productivity, expectations and competitiveness. ‘Cultivate the self-employed’ recognises the significance of self-employment in rural life and calls on the provision of new business start-up strategies encouraging new business creation, enhanced generic and sector specific business advice and training aimed at low-growth as well as high-growth business owners, and the further development of finance initiatives such as the Rural Enterprise Scheme and SBS Phoenix Fund. It is arguably the final area for action identified by the Countryside Agency, ‘exploit countryside capital’, that reveals the most significant shift in government thinking about the rural economy and an acknowledgement of the shift to a consumption-based economy (see also Garrod et al., 2006, and Chapter 5). As in the past, this identifies a critical role for the farming and forestry sectors, but not first and foremost as producers, rather as custodians of the attractive and diverse countryside which is recognised as playing a vital role in the health and future development of rural economies. This ‘multifunctional’ role for agriculture (Wilson, 2007; Buttel, 2006) is a key principle underlying the EU Rural Development Regulation, and its connection to business growth is evident in current UK thinking. For example, the Stepping Stones report notes that this ‘Countryside Capital underpins rural tourism [it] is an asset for heritage and related businesses […and it acts] as an attractor of investment’ (Countryside Agency, 2003: 45–6). This is a far cry from the post-war years when the primary industries were considered to be the key sources of rural employment in themselves (although in reality this was no longer the case, even at this time). However, despite this very different thinking on the place of agriculture and forestry within the rural economy, these industries are still regarded as being at the heart of rural economic well-being, but for very different reasons.

86

The rural economy

UK-wide, expenditure on the environmental management of agricultural and forest land is already a significant sum within the total budget for rural development programmes, and the new Rural Development Strategy for 2007–2013 forecasts a further rise over the next seven years. The existing schemes (Box 3.4) are divided into two categories: first, the CAP accompanying measures, which encompass the agrienvironmental schemes and less favoured areas (LFA) support and are aimed directly and only at farmers, and second, the non-accompanying measures, which are aimed at the development of the wider rural economy. Although other entrepreneurs are able to apply for funds from the schemes, most support is directed to economic diversification at farm level, or to activities closely linked to farms. Because of this focus, a recent study on agricultural restructuring discovered that few farms were withdrawing completely from food production, but rather, farmers sought extra income through contract farming or through production related business diversification (Lobley et al., 2005). Despite a new diversity in the rural economy, productivism is alive and well in the differentiated countryside (Wilson, 2007; Halfacree, 2006). This is partly because farming continues to command considerable political support, and therefore attracts subsidy, and partly because a new role for farming is emerging. Indeed, the EU Rural Development Regulation, The Countryside Agency Stepping Stones Report and the UK’s National Strategy Plan for 2007–2013 all provide glimpses of a new take on the productivist theme. This relates, amongst other things, to the role of agriculture and forestry in combating climate change. Growing trees and energy crops are seen to provide a valuable function as ‘carbon sinks’ and also as ‘carbon-neutral’ substitutes for fossil fuels. There is a recognition that government has a role to play in stimulating ‘production’ in these areas. In the post-Stern Review era there is evidence of a new sense of urgency in tackling climate change and increasing attention being paid to this issue in political discourse. Agriculture retains a strong foothold in the politics of rural development. The UK NRDSP, providing a template for policy interventions between 2007 and 2013, stresses the social significance of agriculture in rural areas as well as the fact that farmers still manage 77 per cent of the rural land area in the UK (DEFRA, 2006c). It also emphasises that the decreasing role of farming in the rural economy is not necessarily linked to an absolute deterioration of the economic feasibility of agriculture across the sector, but is also due – in part - to its decline relative to a growth in manufacturing and services (Allanson, 1996). A new economic dynamic has been observed in traditional agricultural areas, with the local non-agricultural economy becoming a key supporter of farming activities, offering opportunities for diversification, especially in the services and tourism sector (Lowe and Ward, 2007). This underscores the need for greater coordination between farming and emergent economic sectors in the countryside.

New rural governance and planning The ‘governance shift’ (Jessop, 1997) that took place in the UK during the last decades of the twentieth century reconfigured the relationship between the ‘central executive state’ and the ‘client public’ (Marsden, 2006a; see Chapter 2). This shift arguably increased transparency in policy making and the accountability of public institutions, gradually enabling greater participation and representation of a more diverse range of interests in public policy. This issue was picked up in Chapters 1 and 2 where it was suggested that ‘rural spatial governance’ (which is less ‘clientilist’) provides the context

Economic change 87 for the emergence of a new approach to planning. Participative spatial governance has evolved over a number of years, sometimes on the back of the programmes and local initiatives noted in this chapter. Under the new UK NRDSP, for example, local action groups will deliver locally tailored solutions in which the building of capacity in locally led partnerships is a key element. This participatory approach is further encouraged through the LEADER+ initiative, designed to involve local rural communities in developing and testing innovative approaches to integrated and sustainable rural development (Shucksmith et al., 2005). In fact, the widening range of stakeholder involvement in decision making concerning rural development can be linked to the emergence of policy initiatives funded through the EU Structural Funds, which have, for a long time, emphasised the involvement of rural local authorities and communities in development schemes. It is against this backcloth that rural spatial planning is emerging. However, despite the stress on integration in the spatial planning literature (Chapter 1), and upon the core role it should play within the public policy arena, PPS7 (see above) remains surprisingly narrow in its focus. No mention is made of the wider institutional infrastructure in which spatial planning for rural areas should fit, including, that related to rural economic development. In particular, the continuing separation of spatial planning activities from core aspects of agricultural planning seems increasingly anomalous to this perspective. There is some evidence that connections are beginning to be made in the emerging RSSs and LDDs, but it is too early to say whether they are playing a leading role in directing public sector activities in their areas. This perhaps reveals just how far spatial planning has to go if it is to meet the ambitions that have been set out for it. Nevertheless, the idea implicit in the notion of spatial planning of an expanding scope reaching beyond the statutory system of town and country planning and regarding ‘planners’ as actors who are involved in countryside management more widely (Chapter 1) is encouraging a more integrated focus in planning for these different sectors. Given the governance shift which has forged new and expanding networked relationships in policy delivery in agriculture and rural development, it may not be too optimistic to expect similar integration eventually to extend to planning measures.

Conclusions In its early years, planning in Britain has been characterised as being urban focused (Hall, 1996). To the extent to which it did consider rural questions, its concern was very much upon the aesthetics of the countryside, be it from a landscape appreciation, built heritage or nature conservation perspective. During this period, planning tended to equate concern for the rural economy with a concern to protect agricultural land from urban intrusion and in the immediate post way years – because agriculture was exempt from planning control – this largely meant that rural planning attention was directed to other matters. Evidence of more sophisticated thinking and a concern to stem rural economic decline emerged in the 1950s and 1960s in the form of key settlement and new central place policies. However, it was not until the late 1980s that the need to counteract agricultural decline and support the development of a more diverse rural economy became a key feature in government planning guidance for the countryside. It is therefore interesting to note that within PPS7, published in 2004 under the new spatial planning system, a concern to foster a diverse and vibrant rural economy appears as a central rationale of the guidance. This is perhaps indicative

88

The rural economy

of the more general thrust of New Labour policy in maximising the economic potential of all parts of the UK. However, while there is no doubt that economic matters now receive much greater priority within rural planning than in former years, some related aspects of policy appear to have remained unchanged. For example, the emphasis on key settlements (see Chapter 8) still features, as does continuing special attention to environmental quality in rural areas, including those outside national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty (see Chapter 10). The latter, in particular, could seem to be inconsistent with the new emphasis being placed on rural economic development and diversification. This however, reveals yet another paradox in government policy for rural areas at the present time. The very policies that some would say have so actively constrained economic (and indeed other) development in the countryside over the last 70 years are now seen to be partially responsible for the revival in their economic fortunes, with quality of life factors proving to be closely linked to the attraction of new people and investment in rural areas. Indeed those rural areas of lesser environmental quality (often where planning controls have been more lax in the past) appear to be amongst the most economically vulnerable parts of the countryside at the present time.

Figure 3.8 Cumberland Pencil Company factory in Keswick: a traditional rural industry based on local graphite mining.

Economic change 89 This chapter has provided an introduction to the changing face of the rural economy during the last century and explored how public policy interventions have influenced economic shifts. The chapter has also examined how planning has related to rural economic affairs from its origins in the early twentieth century to the present day. The discussion has highlighted: • • •

• • •

•

the close intertwining of economic and social and environmental factors in shaping change in the countryside; the complex pattern of economic well-being that is now apparent in rural Britain; the increasing importance of urban–rural relationships and the close link between the economic well-being of rural areas and the strength of their urban connections; the emergence of a new government paradigm for the rural economy as a locus of entrepreneurial activity, providing the setting for economic growth; changing planning priorities, with the planning system increasingly charged with nurturing a diverse and thriving rural economy; the development of new appreciation of the merits of long-established rural policies related to environmental protection in terms of their links to economic growth; and the, as yet, embryonic relationship of spatial planning to the wider institutional infrastructure of rural economic development, and particularly development programmes which are now turning away from their past focus on farming and the support of primary industry.

Chapter 4 now explores in more detail the changing fortunes of the farming economy. This is followed, in Chapter 5, with further discussion of the development and characteristics of the new rural economy based on consumption.

4

The farming economy

This chapter discusses the peculiar nature of agriculture as an industry and outlines the policies that have influenced its development since the beginning of the last century to the present day. Not only does its role in food production grant agriculture a politically strategic status, but farming also constitutes a significant aspect of the rural lifestyle and environment, nurturing specific social and environmental values. The chapter explains why and how these functions have in the past been managed by governmental intervention. It discusses the historical foundations that still shape the policies that govern agriculture in the UK today and explains how the country’s membership of the EU has influenced the economic and structural development of its agricultural sector. Viewing agriculture’s evolving role both in terms of what economic significance it holds and what social demands it needs to fulfil, the chapter then discusses whether and how the agricultural policy of today is managing to respond to the emerging challenges of evolving consumer demands, global trade liberalisation and environmental protection. We conclude by discussing the role of spatial planning alongside European and national agricultural and rural policies in guiding agriculture onto a more sustainable and ‘multi-functional’ path.

Learning outcomes This chapter outlines the economic and social role of agriculture in the British countryside. It introduces the central concepts that shape our understanding of how agriculture interfaces between society and nature. In addition to this insight, the chapter explains the foundations and the rationale of the policies affecting agriculture today. The chapter aims to: • • • • • •

explain the notion of embeddedness, linking agriculture to wider rural issues; discuss the role of agriculture in the British rural economy; unravel the motivations and main principles of early agricultural policy in the UK; outline the main principles of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the influence of EU membership on the UK agricultural sector; explore the notion of multi-functional agriculture and the related policy response; and introduce the need to reconcile global and local demands on agriculture and forestry;

The farming economy 91

Introduction Agriculture tends to provoke strong feelings amongst both urban and rural populations. In recent years, farming and farmers have appeared to be suffering something of an image problem. Farmers have been subject to a considerable amount of ‘bad press’ in the form of accusations of subsidy-induced overproduction, dumping of excess produce onto world markets (and thus making it impossible for poor countries to get a decent price for their produce), mounting environmental degradation ranging from dirtying farm lanes with manure to destroying the natural biodiversity of the British countryside and, last but not least, getting paid for producing nothing. But are these accusations justified? Did the press really get its facts right? And if it did, how can one sector of the economy be allowed to wreak such havoc at so much public expense? This chapter will take a closer look at the evidence on which these accusations are based. First of all, it is perfectly justified to ask what makes agriculture such a special industry that it deserves to be so heavily subsidised. To most of us the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about agriculture is its role in producing the food we eat. Although that is not the sole function of the industry, this already makes it rather a special (and clearly essential) industry. Food can be viewed as the single most important commodity for the welfare of nations as well as of individuals. Food is crucial in terms of international political stability and consequently of national security. Box 4.1 contains a discussion of the notion of ‘food security’ and its meaning for British agriculture today. While agriculture’s role in food production grants it a strategic status in terms of national security, food is no longer viewed as its sole product. Farming also contributes to the maintenance of a particular type of rural society, and to the environment, maintaining specific social and environmental values. Agriculture is ‘embedded’ in rural space in three key ways (van der Ploeg, 2006; Buttel, 2006): •

•

A special, immediate, relationship with the environment: Farming is closely tied to a specific geographical location and it needs to adapt to the production potential, as well as the challenges, of local ecosystems. However, its relationship with its immediate surroundings can be described as one of mutual dependence: while agriculture depends on the production factors implicit in the natural environment, it also maintains these features, including soil and water resources, the cultural landscape and ‘semi-natural’ habitats that comprise plant and animal species that benefit from farming practices. Farming is the single most significant activity in terms of cultural landscape creation, in other words, ‘creating the countryside’ (Chapter 10). A need to meet societal expectations: Agriculture has had to respond to the changing requirements of society, ranging from the food shortages of the early post-war years to the increasing demands for ‘quality produce’ during recent times. Today, fluctuating consumer opinions and demands can be seen as significant factors in creating the environment of uncertainty in which agriculture operates. In recent decades, a number of food safety crises have been linked to farm practices and agricultural styles, and consumer trust in the ability of farmers to produce safe food has been undermined, leading to new expectations and rules. For example, following the BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) epidemic of the 1980s and early 1990s, beef production is now governed by a robust scheme

92

The rural economy

Box 4.1 Food security The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines food security as a state that exists when all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (for more information see FAO, 2003; Barrett, 2002). Although a lack of food security is clearly a problem that today relates mainly to the poorest parts of the developing world, as a principle, caring for food security is a central concern in the agricultural policies of developed countries. According to calculations from March 2006, the UK is 73.3 per cent self-sufficient in ‘indigenous’ types of food and 60 per cent self-sufficient in all food (DEFRA, 2006e). However, there is a decreasing trend in both types of food self-sufficiency in the UK, as depicted in the graph below. In the global context, nevertheless, some claim that self-sufficiency is a dated concept. Rather, it is suggested that international establishments, such as the OECD and particularly the World Trade Organisation (WTO), where agricultural policies are discussed and international agreements made, should focus on ‘food sovereignty’, which is concerned with eliminating hunger and malnutrition and promoting sustainable farming and food at a global scale (Food Ethics Council, 2006). A global view point to the ability of the UK to provide food for its citizens is all the more meaningful in the context of challenges such as global warming, which is likely to influence the ability of some regions to maintain present levels of production. Both mitigation of the causes of climate change and adaptation to the changes that it will inevitably introduce, require a global focus.

Decreasing food self-sufficiency in the UK 1988–2004 Source: DEFRA statistics © Crown copyright


•

controlling the identity and age of each slaughtered animal following its path from the farm all the way to the shop shelf (DEFRA, 2003b). The agrarian question: The agrarian question refers to the needs and prospects of the farmer and farm business. Farming needs to form a viable livelihood for the family or unit that is running the business. However, the agrarian question does not only concern the farm business: agriculture has, historically, also played a significant role in employing and maintaining rural communities more widely. It has traditionally been at the heart of rural society (Chapter 6), giving communities their traditions (including harvest festivals for example), their social structures (based on landed and landless relationships), and creating and supporting a settlement hierarchy which includes market towns. However, with falling profits and subsequent changes in farm size, use of labour and the nature of the farming business, this role for agriculture has, for a long time, been in decline (Allanson and Whitby, 1996).

Due to the different aspects of its embedded character, farming has been a key part of rural society, but it has also faced constant difficulties and uncertainty. There is uncertainty related to weather conditions, pests that threaten the crops, fluctuating market prices, changing government policies and lately, increasingly fickle consumer demands and opinions. These are some of the reasons why governments throughout the world have felt it necessary to mediate the relationship between agriculture and society through agricultural policies. However, this task is becoming more and more complex as the different aspects of the embedded nature of agriculture become juxtaposed with new emerging pressures and demands. Arguably, these pressures have resulted in a new crisis for British agriculture (North, 2001; PCFF, 2002).

Figure 4.1 Former agricultural workers’ cottages, Alderminster, Warwickshire.

94

The rural economy

Figures and trends in British farming Part of the uncertainty surrounding farming today is generated by its precarious position in the wider economy (Chapter 3). Although farmers at present manage more than 70 per cent of all UK land (by area), agriculture is, in many respects, a declining sector (DEFRA, 2002a). This is a long-term trend, although the last ten or so years have seen the most drastic fluctuations. Farm income figures provide a good indication of the health of the industry. The low point of agricultural income in the UK was in 2000, while 1995 saw agricultural incomes peak above any earlier years. At present, incomes are rising, but still remain approximately 50 per cent below the peak reached in 1995. Looking at the future prospects in light of policy, namely the constantly evolving Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), there is likely to be little changes to farm income in the near future. In the UK, the main causes of fluctuation will be possible variations in the exchange rate between the pound and the euro and second, productivity, mainly in relation to the increases in productivity in the other big European producers including France and Germany. Table 4.1 displays the changes that occurred in net agricultural income between 1999 and 2006. Although income levels continue to fluctuate, they have slowly recovered from the slump experienced in 2000, but experience between farming sectors varies considerably. The decreasing influence of EU subsidies (particularly within the cereal and livestock sectors), which no longer provide a buffer against decreasing market prices, generally accounts for income volatility during this period. The only farming sector experiencing considerable income growth has been poultry. The 2000 low in farm income is also shown in Figure 4.2, which displays the general fall in farm income since 1970. Understandably, farming no longer constitutes a popular occupation: the number of farmers is decreasing year on year. However, this is not necessarily reflected in a decrease in the number of farms, as British agriculture is also undergoing structural change: farm sizes are increasing and a growing number of farmers augment their incomes by renting land from those who are downscaling and perhaps preparing to withdraw from agriculture altogether – hence the difference between the income per head and total farming income shown in Figure 4.2. Moreover, recent research has discovered that the vast majority of farmers, at least in England, aim to stay on the land and secure their income though a variety of strategies of diversification: in other words, making farming their secondary source of income (Lobley et al., 2005).

Table 4.1

Net farm income by type of farm (£) 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Dairy Grazing livestock (less favoured area) Grazing livestock (lowland) Cereals General cropping Specialist pigs Specialist poultry Mixed Horticulture ALL TYPES Source: DEFRA, 2006e

9,200 5,600

14,000 5,900

30,900 7,400

16,400 17,700

23,600 15,000

26,400 13,400

27,100 11,800

500 15,300 7,400 –10,900 5,000 7,200 20,100 8,700

–400 7,500 18,600 42,100 30,000 7,600 21,600 10,600

–100 5,900 17,500 21,600 26,700 4,500 35,400 14,900

6,400 13,200 15,600 25,300 97,100 11,400 34,600 16,600

7,100 36,400 56,800 34,400 53,200 24,400 40,600 29,500

5,400 15,600 32,200 25,100 89,700 16,400 28,400 21,200

5,300 14,100 26,700 29,000 97,500 17,400 32,700 21,00


Figure 4.2 Farm income fluctuations Source: DEFRA, 2006e © Crown copyright

Falling farm incomes have been driven by a steady decrease in the price that producers receive for their produce relative to the cost of production. Expanding farm sizes are one symptom of this price squeeze on agriculture: another has been the intensification of production that has supported a steady rise in crop and livestock yields over recent years. Nevertheless, the graphs in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 reveal that the size of the agricultural sector – both in terms of its contribution to the national economy and in terms of how many people it employs – has been steadily decreasing for some time. That said, it should be remembered that agriculture is an integral part of a much larger economic sector – the agri-food sector – which, in addition to farmers and farm labour, includes people working in the fishing industry, as well as food and drink wholesalers, retailers and the service industry (PCFF, 2002). The share of persons employed in the agri-food sector of the total UK workforce was 14.5 per cent in 2005, and it contributed 7.6 percent of gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy (DEFRA, 2006e). Agriculture’s share of GVA is a little less than 10 per cent of that of this whole ‘agri-food sector’. In light of these trends, it is easy to forget that in terms of productivity and technological development the post-war era represents somewhat of a golden age for agriculture. Crop production levels (i.e. the main crops: wheat, barley, oats, rye, potatoes and sugar beet) grew at a rate of between 2 per cent and 3 per cent per annum (Britton, 1990). In the immediate post-war years, agricultural productivity was buoyed by policies and planning measures that helped it get back onto its feet after the difficult early years of the twentieth century and the hardships of the wars. Science – including new technology and chemistry – facilitated a rapid increase in productivity, which helped Britain through a difficult period of food shortages and rationing immediately after the Second World War. But this surge in productivity did not have a lasting positive impact on the economic situation at farm level, as both farm subsidies and market prices for agricultural products have declined since the 1960s. Moreover, intensification of production and the growing yields have not been achieved without a price. Technological development has, in the post-war era,

96

The rural economy

Figure 4.3 Agriculture’s share of annual GVA Source: DEFRA, 2006e © Crown copyright

significantly altered agriculture’s relationship with local ecosystems. Innovations have helped farmers to gain greater control over natural forces and local characteristics but have also inflicted a more severe impact on them. Environmental sustainability is now a significant driving force behind government policy for agriculture, although critics continue to express doubts over the extent to which environmental concerns are really embedded in decision making (Evans et al., 2002; Wilson, 2001; Juntti, 2006). The next section discusses the role of governmental intervention – agricultural policies – in guiding and instigating the changes that British agriculture has been undergoing and will be subject to in the near future. Part and parcel of the forces that have influenced the development trajectory of the agricultural sector in the last decades is the gradual liberalisation of agricultural markets and growing dependence on decision making at an international level, either by the European Union or the World Trade Organisation (WTO). While British agriculture is becoming increasingly exposed to international market forces, the demands and expectations of British people in regard to agricultural production in their own country are also evolving. These new pressures, as well as the technological developments that have taken place within agriculture and forestry in the last half-century, represent a significant change from the early years of the twentieth century, when the guiding principles of policy intervention were established. A third section of this chapter – the ‘emergent issues’ – describes how agricultural policy has had to adjust from responding to acute market instability and a substantial threat of food shortages of the early twentieth century to the presentday problems of severe overproduction, economic and social marginalisation and accumulating environmental challenges. New approaches to planning sit alongside the evolving principles of agricultural and rural development policy to guide agriculture and forestry onto a more diverse economic basis and a ‘multi-functional’ role in the British countryside (Wilson, 2007). The concluding section discusses the persistent dilemmas, over the future function and role of farming (in rural society and in terms of environmental management) that continue to tax policy makers and planners.


Figure 4.4 A farm in the Chiltern Hills, Bedfordshire

Key debates: the development and rationale of agricultural policy from the post-war years to the present day Early agricultural and planning policies The foundations of today’s agricultural policy were laid in the late nineteenth century. At this time, the sector was experiencing a depression caused by cheap imports from the expanding new territories – mainly within the Americas – which became a cheap source of food for Britain. Similarly, the ‘Imperial Food System’ (with Britain importing produce from its colonies: Winter, 1996) meant that production at home was competing with imports from much more favourable climates in areas with an abundance of cheap labour. In certain respects, the situation was not dissimilar to present conditions of gradual and ongoing dismantling of the import tariffs and export subsidies that have protected European farmers from the competition that they would be exposed to in a liberalised global market. However, in the previous century, the onset of First World War alerted the government to the strategic value of a strong primary production sector at home. A modest price support regime was put in place in order to ensure that agricultural production would remain viable enough to provide food security to the nation regardless of fluctuations in agricultural prices (Murdoch, 1996). The real boost to agriculture through the formation of a comprehensive agricultural policy in the UK arrived after the Second World War – in the form of the 1947 Agriculture Act – which set British agriculture on a path towards expansion, modernisation and economic competitiveness. The impact of the wars and the realisation of the value of a strong domestic primary production sector clearly contributed to the production of a favourable political climate for agriculture in the early post war era. The 1947 Agriculture Act indicated that ‘[…] the twin pillars upon which the government’s agricultural policy rests are stability and

98

The rural economy

efficiency. The method of providing stability is through guaranteed prices and assured markets’ (Carter and Standsfield, 1994: 3). This ‘productivist’ attitude was also reflected in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which exempted agriculture from land-use control, and protected farmland from encroachment. Planning legislation was focused sharply on preservation: rural land was to be maintained in the use of farming, so that agriculture could develop freely in terms of efficiency and productivity (Murdoch, 1996). The farming sector’s strong political position was consolidated by the formation of a rather peculiar policy community in the immediate aftermath of the war. A special relationship developed between agricultural interest organisations, such as the National Farmers Union (NFU), the Country Landowners Association (CLA) and the Royal Agricultural Society of England as well as the regional councils for agriculture, and the government. The position of this ‘policy community’ was enshrined in the Agriculture Act 1947, which granted the ‘representative bodies of the industry’ a statutory right to consultation in the annual review in which the levels of guarantee and deficiency payments were negotiated (Box 4.2: see Winter, 1996). This policy community was characterised by a shared economic interest in the agricultural sector, a shared belief in the sector’s ability to develop and provide positive returns on investment, and a common agreement on the ambitions of the sector: • • • •

scientific research could play a significant role in increasing agricultural productivity; farm management could be made more economically efficient with the help of a publicly funded education and farm advisory system; family farming was the best way forward; and environmental and food quality were a natural outcome of economically sound agriculture (the stewardship idea: Winter 1996: 103).

Thus, post-war policy was based on the core beliefs that scientific progress and efficient economic management at farm-level were crucial for the development of the British agricultural sector to meet the needs of the domestic population and to grow into a strong export industry. This meant that agricultural research, education and dissemination (spreading of new knowledge and innovations amongst farmers) were encouraged by the government. A ‘National Agricultural Advisory Service’ was set up as a part of the Ministry of Agriculture. The annual review became the focus of agricultural policy-making and meant that the rules of agricultural support effectively bypassed parliamentary scrutiny. This strong influence of agricultural interest organisations is still visible in the sector today, and remains a cause – for some – to criticise the hegemony of farming. As we noted in Chapter 3, the ruling philosophy in post-war farming was ‘productivism’, where increasing the amount of crop and livestock production in relation to inputs in the form of workforce and chemicals, was the principal focus of all research, development and policies concerning the agricultural sector (Britton, 1990; Lowe, 1996; Wilson, 2001; Murdoch, 2006). Within this context, farm incomes rose and farmers had the confidence to invest in infrastructure and technology. One clear winner of the productivist era was arable farming, as incomes attached to smaller farms engaged in ‘mixed’ and ‘hill farming’ rose more slowly. Farm mechanisation and reduction in labour continued steadily with potato and sugar


Box 4.2 Post-war agricultural policies: a summary The 1947 Agriculture Act prescribed a framework for: • direct funding for agricultural research and development and for the promotion of new farming technologies; • support policies to encourage farmers to invest in these technologies including a system of guaranteed prices, to be reviewed yearly; • the establishment of a commercially viable agricultural sector of large, full-time farms employing one farmer and one farm worker. Prices were fixed for the main crops: wheat, barley, oats, rye, potatoes and sugar beet 18 months ahead, and minimum prices for livestock, milk and eggs for two years ahead. Food rationing remained in place until 1953. In the late 1940s and early 1950s support systems to provide incentives for mechanisation of farming practices and increasing productivity through the use of fertilisers and pesticides were introduced. These included: • • • •

fertiliser subsidies; ploughing grants; beef/calf subsidies; and farm improvement grants, first for hill farmers, and then for the wider farming population.

In the 1950s, due to a fall in world prices and consequent rising costs to the government from the guaranteed price system, the payments were gradually switched to minimum deficiency payments. Thus, the state compensated farmers only when the price of a commodity fell below the minimum price negotiated for each commodity in the annual review. The central purpose of the 1957 Agriculture Act (revising the 1947 subsidy system) was to limit the soaring public spending on agriculture. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, in order to further cut costs, the government introduced fixed quantities for the amounts of produce that it was to support. The support quota system started with milk quotas in the late 1950s and was extended to barley, pigs, eggs and cereals. The government deficiency payments were only to be paid for set amounts of each of these commodities, so that excess production was allowed to find its own market level. The 1960s also saw the introduction of import controls in order to protect the viability of domestic production in the face of growing international food surpluses, flooding the world market. While a minimum price was set for imported products, productivity of British farming continued to grow together with technological change, spurred on by the ‘price squeeze’ of agriculture (see below). At this point farms were under considerable pressure to expand and seek economies of scale. Small farmers were feeling the brunt of the competition and farm sizes increased rapidly. With the British accession to the then European Community in 1973, price deficiency payments were swapped for the protection and intervention payments of the Common Agricultural Policy. Farms in the UK benefited from accession and the strong farm lobbies of France and Germany. Source: Winter, 1996

100

The rural economy

Figure 4.5 A farming landscape, the Chiltern Hills, Bedfordshire

beet farming becoming almost entirely mechanised. The impact of mechanisation, particularly on arable farms, was manifest in an increase in field sizes, as equipment needed to be used to capacity in order to pay for its purchase. This is one of the factors that tied farmers to a ‘technological treadmill’ driven by an imperative to increase productivity by constantly innovating and intensifying production (Britton, 1990) in order to win subsidies, pay for expansion, and thereby win further subsidy support. The earliest adopters of any new technology tended to receive the highest returns, while others – relying on older, less productive methods – tended to be sidelined in this race. This treadmill had additional implications: for example, increased profits encouraged tenant farmers to purchase land, which they had hitherto been renting, and thus owner-occupation of farms also increased. Yet, despite increasing farm sizes, the family farm remained the basic building block of British agriculture, as is the case in most farming sectors the world over. According to Reinhardt and Barlett (1989) family farms are characterised by the centrality of ‘kinship relations’ and the direct involvement of the farm owner in daily work, whilst non-family farms are characterised by the separation of business ownership, management and labour. Agriculture can therefore be seen as very much a family business and thus guided not only by rational economic laws, but by the availability of labour within the family as well as the availability and willingness of successors to maintain the ‘tradition’ of farming. It remains – in many instances – a community and family industry, still embedded in rural life.


The era of the Common Agricultural Policy Increasing farm sizes and decreasing numbers of agricultural workers have formed a clear trend in British agriculture throughout the post-war era and particularly since the 1960s. However, with a growing budget and emerging food surpluses, domestic support for farming began to be scaled back during the 1960s (Box 4.2). This decade saw the cooling-off of relations in the agricultural policy community. From a government view point there was mounting political sensitivity about the extent and effects of agricultural subsidies and a shift in the focus of attention to other more economically productive sectors of the economy. But in 1973, when Britain joined the then European Community (EC) of six countries (now the European Union, EU of 27 countries), its agricultural sector benefited from the stronger political position of its farming counterparts in the EC’s founding member states. The original members of the EC6 – Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg – had set up a strong support system for the agricultural sector in order to sustain its recovery from the Second World War and, more importantly, to respond to the desperate need for increased domestic food supply in post-war Europe, parts of which suffered from famine during and after the war. The French agricultural sector had, prior to the wars, comprised relatively large farms and production that had been geared for export, which meant that the French had pressed for the inclusion of measures to maintain and enhance the competitiveness of European produce on the international market. The main mechanisms of the Common Agricultural Policy of 1972 are listed in Box 4.3. These ‘founding principles’ of the CAP have since evolved significantly as agriculture’s role in society has changed throughout Europe. However, in order to understand how the CAP works, it is important to recognise the significant role that the member state governments have in forming and managing the policy. The diagram contained in Figure 4.6 notes the key actors – the farming ‘policy network’ – in the CAP at the level of the EU and in the UK. Greer (2005) has conducted extensive research on the nature and present state of the CAP and stresses that national agricultural policies are by no means subservient

Box 4.3 Five CAP principles – and related mechanisms • Free circulation of agricultural commodities within the Community • Guarantee of single minimum prices for each agricultural commodity within the Union (the intervention or floor price) • Preference given to products from within the boundaries of the Union (import taxes for products from other countries); • Support given to exports to compensate for the difference of the EU floor price and the world price of the product in question (restitution payments for products exported outside the Community); • ‘Financial solidarity amongst member states’, which meant the formation of the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF), financed from the income from levies on imports of agricultural products into the Community and of direct contributions from each member state, based on each country’s annual VAT yield. Source: Winter, 1996

102

The rural economy

Figure 4.6 Farming policy network

The farming economy 103 to the CAP or dictated by Brussels. The CAP is solely a system of farm support that carries with it a set of standards for production methods and certain aspects of the quality of production, but central issues such as social security for farmers, finance and taxation and agricultural education are not included in the CAP, nor influenced by decision making in Brussels. Second, the role of national governments is central in decision making on the content and form of the CAP, which happens in the Agricultural Council (Figure 4.6). While the European Commission is an administrative body, it is in the Agricultural Council where the agricultural ministers of all the member states meet on a monthly basis to make the final decisions over policy. The council is where the bargaining between member states over policy details, which may be less suited for some compared to others, takes place. In order to ease the challenge of achieving a compromise in the Council, representatives of the member states also negotiate on the final form of policy proposals in the various committees of the Council. Moreover, commission officials work in close collaboration with national governments in the hope that pan-European conflict over farm policy can be avoided or at least reduced. This is in order to minimise the changes that need to be made in Council committees and by the ministers. Agricultural interest organisations (Figure 4.6) play a significant part – even at the EU level – and the Commission officials regularly consult representatives of an expert body – the Committee for Agricultural Organisations on the EU, or COPA – when designing the policy proposals, in an attempt to build grass-roots support for the direction of its policies. That said, the agricultural lobby’s main influence on the CAP is at national level, with national unions regularly lobbying and attempting to apply pressure on their respective governments, and are often able to influence policy prior to implementation (Juntti and Potter, 2002).

The birth of agri-environmental policy It is important to understand that the present-day CAP has evolved considerably from what it was in the early 1970s when Britain joined the Community. The overhaul of the ‘old school’ ‘productivist’ CAP began in earnest with the ‘McSharry’ reforms – named after the then Commissioner for Agriculture, Ray McSharry – of 1992. Amongst other things, the 1992 reform introduced agri-environmental support schemes as an accompanying measure to the CAP (Buller et al., 2000). The Agri-environmental Regulation (EC 2078/92: later superseded by EC 1257/99) obligates each member state to formulate agri-environmental programmes through which farmers can apply for compensation of ‘costs incurred and income forgone’ for undertaking environmental measures that go beyond what can be seen as ‘good farming practice’ entailing compliance with existing environmental requirements. This move to recognise the capacity of agriculture to deliver more than food products – and acknowledge its environmental ‘embeddedness’ (see earlier discussion) – has been followed by two further policy reforms. The UK, along with the Netherlands and Denmark, acted as pioneers in addressing environmental questions in agriculture on the European stage (Baldock and Lowe, 1996; Potter 1998). In the UK, increasing criticism of the existing agricultural subsidy system also drew attention to the detrimental environmental impacts of production-linked subsidies, especially in environmentally vulnerable areas. The idea of paying farmers not to perform environmentally detrimental operations within the agricultural environment was incorporated into the reformed

104

The rural economy

Wildlife and Countryside Act in 1981 (Hart and Wilson, 2000). Friction between the preventative environmental payments and the aims of the agricultural subsidy system, and the unintended environmental impacts of agricultural initiatives such as ‘less favoured areas’ (LFAs) support, paved the way for changes to the existing approach (Baldock and Lowe, 1996; Winter, 1996; Potter, 1998). As a result of conflicts between farmers and environmentalists, a solution was sought in the form of what seemed at the time to be a rather radical intervention. Farmers in a selected environmentally vulnerable area – the Halvergate Marshes – were paid compensation for continuing with traditional extensive farming methods, thereby maintaining existing environmental qualities (Potter, 1998; Hart and Wilson, 2000). Rather than paying farmers not to do something environmentally detrimental by taking land out of farming, the government provided farmers with compensation for maintaining existing (environmentally more sustainable) farming practices (Potter, 1998). Financial compensation for conserving healthy countryside could also be viewed as an attempt to reconcile the conflict between farmers and conservationists over the use of rural land. The principles for compensating farmers for the maintenance of the environment had been cast. Some years later, the idea of environmental maintenance support surfaced at the European level. Britain acted as a key player in promoting a regulatory amendment (affecting Regulation 797/85, Article 19) so as to provide the possibility of granting agri-environmental aid for specially designated areas in order to encourage more ‘appropriate’ farming practices (Baldock and Lowe, 1996; Allanson and Whitby, 1996; Winter, 1996; Potter, 1998). At first it was only reluctantly agreed that the member states could provide farmers with financial incentives to continue with traditional farming systems rather than to intensify production. Attitudes however changed, and some years later, it was agreed (and reflected in Regulation 1760/87) that up to a ceiling, national ‘maintenance payment schemes’ could be eligible for a 25 per cent reimbursement from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF: see Baldock and Lowe, 1996). By the early 1990s criticism of the problems of surplus production, environmental damage and the increasing financial burden caused by the CAP system of guaranteed prices and export subsidies for agricultural products had amplified (Baldock and Lowe, 1996; Potter, 1998; Billing, 1998; Buller et al., 2000). This criticism prompted the 1992 McSharry reforms, entailing price reductions for major agricultural products and introducing direct payments to compensate for the effects of this at the farm level (Brouwer and Lowe, 2000). Criticism of the system within the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) framework and the prospective enlargement of the Community added momentum to this process. Almost as a side effect, comprehensive agri-environmental policy emerged as a part of the 1992 CAP reform agreement. An Agri-environmental Regulation (ECC 2078/92) was created as a response to the more specific need to integrate environmental concerns more firmly into agricultural policy (again, reflecting agriculture’s ‘embeddedness’) providing alternative channels for direct support into farming and delivering income support for less profitable farm practices, but which were regarded as environmentally friendly (Buller et al., 2000).

The new, decoupled CAP of quality production After two further CAP reforms in 1999 (the establishment of ‘Agenda 2000’) and 2003 (the CAP mid-term review), price support for agricultural commodities no longer

The farming economy 105 forms the mainstay of the subsidies, but instead, arable and livestock farmers receive a ‘single farm payment’ (SFP) which is calculated, not according to how much the farm produces, but according to farm size. Furthermore, whilst horticultural production does not enjoy any direct subsidies from the EU, it can – like all farms – profit from ‘rural development funds’, which are directed at farm modernisation, diversification of income sources, retirement arrangements, support for young farmers, afforestation and the production of ‘environmental goods’ (Chapter 3). This means that more of the common agricultural budget is now directed to the countryside through rural development programmes. In practice this means that less of the farming budget is dedicated to conventional agricultural goods – i.e. food. These changes to the CAP mirror the changes that have been taking place in rural communities in Britain in recent decades (Chapter 6). The policy jargon singles out two ‘pillars’ of present-day EU agricultural policy – the first pillar is that of the direct payments for farms, the SFP, and the second pillar is formed by funds directed at rural development. Although farmers are among the principal recipients of the rural development funds, these monies can be used to support a much wider and more diverse range of activities which have broader economic benefits for rural communities and support ‘multi-functional’ agriculture which produces both food and environmental goods (Van Huylenbroeck and Durand, 2003; Wilson, 2007). Without question, the most significant change to the CAP since its conception has been the almost complete ‘decoupling’ of the amount of agricultural support from the amount of production. The level of support that a farmer receives is no longer dependent on crop or livestock output. Instead, the reforms have brought the issue of ‘quality’ of production to the foreground in determining how agricultural subsidies will be allocated. A ‘cross-compliance’ mechanism – introduced in the 2003 review of the CAP – now means that farmers in receipt of the SFP have to comply with 19 regulations concerning environmental conservation and protection, animal welfare and food safety, and a set of standards defining good agricultural and environmental practice, mainly dealing with the quality of agricultural soil. Any breaches of compliance with any of these regulations result in the withdrawal of a percentage of or, in some cases all, subsidies received. Moreover, the reforms have cut the amount of subsidies that farmers receive so that, whereas in 1992 the CAP constituted 61 per cent of the EU budget, it now comprises roughly 45 per cent. Much has been said and written about the huge proportion that agriculture swallows of the EU budget. Nevertheless, while it is important to keep track of public spending, it is also important to understand that the EU is not comparable to a nation state and its budget is limited to only a few functions that the treaty which established the European Community designates as common to all member states (Figure 4.7). It is also worth remembering that rural areas constitute about 90 per cent of the land area of the EU, and are home to 11 per cent of its citizens (Fischler, 2004). The look of the European countryside would alter significantly without CAP or if tax payers did not support farming’s role in maintaining the countryside. According to Franz Fischler, a long-standing Agricultural Commissioner in the European Commission, and a leader of recent CAP reform: […] our rural areas would either be industrialised or abandoned, both of which would pay the price of sustainability. With a targeted policy, in which farm support is dependent on rural management, we are able to support farmers as producers and preservers, of the environment and of quality. The policy does

106

The rural economy

Figure 4.7 Allocation of the EU budget in 2006 Source: Commission of the European Community (2006)

affect every European citizen […] but it is not through its cost to the taxpayer, it is through the many services that it provides. This is the message we have to get across. (Fischler, 2004) Not everyone may agree with this view, but it is clear that radical change is afoot in the agricultural policy sector and the reform process that started in 1992 has not yet finished: the SFP is a diminishing subsidy, due to be renegotiated in 2013, and some foresee it being run into the ground completely. In any case, European agriculture is facing increasing pressure in the international market arena to liberalise its policies. This might seem a reasonable demand, but it would mean significant changes to the countryside, which is still managed by ‘family farms’ in many instances, and where often landscape and biodiversity features depend on small-scale, low-productivity farming practices such as extensive cattle grazing which, without EU subsidies, and because of extremely low global prices, would be impossible to maintain in most cases.

Emergent issues: the present challenges for policy and planning in the agricultural sector Negative externalities of productivism The success story of productivist agriculture in the post-war era is tainted by problems brought about by intensification of production, the implications of increased efficiency and decreased need for manpower, which have affected both rural environments and communities (Winter, 1996; DEFRA, 2002a). The ensuing environmental and social problems have, in places, been accentuated by a consumption shift in the countryside, which emphasises the consumption value inherent in rural areas, reflected in lifestyle aspirations (and migration pressures – see Chapter 6) and the consumption of landscape and environmental goods (Chapters 5 and 10). The Curry Report, produced by the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (PCFFF, 2002) and which evaluates the current trajectory of British agriculture, contributes a whole chapter to environmental issues linked to agriculture. It emphasises that, at present, agriculture is

The farming economy 107 not only fragile in terms of economic viability but it is also on an unsustainable course in terms of the environment. The report lists – as long-term environmental concerns – the loss of central landscape features and animal and plant species due to the pressure on farmers to expand the size of cropping areas and use heavier machinery. One example of this is the removal of hedgerows, which grant much of the arable landscape its characteristic structure (i.e. the ‘patchwork quilt’ of fields that epitomises pastoral England) and which support a diversity of wildlife (Carter and Stansfield, 1994). Intensive cultivation methods and the increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides have also led to a reduction in soil quality and to agriculture being deemed responsible for a third of the serious pollution incidents occurring in surface waters such as rivers and lakes. In line with the post-war productivist ideology, the use of pest control and the elimination of weeds came to be seen as ‘good farming practice’ and the years between 1950 and 1980 are often referred to as Britain’s ‘chemical revolution’ in farming (Ward, 1996). Today, the use of pesticides is acknowledged as a problem for biodiversity, as chemicals impact on wildlife other than ‘pest’ species. Moreover, pesticides can pose a threat to human health as they become leached into surface and ground waters, leaving residues in both food products and drinking water. However, the Curry Report maintains that agriculture and the environment remain linked by farming’s ‘stewardship’ role. More than three-quarters of the British countryside comprises farmed landscapes, which means that agriculture plays a crucial role in its creation and maintenance. This grants farmers a central role as the managers of the countryside. Consequently, the report also emphasises the need to reconnect farming with its environment in more benign ways. Finally, and because of the recent intensification of production methods, there have been an increasing number of problems related to what can be called ‘food safety’. The BSE crisis (introduced earlier in this chapter) was followed by a bout of salmonella incidences in poultry products and the most recent problem has been the foot and mouth disease epidemic (joined by an outbreak of the blue tongue virus in 2007), which arguably escalated because of the long distances of transportation of live animals that is now characteristic of the meat production chain in the UK (North, 2001). The ways in which this environmental critique of established agriculture practices is stimulating new patterns of farming and farm management, including the growth of organic farming and the development of the ‘local food’ sector, are discussed in Chapter 5. Mounting environmental problems are, however, not the only externality of the productivist philosophy, characteristic of the ‘golden age’. The mechanisation and intensification of agriculture, with a related decline in the agricultural workforce and an increase in farm sizes, has resulted in important changes in rural communities, as farm employees have been replaced (or displaced through competition for homes) by incomers from urban areas (Chapters 6 and 7). The small amount of labour employed by farms these days has to be highly skilled, in order to safely and effectively use machinery and chemicals. It also needs to be versatile so as to be able to undertake a wide range of work. The modern farm manager or worker will often have trained in an agricultural college. However, Brun and Fuller (1992) note that it has become increasingly difficult for farming households to make a living exclusively from farming: indeed, in their research from the late 1980s, they discovered that 58 per cent of farm households, spread across 24 areas in western Europe, had ‘diversified’ into other income generating activities, either on or off the farm. Part-time farming and a consequent diversification of income sources for the farm economy are both important current trends in the UK. The increase in part-time farming is also related to the

108

The rural economy

strong tradition that still persists of passing the farm on to the oldest, usually male, offspring, whether these individuals take a great interest in farming or not. This, together with financial and policy pressures has led to farming becoming increasingly a part-time activity, with more and more farmers holding down a job elsewhere, even in a nearby city (and becoming ‘absentee’ or ‘hobby’ farmers) or undertaking contract work for other farmers in the area. In the UK, 61 per cent of farmers have found an alternative source of income to farming, either in the form of on-farm or off-farm economic activity (DEFRA, 2006e). Tourism and recreation, in particular, now form an important alternative income source for many farmers and these diversification strategies are also discussed further in Chapter 5.

Towards the ‘disembeddedness’ of agriculture? The crisis of British agriculture extends beyond the state of the farm economy and is not purely economic in scope. In view of its share of public funding, the evident decline in public trust in the quality of British food is a worrying trend. Although policy efforts have, for quite some time, been focused on mitigating the negative environmental effects of farming, these have also attracted criticism, with the result that agriculture is also viewed as failing in its function in managing the rural environment for the public good. Admittedly, a political inability to curb farm subsidies – because of the power of farming’s ‘policy community’ – is a factor sustaining farming’s productivist rationale, and a source of public frustration. However, attributing farming’s environmental failings on CAP subsidies would be oversimplifying matters, leaving several other driving forces behind the negative externalities of agriculture unaddressed. In order to fully understand the reasons behind the present economic, social and environmental crisis of agriculture it is helpful to return to the notion of the ‘embeddedness’ of agriculture. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the task of managing the different aspects of embeddeness is becoming more and more complex as they have become juxtaposed with new pressures and demands directed at agriculture, arising from both domestic and international forces. Embeddedness was for a long time achieved by conforming to what can be called regional styles of agriculture, attuned to regional ecosystems and markets (van der Ploeg, 2006). This, however, began to change with the enlargement of markets and with technological development. New policies were therefore needed to maintain equilibrium, an example being CAP itself. Also, farmers themselves responded to these changes by organising themselves into co-operatives, farmers organisations and collectives, which often still play a significant role in influencing public intervention in the sector. Nevertheless the second half of the twentieth century saw an unravelling of the farm-ecosystem relationship and technological innovations and policy decisions gained an increasingly central role in determining what was produced and in what quantity. The notion of ‘regional farming styles’ has now been largely replaced by what can be termed ‘socio-technical’ regimes characterised by schemes of prescription, control and sanctioning (van der Ploeg, 2006). The homogenisation of agriculture has been an ongoing process since the onset of what Winter (1996) has called the ‘Atlantic food system’ after the wars, implying the need for increased productivity and competitiveness. National and international pressures have caused a ‘disembedding’ of agriculture from its local and regional context. The crucial change here is that in the new ‘socio-technical regime’ (van der Ploeg, 2006) it is the logic of ‘unembedded’ finance capital that influences agricultural

The farming economy 109 production, rather than any of the aspects of the embeddedness of agriculture. This has implications for the position of the European farmer (and the agrarian question, which now becomes a global issue rather than a local one) and also for consumer trust and knowledge about the products that are on offer, as well as for the environment. It would seem that yet more regulation is required to coordinate farming’s global dimension, ensuring fairness in production and trade arrangements. For example, there is a tendency for the production of cheap commodities and raw materials to be assigned to developing countries (Food Ethics Council, 2006), reinforcing existing patterns of poverty. Trade flows are closely controlled by a decreasing number of agri-business companies and the developing world is becoming increasingly dependent on ‘northwestern’ markets for domestically consumed products. This global ‘division of labour’ is yet another factor removing farming from its local settings, and local communities. Two trends can be identified that underlie the externalities arising from the productivist regime, and which characterise the present-day global food system: •

•

First, due to ‘the hollowing out of the state’ (see Rhodes, 1994; and Food Ethics Council, 2005a, for particular application of this idea), international as well as sub-national (regional) actors play an increasing role in determining how food is produced and to whom it is sold. The most prominent international example is perhaps the WTO, which acts as a champion of free trade, aiming to achieve global-level agreement on the liberalisation of international trade. However, considering the difficulties faced in the recent Doha round of negotiations, the potential of trade liberalisation in the agricultural sector is debatable (Food Ethics Council, 2006). National governments still continue to administer considerable subsidy payments to their own agricultural sectors. At the sub-national level, a phenomenon particularly pertinent in the UK is that of the transfer of power to sub-national level organisations such as the regional development agencies which play a significant role in attracting investment to the regions and boosting innovation. This is part of a wider ‘governance shift’ noted earlier, placing emphasis on forging partnerships with local institutions for the purpose of policy delivery (Murdoch, 2006). The second trend, closely linked to the hollowing out of the state, is the increasing role of wholesalers and the retail industry in mediating the productionsociety relationship. In fact, a major role in determining what finds its way onto supermarket shelves is played by food manufacturing and the retail industry. Just to illustrate the power that the retail sector holds in the agri-food industry, in 2003 there were approximately 110 supermarket buying-in desks that mediated the flow of produce from Europe’s 3.2 million farmers to its 160 million consumers (Grievink, 2003; see also Food Ethics Council, 2005b). It has been forecast by Lang and Heasman (2004) that in a few years time, no more than six companies will dominate the global food market. Whereas the UK leader at the moment is Tesco, Wal-Mart is much larger at a global scale. The growth of supermarkets and the soaring popularity of fast-food chains means that it is these retailers that have a significant scope to control all stages of the food production chain – e.g. the appearance of fresh fruits on the menu of McDonalds is said to have caused upheaval in the apple production sector. A crucial factor in the increasing power of the retail industry is the phenomenon of self regulation: several retail chains now impose self-administered standards concerning food safety and quality, in addition to those implemented by national governments, thereby adding value

110

The rural economy and reducing liability (Marsden, 2006b). The efforts of the retail industry to regulate the food chain also contribute towards stabilising supply.

Paths to crisis resolution It is apparent from the discussion above that an increasingly disparate set of interest groups – ranging from global to local players – influence the future of agriculture. It could be concluded that within this confusing tangle it is likely that the forces of global capitalism will ultimately be most influential and will increasingly serve to ‘dis-embed’ agriculture from its local context, increasingly weakening the direct link between farmer and consumer. However, the direction of British agriculture is by no means clear. There are some signs of a ‘post-productivist’ trend, in which agriculture reaffirms its local embeddedness. This could lead to environmentally sensitive production techniques and increased attention to ‘quality’ aspects of production both in terms of food quality as well as the other environmental and social values that agriculture can be seen to be producing in the countryside. In Wales, for example, the Welsh Assembly Government has underlined the importance of nurturing socially, economically and environmentally sustainable agriculture (WAG, 2001). This view is also supported by the growing trend of collective action at the grassroots, with consumers and farmers organising themselves in order to be able to contest the power of the supermarkets and the pressures imposed on them by the liberalising global trade regime. One example of these backlashes in the UK is the local food movement, principally manifest in the growing popularity of farmers’ markets (Chapter 5). The Curry Report (PCFFF, 2002) argues a case for reconnecting the consumer with the producer. In practice, this means greater provision of information concerning where, for example, the fruit and vegetables that we buy have come from. The idea of ‘local food’ refers to products that are sold (at restaurants, in grocery stores or in supermarkets) close to where they have been grown. Farmers’ markets embody several of the principles set out in the Curry Report in that they involve farmers from usually a 70-mile radius selling their produce, often in person, to consumers. This practice not only fulfils the criteria of ‘local food’ but also means that the consumer and the producer can exchange information at the point of purchase: i.e. they are (directly) reconnected. The Curry Report set an official target of achieving 400 farmers’ markets UK-wide, which has since been reached and exceeded. The key concepts around which government strategy on food and farming are based are personalisation and informed choice. Although civil society movements can be seen to have most impact in ‘empowering’ producers in the developing world, their influence in bringing these issues into public consciousness in the developed world and in providing consumers with an ethical alternative is steadily increasing. However, this ‘post-productivist’ view of the future of agriculture is not universally accepted and assertions that it is now an established trend have been judged premature by some critics (Wilson, 2001; Evans et al., 2002; Potter and Tilzey, 2005). According to a recent report by the Food Ethics Council (2006) for example, government policy – particularly in England – is still not sufficiently strong on developing the social dimension of the embedded character of agriculture. Similarly, several studies indicate that regardless of the existing range of environmental support mechanisms and regulations, government policy continues to favour economic rather than environmentally sustainable management decisions. It is thus concluded that a possible shift away from the productivist logic, potentially supported by existing agri-environmental policy

The farming economy 111 instruments, is not always reflected in the motivations and aims of farmers or policy implementers (Wilson, 2001; Juntti and Potter, 2002). As a consequence, Potter and Tilzey (2005) suggest that current policy change in the agricultural sector forms a complex socio-political project where any ‘post-productivist’ and ‘multi-functionalist’ tendencies remain subordinate to the dominant (and competing) principles of market liberalisation and agrarian welfarism. In fact, the same authors describe the prevalent policy model as ‘bifurcated’, where policy is aimed at serving both a neo-liberal agenda, focused on international competitiveness in the global market place, and a ‘multifunctional’ agenda, which accommodates ideas of a pluriactive and quality-orientated agricultural sector. Therefore, contrary forces are undermining and also supporting farming’s local embeddedness. An alternative view is that the future direction of agriculture will be determined locally. The ‘hollowing out of the state’ has been accompanied by a new emphasis on regional and local decision making, and new mechanisms are being established which bring different interest groups (spanning the public, private and voluntary sectors) together with the aim of developing a more coherent and coordinated approach to the planning and management of rural areas and their economies. Within England, for example, the new regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks (Chapter 2) are at the heart of these arrangements, but joined-up and locally sensitive approaches to policy development is also being called for across all aspects of public policy (e.g. Rhodes, 2000; Cowell and Martin, 2003). These new regional and local arrangements could potentially be significant in counterbalancing the forces of globalisation and re-embedding agriculture into local contexts, if local policy can define an economic, social and environmental rationale for promoting locally distinctive farming practices, and for connecting farming with its wider ambitions. This possibility is discussed in Chapter 5.

Conclusions What is evident from recent policy developments is that there is a strong impetus to break away from the legacy of the post-war productivist model of agriculture and agricultural policy in the UK. Efforts to promote liberalisation of the sector as a response to the problems of overproduction and high expenditure may help stimulate new growth. Moreover, instruments have been put into place which aim to reinstate the different aspects which embed agriculture in the natural, social and economic environment. Critics however claim that these instruments are not robust enough and that the mould of the productivist approach has not as yet been broken. With the increasing variety of actors in the sector, it remains unclear as to how agri-politics will affect farming in the twenty-first century. While consumer trust in food safety and quality is on a precarious footing, agricultural policy continues to evolve and the notion of multi-functional agriculture implies a shift in emphasis, away from a sole concern with the production of food towards agriculture as a producer of environmental goods and alternative energy sources (Chapter 5). Nevertheless, it remains uncertain whether the sector is really moving in this direction. Changes in policy rhetoric are not necessarily reflected in the decisions made on farms themselves. While research shows that a part of the farming population is adopting environmentally friendly practices and embracing a new role as providers of environmental goods, many remain committed to productivist goals (Morris and Potter, 1995; Wilson, 2001; Evans et al., 2002). But in the wider context of this introduction to rural planning, farming needs

112

The rural economy

to be seen as a key part of not only the rural economy, but also of rural society and the environment. How ‘embedded’ agriculture is in its local context has significant implications for communities and the landscape, and is therefore of critical importance to planning, particularly if planning is to assume a central role in coordinating a full spectrum of local initiatives and policies, aimed at achieving sustainable development by acting locally and embedding the ‘farming economy’ – whatever this economy may comprise in the future – into the wider social, economic and environment fabric of the countryside.

5

New economies

With the economic decline of agriculture and a diminishing agricultural workforce, rural areas have had to look elsewhere for opportunities for enterprise and economic prosperity. The consumption shift introduced in the last two chapters has brought new social diversity and focused attention on the wide range of values and opportunities sometimes referred to as ‘countryside capital’. Changes in the agri-food sector, hinging on a demand for specific quality features such as local origin or organic production methods, have also opened up opportunities for adding value to locally produced commodities at source, and given impetus to the formation of localised networks where new ideas, technologies and traditional and local knowledge are put to profitable use. Moreover, persistent demand for an increasing variety of tourism and recreation services in rural areas creates significant potential for economic diversification. Many parts of the countryside are experiencing considerable population growth: in some areas, rural residents commute to nearby urban areas for employment and incoming residents provide a source of new business and employment development. Government policy is increasingly aimed at regenerating lagging rural areas and funding mechanisms direct EU money into a diverse range of economic development activities in the countryside. But the consumption shift has also created tensions, and its benefits are unequally distributed throughout the countryside. Uneven distribution of economic opportunities suggest a need for a different approach to supporting and managing endogenous change in rural localities and spatial planning could play a much more prominent part in this process.

Learning outcomes This chapter provides an outline and analysis of the recent trends of economic and social diversification, their driving forces and implications for the future of the countryside. The chapter aims to: •

• •

explore, through the notion of the rural idyll, the widening range of values and demands attached to rural areas linking to a shift from production to consumption in the rural economy; outline a range of new modes of enterprise and growth sectors within the rural economy that exemplify the consumption shift; building on the introduction provided in Chapter 3, outline government responses to the new, increasingly differentiated rural economy;

114 •

•

The rural economy discuss the driving forces and existing typologies that characterise the ‘differentiated countryside’ relying on social, political and economic factors to explain the uneven spatial distribution of new opportunities; outline the case for spatial planning to play a much more proactive role in helping to shape a more positive economic, social and environmental future for rural areas.

Introduction Agriculture no longer forms the bedrock of the rural economy in the UK. Its decreasing role is not only due to the diminishing returns from primary production, but is also linked to an expansion of other economic sectors in the countryside. However, not all parts of the countryside have been able to grasp new economic opportunities, or find alternative sources of income in the light of agricultural decline. It was in the context of the growing disparities of income and social exclusion across many rural areas, that government set the priorities for its rural strategy in 2004 (Chapter 2). These were as follows: • • •

‘Economic and social regeneration’ – supporting enterprise across rural England, but targeting greater resources at areas of greatest need. ‘Social justice for all’ – tackling rural social exclusion wherever it occurs and providing fair access to services and opportunities for all rural people. ‘Enhancing the value of our countryside’ – protecting the natural environment for this and future generations (DEFRA, 2004b)

This reflects the government’s broader ‘opportunity for all’ (ibid.) agenda which places better access to, and reward from, work, as a cornerstone to achieving greater social inclusion. Within this agenda, particular attention has been drawn to specific dimensions such as women in work, the informal economy and the role of volunteers and social enterprises in delivering services and economic regeneration (CRC, 2006a: see also, Chapter 8). Government policy today aims to embrace a diversity of economic activity while paying attention to the allocation of resources and the varying capacity of regions to adapt to new demands and opportunities. This represents a significant shift from the approach during much of the twentieth century, when rural policy was first and foremost focused on sustaining agricultural activity. Today, it is widely recognised that the countryside holds ‘unique value’ potentially enabling it to support a wide range of economic activity. Within the ‘rural geography’ literature, this value is represented by the notion of the ‘rural idyll’ (Short, 2006; Bell, 2006; Shoard, 1997), and has underpinned a desire to ‘consume’ the countryside in a variety of ways. With its picturesque landscapes, peaceful way of life and close-knit village communities the countryside has traditionally been perceived as an important part of England’s cultural heritage: as a ‘green and pleasant land’ (Newby, 1979). It is not only a reserve of natural resources needed for forestry and farming, but is also home to values that are attractive to people already living in, or who aspire to live in, the countryside. In the UK – unlike other European countries – urbanisation and the movement of people from rural areas to growing cities and towns happened quickly and in direct connection with industrialisation (Wiener, 1981), often severing the link between urban populations and the wider countryside. Due to the history of landownership in the UK, people not in possession of land themselves have since

New economies 115 had limited access to the countryside and this together with the increasing health, social and economic problems faced by the working classes in overcrowded urban areas during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries enhanced the ‘non-material values’ attributed to the countryside and the rural landscape (Murdoch, 1996). Although it has evolved to reflect the changing circumstances of demand and access in the countryside and the changing character of the countryside itself, the notion of the ‘rural idyll’ has survived to the present day. While the idea of the rural idyll thus plays a key role in the ‘commodification’ of the countryside, it also reflects a change in the function of the land-based sectors. Following the consumption shift, the maintenance of environmental and social values associated with the countryside is an increasingly important responsibility of the multifunctional farming sector where the production of food is becoming a less profitable activity (Chapter 4; Winter and Rushbrook, 2003; Garrod et al. 2006; Wilson, 2007). Farming’s embeddedness within rural society is part of the rustic, agrarian image of the countryside, popular in the English psyche. The rural idyll is a crucial concept for the tourism and recreation industry that has rapidly expanded in rural areas, particularly in the hinterlands of cities and towns since the early phases of the industrial revolution (Short, 2006; Garrod et al., 2006). Both policies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been in place since the late nineteenth century aiming to promote, and defend, the right to access and use rural areas for recreational purposes (Winter, 1996). Meanwhile, planning has played an important role in managing the allocation of land for the use of agriculture on the one hand, and tourism on the other. A prime example of this are national parks, established in areas with beautiful or relatively wild features that are seen to be of national significance (Gilg, 1996) and which in some way epitomise the rural idyll (see Chapter 10). While farming and recreation have not always coexisted peacefully, a third form of land-use that has accentuated tensions in the countryside

Figure 5.1 The rural image packaged: Bourton-on-the-Water, The Cotswolds

116

The rural economy

is environmental conservation. The priority assigned to achieving sustainability in government policy has juxtaposed these three overlapping ‘land-uses’ more starkly than ever with the increasing need for new housing and land development. These issues are revisited in Chapters 6 and 7. While the aesthetic virtues of the countryside have been embraced by middleclass incomers and can be seen as a major factor in the 7.6 per cent yearly population growth in rural areas over recent years, rural communities and the countryside itself have experienced a wave of social diversification (see Chapter 6). This influx of new inhabitants has been associated with the creation of new businesses and jobs in the countryside and average income levels have risen, particularly in areas close to urban centres (DEFRA, 2006d; DETR and MAFF, 2000). The weakening economic prospects, and an associated 30 per cent decrease in agricultural employment since the mid 1980s, as well as a diversification in the values and demands attached to rural areas in the last decades, have led to an increasing need for similar diversification of economic activity away from the hegemony of agriculture. Moreover, intensifying and increasingly hazard-ridden farming practices have become progressively more in conflict with the idea of the rural idyll, which emphasises ‘pure values’ (as opposed to the untrammelled progress of towns and cities) that urban emigrants are seeking (Bell, 2006). As we will see in Chapter 6, incomers often seek to impose their own expectations of rurality on their new residential locations. These may clash with those of existing inhabitants, for example in the case of intensive agricultural practices versus idyllic, quiet and clean countryside, and cause tensions within rural communities (Bell, 2006; Lowe and Ward, 2007). There is an evident shift in emphasis in the countryside as a space for consumption, not only in terms of a desirable place to reside, but also as a place for recreation. This is again felt especially in the vicinity of urban centres and emphasises the interdependence of towns and cities with their surrounding countryside (Briquel and Colliard, 2005: see also, Chapter 11). The impact of this diversification trend has been varied both geographically and in terms of benefits and pressures. The pressure of the flows of ‘ex-urban’ incomers in areas that now are regarded as ‘rural– urban fringe’ is felt in terms of rising property prices and emerging land-use conflicts, where local populations often feels squeezed out (Hoggart, 2005; see also Newby, 1979, on ‘commuter towns’). At present then, the countryside is diverse both culturally and economically. Rural poverty is, for example, a significant problem, specific to some rural areas. It does not necessarily involve high levels of unemployment but can result in new social exclusions emerging as land and property prices climb ever higher (DEFRA, 2006c; Short, 2006; PIU, 1999; Marsden et al., 1993). In this context, there is growing pressure to secure a stable economic future for the countryside, often divorced from (or less reliant on) farming, thereby strengthening communities and making them less susceptible to external pressures. As discussed in Chapter 3, the vacuum left by the economic demise of agriculture is, in places, being filled by new emerging small businesses, with the new incoming population playing a significant role in business initiation. Nevertheless, while rural businesses are growing, the growth rates are, on average, lower than those in urban areas (CRC, 2006a). Rural economies tend to be characterised by small and mediumsized enterprises focussing on niche products and cashing in on the various aspects of the rural idyll, such as local and organic foods and specific countryside experiences (Winter and Rushbrook, 2003). At the same time, and aided by the surge in new communication technologies, home working and company relocation also contribute to the evolving character of the rural economy (Clark, 2001). The impact of these new

New economies 117 economic activities is not straight forward however. As with agriculture, the notion of embeddedness is helpful in illustrating the impact of these developments on local economies. While social relations, networks of input and service provision as well as markets are crucial to any new enterprise (Granovetter, 1985), the above developments in the mobility of people, goods and information mean that ‘place’ is no longer decisive in determining their availability. Thus, new economic linkages can either contribute to or detract from the local economy (Courtney and Errington, 2000). For example, as economies become increasingly less spatially bounded, corporate business – for instance – may ‘leak’ income out to larger regional centres through purchase of support services and production inputs. Moreover, with rural incomers often commuting to work in these same centres, it is possible that both the multiplying effects and the increase in skilled labour provided by incoming firms and inhabitants bypass the local economy (Courtney and Errington, 2000). The degree of embeddedness of enterprises and people is a crucial factor in the distribution of the benefits from the new rural economies. While government policies and instruments responding to these changes and emerging problems are detailed in Chapter 3, this chapter outlines in greater detail the nature of the new economy of the countryside and the challenges that emerging economic diversity presents. What is clear is that the countryside is no longer a homogenous agrarian entity and a much more fine-grained understanding of these new trends and phenomena is required to guide government policy and planning in this area (Halfacree, 2007; Hodge and Monk, 2004). As discussed in the opening chapters of this book, there are a range of dichotomies and typologies for describing the different economic and structural conditions that make the countryside. These different conceptualisations serve a range of different purposes. The objective in

Figure 5.2 Former chapel converted to office space, Newbold-on-Stour, Warwickshire

118

The rural economy

this chapter is to consider the nature of emergent rural economies, especially since the Rural White Paper of 1995, which marked a shift away from policies aimed at sustaining an agrarian economy, towards a diversity of measures that have sought to build a more varied economic base for rural England (Lowe, 1996; PIU, 1999). The rural typology created by Lowe and Ward (2007), introduced in Chapter 1 aims to capture and project ‘differentiated’ economic change, exploring an economy that spans a contextual and political redefinition of what the rural is, as well as the economic and social diversification taking place in rural areas (Marsden, 2006a: 4). A new diversity in the economy of the countryside, described in this chapter, links forward to new conflicts and tensions that are explored in later chapters. These conflicts – for example, between farming and tourism, or between tourism and ‘local’ place communities – have influenced the trajectory of economic development and have demanded a planning response grounded in new forms of spatial governance (Chapter 2), which allows different interests greater say in future economic and community development. In the next section, we explore the emergent differentiation of rural economies, and subsequently consider the wider implications of the emerging phenomena and the role of planning in enabling and managing them.

Key debates The consumption shift marks a decrease in the importance of the land-based sectors in the rural economy and a change in their function from primary production to the maintenance and nurturing of quality of not only the goods that they produce but also of the countryside as a form of capital itself (Garrod et al., 2006). This commodification of the rural idyll has been expressed in a number of ways. Recreation and tourism have been gaining momentum since the mid-twentieth century, introducing new demands on rural areas particularly in relation to the protection of landscape and nature. The consumption shift has also been felt in agricultural production itself and marked by heightened concern over the impact of farming on the environment and the ‘quality’ (and embeddedness: see Chapter 4) of ‘local produce’; and these concerns have, in themselves, triggered a process of diversification. Marsden (1998) singles out four dimensions of the consumption shift that contribute to rural diversification. First, the mass food market is changing in response to consumer demands and the recent food health crises as well as an increasing objection to intensive production methods at farm level. In the UK in particular, this has taken the form of an increase in private regulation by large-scale food manufacturers and retailers of practices at farm level, trying to ensure national standards of production. Second, the notion of quality has gained new significance in the primary production sector. As discussed in the previous chapter, this is attributable to a combination of increased consumer awareness of food health and environmental issues and farming’s desire to exploit emerging niche markets in order to bolster farm income and escape dependency on the movements of large-scale agri-food capital. Third, agricultural landowners have been keen to exploit the as yet untapped value in the increasingly multifaceted public perception of the rural idyll and engage its commercial potential accordingly (Crouch, 2006; Short, 2006). Non-agricultural diversification at farm level has taken the form of both land development for residential property as well as for tourism and recreation services (Lobley et al., 2005). Finally, extra-agricultural land uses have been subject to diversification, though this has sometimes resulted in a move to less desirable activities including mineral-working or landfill (Marsden, 1998). As discussed above, an array

New economies 119 of new small and medium-sized businesses have flourished as companies and people have relocated away from urban areas in search of a better quality of life associated with rural living (CRC, 2006a). In the sections below, we discuss the emergence and characteristics of these ‘new economies’ in more detail.

The new role(s) of agriculture and the evolving agri-food sector As discussed in the last chapter, British agriculture is experiencing a fundamental change in terms of its structure and productivity. In order to withstand the falling prices and declining subsidies, farmers have to look for ways of increasing value and diversifying income sources at farm level. Statistics show that 61 per cent of British farmers are gaining additional income from sources other than agriculture, through on-farm or off-farm activity (DEFRA, 2006c). One example of diversification is the growth in the share of non-food crops such as energy crops that can be used as bio-fuel. This is encouraged by a government support scheme partly funded from the European Union (Chapter 3). There is also a range of government initiatives to support income generation through adding value to food products. Moreover, the role of farming in producing environmental goods – ‘traditional cultural landscapes’ and a diversity of species that have, throughout the centuries, evolved in tandem with traditional farming practices – is seen as increasingly significant alongside its more conventional role in food production. Other ‘ecosystem services’ provided by farmers include water management, soil management and, increasingly, activities related to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change (DEFRA, 2006f). Agriculture’s role in maintaining the features of the countryside that make it attractive to tourists and recreational visitors – the ‘countryside capital’ – means that there is significant potential for synergy between farmers and tourism entrepreneurs in promoting and capitalising upon the rural idyll (Garrod et al., 2006). EU funding structures, including those supporting the agri-environmental schemes discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, have since the early 1990s been in place to guide agriculture along this path. The question now is how and where will farming and tourism interests interact at the local level, and who will coordinate this process, and to what end? This question is returned to later in this chapter. The increased emphasis on the environmental and quality aspects of agricultural production as well as increasing consumer awareness of these issues has also opened new opportunities for small- and medium-scale enterprise at the local level. ‘Organic’ and ‘local’ food provide access to significant new market niches that offer farmers a means of avoiding the control that large-scale retailers exert on production methods, prices and quantities (Chapter 4). Farms which produce organic goods and market them directly – either though an on-farm outlet, at farmers’ markets or through (delivered) ‘box schemes’ – are able to achieve greater sales values per hectare than conventional farms, or, indeed organic farms that sell to supermarkets (Lobley et al., 2005). Moreover, these quality niche products and related alternative marketing strategies advance the ideals attached to the rural idyll by affirming the notion of a pure and community-based (‘embedded’) rural lifestyle with its associated virtues. New rural enterprises build on a combination of traditional knowledge and values and technological innovations, in order to advance both production and marketing. They form new networks of quality conscious consumers, producers and in some cases governmental and/or non-governmental institutions (such as the National Trust) that bring together the production and demand around these new values and thus enhance the local economy (Marsden, 2006b; PCFFF, 2002).

120

The rural economy

Agricultural diversification, organic farming and local food As we saw in the last chapter, there appears to be a clear economic logic behind the reconnection of food production with local markets, and this has been a major thrust of recent farmers’ efforts. Together with ‘direct sales’ at farm shops and through ‘box schemes’ (where consumers can order products mostly grown by local farmers to be delivered to the door at regular intervals), farmers’ markets form ‘local food networks’, which satisfy several of the criteria set by the government framework for sustainable production and consumption (Chapter 4). They reconnect the consumer with the production process by enabling closer interaction between the producer and the consumer either in the market place, or through an internet marketing strategy, where consumers can trace the products to the farm where they are produced (PCFFF, 2002). Studies into consumer motives and behaviour have found that organic local food networks where consumers can participate either by purchasing organically farmed products from a stall in a city market place or via a box scheme actively promoted ‘ecological citizenship’ (Dobson, 2003) by providing a market context in which to express ecological values (Seyfang, 2006). While farmers participating in farmers’ markets are generally motivated by the increased profit for produce that is sold directly, without middlemen, the interaction with the consumers was also seen as a desirable and significant function that contributes positively to the general public’s perception of food production (Kirwan, 2004). Organic and local food initiatives therefore also address the problem of faltering consumer trust in the agri-food industry (Chapter 4). While the benefits of organic farming to humans and the environment have been subject to heated debate for a number of years, consumers opt for organic produce for various reasons (Soil Association, 2001). Some wish to avoid the possible health impacts of residues of pesticides found in intensively farmed products. European Voice, a paper that brands itself as an independent view of the EU, reported in 2006 that approximately 5 per cent of tested fresh produce and processed food contained residue levels that exceeded set minimum standards and could thus pose a risk to human health (European Voice, 2006). At present, the government encourages organic farming through an Organic Entry Level Scheme (OELS). The OELS is one of DEFRA’s land-based schemes funded through the regional rural development programmes (see Chapter 3), which attempt to guide farm practices to enhance local environmental values and benefits. Land to be entered into the scheme must be farmed organically and registered with an approved organic inspection body (e.g. the Soil Association). Per hectare payments are made to farmers on land that is organically farmed. In 2006, according to DEFRA statistics, 3.6 per cent of all agricultural land in the UK was in organic farming. This is low in comparison to some other European countries, although exactly equal to the percentage of all EU agricultural land in organic farming in 2003 (CEC, 2005). In some areas – including the north-west and the south-west of England – the percentage hit a ‘good’ European standard of around 6 per cent. DEFRA statistics show a steady rise in the proportion of organic products sold in UK shops: the Soil Association put organic market share at just over one per cent in 2004. Although the extent of health and environmental benefits derived from organic production and produce are under debate, Seyfang’s (2006) study reveals that consumers, as well as producers of organic products, are strongly motivated by environmental aspirations. There is therefore reason to believe that, together with the local food concept and related direct sales

New economies 121

Box 5.1 Principles of organic farming Organic farming refers to plant and animal production where: • the use of chemicals such as fertilisers and pesticides is absent or in certain cases restricted; • instead the soil is cultivated so as to ensure maximum biological activity through crop rotation and use of organic matter such as manure or compost instead of chemical fertilisers; • crops are protected against pest and diseases by traditional methods such as the choice of species and the nurturing of natural enemies of pests through maintaining high levels of biodiversity in the immediate environment surrounding the crop; • mixed farming is encouraged as livestock farming is seen to contribute to the sustainability and self-sufficiency of the farming system; • animals are fed on an organically produced diet and reared according to standards that ensure that they get sufficient exercise and are not routinely treated with drugs, antibiotics and wormers, common in intensive livestock farming. Source: DEFRA, 2006f

strategies, the popularity of organic farming as an option for diversification of the agricultural economy is on the increase (Lobley et al., 2005).

Non-agricultural diversification – tourism, recreation and access to the countryside Organic farming and agri-environmental schemes, however, form only a small part of farm diversification. In addition to the agri-food business, manufacturing and retailing, tourism and related services are a notable form of income generation in the countryside and have overtaken agriculture, providing employment for 90 per cent of the rural workforce (whereas agriculture only employs six per cent: DEFRA, 2006c). Although access to private land (for recreation) can be limited, domestic tourists continue to display a desire to consume the countryside, generating considerable ‘visitor pressure’ in some areas. Furthermore, rural areas are increasingly significant as sites for consumption of various lifestyles, for example in the form of health farms, spas, restorative breaks and sports, especially so-called ‘extreme’ sports (Lowe and Ward, 2007). Garrod et al. (2006) suggest that increasing demand for tourism and recreation services in the countryside should encourage both policy makers and rural entrepreneurs to regard the countryside as an economic asset needing to be maintained and nurtured in order to derive economic benefits for local areas. The concept of ‘countryside capital’ encapsulates the economic potential inherent in the visual, functional and cultural aspects of the rural idyll, which all serve to provide a satisfying experience for visitors. The RWP 2000 emphasised the role that tourism plays as a key industry in regenerating remote rural economies in the UK, and statistics regularly reveal that the hotel/hospitality sector – alongside the manufacturing and construction sector

122

The rural economy

– is a key employer across rural England (CRC, 2006a). The White Paper, however, recognises that benefits from tourism are unevenly distributed, to the extent that the most popular areas suffer from adverse effects. Sustainability is seen as a key criteria guiding enterprise in the sector. The RDAs are in charge of developing regional tourism and recreation as part of their regional economic remit, while implementation is guided by regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks linked to community strategies via local area agreements which can list development of tourist income (and a vibrant economy) as a key ambition. As noted in Chapter 3, the increasing reliance on tourism as an income source, particularly in more remote areas of the countryside, is linked to the growth in significance of the service industry as a rural employer. Nevertheless, tourism is frequently associated with low pay and seasonal labour demand and does not necessarily constitute a stable, let alone a profitable, source of income and can even be seen as a partial reason for the persistent economic marginalisation of some rural areas. Moreover, the economic potential of different recreational services varies. Recreational uses of the countryside are divided into formal and informal. Formal recreation is confined to managed sites such as golf courses and country parks, with exclusive access by restricted membership or in return for a fee. Informal recreation means people visiting the countryside for walks and picnics or simply to appreciate the scenery. Informal recreation has traditionally been perceived more as a threat than a business opportunity both by landowners and environmentalists. For centuries, public access to privately owned land has been limited to ‘de facto access’, along public rights of way which include public roads, footpaths and bridleways. County councils are required to draw up and publish maps showing these and landowners are required by law to keep them open, maintained and accessible (Gilg, 1996). There are a total of 130,000 miles of footpaths in the UK (Shoard, 1999). However, a significant change in landowner and government attitude to informal recreation is embodied by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which in September 2004 was amended to provide the ‘right to roam’: in other words, the right to walk over open land and areas registered as common land, while other activities such as camping, cycling and fishing remain restricted (NAO, 2006). Like the rules for de facto access, rules for access to ‘open country’ were previously defined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Until 2004, access to open country had to be secured by a county council from the landowner, where necessary, through an access agreement. The landowner, however, maintained the right to exclude people at designated times and for specified reasons. Accessible open country is defined as including downlands, heathlands, moors, mountains and registered common lands (Gilg, 1996). In the 1990s, the idea of paying for access to rural areas became more popular, with some landowners trying to turn a profit from their right to exclude visitors. Fenced-off beauty spots and waterfalls, with a turn-stile gate and a charge for car parking reflected this trend. Permit systems were also adopted extending the long-established system of paying for access to fishing rights along riverbanks. This, in turn, resulted in payment incentives for farmers who increased access to conservation land, with these payments channelled through agri-environmental support schemes. While charging for entry can encourage landowners to publicise access, compensation related to public access does not (Gilg, 1996). Nevertheless, recreation has become a significant alternative source of income for farmers and landowners: numerous golf clubs, holiday villages and paint-balling facilities have sprung up across the countryside. But these new uses of rural land can prove controversial and result in local tensions. Attempts to resolve

New economies 123

Figure 5.3 Angling, the Grand Union Canal, Hertfordshire

conflicts – between farming, environmental protection and recreation – by limiting access to key ‘honey pot’ sites, usually of low conservation but high landscape value have been viewed by critics as discriminatory and elitist, with planners being accused of conspiring with ‘conservative’ landowners. In the 1970s, for example, country parks and picnic areas were created as recreational honey-pots to ‘herd’ townspeople into designated areas, and to keep large crowds off fragile sites or areas where they might distract wildlife, farm animals or game birds (Gilg, 1996; Shoard, 1999). Unlike national parks (Chapter 10), these areas were bought from the landowner by the local authority and dedicated to recreation. However, national parks themselves have also been cited by some as an example of the ‘herding’ mentality in recreation and environmental planning. Approaches to recreation planning in the UK have broadly followed two philosophies. Both have been criticised for employing elitist and exclusionary tactics, reinforcing the idea that the countryside should be open only to a limited section of society. The first philosophy, or ‘conspiracy theory’, claims that landowners and middle-class pressure groups have exerted a disproportionate influence on planning and decision-making concerning what is good for the countryside, leading to an exclusive notion of rurality where middle-class recreation areas are protected while the rest of the population are encouraged to enjoy passive recreation in designated areas (Gilg, 1996; Allanson, 1996). Second, the ‘Reithian theory’ suggests hegemony of a scientific elite over how the countryside should be managed, leading to an approach where fragile ecosystems are protected from what is judged to be recreational ‘over-use’ with the effect that the masses are herded to less sensitive areas (Gilg, 1996). The present pattern of access management forms a public land-management spectrum where high conservation value areas are tightly controlled and restrict public access, whereas areas of low conservation value afford open access, sometimes in the form of country parks. Conservation, therefore, is often seen as a motivation for exclusion or restriction of access (Gilg, 1996). Available statistics dealing with visits to national parks give some

124

The rural economy

Figure 5.4 A ‘kissing gate’ on the Ridgeway long distance path, the Chiltern Hills, Bedfordshire

justification to the charge that ‘recreation planning’ is exclusionary. According to visitor surveys conducted in each national park in the 1990s, visits to national parks cover 5–7 per cent of all recreational visits to the countryside (Kay, 2002). Given that the parks cover 9 per cent of England and Wales, this is less than would be expected relative to their geographical extent, without any consideration of their inherent qualities. Kay (2002) quotes the National Parks Visitor Survey of 1990 which reported that the Lake District and the Peak District were the most popular parks attracting 20 per cent and 18 per cent of all visitor-days respectively. The majority of national park visits (measured in visitor-days) are undertaken by persons holidaying away from home (61 per cent) and 40 per cent of these stay in the parks. Most visitors are regular users of the parks and most of the population never visit them. Two groups, in particular, are significantly under-represented in these accessibility figures. First, disabled people can find physical access to the countryside difficult; though overcoming practical access barriers is an issue that is now being more regularly addressed in conservation management. Second, and despite forming 8 per cent of the total population, black and minority ethnic (BME) groups make up only 3 per cent of the visitors to the national parks. The Rural Strategy (DEFRA, 2004b) expressed a clear concern for such inequalities and since 2005, £1,000,000 has been spent on enhancing access to the four parks – the Peak District, the North Yorkshire Moors, the Yorkshire Dales and the Brecon Beacons – closest to major urban areas. In both of these models or interpretations, the voice of the recreation user goes largely unheard. This is particularly problematic given that tourism amenities can develop and evolve with little input from tourists. A plethora of new ways of conceptualising recreation has emerged in recent years, with scholars talking of a shift from the visual appreciation – the ‘gaze’ which emphasises passive enjoyment of rural landscapes – to a more ‘action-oriented’ appreciation of rural spaces (Crouch, 2006). With increasing wealth and a culture of individualistic needs, including that

New economies 125 for expression of identity through activities other than those associated with making a living (Salletmaier, 1993), people’s demands for leisure activities, including those in the countryside continue to grow. For some, rural spaces provide a stage on which to reconnect with nature or even to challenge it. These ways of consuming the countryside have provided an impetus for a new range of business opportunities which seek to deliver such experiences to visitors, including quad-biking or ballooning centres, rock-climbing venues or landscapes sectioned off for mountain-biking. But this can conflict with ‘pure’ or ‘greener’ lifestyles or activities: wild, nature-challenging rural activities may interfere with those who wish to merely ‘convene’ with nature. Diversifying demands on rural space not only create opportunities but also pressures and conflicts (Bell, 2006), which planning must resolve or manage. This emphasises the importance of making the connection between the commodification and the nurturing of the rural idyll thorough a holistic approach to managing the rural resource base (Garrod et al., 2006) for a range of different interests which may perceive that their goals are contradictory when, in fact, they can be reconciled.

Growth sectors and small and medium-sized businesses in the rural economy As we noted earlier, farming and tourism are by no means the only economic activities in the countryside. At present, services (encompassing tourism-related activities) and manufacturing form the largest rural employers (DEFRA, 2006c; Chapter 3). The hotel and restaurant sub-sector is a particularly significant employer in more sparsely populated areas. The role of forestry in the rural economy is also growing although it remains marginal: for example, in Scotland it forms almost an equal contribution to agriculture, although in general, the UK forestry sector is suffering from relatively low economic productivity (ibid.). But forestry plays a role as an input into manufacturing and so has broader economic significance. According to the Commission for Rural Communities (2006a), the largest sector in terms of business stock (the number of enterprises registered for VAT at the start of each year) is estate, renting and business activities, while other significant sectors include wholesale/retail, agriculture/forestry, construction and manufacturing. Measured in terms of ‘diversity’, the rural economy has become more ‘urban’ in recent years. However, business growth tends to be slower than in cities and while the Home Counties (surrounding London) as well as the Midlands boast the largest growth rates, remote areas in the south-west, the Wash and northern coastal areas have experienced net losses of business stock (CRC, 2006a). Rural areas continue to be dependent on relatively low value-added sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing, and on small businesses with limited productivity. This structural weakness often results in rural areas being dependent on sources of income and employment found elsewhere. However, rural employment is on the rise with a 4 per cent jobs growth between 1999 and 2002 (Countryside Agency, 2003), and with the number and turnovers of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) also increasing. In fact, as discussed in Chapter 3, the situation of most rural areas is looking less bleak thanks in part to the injection of dynamism into local economies by new inhabitants. Rural areas now have more businesses per head of population and more women in self-employment than urban areas. Studies have revealed that incomers have played an important part in this development (CRC, 2006a; Winter and Rushbrook, 2003; Stockdale, 2006). In England, two in three new rural firms are established by people moving from urban

126

The rural economy

to rural areas, often lured by environmental qualities and perceptions of a better quality of life, and aided by the expansion of communication technologies (Chapter 8). In the majority of instances they will not have run their own businesses previously, but they create an average of nearly three jobs per migrant and bring with them an important source of different skills, alongside contacts with distant markets. Part of this ‘rural entrepreneurialism’ is linked to home working, with a greater percentage of people working from home in the countryside than in towns or cities. However, as the State of the Countryside 2006 report emphasises, home working is a diverse category, encompassing traditional employment in farming and construction, as well as new opportunities for flexible self-employment in key growth sectors including finance, business services, communications and health care (CRC, 2006a). There has also been a visible trend of relocation of businesses to England’s rural areas (Lowe and Ward, 2007). These trends have increased the potential of rural areas to be hubs of economic activity ‘in their own right’ instead of depending on external consumption though tourism, meaning that wealth is created locally rather than flowing into the countryside. Indeed, flows may become more even, increasing the ‘connectedness of rural and urban economies’ (Lowe and Ward, 2007: 5). Nevertheless, issues such as lack of support services and skilled labour, particularly in more remote areas, can form obstacles to business growth (CRC 2006a). Demand for skilled and specialised labour and the profile of the available workforce in rural areas do not always match and many specialist skills are ‘exported’ during the daily commuting run. Indeed, the benefits of the consumption shift described earlier have been felt unevenly in the countryside. Many areas (including the public service agreement areas – Chapter 3) continue to perform poorly in terms of productivity, job density and business growth (CRC, 2006a) and despite government efforts, the gap between PSA areas and the rest of England is persisting. This said, certain PSA areas are seeing improvement in relation to regional averages. Statistics suggest that the prime beneficiaries of the new economic activity have been areas – including PSA areas – within ‘easy’ commuting distance from urban centres while towns and villages in remoter locations, which have traditionally depended heavily on primary industries, have suffered from a lack of employment, low investment and loss of services (DETR and MAFF, 2000). However, there is no simple link between economic vibrancy and proximity to an urban centre: greater personal mobility (Chapter 8) means that many rural residents can commute (to work) or consume (services) some distance from home (Lowe and Ward, 2007). Moreover, the impact of relocating businesses, generally viewed as crucial for achieving economic buoyancy in rural areas, can be unclear. The nature of the business is critical in determining whether it will benefit the local economy. Particularly in areas in the vicinity of regional centres, new businesses often maintain or establish strong links with suppliers and support services located in those economic hubs. This means that the economic benefit from new business activity ‘leapfrogs’ the local economy, ‘leaking’ income to suppliers elsewhere and using the local economy merely as a market for goods (Courtney and Errington, 2000). According to research by Courtney and Errington (2000), this is particularly common in the manufacturing sector, which forms the third biggest employer in the English countryside. The regeneration of market towns in remoter areas, particularly through tourism and increasing demand for leisure services, has been seen as key to reviving local economies (see also, service discussion: Chapter 8). In practice this means, amongst other things, planning measures that encourage the concentration of retail and services in key

New economies 127 centres that then serve the surrounding countryside, instead of measures which permit large out-of-town supermarkets which often impact negatively on market towns and their hinterlands (Guy, 1998). This issue is picked up again in Chapters 8 and 11. The RWP 2000 acknowledged the importance of nurturing the inherent heterogeneity of the countryside and emphasised that regeneration efforts should focus on the ‘natural’, existing strengths of each locality and ways in which local enterprise can appropriate (and build upon) wider economic processes to the advantage of an area. Small and medium-sized enterprises are seen as key in the regeneration of lagging areas and the 2004 Rural Strategy places great emphasis on education and advisory support for small-scale enterprises (DEFRA, 2004b). The rural economy is not a closed unit but centres of production and distribution such as villages, towns and cities develop in association with the surrounding countryside, while change depends on – and reorders – existing local associations and relations (Allanson, 1996). Indeed, rural economies are constructed on the flow of goods, people and services (including services and goods delivered ‘electronically’) between nodes and across hinterlands (Chapter 11). In terms of implications for planning, this polarisation and diversification of the rural economy emphasises the need for a coordinating, nurturing and spatially oriented approach that extends beyond the land and property concerns of statutory planning (Chapters 1 and 2). The administrative and planning policy developments discussed in Chapter 2 are specifically aimed at nurturing diverse economic development with regional and local actors able to take the initiative and contribute local knowledge and expertise to planning a more prosperous economy, making use of external opportunities and inputs. In practice this implies the need for establishing partnerships between local and regional level governmental and non-governmental organisations, across administrative and sectoral boundaries. These connections are particularly important given the shortcomings that have been evident in both planning measures and broader government policies, including a division between local instruments and policies and regional development strategies, identified by Terluin (2003) and Halfacree (2007). A closer bond between RSS and local planning may provide the opportunity to create a new focus for partnerships, drawing the regional development agencies (RDAs) into local affairs and enabling them to play a role in the coordination of local strategies. The RDAs – introduced in Chapter 2 – are in a central position as they are in charge of formulating a balanced and diverse development strategy for each region. National and European Union mechanisms such as LEADER+ and the available RDP measures act as a significant support for building these crucial local partnerships (see Chapter 3 for more detail).

Emergent issues The notion of embeddedness and the new rural economies It appears then, that a number of forces affecting the British countryside are both opening up new opportunities for rural enterprise and contributing to an intensification of conflicts. The gradual dismantling of the hegemony of productivist agriculture has opened up opportunities for a more differentiated countryside (Murdoch, 2006; Lowe and Ward, 2007). But what are the key drivers of these developments? The emergence for what Ulrich Beck (1992) has called the ‘risk society’ – in which advances in new technologies and changes in production methods have introduced a range of new plausible risk scenarios, not least to primary production in the countryside

128

The rural economy

– has arguably been one catalyst. The recent food health crises have prompted governments to introduce a plethora of regulation to control and direct agricultural production. The environmental and health hazards experienced in the past decades have also produced a broader awareness of ‘the dark side of progress’ (Beck, 1992) amongst the general public, who have begun to question the hegemony of scientific and technological progress in providing the best way forward in food production and distribution. The notion of ‘trust’ has become central to the relationship between production and consumption in several of the new economies of the countryside. The rise of the quality food market, with its focus on local and organically produced goods, can be seen as the farming sector’s response to fluctuations in consumer trust and demands. Indeed, support for local initiatives and adding value to products at the bottom of the production chain through organic production methods, local food networks, direct sales and farmers’ markets are encouraged as a way of dealing with consumer concerns and building greater confidence. Second, mounting criticism of the agricultural subsidy systems prevalent in most, if not all, developed countries of the world (and particularly in the EU) and increasing pressure to liberalise trade in agricultural products expressed at international level, mainly in the WTO, have led to the gradual dismantling of state support for agriculture (Chapter 4). This has prompted farmers to adjust, innovate and diversify farm businesses and in some cases seek new uses for agricultural land (Lobley et al., 2005). Moreover, the public has also become dissatisfied with the method and role of state intervention in the economy more widely. As discussed in Chapter 4, the disembeddedness of agriculture – its distancing from the local environment, the demise of its ability to provide a livelihood for local communities as well as faltering consumer trust – has prompted a move to devolved decision making. Linked to this, a third driver of change is arguably the ‘governance shift’ of the 1990s and the early twenty-first century, which saw the transfer of powers to the regions and to local interests (Chapters 2 and 3). Local partnerships are viewed as means of opening up the state to greater scrutiny, and offering new assurances to policy consumers (Lowe and Ward, 2007). Transparency and openness – key tenets of the EU policy system – strike a chord with the emergent model of spatial planning introduced in Chapters 1 and 2. Indeed, spatial planning has become part of this governance agenda, providing a key delivery tool, and linking economic development initiatives with issues of environmental concern and community well-being, thereby reducing perceptions of risk associated with modernity. The notion of embeddedness is also important in the context of the non-agricultural diversification taking place in the rural economy. It is particularly useful when trying to understand some of the problems and challenges emerging in the differentiated countryside. In some areas agriculture continues to dominate, but in others its demise has left a void that is visible in the form of persistently high unemployment rates, depopulation and a loss of services. While an influx of people and businesses is seen as critical in supporting rural regeneration, the benefits from the emerging nonagricultural forms of economic activity are unevenly distributed. Moreover, it appears that, an emphasis on dealing with the consumption shift, and attempts to nurture local economies, can lead to a disregard for the state of rural communities given the need to attract new businesses and investment to an area. The consumption shift, often triggering new market interest, often sets the capacity (and the desire) of rural areas to attract economic growth in opposition to the need to improve the lives of the most disadvantaged residents (Lyson, 2006). Newcomers and relocating businesses often

New economies 129 introduce a new spatial aspect to the local economy, creating different patterns of consumption and need, as we shall see in the next chapter. This has, in some instances, led to the ‘disembeddedness’ of economic flows, where the income generated by new enterprises by-passes the local economy. At the same time, the ‘commodification’ of the rural idyll has rendered its very character open to demands imposed by external actors who either visit or move to rural areas but are not necessarily participants in the processes that produce and maintain the fabric of the countryside. In their progressive account of the local, national and global forces shaping economic and social change in the countryside, Marsden et al. (1993) focus on the ‘systems of relationships’ that define rural localities. They single out the consequences of commodification and shifts in property ownership as key to the mechanics of rural change. With the changing ownership of property in the countryside, more diverse rural communities have emerged (Chapter 6) with agricultural workers replaced in many instances by an ex-urban middle-class. As a consequence, the evident policy focus has shifted away from the efficiency of agricultural production to rural space as a commodity, the aspects of which have been described above. However, this has also brought new tensions, most of all between the use of rural space for agriculture, for rural diversification and for different forms of environmental protection. Marsden et al. (1993) argue that the transfer of property into new, hitherto urban hands is the key factor producing a spatial diversification of rural Britain since the demise of the hegemony of agriculture in the rural economy. With the changing structure of rural communities and economies, new interests gained power in rural land management and planning. This meant that localities began to differ in the way land-use was regulated, with external economic processes gaining prominence. This, together with the diversifying needs of rural communities, means that not only do rural spaces become more contested but they also become differentiated, at least in comparison with the more homogenous agricultural economy of the early twentieth century. In order to properly understand the ‘spatial patterning’ of economic and social polarisation and related problems and developments in the British countryside, it is perhaps helpful to move beyond the centre–periphery categorisation of rural areas and look at some of the typologies of a differentiated countryside put forward by rural geographers in recent decades.

The emergence of regionalised ruralities Marsden et al. (1993) identify four sets of parameters crucial to the trajectories of development in rural economies. These are economic, social, political and cultural. While the economic parameter encompasses the rate of growth and the level of state involvement in the local economy, social and cultural parameters focus on the presence of an incoming middle class and attitudes towards property rights in terms of whether they are seen as a productive or a non-productive asset. In the latter case, incomers tend to see it as crucial to maintain and protect the aspects of the rural idyll that attracted them to the area in the first place, such as tranquillity, nature values and, possibly also, a perception of a closely-knit rural community. The political parameters, crucially, reflect ideals of representation and participation, and consider whether the local actors, long-term residents or incomers, feel empowered and motivated to try to influence decision-making about local assets and how the main interests are profiled:

130

The rural economy

are they organised around production interests or, for example, environmental issues (Marsden et al., 1993: 186; Marsden, 1998). In short, variations in the relative role and power of agricultural, residential and other commercial interests have led to different outcomes in terms of the type and extent of economic development that is experienced in different parts of the countryside.

Box 5.2 A differentiated countryside The preserved countryside: these areas, situated in the English lowlands or attractive and, crucially, accessible uplands tend to house a large proportion of new inhabitants, mostly urban middle-class commuters. This new, often highly educated and vocal fraction of the community is able to influence the planning system in favour of amenity conservation and thus limit both agricultural intensification and diversification into unwanted mass tourism activity or other environmentally harmful development. The preserved countryside consists of areas where the reconstitution of rurality is often highly contested. While the new inhabitants express demand for leisure services and residential property, they also aim to protect their positional goods against what they perceive as harmful agricultural diversification in the form of intensive tourism or farming activity. The contested countryside: formed by areas in more remote locations and thus housing fewer urban incomers, the contested countryside still depends on farming as the main economic activity. In the absence of diversification opportunities provided by demand from new incomers or urban tourists, agriculture tends to follow a productivist logic. Farmers remain in an influential position in decision making about local issues and are able to promote local economic priorities in the face of, as yet, weak consumption interests. In these areas the conflicts between new incomers and existing landowners are at their strongest. The paternalistic countryside: in areas of large private estates and big farms, existing landowners hold a hegemony in the rural land-development process. Nevertheless facing the need for economic diversification in the light of falling agricultural incomes, large landowners will often have sold assets such as farm buildings and estate housing. Conservation measures and affordable housing act as significant options for diversification to the often more socially conscious landlords that aim to remain in the area, maintaining a long-term management view of their properties. The clientilist countryside: in remote areas unaffected by counter-urbanisation, agriculture remains the main economic interest and state support for agriculture and rural development plays a major role in maintaining the local economy. Environmentally damaging development projects and types of economic diversification that would be rejected in other areas often encounter little opposition in the face of a strong need to sustain the existing and create new local livelihoods. These are also areas where the disappearance of whole industries such as coal mining has led to high levels of unemployment and severe polarisation of incomes. Employment concerns and the welfare of the rural community dominate often highly corporatist local development. Source: Marsden et al, 1993; Marsden, 1998

New economies 131 The participative character of the planning system (enhanced by the governance shift and particularly by recent local government reform: see Chapters 2 and 6) is arguably one of the most significant mechanisms through which different rural interest groups wield this power. Box 5.2 presents a typology of four differentiated ‘ruralities’ that are now evident in the countryside, and which heavily influence the trajectory of their respective rural economies. A more recent typology based on a similar set of variables, but constructed in order to project ‘future strategies’ for the English countryside has been created by Lowe and Ward (2007). Relying on data from the 2001 Population Census (using local authority districts as the spatial unit), Lowe and Ward constructed a typology comprising seven area types, each representing specific and tangible social and economic characteristics and the various ways that these currently manifest themselves. Having removed ‘urban districts’ from the census database, data for more than 100 variables were subjected to a factor analysis enabling the identification of 15 critical, uncorrelated variables, from which to develop a new typology centred on economic rurality (Box 5.3). A map depicting the geography of rural types across England was then generated (Figure 5.5). Lowe and Ward’s typology is more sensitive to demographic structure, mobility of inhabitants and levels of income than earlier attempts to classify rural areas. The typology suggests that distance from urban centres is not unequivocally a positive factor for the economic development of the peri-urban countryside. This view is supported by Henderson (2005), for example, who highlights the failure of Norwich, itself a lagging urban economy, to provide a driver for the local economy of the surrounding countryside. However, in the face of strengthening links between urban centres and their rural hinterlands, the fate of peri-urban areas often seems to depend on the development trajectory of the nearby town or city (Chapter 11). In Lowe and Ward’s

Box 5.3 Delimiting rural economies – key variables i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv.

number of residents per 100 hectares; percentage change in resident population 1991–2001; proportion of population aged 65 and over, 2001; percentage change in total employment 1991–2001; rate of economic growth 1991–2001; average total income 2000–2001; proportion of ‘knowledge workers’ to total economically active 2001; percentage change in ‘knowledge sector’ employment 1991–2001; proportion of managerial and professional workers to total economically active, 2001; number of hotel and restaurant businesses; proportion of employment in agriculture, hunting and forestry relative to total economically active; proportion of households with 2 or more cars 2001; net commuting 2001 (GB=100); number of national heritage sites per 1000 sq. km 2002; index of tranquillity 2001 (GB=100).

Source: Lowe and Ward, 2007: 16 (reproduced with permission from the authors)

132

The rural economy

Figure 5.5 A typology of rural England (and Wales), 2001 Source: Lowe and Ward, 2007: 33 (reproduced with permission from the authors)

New economies 133

Box 5.4 Typology of rural England (underpinning scenario-building) Dynamic commuter areas: socially and economically dynamic and affluent, these areas have relatively high population densities and young to middle-aged, high-income professional classes predominate. Economically, they are closely connected to adjoining urban areas with high levels of out-commuting. They can be considered as a form of wealthy outer suburb. A concentration of these areas is found in the south-east of England. Settled commuter areas: similar to the above but less economically vibrant, these areas are located on the edges of the provincial conurbations such as Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield. The fortunes of these areas are closely linked to economic trajectories of their related city regions, again due to high levels of outcommuting. Dynamic rural areas: these slightly lower density rural areas have fast-growing economies and an increasing population. Characterised by high concentrations of professional and knowledge workers they experience lower levels of out-commuting and are less connected economically to urban conurbations than the above. The presence of major institutions such as universities or research centres tends to be a key feature of these areas which are to be found mainly south of a line between Avon and the Wash. Deep rural areas: these areas perhaps best reflect traditional notions of the ‘countryside’. Agriculture, particularly livestock farming, and tourism form an important aspect of the local economy. Population and income levels are below rural averages. Economically, and in terms of net migration, they may appear to be in steady state, but recent events (such as foot and mouth disease in 2001) have revealed fragility about this situation. Commuting to urban areas is limited (due to physical remoteness or poor infrastructure) as is the ability to attract younger in-migrants and entrepreneurial activity. These areas are found, for example, in Northumberland and mid-Devon. Retirement retreat areas: these areas form popular retirement destinations and are found particularly along the coast, most notably in southern England. Retirement related services including leisure, social care and health are significant sources of jobs. Although income levels tend to be below average, the relatively high population density of these areas means that service provision is economically viable. With the ageing population fuelling demand, the economies of these areas are relatively vibrant. Peripheral amenity areas: these rural areas present some of the most significant economic and social challenges in the countryside. Located in marginal zones often in coastal locations such as the west coast of Cumbria, the economic structure is dominated by agriculture, tourism and retirement-related services. However, they are secondary tourist or retirement destinations due to their isolation, or poorer quality environment, sometimes associated with past industrial or mining activities. Income levels are well below the national average amongst both existing and incoming populations, attracted by low house prices. Generation of new economic activity tends to depend on public intervention. Transient rural areas: These areas are situated relatively close to urban centres and, as sources of local employment are not substantial, they experience significant levels of out-commuting. However, unlike the dynamic and settled commuter area categories, commuting does not imply high incomes. Although the majority of the population is economically active, average income levels remain very low. These areas are not attractive for entrepreneurial activity. The East Riding of Yorkshire and south Norfolk serve as examples. Source: Lowe and Ward, 2007

134

The rural economy

analysis, the seven countryside types displayed in Box 5.4 were later used to draw up three scenarios forecasting the direction of future development in rural England. According to a (1) ‘consumption countryside scenario’, a continuing consumptionled rural economy would perpetuate the dependency of rural regions on nearby urban areas (again, see Chapter 11). Areas classified as ‘dynamic’ and ‘settled commuter areas’ in Box 5.4 would, according to the authors, continue growing, as would the ‘retirement retreat areas’, although to a lesser extent. This scenario would involve increasing economic and social polarisation in the countryside, with less affluent residents finding it increasingly difficult to buy property in prospering rural areas and unable to benefit from the opportunities emanating from nearby urban centres (see above: see also Chapters 8 and 11). In a (2) ‘twenty-first century good life scenario’ a more restrictive planning regime and a strong conservation lobby manned by the new rural middle class would successfully stem the flow of counter-urbanisation and curtail the trend towards further consumption. This would be detrimental for the manufacturing economy at present burgeoning in the countryside, and would lead to a combination of job losses and a more conservation-oriented farming sector which would maintain a stronger economic presence than in other scenarios. Under this same scenario ‘deep rural areas’ would expand and there would be a marginal decline in the two types of commuter areas, compensated by an increase in second home ownership. Another scenario comprised the (3) ‘rise of the rurbs’, where economic concerns would eclipse environmental ones in rural development policy. Transport infrastructure and housing development would spread freely, which would mean considerable expansion of the increasingly affluent and multicultural ‘settled commuter areas’. At the same time, the knowledge-based economy would grow, increasing the number of rural residents working from home or commuting longer distances. The size of the agricultural sector would likely decrease, with only very intensive and competitive farming surviving in areas with the most favourable land and climatic conditions. However, local services would continue to decline, while mobile rural inhabitants would source services from extra-local providers. But Lowe and Ward (2007) conclude that a ‘consumption countryside scenario’ – perpetuating rural–urban interdependence – is the most likely trajectory for rural development over the next 20 years. Scenario-building is a speculative process, though useful in framing debate on the future of the countryside. Although the picture set out above relates to England, reports of the situation elsewhere in the UK reveal a similarly differentiated pattern of economic experience (Scottish Executive, 1999; The National Assembly for Wales, 1999; DARD, 2006), although it is judged that both Scotland and Wales are likely to have a higher proportion of areas with ‘deep rural’ and ‘peripheral amenity area’ characteristics. The above typologies point to the existence of a heterogeneous and evolving countryside that must no longer be viewed as unambiguously ‘rural’ for the purposes of policy design and planning. These typologies should act as a crucial support for achieving a truly spatial approach in planning that is sensitive to local potential and local problems. Area interaction and interdependence is also an important aspect of the rural scene, reflected in these typologies. Interaction with urban areas and the capacity to tap into and attract external economic flows is seen as a key determinant of economic success (Halfacree, 2007; Lyson, 2006; Terluin, 2003). The above typologies confirm, and conform to, the premise that rural development is heavily reliant on the efficacy of the capitalist economy, underpinning the existing systems of rural production, consumption and governance. But critics contend that a more

New economies 135 actor-orientated and ‘empowered’ rural space needs to be established in order to find alternatives to the received trajectories of rural futures. Halfacree (2006; 2007) suggests the existence of a ‘radical rural spatiality’ manifest in ‘constructive green politics’ emerging alongside the new economies of the countryside. These politics – and this potential empowerment – are embedded in local environments and communities (finding expression in food networks based on organic farming or permaculture, and even in informal local trading arrangements based on ‘local currencies’ rather than cash (Seyfang 2001; 2006)) and often seeks new forms of ‘low-impact development’ (Halfacree, 2007). The ‘radical rural’ seeks an embedded understanding of economy, society and nature and represents one possible vision of the future, seeking to bind capital to place, to resist the risks posed by modernity, and to find expression in new approaches to rural governance. In some areas, it is likely to become a powerful driving force behind local planning, reinforcing the need for a coordinated and sustainable interlinking of economic activity with societal demands and environmental capacity. The emerging emphasis on sustainability in government policy is arguably reflected in a more favourable response to such sentiments and approaches, reflected in support for local partnership and local action (Halfacree, 2007). However, the rural economy remains diverse and a range of new actors – including migrants and governmental or business interests – have defined problems and perceived risks in different ways and, perhaps most importantly, promoted different ethical and cultural arguments as a basis for rural decision-making (Marsden, 2006b).

The role of spatial planning in supporting a new rural economy Before concluding this consideration of the rural economy it is important to reflect further on the role of the new spatial planning system in supporting the development of a vibrant rural economy fit for the twenty-first century. Box 5.5 sets out some of the key features of PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) from this perspective. As discussed in Chapter 3, it is evident that the current policy statement does suggest that regional and local planning authorities in England should be ‘supportive’ of efforts to regenerate and diversify the economic base of the countryside and in this respect it carries forwards and strengthens sentiments that were expressed in the previous version of the guidance (PPG7). So it would appear that, for a number of years at least, planning authorities have been encouraged to play a positive part in promoting and supporting the economic restructuring of rural areas examined above. However, have policy aspirations matched the reality, or could planning authorities be doing more in this respect? An answer to this question can be derived for England by reference to a report on planning and the rural economy prepared for the Countryside Agency in 2003 (Land Use Consultants, 2003). This drew together a range of earlier studies on the topic and also experience from a number of case studies. The conclusions of the research are illuminating. For while it was revealed that the vast majority of planning applications related to diversification of the rural economy were approved, and that the planning system (mainly in the form of development control) could not be said to be unduly restraining rural economic diversification which is perhaps the popular conception, the view was taken that: […] local planning policies do not live up to the expectations of national policy, particularly in that they are not based on assessments of local economic and social

136

The rural economy

Box 5.5 Key rural economy features of PPS 7: sustainable development in rural areas Sustainable development, rural communities, economic development and services Planning policies in regional spatial strategies (RSSs) and local development documents (LDDs) should facilitate and promote sustainable patterns of development and sustainable communities in rural areas. This should include policies to sustain, enhance and, where appropriate, revitalise country towns and villages (including through the provision of affordable housing) and for strong, diverse, economic activity, whilst maintaining local character and a high quality environment. To ensure these policies are relevant and effective, local planning authorities should be aware of the circumstances, needs and priorities of the rural communities and businesses in their area, and of the interdependence between urban and rural areas (ODPM, 2004d: Para. 2). Economic development and employment Planning authorities should support a wide range of economic activity in rural areas. Taking account of regional priorities expressed in RSS […] and in line with the policies in paragraphs 2–4 above, local planning authorities should: • identify in LDDs suitable sites for future economic development, particularly in those rural areas where there is a need for employment creation and economic regeneration; • set out in LDDs their criteria for permitting economic development in different locations, including the future expansion of business premises, to facilitate healthy and diverse economic activity in rural areas (ibid: Para. 5). Agricultural development The government recognises the important and varied roles of agriculture, including in the maintenance and management of the countryside and most of our valued landscapes. Planning policies in RSS and LDDs should recognise these roles and support development proposals that will enable farming and farmers to: • • • • •

become more competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly; adapt to new and changing markets; comply with changing legislation and associated guidance; diversify into new agricultural opportunities (e.g. renewable energy crops); or broaden their operations to ‘add value’ to their primary produce (ibid: Para. 27)

Source: ODPM, 2004d

New economies 137 need and insufficiently tailored to local circumstances […] that the planning system could do more to positively promote diversification [and] that planning’s coordination with other aspects of rural diversification, principally economic development, and its communication with farmers and other applicants, is relatively poor. (Land Use Consultants, 2003: 6, emphasis added) ‘Coordination’ of actors and initiatives has been planning’s Achilles’ Heel, and this seems to be a damning indictment of the plan-making dimension of rural planning practice of the time. However, the spatial planning approach now emerging, with its focus on policy integration and the specifics of place could do much to rectify this situation. Another report prepared by Land Use Consultants, this time for the South East Regional Assembly, is useful in suggesting a way forward. Key recommendations emerging from the report are summarised in Box 5.6. What is interesting about the recommendations set out is that they reiterate a number of key themes of this book. First they recognise that the economic, social and environmental fortunes of rural

Box 5.6 Recommendations for a proposed strategy for planning for sustainable rural economic development 1 Adopt a definition for sustainable rural economic development e.g.: ‘Economic development which provides social, economic and environmental benefits together, principally for the local area but in some instances providing social and environmental benefits for the sub-region and the region as a whole’ 2 Develop key questions about sustainable rural economic development particular to the plan area 3 Establish a good evidence base sensitive to variation in local economic circumstances 4 Recognise different sub-regional areas in policy formulation e.g. near urban, accessible rural, remoter rural 5 Develop an objective-led approach with vision and objectives for each sub area 6 Recognise that certain types of economic development have equal relevance across all types of rural area e.g.: informal recreation and green (sustainable) tourism, and farm diversification activities that assist agriculture in the continuation of its environmental stewardship role 7 Ensure that key strategic, economic, social and environmental issues guide the development of criteria-based policies 8 Adopt a sectoral approach for planning for sustainable rural economic development e.g. farm retail, food processing and adding value, woodland products 9 Recognise affordable housing as a key support policy for rural economic development 10 Ensure implementation through from a broad strategy, through to local tailored guidance and integration with other policy areas 11 Change the culture of planning to provide a more positive and facilitative approach towards applicants Source: developed from Land Use Consultants, 2004

138

The rural economy

areas are closely intertwined and that an integrated and holistic approach to planning for the countryside is needed. Second, they stress the need to establish a sound evidence base in order to properly inform planning activity. Third, they emphasise the highly differentiated character of rural areas and the case for greater place sensitivity in spatial planning. Finally, they highlight the need for a change in the culture of rural planning, moving from a ‘land’ to a ‘coordination’ and a facilitative focus. The shift that is necessary can be detected in the following quotation from the report for the south-east. ‘The overwhelming impression gained from the review […] is that, under the current planning system, planning is clear about what it is trying to prevent but is not clear about the benefits it is trying to achieve in particular locations’ (Land Use Consultants, 2004: vi). The new approach to spatial planning provides an important opportunity to move towards a more proactive, positive and facilitative approach to managing rural change including that related to structural change in the rural economy. In terms of coordinating economic development, and managing the processes of change that are currently ‘differentiating’ the countryside, planning is trailing some way behind expectation. It has not caught up with the aspirations of the 2004 system. However, the messages emerging from current policy discourse are clear: planning must perform; it must embrace the challenge of economic restructuring and play its part in integrating economies into the life of the countryside. Local planning’s relationship with regions is critical, given the importance of functional regions in framing economic fortunes. But its relationship with local actors is also critical. Regional and local actors will principally be engaged through the LSP, with planning helping to deliver against objectives that come out of these partnerships. At the moment, rural areas are often defined by functional conflicts, with discord arising from the perceived incongruity of different objectives – environmental, economic and social. It is planning’s task to help different interests to see past these conflicts: to define a vision in which rural economies are re-embedded in the countryside, supporting communities, reflecting their aspirations, and also utilising countryside capital in a sustainable way.

Conclusions This chapter, and particularly the future scenarios devised by Lowe and Ward (2007), does not paint an altogether positive picture of the future of rural England. The consumption shift in the countryside has not had unequivocally positive repercussions in the countryside. Increasing risk, particularly in relation to food production and manufacturing, emphasised by increasing public awareness of the existing threats, has spurred the agri-food sector to begin looking for alternative modes of production and distribution. The symbolism that is associated with the countryside, and that acts as a significant factor in attracting new inhabitants from urban areas to rural locations can be problematic, as we shall see in the next chapter. In such areas, where the number of affluent incomers is high, farming and other less popular forms of economic activity are being increasingly restricted. These areas can become dominated by a powerful minority, while long-term residents may experience a steep decline in living standards and the ability to acquire accommodation or employment. Nevertheless, the consumption shift described in this chapter provides a powerful draw to the service and manufacturing sectors. But by virtue of remoteness or a lack of attractive amenities and services, some areas remain outside its influence, and suffer from the exodus of young people and services to nearby towns or more distant urban centres. Such ‘clientilistic

New economies 139 countryside’ has become heavily reliant on government support, though its farming sector has been weakened by global competition and a dismantling of subsidy regimes. The role of agriculture is clearly changing: but while it is becoming a secondary or a part-time occupation, it continues to play a crucial role in the maintenance of the countryside and this role still commands considerable EU and UK policy support. The role of planning in supporting the new rural economies discussed in this chapter has benefited from the governance shift that has occurred since the 1990s, and that continues to evolve, with planning positioning itself as part of a process of spatial governance. Devolution and the transfer of some of the decision-making power to the regions supports the differentiated model of the rural economy (Marsden et al., 1993; Marsden, 1998). This is likely to be the best way to harness local amenities and networks in order to respond to the opportunities provided by national and global economic processes and the underlying consumption shift. An increasing focus on sustainability, which underscores all government policy, aims to balance environmental considerations such as natural resource and landscape protection as well as the capacity to adapt to climate change with economic ambitions (DEFRA, 2004a). Unfortunately, sustainability remains a highly politicised and nebulous concept and can be seen to easily fall into conflict with concerns over economic growth and employment. Finding local solutions and delivering sustainable rural economies is hopefully facilitated by an increasing transparency in policy-making and planning, and through ever-closer collaboration between local partners and through a growing awareness of these issues amongst the public. Emphasising the ‘local’ in economic strategies is likely to reinforce the process of diversification, bringing new strengths to rural economies and communities while ensuring their sustainability by nurturing their embeddedness within the local environment. However, local planning has not yet had time to catch up with the ambitions set out in recent policy debate. Whilst coordination now stands as a key objective of the planning process – or government’s vision of what this process should entail – this objective is yet to be fully realised. But complexity and the need for coordination go hand-in-hand. In the post-productivist, consumption-based, and often ‘multifunctional’ countryside, and ability to manage and coordinate change must be the key goal of all ‘planning’, whoever the planners might be.

Part III The needs of rural communities

6

Community change

The last three chapters examined changing rural economies. It was established that land-based occupations have been – and are continuing to be – eclipsed by new forms of economic activity in the countryside. A once ‘rural economy’ has been replaced by multiple ‘rural economies’. Economic change, wherever it occurs, is a key driver of community and wider social change. In the next three chapters, attention turns to the shifting nature of rural society. This first chapter considers how the weakening of the land-based (‘productivist’) economy in the countryside has caused a transformation of rural communities, often fragmented along sociocultural and income lines. The next two chapters then examine how the changing nature of rural society – and the transition to a countryside of ‘consumption’ – has, first, transformed the housing market creating new housing pressures and, second, produced a countryside of differentiated need impacting on the provision of essential services. In this first ‘social’ chapter, we posit that community change is a function of economic transition and has caused a new pattern of demand (for housing) and need (for services). ‘Old’ communities tended to be ‘occupational’: people living together sharing similar backgrounds, needs and aspirations; ‘new’ communities on the other hand, tend to be highly differentiated and fragmented, characterised by the coming together of people with very different backgrounds, needs and aspirations for the future, but often sharing a perception of the ‘rural idyll’ (Chapter 5). How planning approaches this diversity is also considered in this chapter.

Learning outcomes This chapter focuses attention on: •

•

the way rural communities have changed, from an interwar period of ‘traditional’ communities to the current situation of greater diversity and fragmentation, with some villages and small towns now dominated by commuting households, the retired or second-home owners; the link between the changing structure of rural communities and their changing needs: the mix of socio-economic and housing groups in the countryside determines, in large part, the demand for services (and, by implication, the demand for stronger planning intervention);

144 • •

The needs of rural communities the conflicts (particularly intra-class conflicts) that may result from community change and; the role of the planning system, historically and post-2004, in resolving this conflict through more participative forms of governance. We consider whether the new planning system’s emphasis on ‘community’ and local empowerment (discussed in Chapter 2) will result in spatial planning having a bigger role in sealing the fractures that have arisen because of socio-economic change in the countryside.

Introduction Economic change in the countryside is important in shaping the fortunes of rural communities. But the pattern of change that has occurred in the British countryside over the last century has not impacted evenly on either communities themselves or the countryside as a whole. Rather, it has been responsible for ‘differentiating’ rural areas along socio-cultural and economic lines, as we saw in the last chapter. As the farming economy weakened and mechanisation took hold, the number of people employed in land-based occupations declined, and as farms became less reliant on local labour, wage levels dropped. The population of rural areas fell by a million persons between 1851 and 1931 (from 8.9 to 7.9 million), and whilst almost 50 per cent of England’s population was ‘rural’ in the middle of the nineteenth century, this proportion had declined to less than 20 per cent by 1939. This absolute and relative decline in population was driven by two forces. First, by industrialisation and the demand for labour in towns and cities; and second, by the reduced need for labour in an increasingly mechanised farming sector. People drifted from the land during this period and the population of cities was swollen by both in-migration and natural growth. But these trends began to alter after 1945. Within six years of the end of hostilities in Europe, England’s rural population had climbed to 8.2 million (slightly higher than its 1891 figure) and by 1981, it had reached 11.3 million (its highest absolute level since records of the urban/rural split began). Although in relative terms, England and the UK remains a dominantly urban society, with an approximate 75/25 population split, the rural population is now bigger than it has ever been before. Counterurbanisation has been a key feature of population change since the 1960s, with the number of people living in ‘remoter’ rural areas experiencing particularly strong growth over the last 40 years. In 1961, just over 4 million people lived in remoter areas (well away from the larger towns and cities); by 1991, this figure had risen to 5.4 million. Indeed, much of the total rural growth experienced in the post-war era has involved an apparent reversal of the losses observed in remoter areas in the early part of the twentieth century. In the countryside, these are the real ‘growth areas’. But why are these demographic shifts occurring? The demand for farm labour has not increased and cities remain the economic drivers of the UK economy. We are not, for the most part, witnessing a labour movement from town to country. The explanation lies, partly, in increasing disposable incomes since 1945 and especially since the period of ‘never having it so good’ in the 1960s. Robertson (1977) has suggested that once post-war recovery was underway, the economic well-being of the urban population began to accelerate past that of the rural population. At the same time – and as discussed in Chapter 3 – there was a post-war reawakening of rural nostalgia: people had more money but were becoming disheartened by city life and were being drawn back to the country, either as full-time residents moving to nearby rural areas and commuting to city jobs, or as temporary residents, purchasing weekend cottages. Hence the urban

Community change 145 middle classes ‘exported’ their wealth to the countryside, and the countryside – in turn – ‘imported’ a new generation of consumers. Population growth, therefore, was not the result of any productive turnaround, but a new fashion of ‘consuming’ rural areas: the result being that villages became host not only to the local population but a new tide of incomers. Champion (2000) has argued that a range of processes and factors have been responsible for the statistical turnaround in the rural population. He suggests that the movement of people from urban to more rural areas is driven by a ‘trilogy’ of factors, categorised under the headings ‘flight’, ‘quest’ and ‘overflow’. ‘Flight’ suggests a one-way movement away from cities by people – including those retiring – pushed by negative urban drivers. ‘Quest’ is the process that leads some people to move away from urban areas in search of alternative lifestyles (e.g. those retiring or ‘down shifters’) with people seeking a different lifestyle or particular residential qualities on which they place a personal premium (especially later in life). The final process in Champion’s trilogy is that of ‘overflow’: here, a lack of room in cities results in a natural drift away from urban areas. This third process also sits squarely with the concept of a ‘cascade’, with population gravitating first to satellite towns (in mid-life) and eventually to locations further afield (on retirement). This process is depicted in Figure 6.1. A powerful economic incentive has increased the popularity of rural living, or at least investment in the rural housing market. Relative to urban wages, homes in the countryside have tended to be less expensive (though this contrast is now fading in some areas). This is an issue that we turn to in Chapter 7, but it is important to note here that net urban–rural population movement involves not only the importing of people but also of wealth (as well as urban values and life-styles). The possibility of securing a bargain in the countryside – a freehold home with far more land and space than could be afforded in London – has proven attractive to many people moving to or investing in rural areas. At the same time, it is important to realise that rural communities are still losing people, especially the young, and what we are discussing here is net growth generated by in-migration exceeding out-migration.

City Suburb Fringe Town Rural area Figure 6.1 The counter-urbanisation cascade Source: Champion, 2000: 14, with permission of the authors (after Champion et al., 1998: 44)

146


Economic change in the countryside at first resulted in a population loss, as we saw above. But it eventually led to a population revival. In the immediate post-war period, the loss of people from rural areas created opportunities to acquire ‘low demand’ surplus housing at a rock-bottom price. During this time the first second home ‘pioneers’ ventured out from London and bought ex-mining cottages in Cornwall (associated with tin) and north Wales (associated with slate: see Bollom, 1978). Many cottages, especially more isolated ones, had been abandoned in the 1930s. Hence, the early period of population turnaround was driven by opportunity and it was led by the more adventurous. But others followed. As the stock of surplus derelict properties dried up, homes in villages became the target for investors, holiday-makers and, eventually, retiring households. These sorts of buyers drove the increase in the population of remoter rural areas between the censuses of 1961 and 1991. Nearer cities, road improvements since 1945, especially the creation of a motorway system (at its densest around Liverpool and Manchester in the north and London in the south) coupled with the desire for space in the country has created a strong commuter market for rural homes, sometimes prompting the growth of ‘commuter towns’. What was initially a process driven by opportunity became, eventually, a process of gentrification marked by fierce competition for rural housing. Over the last 40 years, many rural communities have been transformed by the arrival of people and wealth from the UK’s major urban centres. The ‘traditional’ communities – apparently immune from urban influence – of the interwar period have, for the most part, disappeared. The processes of counter-urbanisation described by Champion (2000) have brought a reconfiguration of rural communities along income lines, as well as new housing and land pressures (Chapter 7), and new conflicts running along class lines, with rural political debate focused on the ‘economic benefits’ of this new demographic versus the view that the countryside is becoming socially exclusive: a playground for an urban middle class or somewhere only the lucky few can retire to. The economic changes described in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 have ultimately generated a new social structure. In this chapter, we explore the evolution of this structural change, chart its impacts, examine the conflicts arising and consider the role spatial planning might play in bringing social stability following a period of turbulent change in many rural communities.

Key debates Communities in transition What is meant by the term ‘community’? This question has received considerable attention in various disciplines during recent decades. Communities are sometimes viewed as the building blocks of a wider society, and therefore the community question may be superseded by the bigger question of what constitutes a ‘society’. Communities are defined by ‘social interaction’ – interpersonal discourse based on shared experience, which shapes values and attitudes and creates a group of people – residing in close mutual proximity – who come to identify themselves as a social grouping. This is the basic definition of a ‘place community’. Therefore community is a product of experience, interaction and identity: bonds are created between individuals over time, extending beyond family networks to embrace co-workers, neighbours and other social acquaintances. Norberg-Schulz (1985) has attributed this process to the act of ‘dwelling’: ‘collective dwelling’ within urban or rural space (expressed through

Community change 147

Figure 6.2 Village events, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire

exchange, social intercourse and interaction) over time generates a stable ‘agreed’ culture (Norberg-Schulz, 1985: 13; see also King, 2004: 23). Thinking on ‘dwelling’ goes back to the work of Martin Heidegger (1971) who argued that people do not merely ‘live’, but they ‘dwell’ in the sense that they create a place for themselves in the world, becoming part of a bigger whole. Indeed, ‘dwelling identifies the individual with the community’ and the ‘security of dwelling gives us the ability to participate within the community’ (King, 2004: 22). People become ‘part’ of a place which, for them as individuals, becomes ‘meaningful’ (Norberg-Schulz, 1985: 9). These ideas resonate with the notion of creating, re-creating or maintaining ‘sustainable communities’. This has become a key objective of government policy in the UK (Chapter 7) Communities are therefore places of ‘common bonds’ and of interaction, and ‘traditional communities’ (those which reflect common understanding) are those built on tradition, shared values and ideas, and a common culture. In the countryside, these are perceived to be the ‘land-based’ communities which preceded today’s ‘mixed’ communities resulting from the population movements and economic divisions described earlier. Martin (1962) paints a picture of village life from the Peasants Revolt of 1381 through to the modern village of the late 1940s. He charts many changes over this 600-year period – affecting farming, religion, local politics, rural industry and education – and concludes that ‘[…] every type of person in the village – the squire and parson, the farmer and labourer and craftsmen – has been affected by the new circumstances’ (Martin, 1962: 127). But the subtext is that the social structure during this period had changed very little. Those affected by the ‘new circumstances’ in the 1940s were the same groups living under the manorial system of the medieval period, all joined together by a landed/landless relationship. The ‘squires’ were the major landowners, employing tenant farmers, who in turn employed labourers and engaged

148


Figure 6.3 Wellesbourne Village Hall

the services of craftsmen. The spiritual needs of this land-based community were overseen by the local parson. This ‘squirearchy’ remained intact in the early years of the twentieth century, but between 1900 and 1950 it was subject to some adjustment: ‘even after 1914 there were plenty of squires to be found in country houses. They often employed a large staff including gamekeepers, gardeners, carpenters, labourers, and domestic servants’ (ibid: 127). But rising taxes and death duties meant that property and land was often sold and the estates broken up during the interwar period (Woods, 2005a: 31–32). Tenant farmers sometimes benefited from this process, buying former estate land cheaply and becoming owner-occupiers: mechanisation made their farms more profitable and the acquisition of wealth sometimes elevated their status close to that of the old squires (Martin, 1962: 129). The position of labourers also changed during this period. Mechanisation put paid to some rural jobs: tens of thousands of labourers left the land in the 1940s and 1950s, but those who remained also enjoyed elevated status, being able to operate complex equipment and being treated, and paid, as highly skilled labour. Craftsmen fared less well during this period, ‘suffering most from the competition of the factory’ (ibid: 130). Boots worn by farmers or chairs sat on by squires could now be sourced more cheaply from elsewhere. Despite acknowledging that rural areas had not ‘stood still’, Martin’s picture of the English village of the 1940s was one in which the parson still remained a leader, where land was still the commodity at the heart of the social structure, and where the pressures of immigration remained largely unknown. The transition away from this type of community has been the subject of sociological writing for the past 50 years (see Pahl, 1975; Bell and Newby, 1971; 1980; Clout, 1972; and Newby, 1979). The economic and demographic changes noted earlier in this chapter – and especially the process of counter-urbanisation – resulted in the

Community change 149 ‘traditional social structure [being] transformed to approximate with conditions elsewhere in urban Britain’ (Clout, 1972: 50). As Martin noted in 1962, the structure of many villages had changed very little during the course of centuries. In contrast, cities had become deeply fractured along class and income lines since the Victorian era (Hall, 1996; Ward, 2004) and had become increasingly outward looking during the time of empire. Pahl (1965) noted that many villagers were ‘restricted in outlook and their involvement outside the village area’ (quoted in Clout, 1972: 51). But this contrasted markedly with the commuters arriving in the 1960s whose ‘[…] spheres of association and contacts is wider than the village community which is seen largely as a dormitory and a place to spend the weekend’ (Pahl, 1965: 163 – quoted in ibid: 151). The newcomers to the countryside during the 1960s tended to be middle class, with a majority having no link with the land-based economy: their arrival marked the beginning of the end for Martin’s traditional village and for what Howard Newby has termed the rural ‘occupational’ community (Newby, 1979: 156). Newby claimed that ‘today the lowland English village as an occupational community has virtually disappeared, except in a very few remote areas’ (ibid: 164). He used the term ‘occupational community’ because ‘farming was unquestionably the mainstay of the rural economy. The population of the majority of rural villages was therefore dependent upon agriculture for a living’ (ibid: 157). This produced a community formed around a common occupation, which ‘conferred a sense of order on village life’ (ibid: 157) in terms of how people lived and what they needed to survive: villagers were all ‘in the same boat’. But Newby’s occupational communities were transformed in the 1960s by the motorway network which brought the former isolation of many rural villages to an end. He describes the changes immigrants brought in his muchcited Green and Pleasant Land? (1979: 165): There are now few villages without their complement of newcomers who work in towns. These new ‘immigrants’ have brought with them an urban, middleclass life-style which is largely alien to the remaining local agricultural population. Unlike the agricultural workers in an occupational community, the newcomers do not make the village the focus of all their social activities. [They] maintain social contacts with friends elsewhere, and if necessary, make use of urban amenities while living in the countryside […] The newcomer, moreover, does not enter the village as a lone individual […] newcomers arrived in such large numbers – perhaps due to the building of a new housing estate by a local speculative builder – that the individual ‘immigrant’ found himself one of many others whose values, behaviour and life-styles were similarly based upon urban, middle-class patterns of sociability. This process of ‘gentrification’ was responsible for an emergent ‘us and them’ mentality from the 1950s onwards, bringing a division and antagonism between the ‘rump of the old occupational community’ (ibid: 166) and the ex-urban newcomers, with the old occupational community cutting itself off from the newcomers and forming an ‘encapsulated community’ within the new village structure. The conflicts that ensued from this point onwards often emanated from different perspectives: first, from the point of view of the original locals, that villages had been ‘invaded’ and that a ‘loss of community’ had been suffered; and second, from the point of view of the newcomers possessing ‘stereotyped expectations’ (ibid: 167) that village life, as they perceived and wanted it, should be preserved and even fossilised (see also Chapter 5).

150


Many of the challenges faced by policy makers and planners in today’s countryside arise from the context of rapid rural change experienced from the 1950s/1960s onwards, and most centre on housing (and service provision) and the environment: •

•

•

•

Newcomers have competed for housing against locals generating higher demand for this scarce commodity. External sources of demand are often blamed for reducing housing opportunities for young local families and this is a source of major conflict and frustration. But although it is sometimes expedient to blame newcomers for placing an upward pressure on house prices, in reality planning constraint may create a scarcity of new homes. This is an issue we turn to in Chapter 7. It is also the case that newcomers have opposed the construction of new council housing in villages ‘on the grounds that it is “detrimental to the character of the village” and detracts from the rural environment’ (Newby, 1979: 167). The same tendency has been observed more recently in relation to housing association new build (Gallent et al., 2002). Of course, had the newcomers needed council housing then they may not have been so quick to oppose its provision. This raises another point which is inferred in the extract from Green and Pleasant Land? above: newcomers may socialise outside the village and use urban amenities. This tendency gives newcomers a different ‘needs profile’ to local households. Whereas the ‘local’ may be dependent on the village pub for entertainment, the newcomer may prefer to socialise after work in a London restaurant. Whereas the local may rely on the village shop for groceries or a local post office, the newcomer may shop at a distant supermarket and (today) deal with banking issues on-line. And whereas the local household may be dependent on local transport services, the urban–rural commuter will have at least one car in the driveway. These difference in local/newcomer (i.e. commuter/second-home buyer/retiring household) needs are considered briefly below and examined again in Chapter 8. New arrivals to the countryside tend to ‘hold strong views on the desired social and aesthetic qualities of the English village. It must conform […] to the prevailing urban view – picturesque, ancient and unchanging’ (Newby, 1979: 167). Therefore, newcomers have been critical of the erection of new corrugated iron barns and the removal of hedgerows (for the purposes of intensive farming) on environmental grounds. (Farmers can often claim support for the enhancement of ‘landscape features’ (Chapters 3 and 4) – perhaps forestalling such reactions – but some farmers may be hostile to the need to sanitise their business activities (Morris and Potter, 1995)). The same groups may oppose new housing or any type of development on the same grounds. Worse still, the economic life of the village (e.g. farming where it remains) may be viewed as quaint and local farm-workers ‘as an adjunct to the scenery’ (Newby, 1979: 170). Conflict between groups is often a product of limited understanding, though it is more commonly attributed to a lack of respect. We return to this issue of conflict, and how conflicts might be resolved, later in this chapter.

Talk of ‘gentrification’, in-migration, and the creation of a ‘rustic suburbia’ suggests that the countryside has been transformed by a middle-class exodus from the cities, and that the middle classes arrived in the countryside to find relatively impoverished agricultural communities who quickly became jealous of the wealth of the newcomers,

Community change 151 and who the newcomers petted and treated with derision. Much writing on social change in the countryside suggests a simple division between rural locals and ex-urban incomers, and yet it is clear from Martin’s Book of the Village that rural England had its own class structure before the post-war counter-urbanisation phenomenon. Likewise, the newcomers who arrived after the war were not of a single social group. Two social structures came together in the period described by Newby above, to create a new structure fractured along newcomer/local lines, but also reflecting existing divisions in each of these two groups. Drawing on field studies and surveys undertaken in southern England in the 1960s, Ray Pahl (1975) identified eight groups (with associated housing problems) within the emergent rural social structure of post-war England: •

•

•

•

•

•

Large property owners: either surviving squires or, more normally, ‘capitalist farmers, often owning huge acreages’ (ibid: 42). Following the demise of the squirearchy between the wars, the ‘farmers who purchased their tenancies in the great sale of land’ (Woods, 2005b: 33) came to form a new ‘agrarian elite’ wielding significant local power. Salaried immigrants with some capital: these are the bulk of the middle class immigrants importing urban lifestyles highlighted by Newby (1979). Pahl described these immigrants as ‘those living in a period property full of beams, latches, central heating and assorted ironmongery from the little shop off Tottenham Court Road’ who help maintain ‘something of our rural domestic architecture’ (Pahl, 1975: 42). ‘Spiralists’: a word borrowed from sociology to describe professionals moving upwards through the hierarchy of an organisation who are forced to move their families for career reasons, and who gravitate to small-scale communities because of perceived quality of life and expectation of easier integration. Those with limited income and little capital: ‘reluctant commuters’ (ibid: 43) who move to the countryside from a nearby (more expensive) city because they cannot afford city house prices, especially if their families are growing and they need more space. These are often attracted to little village estates of the type described by Newby (1979: 165) and which exert a strong pull on ‘overflow’ migrants (Champion, 2000: 14). But with limited capital, such families can find rural living difficult, especially if one partner commutes back to the city, leaving the other carless during the working week (Chapter 8). The retired: the perception of the retired today is of a homogenous group of affluent ex-urban households heading to the countryside in their twilight years, sometimes exchanging considerable amounts of accumulated equity in urban homes for the ideal country cottage. But this group may in fact comprise people with ‘varied financial backgrounds’ (Pahl, 1975: 43) including the very wealthy, those retiring to the villages in the hope that more limited financial resources will go further (a growing phenomenon at a time of pension uncertainty), and those stretching themselves in order to afford a modest home in the perceived rural idyll. Pahl paints a picture of many retired people becoming ‘lonely, bored and isolated’ in small villages, away from lifelong friends, out of touch with family and increasingly less mobile (ibid: 44). Council house tenants/remnants of the occupational community: for Pahl (ibid: 44) the pattern of council house provision in the countryside reflected the needs of an agricultural economy, and sometimes such housing is not needed (e.g. where there are no jobs). But those locals occupying council homes can be seen as

152

•

•

The needs of rural communities a privileged class, whose needs have at least been recognised by local powers. In recent times, being able to buy a council home with a discount (through the ‘right to buy’ policy: see Chapter 7) has lifted some households out of relative poverty and created new wealth in the local community. It is interesting that whilst Pahl saw the provision of social housing as only being justified where there were local jobs, provision today is often viewed as the obvious way of ensuring that local people exercise their ‘right’ to remain in the ‘their community’, irrespective of local labour market conditions. Private and tied tenants: this group comprised Pahl’s ‘rural poor’ – a ‘low wealth, low income’ housing class (Shucksmith, 1990a): that section of the occupational community that has become increasingly marginalised in Newby’s encapsulated community. Tradesmen and small-business owners: another remnant of the social structure described by Martin (1962) whose fortunes have shifted in line with those of the farming economy but who may have experienced some improvement in their economic status in recent years as a result of tourism growth and the rejuvenation of some rural crafts.

In this structure, we have the existing rural elite, the immigrants (differentiated by wealth and life stage) and the remnants of Newby’s occupational community. We also have what Shucksmith (1990a; 1990b) has described as a division between groups with ‘low incomes and low wealth’ (more likely to be reliant on interventionist welfare and service provision) and the ‘more prosperous’ (more able to meet their own needs in terms of housing and other ‘services’). Investors in holiday homes (let on a commercial basis) and the purchasers of second homes can be added to this ‘social structure’ though these may be only be found in more attractive villages in areas where there are strong ‘recreational markets’ (Chapter 7). In recent years, this picture has become even more complex, affected by international movements (Box 6.1). But what is clear from the above is that the new rural community (or, if the term ‘community’ suggests a cohesion that no longer exists, then the new pattern of social grouping) is highly differentiated in terms of income, wealth, status, life-style, attitudes, aspirations, demands and needs. Planning for the needs of the modern village – the ‘social challenge’ introduced in Chapter 1 – has become a more complex endeavour: it is about balancing competing pressures, interests and attitudes and it is a subject introduced below.

Community change and changing needs We examine community service provision and planning in Chapter 8. Community change (underpinned by economic and demographic movements) has been the driving force behind the shifting sands of community need for the past 50 years. We noted in the last section that newcomer and local groups have different needs by virtue of their different lifestyles, preferences, and capacity to compete for goods and services. When one group, with more acute need, is concealed behind a more dominant group, able to meet its own needs in the private sector, it is possible that the need of the minority is overlooked, or considered too insignificant, to warrant attention. For example, in the dominantly middle-class car-owning villages of southern England, the need to provide a regular bus service for a small number of residents without cars, may be assigned low priority. The community changes examined in the last section have reshaped the reality and perception of rural needs:


Box 6.1 International migration and its rural impact Whilst much of the population growth in rural England has been fuelled by domestic urban to rural movements, more recently – and especially since 2004 – a great many foreign workers, mainly from Eastern Europe, have settled in the UK, with a significant proportion of these heading to rural areas. Quantification is difficult, but the Home Office estimate that 600,000 migrant workers from the 2004 EU accession states (the ‘A8’) have moved to the UK, and 120,000 of these (23 per cent) are now residing in rural areas (CRC, 2007). Such migration can play a positive part in filling labour gaps and overcoming skills shortages, especially in agriculture (Chapters 4 and 5). But migrants often live in overcrowded conditions and can add to the pressure on local housing markets (Chapter 7). They can also increase the pressure on local health and education services, the latter finding it difficult to meet the needs of children for whom English is not a first language. A key problem in some areas, especially where local authorities have been overwhelmed by migration and have not received appropriate additional resources from government, has been the conflict and hostility which has accompanied this dramatic and sudden social change. International migration of this type, on top of the other movements discussed in this chapter, can be unsettling for rural communities and may, in the years ahead, become a major driver of social change in some parts of the English countryside.

•

•

•

They have brought wealth to the countryside which may conceal remaining poverty and make the countryside as a whole, or at least some villages, seem capable of meeting its own needs. Community change has also introduced a resistance to some forms of development – especially new housing – which may shape political reaction (at the level of parish or district councils) to new development and cause opposition to development by a majority who forget the needs of a minority. They brought a social structure with different needs, especially where retired households, commuters or second home owners come to dominate a community: a concentration of retired people or seasonal residents will reduce demand for school places and other services; commuters may have less need for public transport or local services including shops. In some communities the balance between permanent and temporary residents has been altered and ‘changes in the number of people living permanently in the countryside or making use of its resources on a temporary basis’ (Clout, 1972: 8) may have a major impact on services.

In the next two chapters (7 and 8) discussion is divided between housing (and the environment) and local service provision (other than housing), and how social change in the countryside – amongst other factors – impacts on the demand for and supply of essential services. In the remainder of this chapter, we look first at the social tensions that can arise in fragmented rural communities and which can present an obstacle in the path of effective policy making, and second, at the changing role of planning in promoting more balanced and ‘sustainable communities’ by focusing on community cohesion and addressing the divisions that have come to characterise many villages and towns in recent times.

154


Figure 6.4 ‘The Old School’, now converted to residential use, Alderminster, Warwickshire

Rural conflict Woods (2005b) claims that ‘social and economic restructuring has turned the countryside into a far more complex space than it once was’. Martin’s almost ‘timeless’ farming community has been replaced by a society of ‘different economic and ideological interests’ where a view of the ‘rural as a working community in which employment needs to be provided by the exploitation of natural resources’ can sit in opposition to a view (or ‘representation’) of the ‘rural as a pleasant place to live, whose attraction rests on the absence of industry and the preservation of the landscape’ (ibid: 210). Within new communities ‘a multitude of conflicts have erupted about the legitimacy or appropriateness of different developments, initiatives and policies’ (ibid: 210). The planning system can find itself at the centre of such conflicts, often because they concentrate around key land-use issues such as the development of new homes, the location of industry, landscape protection and land rights (including access to privately owned land), or on activities whose control falls under the jurisdiction of planning. The resolution of conflict is both a rationale of planning policy making and of local strategy, policy writing and implementation. Elson (1986: 264) claims that ‘interest mediation and compromise’ are ‘essential tasks’ of central government policy-

Community change 155 making, and it is the responsibility of local government to ensure that compromise is achieved on the ground. But this is no easy task. Murdoch and Abram (2002) argue that planning policy and planning decisions are driven by opposing ‘rationalities’. The first rationality promotes the need for development and is likely to find support in the countryside amongst those groups wanting to see more housing for local needs or the promotion of economic activity aimed at raising local wage levels. Woods’ ‘working community’ representation of the rural will be associated with a ‘developmental’ planning rationality. The second rationality is ‘environmental’ and borne of concerns over the impact of development and the loss of ‘rural character’ (Woods, 2005b: 211) that might result from additional housing or farm expansions involving the erection of modern barns or silage facilities. The ‘environmental rationality’ is likely to draw support from those groups less concerned about affordable housing provision, who defend a particular representation of rural character, and whose financial well-being is not tied to the fortunes of the rural economy. Hence, middle-class incomers – and particularly the affluent retired or the owners of second homes – may be closely associated with this particular planning rationality (see also Chapter 5). Concern over the development of rural space is just one source of potential conflict in the countryside. Woods (ibid: 211) suggests that two other types of conflict are also important: the first concerns natural resources and the balance between agriculture and conservation. This has become particularly important over the last 50 years and was introduced in Chapter 5. The arrival of the middle classes (with their particular representation of rural space) in the countryside coincided with a period of agricultural intensification (Chapter 4) at first based on domestic production subsidies (after the 1947 Agriculture Act) and subsequently – with the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Community in 1973 – on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Intensive mechanised ‘factory farming’ has drastically altered the character of much of lowland Britain, grating against protectionist representations of the rural, and leading some conservationists to argue that farmers had abused their stewardship of the countryside (Shoard, 1980). Natural resource conflicts have focused on the destruction of pastoral landscapes, the use of pesticides and fertilisers, the loss of hedgerows (100,000 km removed between 1984 and 1990 alone), the drainage of wetlands and removal of meadows (under the auspices of farm improvement initiatives: Chapters 4 and 5), the steady decline in animal and plant species from the countryside (with Shoard, 2002, arguing that many species have taken refuge in the rural–urban fringe as a result of farming practices), and the creation of monotonous and sterile farmed landscapes. Although the planning system’s influence over such alterations to the landscape has been limited in the past (none constitute ‘material changes of use’ or ‘development’) the same ‘environmental’ and ‘developmental’ rationalities are at the heart of this conflict, reflecting different representations of the countryside. But a more widespread awareness of environmental change in recent years – linking local practices to global problems and especially climate change – has lifted the status of this environmental agenda, and farming practices are likely to be affected by further reforms of the CAP in the years ahead (Chapters 3 and 4). Today, concerns over the development of rural space are also reflected in national policy debate but concerns over local housing development have not ‘gone global’ to the same extent as resource conflicts. The second type of additional conflict concerns the ‘rural way of life’ (Woods, 2005b: 211) and has, in recent years, focused on the hunting of wild animals. This is not a simple intra-class conflict though it is sometimes depicted as such, with hunting

156


groups (especially those involved in the hunting of foxes with hounds) presented as an idle upper class engaging in a barbaric form of entertainment, and hunting opponents presented as an urban middle class who understand little or nothing of the rural way of life. But attitudes towards hunting tend to transcend class boundaries reflecting both discourses of rurality and the ‘global values of animal rights’ (ibid: 216). In the face of apparent national opposition to hunting (it was reported in The Guardian in 2001 that 83 per cent the British public feel that hunting is cruel, outdated, unnecessary or unacceptable: Vidal, 2001) pro-hunting campaigners have ‘advanced their case by identifying hunting with rurality, such that an attack on hunting becomes an attack on the rural’ (Woods, 2005b: 217). In particular, it has been suggested that hunting binds together communities providing them with a focal point (see also, Buller and Hoggart, 1994); it has also been argued that a dominantly urban society is seeking to impose its values on the countryside. Debates over hunting are – according to some prohunting groups – indicative of: an urban–rural antagonism; of local–global frictions; and of continuing threats to civil liberties and minority rights. Some migrants to the countryside have embraced hunting, perhaps as a route to acceptance, or because they believe that their participation is consistent with a desired representation of the rural (they may also acquire horses or a Land Rover). Others view the activity with distaste: a study of British immigrants to rural France in the 1990s, for example, found clear ‘potential for conflict between British newcomers and local residents over hunting’ (Buller and Hoggart, 1994: 119) with newcomers confronting ‘local customs’ (including the consumption of horse meat in this instance, ibid.) with ‘ethical arguments’. And because such ethical arguments have no particular class base (or less of a class base than they might once have had), conflicts around the rural way of life may pit a range of different groups against one another. Whilst some newcomers buy into a representation of the rural that includes hunting, others – especially the advocates of quiet enjoyment or a symbiotic relationship with nature – may be offended by this activity. ‘Way of life’ conflicts – of which hunting is a prime example – pit not only urban against rural society, but also generate intra-rural tensions. The conflicts which are evident in contemporary rural society highlight both competing representations and rationalities, and the complex ‘realities of the restructured countryside’ (Wood, 2005b: 217). Development and natural resource centred conflicts pose a particular challenge for rural planning, though broader ‘way of life’ conflicts may galvanise divisions and make resolution through planning that much more difficult to achieve.

Emergent issues: the role of (spatial) planning In this chapter, we have looked at the restructuring of rural society evidenced in the changing structure and form of rural communities. Community change has resulted in a different profile of aspirations and needs; it has also resulted in conflicts centred on the development of rural space, the proper use of natural resources and on the way people choose to live in the countryside. The next step is to consider how the planning system is able to address need and mediate conflict. In Chapters 7 and 8, we look in detail at issues of housing and housing development in the countryside, and at service demand, provision and use. In the remainder of this chapter, we briefly explore planning’s role in mediating competing interests in today’s rural communities. Our focus here is on ‘rationality-based’ conflicts. It has already been suggested that different representations of rurality (a ‘working countryside’ versus ‘conservative’/‘protectionist’

Community change 157 attitudes) find expression in a ‘developmental’ versus ‘environmental’ divide that may result in one or more of the following issues: •

•

•

•

•

a rejection of new housing development often explained in terms of the tendency towards NIMBYism (‘Not In My Back Yard’) displayed by newcomers whose environmental rationality is grounded in a belief that rural communities would suffer a loss of character if further housing development were permitted and, moreover, may have no need for such new housing themselves; a tendency amongst incomers to mobilise opposition against development proposals either by forming lobbying groups or by becoming directly involved in local politics; retired incomers may stand for election relying on the growing ‘grey vote’ in the countryside to install them onto local councils; a rejection of initiatives or proposals that could result in local job creation, including the expansion or diversification of farm businesses (Chapter 5) or the building of new industrial units; a visibly changed social structure may lead some incomers to believe that there is no case for such development – an environmental rationale supports the view that necessary development should be directed to ‘more suitable’ urban sites, or to nearby market towns; a lack of support for all local services on the part of some second home owners (they neither lobby for such services, nor use them) or a preference for ‘bespoke services’ on the part of wealthier incomers, providing specialist dairy products or breads, rather than more affordable general stores that might serve a wider crosssection of the community; a lack of support for public transport initiatives: incomers may neither use public transport (preferring the convenience of private cars) nor add their voices to local calls for improvement and investment.

These practical manifestations of the conflicts discussed earlier arise from different priorities: restructured communities – unlike the traditional communities of the past – may not speak with a single voice. And furthermore, the planning system may find it difficult to accommodate a wider range of needs especially where the demand for some services declines as a result of more people in the countryside using private transport to access larger alternative services (including supermarkets) further afield. These are issues examined in Chapter 8 where we will also see that it is important not to see newcomers as a homogenous group, sharing the same opinions or patterns of behaviour. In many rural communities, some newcomers are very important in promoting community action and mobilising ‘social capital’ behind local agendas, especially when some of the services mentioned above are threatened.

Planning and community change (1) Traditionally, the planning system has attempted to strike a balance between the ‘community good’ and ‘private interest’ (Chapter 1), but the community good is more difficult to define within restructured and hence more complex rural communities, making the challenge for planning commensurately difficult. Gilg (2005) suggests that planning is needed for ‘two compelling reasons’: ‘first, to resolve conflicts over land use, and second to allow the public to have a say in those conflicts’ (ibid: 55). He adds that society is ‘a cauldron of conflict and tensions’ (ibid: 57), and this may be particularly true where entirely different value systems (different ‘representations’ of rural space)

158


stand in apparent opposition to one another. In the context of rural society, planning must strike a balance between an economic growth and efficiency agenda (prioritised by those groups viewing the countryside as a working space) and an environmental protection agenda (which communities can often unite around, but which means different things to different groups: to some, for example, farming is environmental protection; to others, farming brings an erosion of environmental quality). Planning’s purpose is, in part, to achieve social justice in the context of increasingly complex communities in which aspirations – and perceptions of what is ‘just’ (access to jobs and homes, protection of environmental assets for future generations) – is increasingly contested. Campbell (1996) has described such ‘jobs versus the environment’ conflicts as a variation on the classic ‘man versus nature’ battle that has long been a feature of planning debate. In this context, local planning authorities may provide an arbitration service. But past experience has suggested that it has not always performed this function effectively. It can be difficult to reconcile interests or find common ground between entrenched positions even in the name of social justice or sustainable development. But such has been the task of the 1947–2004 planning system in rural areas. Consultations on new development proposals, on amendments to planning policy, on reviews of green belt boundaries, have all involved bringing groups together in an attempt to reach some sort of compromise. Through trial and error, collaborative approaches in community planning have become more sophisticated and, sometimes, more successful in ensuring that planning at least understands local demands, can guarantee that different interests are taken into consideration, can build creativity into local solutions, enhance transparency in decision-making, and begin to build trust between members of a community and professionals (Barton et al., 2003: 47). Collaborative approaches to planning have attempted to diffuse conflict between planning professionals and communities (by ‘opening’ up decisions that may previously have been taken behind closed doors) and between different community members or groups (by prompting new dialogues and trying to create mutual understanding). But participatory or collaborative planning is often about dealing either with a perceived failure in the planning system (its lack of openness) or evolving shared solutions to recognised problems. It aims to build consensus around a need for action. Thus communities are given a ‘creative’ input through ‘planning for real’ exercises, are directly involved in local design (through the preparation of ‘village design statements’: see Chapters 2 and 8), are invited to ‘local mapping’ sessions where issues or perceptions are openly discussed, or are involved in planning ‘road shows’ or ‘round table workshops’ (Barton et al., 2003: 51). Over time, greater trust in the ‘process’ (as planning shows a friendlier face) may result. But it is arguably more difficult to effect change in people’s underlying values which determine what they actually want to achieve from this process. Newby (1979) highlights that divisions often remain even when there is an outward show of unity. At village fêtes – which remain commonplace across rural England – ‘newcomers concentrate on the winemaking and the flower arrangements, while locals head single-mindedly for the beer tent and the equally serious business of the vegetable show, a forum in which husbandry skill is still subject to public competition’ (ibid: 171). Today, planning road-shows and workshops have become another forum in which communities come together, though divisions may be more visibly ‘on show’. But like the social occasion of the fête, it is questionable how far lasting reconciliation is achieved (see Box 6.2).


Box 6.2 Conflict resolution and South Bedfordshire’s Green Belt Review, 2006 In October 2006, South Bedfordshire District Council (SBDC) ran a workshop for community groups and planning professionals to examine possible changes to green belt boundaries (Chapter 10, this volume). Like many rural authorities it was beginning to get to grips with planning reform and the abolition of the county planning function. Previously, green belt policy for the area had been written into the Bedfordshire Structure Plan and following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act of 2004, Bedfordshire had been asked to consider which policies it would like to ‘save’ and move into its local development framework. Up for discussion at the workshop were the green belt boundaries and the future stated purpose of green belt in the district in the context of an emergent South East Plan (RSS14) and a Milton Keynes South Midlands (MKSM) Sub-Regional Strategy. Contained in these higher tier plans was a stated need to accommodate future household growth, prompting a local debate over the ‘tightness’ of green belt boundaries around some potential growth centres including Luton (in a bordering authority), Dunstable and Houghton Regis. The debate was a classic ‘man versus nature’, jobs and homes versus the environment affair. The workshop was run by the planning team from South Bedfordshire and attended by parish councillors, local pressure groups, district politicians, consultants, developers and a number of additional community representatives. This was to be an educational exercise, to ensure that the issues and pressures were fully understood, and aiming to influence attitudes and therefore behaviour: to essentially break down divisions. An attempt was made to ‘frame the debate’, to dispel the myth (that had been propagated locally) that green belt was sacrosanct and there merely to protect local communities from any form of development pressure. A further attempt was made to reconcile the ‘inevitability of change’ with the reality of ‘local choice’ – something had to ‘give’ but communities would have a direct role in influencing change. Speakers and facilitators were lined up to sell the need for developing a ‘shared agenda’ and promoting compromise. And despite obvious tensions between the Friends of the Earth (FoE) and local house builders, centring on the ‘growth’ and housing supply–demand evidence-base, the local authority did a good job in selling the possibility of compromise. It is easy to walk away from such workshops with a sense of quiet satisfaction (it was pointed out several times that there had been no bloodshed), but in reality parishes unwilling to countenance additional house building did not soften their positions, and environmental groups ended the day by asking participants to walk along the quiet lanes of Bedfordshire, to gaze out across the gentle slopes of the Chiltern hills, and to ‘sit and listen’ to the wildlife of a wood or meadow before allowing the countryside to be raped by housing development and road building. There is an apparent logic to policy – which may support either development or conservation – that is quickly grasped, but defeated by emotional arguments with equal speed. Occasionally such arguments provide a wake-up call in the face of flawed logic, and this is no bad thing. But at other times, they are merely evidence of continued entrenchment.

160


Planning itself has long been a focus of criticism for many community groups who view it as either incapable of providing effective mediation, or leaning too far in favour of development or conservation. But in the context of current housing debate – examined in greater detail in the next chapter – and projections of an additional 209,000 new households forming in England each year for the next 25 years (ODPM, 2006b), much of the previously local debate is being elevated to a regional or national level. There is a realisation among many community groups that local planning is powerless to refuse the demands of national government, which is currently requiring it to plan for massive household growth, review green belt boundaries, find ways to deliver new infrastructure and consider the release of greenfield sites for the development of ‘sustainable communities’ in key growth areas (Box 7.2). Mobilised behind groups such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) or Friends of the Earth (FoE), different sections of rural society are becoming more sophisticated in their questioning of the growth agenda (and its demographic and economic rationale) or the ‘failure of regional policy’ to divert pressure away from the congested southeast. At the same time, some farmers have entered the development business, aligning themselves with the traditional economic community and the case for more ‘local housing and local jobs’ (whilst fending off criticism that they are only interested in providing homes for wealthy commuters). Hence, the rural community divisions that first emerged in the 1950s and 1960s are finding expression in national policy debate and through mobilised protest, with groups such as the Countryside Alliance arguing for a preservation of a way of life that includes hunting, and the CPRE calling for a reexamination of the growth agenda whilst securing local homes for local people. In this difficult context, the nebulous concept of ‘sustainable development’ becomes local (and national) planning’s best and last hope for achieving compromise. It argues that the competing rationalities of planning – environment versus development – are not contradictory, but both have a part to play in the future of the countryside: though the terms of any compromise, and the exact balance between environment and development, will remain a point of contention (Dryzek, 2005). Nevertheless, the chairperson of an Affordable Rural Housing Commission has recently argued that rural communities cannot be ‘frozen in aspic’ (ARHC, 2006) but need to grow in a sustainable way. In many communities, the capacity-building and collaborative exercises of the last 20 years are likely to have resulted in some compromise. And as the newcomers of the 1960s and 1970s have come to think of themselves as part of the ‘local community’, they have come to share concerns over local housing provision. Likewise, members of the traditional occupational community may see no local economic or social benefit flowing from large-scale housing development and may oppose it alongside relative newcomers. In other words, time and a changing context has arguably done more to ease tensions in the countryside than ‘official’ attempts at conflict resolution. There will always be the NIMBYs who arrive in the countryside and oppose new development. But there will also be emergent issues around which communities might unite, interact, and come to some common understanding. In recent years, many communities have unanimously opposed second home buying (see Chapter 7): ‘locals’ because they see it as a barrier to affordable housing access (i.e. as a social and economic pressure), and relative ‘newcomers’ because they fear that second home purchasing will generate a need for additional house building (i.e. as a potential environmental pressure). Planning can be effective in mediating between competing land uses in some instances: it can, for example, ensure that private interests do not override the

Community change 161 community good by influencing the form of development or ensuring that community gains derive from new planning permissions. This is an issue explored in the next chapter. But it has been less effective at tackling the underlying causes of conflict, which are cultural in basis and may only recede or reconfigure over time. In recent years, planning has been unable to resolve major conflicts over house building or other forms of development without leaving a legacy of resentment. But will this pattern of failure change under the new planning approach?

Spatial planning and new forms of governance (2) Planning has always been concerned with social justice, but in more recent times it has also become concerned with building what has become known as ‘social capital’ (Edwards and Foley, 1997). We noted above that, over time, communities may reach ‘common understanding’ and divisions that once seemed intractable may appear to ease. Time and shared context may help create greater social cohesion, with ‘interactive processes’ and ‘learning’ contributing to positive change in terms of increased trust and ‘knowledge resources’ within a community, according to Falk and Kilpatrick (2000: 91). The same authors argue that ‘social life and structures are constructed and reproduced through [a variety of] interactions’ (ibid: 93). Whilst such outcomes are central to ‘community’ itself – with traditional communities interacting for mutual benefit within the context of a land-based economy – new interactions today may lead to new forms of social benefit, generating ‘social capital’ with its ‘potential for being harnessed in pursuit of deliberative yet benign social change’ (ibid: 87) built on ‘interactive productivity’ (ibid: 93). Building social capital can be seen as synonymous with ‘rebuilding’ community, re-establishing common ground, generating trust, and enhancing wellbeing. The question we turn to in this section is whether a focus on ‘community’ within the 2004 planning system, and its emphasis on (community) ‘well-being’ and connection with community strategies, provides any potential for advancing the goal of achieving greater social cohesion. Spatial planning is supposedly about generating interaction (Chapter 2), and the promotion of personal well-being is set as an objective within the new system (ODPM, 2004b; 2005a). It has also been suggested that spatial planning is ‘value driven’ and concerned with identifying, understanding and mediating conflicting sets of values (RTPI, 2001; and see Chapter 1). But what real potential does it have to achieve this goal in rural communities? The emergent structure of the 2004 planning system was set out in Chapter 2, though the place of planning within processes of governance (also a topic addressed in Chapter 2) and within communities is also being shaped by the Labour administration’s attempts to ‘modernise’ local government, ensuring that policy becomes an expression of local choice rather than an intervention imposed by policy and planning professionals. The aim of recent and ongoing local government reforms has been to create structures in which greater community cohesion is generated, aspirations are agreed, and planning becomes one of a number of tools for meeting these aspirations. This contrasts with a status quo in which competing groups struggle for power behind closed doors, use consultants to ‘prove’ the need for a certain course of action, and then try to sell solutions to a sceptical public. Such an approach creates winners and losers, is likely to alienate particular sections of the local population, and sows the seeds of resentment and conflict. But if government can empower people, enabling them to take the decisions that affect their own communities, many of the causes of

162


conflict – so the argument goes – can be eradicated and communities will feel a greater sense of ‘well-being’. This is at least part of the rationale behind Labour’s programme of local government reform. The Local Government Act 2000 required authorities to take a lead on the preparation of communities strategies (which have since been evolved into ‘sustainable community strategies’) which articulate a vision for a local area, encompassing future social, economic and environmental change. Responsibility for the preparation of these strategies rests with local strategic partnerships (Carmona et al., 2003: 164–165) comprising the local authority, interest and community groups. With the arrival of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the logical next step was to ensure that the LDF (see Chapter 2) connected with the community strategy, becoming a practical plan for its delivery. Formally, the two documents are connected via a local area agreement (with evolved from PSA in 2004) in which all the local partners sign up to the strategy, realised through the policies and tools contained in the LDF. Central government resources will also be allocated through the LAAs to help ensure the locally determined policy priorities can be operationalised. The Local Government White Paper published in 2006 sought even greater integration between planning and community aspirations, indicating that the LDF’s core strategy (the principal DPD: Chapter 2) will be inserted directly into, and integrated with, the sustainable community strategy (DCLG, 2006d: Para. 5.63). The significance of this is that ‘planning’ is no longer ‘owned’ by planning departments, but becomes a process and product emerging from the wider community of stakeholders: planning is becomes a means through which to articulate local aspirations, and a tool by which these may be realised (Chapter 2). In theory, this post-2004 approach to planning deals with the causes of conflict inherent in – and directly generated by – the planning process, but offers no guarantee that substantive conflicts centred on issues such as housing development, recreation, lifestyle, hunting, economic development and so on, can be resolved. The goal is for planning and the structures of local governance to become a more helpful and ‘collaborative’ context in which different groups can come together and try to find some common ground. But their ability to do so will be determined by the interactive processes that are part of community life. In the past, the methods and tools of publicsector planning may have been out of kilter with these processes, with planning primarily concerned with control and intervention rather than seeing itself as part of the wider machinery of local governance. On the face of it, planning seems to have defined for itself a far more positive role in the life of rural communities (in theory, though local practice may take some time to reach this point). This is the signal given by local government reform since 2000. However, planning reforms and the ‘Barker agenda’ (set out in the housing supply and land-use planning reviews of 2004 and 2006, and now expressed in PPS3 and in the Planning White Paper, DCLG, 2007a) does not entirely square with this philosophy of local power and choice. Government’s central concern in relation to housing and major infrastructure, for example, is to ensure that planning is re-oriented to deal with strategic concerns: with housing supply coordinated at a sub-regional level and responsibility for infrastructure taken out of the hands of local planning (and transferred to an independent commission, whose decisions are guided by national policy statements, DCLG, 2007a: 18). The first Barker Review (examined in the next chapter) was critical of local decision making which was thought to be insufficiently transparent, serving ‘negative local attitudes to development’ (Barker, 2004: 33). Whilst local government reform might enhance

Community change 163 transparency, there seems to be less certainty that negative attitudes can be overcome. Hence the empowering rationale of the local government agenda – which seems to make local planning a more pliable and positive tool – appears uprooted by a strategic spatial planning agenda which will result in many of the issues that rural communities are centrally concerned about – housing, infrastructure and green belt (see Barker, 2006: 9–10) – being removed from the local planning process. Or at least, decisions in principle will be removed leaving communities to debate a limited number of available options, floated down from above. On the positive side, there is some hope that the local planning process will become a context in which communities can come together, share views and aspirations, reach new understandings, and find common ground. It may help resolve some internal conflicts centred on competing representations of rural life. But a continuing concern – unanswered by recent planning reforms – is the extent to which aspirations towards local choice can be reconciled with policies and developments – including housing supply and green belt reform – sold as strategic and national necessities. This is the most significant source of conflict in rural areas today.

Conclusions: community change and ‘sustainable communities’ This chapter has dealt primarily with community change, conflicts resulting from that change, and planning’s evolving role in mediating between local choice and strategic priority. The changes faced by communities since the middle of the twentieth century – on the back of economic shifts affecting rural areas in particular and the entire UK more generally – presents the planning system with its critical challenge in the countryside. Demographic and social change, frequently expressed in rural gentrification and social exclusion, has increased the complexity of planning’s task. Needs, lifestyles and also aspirations have become more varied: the homogenous farming communities of the interwar years described by Martin (1962) have been replaced by a new heterogeneity which can be difficult to manage, resulting in economic and value-based conflicts. Since the 1960s, rural communities have needed to re-build the social capital lost as a result of unsettling economic and demographic change. Some writers have argued that ‘interactive processes’ and ‘learning’ can contribute to positive change, reestablishing community cohesion. In other words, people get used to one another and tensions eventually recede. Alternatively, tensions linked to internal dynamics may become less important relative to the external pressures impinging on communities: these can encompass ‘strategic’ priorities including growth (centred on house-building programmes) infrastructure provision, road building, or the planning process itself, considered an intervening force in local matters. Since Labour’s first election victory in 1997, the ‘modernising agenda’ in local government has involved a re-orientation of planning and decision making towards a more ‘consensual’ and less ‘interventionist’ model. Milestones in this programme include the Local Government Act 2000 and the more recent Local Government White Paper 2006, with their local strategic partnerships, (sustainable) community strategies and reform of local democracy, all contributing to achieving the ‘governance shift’ introduced in Chapter 5. The planning process has been slotted into this evolving context, with emergent ‘spatial planning’ (see Chapter 2) becoming the delivery component of ‘spatial governance’. In this chapter, we have also considered how spatial planning tries to reconcile local community needs and aspirations with higher level strategic priorities. Questions

164


of scale (in serving community needs, and in thinking about governance: Chapter 11) are paramount when understanding and responding to rural social change. Frequently, rural communities are locally based and place-specific, often centred on a market town or a small settlement. Town or parish councils are regularly seen as the appropriate framework in which local needs and aspirations can be articulated (through parish plans and village design statements: see Chapter 8). These can also provide a means of supporting local projects. Government has tried to improve the quality and responsibility of parish and town councils, as a means of empowering local people. But the success of these frameworks relies to a large extent on a community’s intrinsic attributes. Some communities have the social capital to become well organised but in others, there is little outward cohesion. It is important to remember that rural communities are very diverse across space, and have been shaped by the various processes of change outlined in this, and in previous chapters. This makes it difficult to know how to engage with local communities through spatial planning and whether all rural communities can be engaged in the same way through standard policy approaches. However, there is now a new hope that planning can become part of the process of managing community change of the type observed in rural areas during the last 60 years; that it will provide a context in which different interests can come together and negotiate ways around lifestyle or rationality-led conflicts; and that it will become a framework for building social capital and cohesion. However, there is now a new threat on the horizon – that communities will become increasingly powerless in the face of strategic objectives. This issue is explored in the next chapter.

7

Rural housing Demand, supply, affordability and the market

In the last chapter, we looked at the changing shape of rural communities and suggested that during the last half century, the countryside has become a more complex and differentiated place to live. Some communities have lost ‘cohesion’ and have become flashpoints for conflict. Such conflicts can link to contested ‘representations’ of rural space (as a working economy or a quiet retreat), to divisions in need and aspiration, and to different ‘rationalities’ driving either a developmental or environmental agenda. We argued that through ‘(re)productive interaction’ (reestablishing a sense of community), it is possible that some conflicts may subside over time. But one constant in studies of rural areas in recent years has been a debate centred on housing and especially on new housing development and pressures on existing stock. Sometimes this debate centres on different local rationalities, dividing those who accept and those who reject a need for additional house building. Sometimes it unifies communities against an external ‘growth agenda’ (when planning authorities attempt to ‘impose’ strategic development). And on other occasions, it may mean that the housing market itself becomes contested, with communities and their representatives opposing the purchase of second homes or warning of the dangers of excessive retirement migration. This chapter is concerned with the parameters of ‘housing pressure’ in rural areas: with debates over housing demand, in-migration, housing supply, planning constraints and the loss of social housing. It is also concerned with the role of local planning authorities in achieving sustainability (a balance between necessary growth and environmental protection) and affordability, either through tactical interventions in the type of homes provided, or by promoting additional house building in the countryside in the years ahead.

Learning outcomes This chapter looks at housing pressures and planning’s role in ensuring adequate housing supply and affordability in rural areas. It provides: •

•

an overview of the evolving housing debate not only in rural areas but also more generally. It outlines the importance of planning in dealing with the issue of housing supply; an introduction to the major housing problems experienced in the countryside including debates and conflicts surrounding new housing provision and pressure on the existing property market;

166 •

•

The needs of rural communities an overview of how ‘planning for housing’ has evolved from a simple mechanism for releasing land for new development, to an intervening force through which the type and price of new housing can be influenced; an analysis of how the 2004 planning system may deal with housing supply, sustainability, and affordability issues in the future.

Introduction Housing concerns are always at the forefront of government debate. The political history of the twentieth century has been punctuated by speeches and housing policy initiatives that have captured the public imagination, and which have usually responded to a measured housing problem by offering some compelling vision of change. At the end of the First World War, Lloyd George responded to the potentially damaging spectacle of having soldiers returning home from France without homes to go to by promising ‘homes fit for heroes’ (though he never used these exact words). In 1955, Anthony Eden offered a vision of post-war economic recovery based on the creation of a ‘property-owning democracy’. And in more recent times, Hilary Armstrong (a former housing minister) has outlined government’s intention to ‘[…] offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and selfdependence’ (Armstrong, 1999: 122). Housing and land-use planning has been a key arena of concern for government in the UK. Indeed, we saw in Chapter 1 that pre-war planning was dominated by a concern for housing. Since it came to power in 1997, the Labour administration has embarked on an ambitious programme of planning and government reform (outlined in Chapter 2) and linked questions over demographic and economic growth, social well-being and justice, house building and housing affordability to the idea of building more ‘sustainable communities’. It launched its ‘communities plan’ in 2003, placing ‘stable housing markets’ at the centre of its vision for creating more inclusive, vibrant and sustainable places. In recent times, a great many policy documents and edicts have begun by setting out the housing challenge faced by the UK: a challenge shaped by economic and demographic growth, lifestyle shifts (including a tendency for more people to live alone), a failure of land-use planning to respond positively to change (see Chapter 1), and an unprecedented reduction in housing output (in part, because of planning’s failure to resolve local disputes over land release and house building). A focus on planning reform and sustainable communities was broadened in 2003/04 to encompass a potentially more fundamental re-think of local and regional planning’s role in ‘steering’ the housing market. The Review of Housing Supply (Barker, 2004) raised familiar questions over the efficiency of the planning system and its tendency to work against rather than with market demands, potentially delivering housing in the wrong locations, and in insufficient quantities thus fuelling house price inflation and manufacturing a crisis in ‘affordability’ (Box 7.1). Rural housing debate is occurring within a fast-moving policy context. Over the last 10 years a plethora of new strategies and policies has emerged, concerned with the function of local government (starting with a Local Government Act in 1999), the operation of the planning system (beginning with a planning green paper in 2001 highlighting the increasingly bureaucratic and reactive nature of policy control), sustainable communities, housing quality and the achievement of a universal ‘decent homes’ standard, the extent to which planning and housing supply are in tune with the market (prompted by the Review of Housing Supply), and back – full circle – to the

Rural housing 167

Box 7.1 Affordability The concept of ‘affordability’ links the cost of housing with the amount of money that households are able to spend (perhaps though mortgage borrowing) on a home. It is often expressed as a ratio between mean house prices in an area and median monthly household incomes. For example, an index value of 5.0 would suggest that the average house price was five times the median income, with the ‘typical’ household in an area having to borrow up to five times their income to buy a home. The affordability ratio will be affected by, amongst other factors, levels of housing demand and supply. In areas where demand is high and supply is restricted, the ratio will climb, making housing relatively less affordable. Low rural affordability is often attributed to a mix of ‘demand pressure’ (particularly retirement and second home buying) and undersupply, caused by a planning system that prioritises the preservation of rural landscapes over the release of land for housing. The balance between demand and supply pressures and the ‘planning response’ is considered in the main text: essentially, planning can ‘intervene’ to affect the ratio by increasing the supply of building land. The difference between ‘housing affordability’ and ‘affordable housing’ is also examined.

function of local government and further concerns over the efficacy of the planning system, marked by new white papers on these topics in 2006 and 2007 (DCLG, 2006d; 2007a). There have been so many policy edicts, consultations, reviews, amendments and direction shifts that it would be impossible to consider them all in a single book let alone a single chapter. However, there are a number of milestone documents, which capture the state-of-the-art in terms of national thinking on planning, housing, community, market process and local government. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides the bigger backcloth in terms of planning reform, and this has been considered at some length in Chapter 2. The milestone documents for this chapter are the Communities Plan (ODPM, 2003) which locates housing debates in a wider context of delivering ‘sustainable communities’, the Barker Review (Barker, 2004) which indicates a possible change of tack in terms of how government thinks about housing supply and affordability in the future, Planning Policy Statement 3 (DCLG, 2006a) which now provides the policy framework for how housing issues are dealt with through the planning system, and the Local Government White Paper (DCLG, 2006d) which begins to think about how community interests will be squared with the need to achieve strategic housing targets, especially if these targets are driven by market-orientated planning (or receipt of housing and planning delivery grant (HPDG) incentives: Barker, 2006). The main messages emerging from these key documents (and Barker’s broader review of land-use planning, and the Planning White Paper 2007) are summarised in Box 7.2. ‘Barker 1’, in particular, has sharpened government’s focus on planning, housing supply and affordability, highlighting how a decline in house building is resulting in worsening affordability and limiting housing access. The household projections (ODPM, 2006b) seem to confirm Barker’s prediction of an unprecedented housing crisis, suggesting that future demand will outstrip supply by a ratio of two to one (with implications for affordability: Box 7.1). A ‘market failure’ could increase the need for social housing (built with subsidy and available to those unable to attain

168


Box 7.2 The changing policy landscape since 2003 The Communities Plan (ODPM, 2003) The 2003 Communities Plan offered a broad statement on the housing and planning challenge facing England: essentially an overheating market in the south and a steadily weakening market further north (notwithstanding local market peculiarities). In introducing the plan, the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, argued that housing challenges are rooted in both economic and demographic change. The plan focused on the ‘long-term planning of communities’ incorporating good design and sustained effort to ensure that planning creates places where people really want to live. Whilst some critics contend that this is an urban plan, others point to the relevance of creating sustainable communities in all contexts. However, how this is achieved is a matter of considerable debate in rural areas. Stable housing markets are viewed as integral to sustainable communities (Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones, 2007: 216), but will such stability be realised through the release of additional land for housing or through restrictions on ‘unnecessary’ consumption such as the purchasing of second homes? Government contends that having a good balance between housing supply and demand (therefore dealing with undersupply in pressured markets, and oversupply in areas where demand has drained away as a result of economic change) is critical to achieving the social equilibrium that ‘sustainable communities’ need. PPS1 (ODPM, 2005b: Para 5) provides some clues as to how this will be achieved: • make land available for development, in line with social, economic and environmental objectives; • ensure that planning contributes to ‘sustainable economic development’; • enhance the natural and historic environment; • ensure that development is of a high quality, and contributes to the efficient use of resources; • ensure that development supports communities, contributing to safety, sustainability, liveability, social mixing, access to jobs and access to services (in other words, creating a range of positive opportunities: see Chapters 1 and 2). The plan itself suggests that broader spatial planning has a key role in providing the impetus behind sustainable communities, in engaging with communities, ensuring that development is of sufficient size, scale and density, supporting the provision of transport and other infrastructure, providing public services (and sometimes paying for these services), and building a ‘sense of place’ by supporting local solutions and hence local distinctiveness (ODPM, 2003: 5). The Review of Housing Supply (Barker, 2004) The Review of Housing Supply (the ‘Barker Review’) led by the Treasury in 2003/2004 called for ‘a better balance between planning and the market’ (Barker, 2004: 31) with planning not simply trying to ‘make the market’ but actually listening to ‘market signals’ (and price information revealing changing levels of affordability). The major recommendation of the review was that the process of planning for housing should be reformed and that ‘reserve land’ for housing should be identified within the regional

Rural housing 169

Box 7.2 continued planning process, with local authorities called on to release this land in order to maintain levels of affordability and avoid an implementation gap between planning’s housing targets and what is developed on the ground. ‘Barker 1’, as it has since been tagged, was centrally concerned with the way in which regional and local planning authorities deal with land-supply for new housing. It argued that affordability is a key measure of the need for more housing: if there is high disparity between house prices and wages, meaning that local people cannot afford to buy homes, then planning should respond by releasing more land for house building, the objective being to facilitate a more favourable ratio between prices and wages, making homes more affordable (Box 7.1). Planning Policy Statement 3 (DCLG, 2006a) Government’s response to Barker sets out the need for a ‘visionary and strategic’ approach to planning for housing, based on ‘market responsiveness’ and the use of market information. It emphasises the need for local authorities to work more closely with regional planning, especially in the development of sub-regional strategies and strategic market assessments. Housing land policies should be evidence based (drawing on strategic housing market assessment) and have an ‘outcome and delivery’ focus, judged in terms of design quality, housing mix, housing affordability and the delivery of affordable housing, effective and efficient use of land, and responsive land supply resulting from effective management of the planning process. Responding to ‘housing affordability’ will involve ensuring that land for housing is brought forward in response to demand. Responding to the need for ‘affordable housing’ will mean using the development control process to negotiate the inclusion of particular ‘low cost’ housing products in new housing schemes. These issues are discussed later in this chapter. The Local Government White Paper (DCLG, 2006d) The LGWP of 2006 – ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’ – was largely concerned with empowering communities to make local decisions. With this objective in mind, it made a series of proposals regarding local democratic structures and the creation of parish councils where none currently exist. The fifth chapter was the most relevant in relation to the function of planning, suggesting that ‘core strategies’ within local development frameworks (Chapter 2, this volume) should sit within and become the delivery strategy for the communities strategies created by the Local Government Act 2000. Planning, henceforth, should be seen as the servant of local aspiration, delivering local choice (i.e. delivering against ambitions which the community articulates in the community strategy, and which may be defined as objectives within a local area agreement: Chapters 1 and 2). But the extent to which this idea squares with the strategic focus of PPS3 (and the Barker Review 2004) is questionable. The Barker Review of Land-Use Planning (Barker, 2006) In this second review Barker argued that planning in general should be more responsive to economic forces, more engaged with European policy-making, linked more clearly to regional economic strategies (Chapter 2, this volume) and integrated continued …

170


Box 7.2 continued across local authority boundaries (Chapter 11). More specifically, Barker called for local review of green belt boundaries, a streamlining of national planning policy, an improved strategic framework for infrastructure provision and a new approach to planning (and small applications) at the local level. ‘Barker 2’ had a strongly strategic focus, sitting in apparent opposition to the LGWP 2006. The Planning White Paper (DCLG, 2007a) ‘Planning for a Sustainable Future’ asserts that ‘a purely local approach to planning cannot deliver the best outcomes for us as a society or nation, or for the environment (DCLG, 2007a: 22). It focuses on major infrastructure, proposing simplified consent regimes with an independent commission empowered to make strategic decisions, and operating in a context of national policy statements for ‘nationally significant’ infrastructure projects. The PWP 2007 focused on strategy and performance, including performance against housing growth targets (ibid: 138), but reiterated the importance of planning as a process required to improve peoples’ quality of life. Place-making, shaped by community aspiration and transparent, open, debate, was held up as a key goal of the planning system.

Box 7.3 The national housing challenge, from government’s response to the Barker Review • England faces ‘growing housing demand with an increasing number of people living alone relative to previous decades and others marrying later in life. Single person households, according to ODPM’s latest household projections, will account for 67 per cent of household growth between 2001 and 2021’. • ‘By 2026 only three out of ten of today’s ten-year-olds will be able to afford to buy a home when they have families of their own if we stick with current building rates’. • ‘Average deposits for first time buyers have gone up from £5,000 in 1996 to £34,000 in the first half of 2005. In 1980 only four per cent of first-time buyers relied on gifts or loans from friends or relatives to help with finding a deposit. That figure has now shot up to 23 per cent’. • ‘Social housing waiting lists are also affected by a lack of new housing across the board. The long-term impact on low income households with pressures on social housing waiting lists, overcrowding and homelessness could be considerable if we don’t act’. • ‘There are currently 150,000 fewer workers than jobs in the South East and this number could treble if we continue building at current rates – a sign that the mismatch between supply and demand could seriously damage local economies if left unchecked’. Source: ODPM, 2005b: 2

Rural housing 171 housing in the open market), but ‘for every social home added to the stock in the last few years, at least two have been sold under the Right to Buy’ (RTB: ODPM, 2003: 28: see below). Moreover, a reduction in funding available to registered social landlords (RSL: Box 7.7) and recognised inadequacies in how the planning system generates land or subsidy for affordable homes (see later discussion) only heightens the apparent need to achieve greater affordability in and access to ‘market housing’. Barker’s conclusion – grounded in a belief that the planning system has slowed the supply of new homes in all sectors by constraining land release and prioritising environmental over developmental interests – is that the market should dictate to a greater extent than is currently the case, the quantity and location of new housing. Government’s response has been to endorse Barker’s analysis, supporting its own planning for housing agenda with a range of gloomy predictions (see Box 7.3). The challenges faced in rural areas are part of this national picture: rural housing debates mirror these wider concerns over housing quality (the drive for ‘decent homes’), the adequacy of housing supply, the role of the market in determining land releases for new development, and the importance of creating ‘sustainable communities’ (Box 7.4: many of these issues are examined in Chapter 8). The remainder of this chapter is divided into two parts. The first part considers the housing pressures faced in the countryside set against the broader canvas outlined above; the second part examines local planning’s (and planning authorities’) evolving role in dealing with housing in the countryside, looking at both current forms of intervention and future strategies for enhancing housing provision.

Key debates In Chapter 3 we suggested that the countryside faced unprecedented economic and social upheavals during the twentieth century. Whilst the economy has restructured, rural society has become increasingly differentiated in terms of who lives in the countryside and for what purpose. In Chapters 5 and 6, we revealed that communities have been reconfigured by economic forces and post-war migration patterns, and are arguably less cohesive than they once were, and are certainly more difficult to plan for. As society has changed and, in some instances, become increasing fractured along class and income lines, representations of rural space have become more complex. Broadly, the emergent division described in Chapter 6 is between a local ‘workforce’ who claim an urgent need for additional development – particularly in the form of jobs and homes – and an incoming middle class who may view the countryside as being an inappropriate context for such development (which should instead be directed to more ‘urban’ areas). A new local politic (and increasingly a national politic) has developed where underlying rationalities are reflected in planning debate and where different groups contest the basic ‘function’ of the countryside. A consequent clash of values and ideas is frequently focused around plans for new housing development or the strategic promotion of a growth agenda. New housing, accompanied by new infrastructure and population growth, may be viewed as an urbanising force which is resisted by many communities unless it is specifically and exclusively designed to cater for ‘local needs’. The key issue that we will focus on in this section is ‘housing scarcity’ generated by a combination of demand and supply pressures, and also by the ascendancy of an ‘environmental’ planning rationale – generating a near-endemic NIMBYism that resists most new development proposals – which can, in part, be seen as one product of the ongoing gentrification of the English countryside (Chapter 6).

172


Box 7.4 A sustainable rural community A sustainable rural community: • will be located in a flourishing local economy, which is able to provide local jobs and contribute to local wealth creation; • will be characterised by engagement and participation by local people; the community will be cohesive (Chapter 6), will have a sense of identity and belonging, and this will be evident on the vibrancy of its voluntary and community sector: by its ‘social capital’ (Chapter 8); • will be safe and healthy with residents enjoying access to open space for recreation; • will support basic amenities because planning authorities play a proactive role in supporting these amenities and in supporting communities which are trying to meet their own needs (Chapter 8); the end result will be a vibrant mix of community services and local public services including (within reasonable distance), education and training, health care, and community facilities; • will enjoy good public transport, connecting the community to a wider network of services, jobs and other opportunities including education; • will possess adaptable space that can be used for different purposes and creates an array of opportunities: this issue is explored in the next chapter and can mean using rural buildings to house different services; • will have a mix of housing types and tenures, with planning for housing aiming to achieve affordability for different social groups; • will provide a diverse local culture and a ‘sense of place’; • will be connected to the wider local, regional, national and international community. Source: Adapted from ODPM, 2003: 5

Demand pressures The social and demographic transition outlined in the last chapter has placed immense pressure on housing in the countryside. Supply constraints – examined later in this chapter – have played their part in creating scarcity (Hoggart, 2003) and have combined with strengthening demand to produce intense competition, in many rural areas, for a limited housing resource. The housing market operates in rural areas in much the same way as it operates elsewhere, but in the context of a dominant ‘environmental rationale’ where the objective of planning since 1947 has been to contain urbanisation, restrict development and protect agricultural interests. Because the market is squeezed by these pressures, ‘many rural areas are characterised by a high demand for housing that is exceeding the supply and forcing up the prices’ (Countryside Agency, 2001: 47). There are two forms of ‘demand pressure’: the first is the classic ‘competitive pressure’ emanating from a number of groups who, motivated by different factors, seem compelled to seek homes in the countryside. These groups are listed in Box 7.5. The second is the pressure of ‘ineffective demand’ with some ‘local households’ unable to access housing because of the weakness of rural economies and consequent low wages (Chapters 4 and 5). Arguably, this is not a true pressure, but

Rural housing 173 a product of strengthening external demand for rural property. But it is a pressure in the sense that, by definition, no ‘open market’ is ‘closed’ and there will, therefore, always be external incursions. The problem in many rural areas is that low wages (in unstable employment sectors: Chapter 5) do not provide the means for local people to compete for housing, irrespective of the weight of external pressures, creating a reliance on different forms of subsidised provision. In short, low wages and limited housing supply combine with an open market to cause difficulties in housing access and consequent social exclusion. This same conclusion was reached by Shucksmith (1981: 11), who argued that ‘[…] the essence of the housing problem in rural areas is that those who work there tend to receive low incomes, and are thus unable to compete with more affluent “adventitious” purchasers from elsewhere in a market where supply is restricted’. The result is that the ‘market’ in rural areas frequently ‘allocates’ housing to the most affluent, leaving local populations with the poorest and cheapest accommodation, if any. However, rural society is complex and there is no simple division between ‘rich in-comers’ and ‘poor locals’. The social complexity of a differentiated countryside (Chapter 6) is mirrored in the structure of the changing housing market: and it is not merely a conflict between rich and poor, or local and non-local. Rather, an ability to compete in the market is determined by a range of factors: by life-stage, by current and past tenure, by accumulated wealth, by employment prospects (and borrowing potential), by family support and by income. A desire to understand how markets work is a long-standing intellectual endeavour in rural studies, and has usually involved the development of some kind of framework in which to express relative advantage

Box 7.5 Common forms of migration pressure Retirement and the succumbing of ex-urban households to the lure of the countryside, either because of perceived environmental qualities or because living costs will be lower in rural areas. Commuting, with households moving out of urban areas either in search of a better quality of family life or simply more space. Some unwilling commuters are forced from high-price urban areas and move to commuter towns and villages where housing is relatively cheaper. Alternative lifestyles/down-shifters, with migrants looking to ‘escape the rat race’ (Champion, 2000: 19) and choosing to take up new occupations in the countryside (to ‘down-shift’ in some instances) or opting for careers that allow them to ‘telework’ (Clark, 2001). Second home purchasing (for recreation), with those living in cities deciding that they want/need somewhere to escape to during weekends or holidays. Second home purchasing (for investment), sometimes by people who are forced to rent in pressured urban markets (i.e. London) but want ‘a place of their own’ somewhere where they can afford to buy, but which they subsequently let out. New migrant workers, coming frozm the ‘Accession 8’ countries. Between May 2004 and September 2006, 120,000 migrant workers settled in rural England (CRC, 2007)

174


or disadvantage. Saunders (1984) has suggested that tenure patterns (especially the balance between renting and owning) play a big part in shaping housing markets, arguing that owner-occupiers form a privileged ‘domestic property class’, advantaged by the cumulative potential of their tenure whilst those in rented accommodation share no similar advantage. In the immediate post-war countryside, private renting (from landowners) was the most important form of housing tenure. Newcomers to villages and hamlets, therefore, tended to compete for housing against a generation of renters. Landlords, tempted by the profit to be made from selling off cottages, soon sold them to newcomers. Local households, who had rarely accumulated wealth through ownership, were unable to compete in this market. Gradually, they became squeezed into a smaller and more expensive private rental sector. In 1914, around 90 per cent of rural homes in England were privately let or tied to employment (mainly to agriculture); by the end of the century, this proportion had shrunk to only 11 per cent (Rhodes, 2006: 8–16). In the scheme of things developed by Saunders, renters had found themselves occupying a disadvantaged class, unable to compete in the more aggressive market that emerged from the 1960s onwards. As private renting opportunities became scarcer, this class found itself more reliant on council housing provision, but this too is a sector that has been rolled back by government policy. Broadly speaking, many members of the former ‘occupational community’ (apart from those who already owned land and property) found themselves in a ‘low income and low wealth’ housing class, and out-gunned by ‘more prosperous groups’ (Shucksmith, 1990a; 1990b). This pattern of disadvantage has continued into the twenty-first century countryside. Young people find it difficult to access a dwindling supply of social housing and have not the means to compete in markets where there is intense competition from commuters, retirees, second home buyers and other external interests (Cloke et al., 1994: 4). Those leaving tied accommodation (especially pensioners retiring from local employment) may also find themselves without the means to enter the market, and therefore join the ranks of Shucksmith’s disadvantaged class. This group is most affected by ‘supply barriers’, by the problems of (1) low housing quality in some tenure sectors, by (2) undersupply of social housing relative to need, by (3) the loss of council housing through the right to buy policy since 1980, by (4) the failure of local planning authorities to compensate for disinvestment in social housing though ‘local needs policies’, and by (5) general housing undersupply in the countryside and its dire consequences for rural communities, in part driven by an environmental rationale for planning which the middle classes have imported into the countryside over the last 40 or so years (Chapter 6). But, again, rural housing markets are more than just local interest versus external demand. Some local property owners have profited considerably from market growth. However, a great many households have found the changing market for housing difficult to endure, especially where it combines with low wages and supply pressures. These pressures are considered shortly. But before moving on, it is useful to examine the nature of demand pressure, the key source of which is the arrival of ‘newcomers’ – who form part of what Shucksmith has labelled a ‘more prosperous group’ – into some of the most attractive and accessible rural areas. Much has been written in recent years on different market components: on second and holiday home purchasing; on retirement; on commuting and on lifestyle down-shifting. But what are the relative impacts of these components on rural markets? There is no easy answer to this question. Different areas have attracted different forms of investment and have experienced variable levels of demand. At the same

Rural housing 175 time, weaker rural economies or areas of particular planning constraint (for example, national parks: Chapters 2, 5 and 10) may be more affected by strong external demand for local housing, due to an inability of local people to compete for housing or reduced housing supply (or both). However, national studies of market change have been able to generalise the relative impacts of different pressures, and assess the general importance of different demand components. A study of second homes in England for the Countryside Agency in 2002 – drawing on a survey of 119 planning, housing and national park authorities – found that 89 per cent of housing and planning officers considered retirement, commuting and second home purchasing to be having a ‘major impact’ on local housing access particularly in smaller settlements and market towns (Gallent et al., 2002: 25–26). For some authorities included in the study, commuting and demand from ‘permanent’ economically active migrants dominated the housing market: elsewhere, retirement was the critical issue; and in other markets, second home buying and seasonal pressure was creating housing access difficulties, affecting some local households. Views on the perceived significance of different demand components are expressed statistically in Table 7.1, and are drawn from this same study of English rural authorities. The study revealed that retirement and commuting were judged to be either ‘very significant’ or ‘significant’ pressures (66 per cent and 76 per cent respectively). Fewer officers felt that second home purchasing – either for private use or letting – was a ‘very significant’ pressure. These data point to a broad hierarchy of external demand pressures on rural housing markets. At the top are the commuters and retirees: many thousands of households have perceived a better quality of life in the countryside – when compared to the problems of city living – and for the sake of children (who they feel, will have more fun and be better educated) they have ‘upped sticks’ and headed to the country. At the same time, the country is often viewed as the ideal destination for those ending their working lives. Retirement migration has accelerated since the 1990s. Second home buying – despite being painted as one of the biggest pressures facing rural housing markets – has been far less significant in the British countryside than the first two forms of incursion. The data is uncertain, but of a total English housing stock of 21.8 million dwellings (DCLG, 2007b), between 100,000 and 200,000 are second homes and a great many of these are located in cities rather than in rural areas. Information on the ‘secondary pressures’ mentioned above – teleworking, down-shifting (escaping the urban rat-race) and investment – is far more sparse. A study by Clark (2001) could not reach definitive figures on teleworking, or at least it was unclear as to whether the teleworkers in question were ‘home grown’ (had already been rural residents) or had moved to the countryside for Table 7.1

The components of external housing pressure

Very significant (%) Retirement 31.0 Commuting 25.6 Teleworking 1.0 Purchasing for private holiday use 12.5 Purchasing for holiday letting 8.8 Purchasing for rental investment 6.1 In-migration to take up employment 4.5 Note : n=119 Source: Gallent et al., 2002

Significant (%) 35.3 51.3 3.9 32.1 26.3 28.1 33.0

Minor (%) 25.0 20.5 51.5 30.4 33.3 48.2 43.8

Not at all significant (%) 8.6 2.6 43.7 25.0 31.6 1.05 18.8

176


that purpose. Defining people as ‘down-shifters’ is notoriously difficult and evidence of this phenomenon is anecdotal. And although the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) regularly monitors the growing strength of the ‘buy-to-let’ market in the UK, it is not clear what portion of this market is ‘rural’. The lack of data and the abundance of conjecture mean that these lesser demand pressures are seen an ancillary to retirement and rural-to-urban commuting. Amongst all these incursions of ‘non-local’ homebuyers into the rural housing market, it is second homes that cause the most controversy (Gallent et al., 2005). Second home purchasing has been blamed for pushing rural house prices beyond the reach of local buyers (Monbiot, 1999). They are often painted as the wreckers of rural communities, and a major driver of gentrification and social exclusion. But second homes are an ‘epidemic’ pressure in the British countryside, and not the ‘endemic’ form of housing consumption that they represent elsewhere, especially across Scandinavia, where close to a fifth of households own second homes (Gallent et al., 2005: 93). In Britain, they are one pressure amongst many, and certainly not the most dominant. But they are interesting, not least because they highlight the geographical unevenness of external interest in rural markets in the UK. Second homes concentrate in some of the most beautiful villages in England and Wales, especially along the most attractive coastlines and within national parks. Retirement purchasing follows a similar pattern. And when it is convenient to commute from one of these beautiful (often considered quintessentially English) villages, a great many people do so. The patterning of external market interest in the UK is highly predictable, focusing on quieter villages in the deeper countryside, and on the most attractive areas within the urban hinterlands of London, Manchester and Birmingham. It is this concentration that is most problematic, in terms of the relative capacity of existing rural residents to access housing at a reasonable price. And because this encroachment commonly extends into agricultural areas and areas of particular landscape beauty, it often coincides with the phenomenon of low rural wages and more stringent planning control, evident in ineffective local demand and a reduction in the supply of new housing. Because the different components of external demand often come together in the same locations, it is difficult to separate out the impacts of different forms of housing consumption. Returning to the English second homes study introduced above, housing and planning officers claimed that it was impossible to distinguish the market pressures caused by second homes as opposed to retirement and vice versa. At best, they could estimate the broad impacts of all external pressure, drawing on local knowledge and recent housing needs assessments. The observations of these officers are outlined in Table 7.2. In this instance, data are drawn from two separate studies: the English study already outlined and another study of Wales’ 22 unitary authorities and three national parks (25 authorities in all). There was a general assertion that prices were higher than they would have been had external buyers been absent from local markets, making housing generally less affordable and preventing households on lower incomes from entering the market, and ‘local people’ wishing to return to their home area – after a period away, perhaps working or in higher education – from doing so (a more important concern in the English study). Recent data on house prices and affordability in rural areas seems to support this local analysis. In 2005, the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC, 2005) published an affordability index for the English regions. The index represented ‘[…] housing affordability based on the expected monthly mortgage payment on the

Rural housing 177 Table 7.2

The perceived effects of ‘external housing demand pressure’: percentage of planning officers in agreement with prepared statements – Wales (2001) and England (2002)

Wales Impact Number House prices have risen in particular places 18 New housing is no longer affordable for local people 14 House prices have risen across the authority area 12 Old/existing housing is no longer affordable for local people 12 Local people find it difficult to rent property 5 Local people are leaving the area 5 Local people are unable to return to the area 1

% 75.0 56.0 48.0 48.0 20.0 20.0 4.0

England Number 68 85 86 71 51 46 49

% 56.0 72.0 72.9 61.2 43.2 39.0 41.5

Source: Tewdwr-Jones et al., 2002: 32 and Gallent et al., 2002: 32

Table 7.3

Affordability index for English regions, 2004

Region

East Midlands East of England North East North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber

Hamlet and isolated dwellings 5.4 6.7 5.0 5.8 8.2 7.5 6.8 5.3

Village

Town and fringe

Urban >10k

5.0 5.6 4.2 4.9 6.9 6.4 5.7 4.9

3.9 4.7 3.3 4.0 5.3 5.4 4.4 3.8

3.7 4.6 3.4 3.5 5.6 4.8 3.9 3.4

Source: CRC, 2005: 44

basis of the mean house price compared to the median monthly household income by area classification’ (ibid: 44). Index figures – shown in Table 7.3 – provide evidence that housing is less affordable in villages and hamlets, relative to local wage levels, than in towns or in urban areas with populations exceeding 10,000. For a variety of reasons, demand for housing in the countryside has become stronger in recent years. Potential buyers are looking for investment opportunities, are seeking alternative lifestyles, are down-shifting, are looking for an occasional holiday retreat, are searching for cheaper homes (relative to their own urban wages) from which to commute back to city jobs, or are settling in the countryside on retirement. As we saw in Chapter 6, they may import urban lifestyles and attitudes, bringing them into conflict with existing local households. They also bring wealth and income that can drive rapid market change, expressed in increasing house prices and a worsening affordability ratio affecting those who work in the local economy (Chapter 5). But difficulties in housing access and consequent social exclusion, predominantly affecting locals in many areas, are not only caused by demand pressures: they are also a product of limited housing supply. Supply pressure principally works on the open market, and is a product of planning constraint. But the impact on households less able to compete in this market has been compounded, in recent years, by a further pressure on social housing opportunities, caused by reduced investment in new social housing and the loss of existing homes through privatisation.

178


Supply pressures In many areas, rural housing has acquired an increasing scarcity value, largely as a result of policy restrictions affecting the release of land for housing development. And supply constraint – associated with planning policy – tends to be greatest in those areas of strongest housing demand. This is true in some of the most attractive remoter countryside where a demand for second homes may coincide with more rigid national park or AONB restrictions on development (Chapter 10). But it is also the case that ‘housing demand in England tends to be higher closer to cities’ (Hoggart, 2003: 158) where ‘green belt zones provide the land use planning system with its most stringent restraints on new housing’ (ibid: 158). Commuting demand in the rural–urban fringe, and vacation or retirement demand in remoter locations combines with stricter planning to generate supply scarcity. The effects of restrictions on land availability, and hence housing supply, was the subject of work by Alan Evans in the late 1980s. In his article ‘Rabbit hutches on postage stamps’ (1991), Evans argued that: The supply of land for housing has been restricted by planning controls. The prices of land and houses have risen in consequence. As a result land has been used with increasing intensity with infill, ‘town cramming’ and smaller houses on less land – ‘rabbit hutches on postage stamps’; a destruction of the urban environment of the many to preserve a rural environment for a few (Evans, 1991: 853) Evans gives three reasons why this situation should have arisen: first, ‘because the British misapprehend the degree of urbanisation in their own country’, second ‘because rural and farming interests ensure that the planning system operates in their favour’, and third ‘because the planning system is tilted in favour of the existing residents of an area who seek to preserve their environment by resisting intruders’ (ibid: 853). Housing scarcity, therefore, is driven by unwarranted fears, by a strongly ‘environmental’ planning rationale and by a defence of the status quo, overseen by planning authorities. The second and third points are closely allied: the 1947 planning system established a dividing line between town and country, regarding the former as the more appropriate context for development. This position has been defended by farming and an environmental lobby (which has only recently distanced itself from less environmentally benign agricultural practice: see Chapters 4 and 5) and by the middle classes who moved to the countryside from the 1950s onwards (Chapters 5 and 6). The ‘existing residents’ mentioned by Evans are not the residents of farming communities: they are newcomers who have bought into the rural idyll and who subsequently defend that idyll from the threat of change. Anti-development sentiment is a driving force behind housing scarcity, where NIMBY interests are able to mobilise support behind a rejection of new house building. Planning constraint has a significant impact on land and property prices. Evans (1991) revealed that a unit of land with residential development permission had a value between 250 and 500 times greater than a unit of agricultural land (ibid: 854) in the early 1990s. His calculations were for the area around Reading which he considered to be an extreme case, though the ratio of difference elsewhere was also thought to be significant. Planning permission can bestow great value on land, and the fewer the permissions, the greater the value. This is particularly the case with residential permissions because of the demand pressures (discussed above) that have

Rural housing 179

Figure 7.1 New terraced housing built on the car park of a former public house, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire

emerged and intensified during recent decades. The rural population has grown; there are a larger number of smaller households (ODPM, 2006b); incomes have risen and there is greater demand for second homes (Gallent et al., 2005); car ownership and motorway development have brought a decentralisation of population and, during the years of Conservative government, home purchasing was actively encouraged via tax breaks (Drabble, 1990) and therefore quickly overtook renting as the principal tenure in the countryside. Planning failed to anticipate these trends, and was slow to respond to them once they were recognised (Cullingworth, 1996; Evans, 1991), creating a crisis in rural land supply by the 1960s. The price of land in the south-east of England, for example, increased sixty-fold between 1963 and 1989 (Evans, 1991: 855). In the 14 years between 1975 and 1989, prices rose by more than 5.5 times according to all purchase transactions. But, Evans notes that some of these transactions involved purchasers trading down to smaller properties as housing became less affordable; the increases in prices – using an index weighted by the assumption ‘that people buy the same types of house in the same proportions each year’ – revealed an even faster (6.9 times) rate of increase on a 1975 base (ibid: 855). Increasing land costs resulted in an intensification of development and changed house building patterns. Infilling in villages and towns became more commonplace, and houses with more rooms (catering for growing families) were built on the same development footprint (the squeeze on land supply impinged on internal space standards). Urban densities increased with houses being crammed tightly against boundaries such as roads or green belt (ibid: 859), and urban green spaces being eliminated where they were not adequately protected. And this occurred (and continues to occur) in large part because of the success of a increasingly well-organised

180


rural conservation lobby: ‘the Council for [today, the “Campaign for”] the Protection of Rural England has fought successfully to prevent the development of land in rural areas [but] it seems odd to preserve millions of acres unspoilt for the few and spoil the urban environment for the many’ (ibid: 861). Evans suggests that this lobby posits three key arguments, and these are summarised in Box 7.6. Whilst there will be inevitable variants on this typical situation (set out in Box 7.6), house prices across England have continued to rise at a phenomenal rate in recent years. The recent Review of Housing Supply (Barker, 2004) has shown how UK rises, averaging 2.7 per cent per annum nationally, are more than double the rate of increase across mainland Europe. And data from the Commission for Rural Communities (Table 7.3) reveal that affordability is now lower in rural than in urban areas. The continuance of a rural ‘land fetish’ – described by Evans in 1991 – has been highlighted by Peter Hall (2001), who relates this to the case for urban compaction:

Box 7.6 Summary of arguments against rural house building Public interest: an argument based on a ‘myth’: that England is over-urbanised and that there is not enough room for further development; and that, consequently, protection of remaining open space should be planning’s prime mission. Indeed, Evans adds that a predominantly urban population has been sold the idea that the countryside is under threat, without hard evidence (Evans, 1991: 863). Rural and agricultural interest: relating to the needs of the farming economy and the desire to maintain ‘natural openness’. The needs of farming have been recently discussed by Peter Hall (2001) and his views on this argument are noted below. Marshall (2006) points out that the countryside of the UK is the ‘product of deliberate human contrivance’ (270), and Evans has highlighted the fact that unregulated farming development – in the form of corrugated iron sheds – has an arguably greater aesthetic impact than regulated house building. But the argument is this: that farming interests and the landscape needs protecting from intrusive ‘urban development’ (remember that the 1947 planning system was an expression of the view that existing urban areas, rather than rural areas, are the appropriate setting for new development). Defence of the ‘status quo’: both of the above contribute to an ‘environmental rationale’ steering the planning process in rural areas, and this combines with Evans’ view that planning favours the ‘status quo’ to produce an inhospitable climate for house building. The ‘status quo’ argument links back to the social change discussion in Chapter 6. Newcomers move to the countryside and defend an anti-development agenda; the countryside is viewed as inviolate. They have not only bought a house, but also a lifestyle, peace and quiet and pleasant pastoral views (see also Chapter 5, this volume). New residents are wary of development proposals, defend the status quo, and ensure that planning authorities allow only limited development in out-ofthe way locations, packing new households in like ‘sardines’ (Evans, 1991: 868) and with planning refusal, property prices rise. Source: Adapted from Evans, 1991, with additions

Rural housing 181 There is a bad reason and a good reason for more compact urban development. The bad one is to save rural land. It is bad because there is no reason to do so, either now or in the foreseeable future. About 10 per cent of the land of South East England, in 1995, was in EU set-aside, growing nothing but weeds. EU farm policies are undergoing the most fundamental shake-up in their forty-year history, and the outcome is still undecided, but it is certain that agricultural subsidies will be slashed, so if anything the problem of surplus agricultural land will get rapidly worse. (Hall, 2001: 101) Set in the context of a clear housing requirement in many rural areas (given a history of constraint and undersupply), the argument that we are ‘making a fetish out of land [and especially rural land] without asking why’ (Hall and Ward, 1998: 107–8) is a powerful one. Planning (and those who influence the operation of planning) has generated significant housing scarcity through its control of the land market. The Commission for Rural Communities has drawn attention to a continuing decline in new house building in rural areas. In 2003, private enterprise added 56,556 permanent dwellings to the rural housing stock: in 2005, the figure was 54,707 (CRC, 2006a: 32). Provision by social landlords increased from 3,978 to 4,570 dwellings during the same brief period, perhaps compensating for a small part of the reduction in private provision. But overall, rural housing output fell from 60,688 units to 59,290. Arguably, these short-run variations provide weak evidence of a supply crisis in rural areas. But judged against year-on-year increases in demand, they present a worrying trend. Government has recently lauded its own success in raising housing output (DCLG, 2007a: 9). New dwelling completions in England rose by 22 per cent between

Figure 7.2 ‘Full planning permission for replacement dwelling’, Loxley, Warwickshire

182


2002/03 and 2005/06. However, between 2003 and 2005, rural completions fell by 3.9 per cent (Shucksmith, 2007) Supply pressures tend to ‘reinforce the inequitable consequences of a free-market allocation and lead to socially regressive distributional consequences’ (Shucksmith, 1981: 13). It is widely held that the planning system in general and local planning authorities are failing a great many rural households, leading to calls to either intervene to address inequities in housing access where they arise, or to look more fundamentally at the operation of the planning system in relation to housing supply. These different views are analysed shortly. But there is one further issue that deserves attention here: for households on lower incomes, limitations on land supply and its impact on house prices and housing access is compounded by a failure to offer non-market alternatives. A general undersupply of social housing relative to need has been caused, first, by a reduction in the amount of available council housing in rural areas, which has been sold to existing tenants and, second, by a failure to compensate for this loss. When the first of Margaret Thatcher’s governments came to power in 1979, it introduced new legislation (the Housing Act 1980) which gave sitting tenants of local authorities the ‘right to buy’ (RTB) council homes with a discount. In the quarter century since the introduction of the 1980 Act, the stock of council housing has dwindled in the countryside because of the popularity of the ‘right to buy’, but provision by housing associations (re-branded registered social landlords in the Housing Act 1996) has been unable to cope with a continuing and strengthening demand for social housing (largely because grant funding to RSLs has reduced year-onyear since 1988 – see Box 7.7): a demand which has been accentuated by planning’s stranglehold on the land market, and the declining affordability of home ownership. Jones and Murie (2006) provide an analysis of the impact of the right to buy, suggesting that its effect in rural areas has been magnified by a general insufficiency in housing supply. They argue that ‘[…] incomers buying former council housing and other housing for second homes are an important force especially in tourist areas or areas within commuting reach of large employment centres’ (ibid: 93) and that, more generally, the loss of council housing in areas of planning constraint (limiting the supply of new homes) is problematic. Using a study of south Ayrshire in Scotland, Jones and Murie show that as the amount of council housing in villages reduces, applicants for this housing spend longer on waiting lists and are less likely to secure a home from a local authority. It is also suggested that the right to buy has had a far greater effect (on the supply of council homes) in rural areas than in many urban areas where the quality of council provision (e.g. in pre-fabricated high-density and sometimes unattractive developments now blighted by social problems) was more variable. Indeed, ‘[…] in rural settlements where the supply of council housing is more constrained and the quality less variable the impact of the right to buy has been to reduce access to social rented housing for low income households’ (ibid: 94). Nationally, nearly 1.66 million council homes were sold between 1979 and 2004 (ibid: 60), and the percentage of households renting from local authorities in the UK fell from 29.2 per cent in 1981 to 13.0 per cent in 2003 (ibid: 53). Data on the extent of rural sales were reported by the Affordable Rural Housing Commission (2006): whilst the cumulative percentage loss of urban council housing stood at just over 30 per cent (of the 1979/1980 stock) by 2004/05, the figure for rural areas exceeded 36 per cent (ARHC, 2006: 68). Fewer council homes were built in the countryside and more have been sold. And because the supply of new housing association homes has been outstripped by the rate of RTB

Rural housing 183

Box 7.7 Direct grant funding to registered social landlords (RSLs) A system of capital grant-funding for ‘housing associations’ was established in the Housing Act 1974 (‘housing association grant’ or HAG). The Housing Corporation (created in 1964) was assigned an advanced development programme (ADP), essentially an annual budget provided by government with which it could fund the building activities of associations registered with the corporation, and which were eligible for grant support (eligibility was extended to non-RSLs in the Housing Act 2004). Essentially, registered associations could bid for grant funding within an annual cycle to support their local building activities. This funding would cover 100 per cent of the costs of development, estimated on the basis of total cost indicators (TCI) applied in different areas. Attitudes towards the way the sector was funded changed with the arrival of a Conservative government in 1979. In 1987, a Housing White Paper was issued in which it was argued that social housing delivery should be based on ‘innovative methods of provision’ and the ‘maximum use of private finance’ (HM Government, 1987: 14). In effect, this meant more borrowing from private lenders and, eventually, greater reliance on ‘planning gain’ mechanisms aimed at extracting a ‘land subsidy’ for future social housing programmes (see below). Grant rates were cut following the enactment of new legislation in the following year with the Conservatives (and later Labour governments) arguing that a mix of public subsidy and private finance drives greater cost efficiency. But levels of provision have since been determined by the success of planning authorities in negotiating planning gain, the ‘flow of land’ for housing (which can be especially problematic in rural areas) and the willingness of building societies to lend on housing schemes which will not be offered for open market sale, and which are therefore inherently less profitable. Today, grant-funding covers only a proportion of total costs, with associations often having to secure the greater part of necessary capital funding from other sources.

sales, the percentage of all social housing in rural districts (of England), fell by 24 per cent between 1980 and 2005 compared to a loss of 18 per cent in urban areas (ibid: 68). The provision of new social housing – largely by housing associations – has failed to keep pace with need for a number of reasons. Year-on-year reductions in grant funding to associations has made the providers of new social housing more reliant on private borrowing and on planning gain in order to finance the development of affordable homes: strategies which are inherently riskier and less certain to produce a constant supply of new housing. In the next section, we focus on planning’s role in supplying new affordable housing and in offsetting the reduction in council provision witnessed in recent years.

Emergent issues: planning for future housing supply How best to increase access to rural housing, without ‘concreting over the countryside’, is a key dilemma for rural planning and related policy. A large number of authors have reviewed this debate, focusing on the changing role of planning, looking at public funding, examining controls on housing access, and – because governments now seem unlikely to return to mass public provision – how to innovate new solutions. We

184


now turn to the planning system’s recent and future role in widening and increasing housing access in the countryside. There are many potential starting points for this discussion, and David Clark’s (1984) list of options for responding to the rural housing crisis is as good as any: • • • • •

Increase the overall housing stock in an attempt to keep prices low Encourage higher densities (building a greater number of homes on less land), especially via development briefs Give priority in plans to meeting local needs Make specific agreements on sites where planning permission would not otherwise be given Persuade housing associations and authorities to do more to address rural needs (i.e. prioritise rural housing in the funding structure).

These five options contain the three key ingredients of current debate: either (1) build more, (2) intervene more (through local planning policy and development control) or (3) fund more (reversing the situation described in Box 7.7). Increased direct investment in social housing provision – the third ingredient – seems unlikely, though RSLs have become adept at stretching grant funding and using it to fund, or part-fund, many different types of initiative – a number of recent mechanisms are listed in Box 7.8. The second ingredient is popular given the weight of objection to new development in some rural areas, though the first ingredient is now firmly back on the political agenda. Our concern in the remainder of this chapter is with planning policy-based approaches, with intervention in market process or with reshaping that process in a more fundamental way. Therefore, we turn now to our two main ingredients: first,

Figure 7.3 Council homes, Loxley, Warwickshire

Rural housing 185

Box 7.8 Improving housing access and increasing effective supply Empty homes strategies Attempts are often made to bring private empty homes back into use through a local ‘empty homes strategy’ and a partnership between local authorities and property owners. These schemes usually involve LA investment in private housing in exchange for short-term renting agreements; in some instances, ‘empty homes management orders’ can be used to ensure that private owners cooperate in these schemes. Private leasing schemes An extension of the above, often involving RSLs negotiating medium-term leases with private property owners, creating new social housing tenancies. Flats over shops A strategy that can have considerable importance in market towns where empty space over retail premises can be renovated and rented out as part of the general empty homes strategy. Purchase and repair Where land for new housing is limited, it may prove cost effective for RSLs to purchase cheaper property, sometimes in a state of disrepair, and rent it to local households. But such schemes can be expensive and difficult to budget for within annual expenditure (CRC and HC, 2005: 22). Costing second homes Since 2001, local authorities in England have been able to charge the owners of second homes 90 per cent of full council tax (they were previously eligible for a 50 per cent discount) and this increase in revenue can be invested in the approaches listed above. Public finance/direct investment A National Affordable Housing Programme is managed, on behalf of government, by the Housing Corporation. Through RSLs, this programme has provided around 2,000 additional affordable homes (through direct investment and without a planning gain element) in recent years. Land supply Government believes that new approaches to planning (in light of PPS3) will result in increased land supply in rural areas. But opportunities exist in some areas to bring surplus public sector land forward for housing development, though the supply of such land is thought to be limited in most areas. Community land trusts (CLT) offer another means of assembling and retaining land for community use. Land may be gifted to a CLT as a part of a planning gain agreement, may be transferred from public ownership or endowed by a private owner. The land of a CLT will be retained in perpetuity for community use (with housing on the land being leased) removing it from the market and preserving gains in perpetuity. Sources: CRC and HC, 2005

186


intervene more systematically to address housing inequities as they arise – essentially a ‘planning and affordable housing’ approach – and second, seek fundamental change in the way the planning system regulates housing supply (with the objective of building a greater number of dwellings).

Planning and affordable housing Government’s 2006 statement on national planning policy for housing points out that ‘[…] the terms “affordability” and “affordable housing” have different meanings. “Affordability” is a measure of whether housing may be afforded by certain groups of households [Box 7.1]. “Affordable housing” refers to particular products outside the main housing market’ (DCLG, 2006a: 26). Intervention in local housing markets with the aim of creating more opportunities for local access – and for delivering these ‘particular products’ – has more than 30 years of history. The basic approach is to use the development control process to negotiate, with private interests, for the inclusion of lower-cost homes within bigger market housing developments. The planning system is deployed as a lever, generating a land-cost subsidy for affordable – often ‘social’ – housing. In recent times, ‘local needs policies’ (expressing a planning authority’s intention to link some planning permissions to the provision of lower-cost homes for local needs) have been written into local development plans and will continue to be written into development plan documents (DPD). These policies have, for the last 20 years, been manifest in two broad approaches. The first or ‘general’ approach (see Box 7.10) involves the negotiation of contributions from developers of affordable housing within market housing schemes, on the basis of Section 106 (Town and Country Planning Act 1990) agreements. With this mechanism, affordable housing is treated as a ‘planning gain’ and usually specified as a requirement within the Section 106 agreement written into a planning permission: the requirement typically ranges from 20 per cent to 50 per cent of total units depending on perceived housing need (Crook et al., 2006: 354). The inclusion of affordable housing is an obligation imposed on the developer. Sometimes, the developer builds these units (a specified number or proportion) and then sells them at discount (i.e. less land cost) to a registered social landlord. The government believes that RSLs are best placed to ensure than such units remain for the use of low-income groups in perpetuity. The general approach means that social housing is provided as part of a mixed tenure development and is funded through planning gain, private sector borrowing and public subsidy. Gain – generated at the expense of landowner/ developer profit – often replaces some, or all, of the public subsidy. This approach has evolved over a number of years (see Box 7.9; a recent policy background summary has been provided by Crook et al., 2006: 354–356) and was re-endorsed within national policy guidance in 2006, although there has been some refocusing of attention on the need for ‘intermediate’ (between market and social housing) housing in many market contexts. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) indicated that within local development documents, planning authorities should set targets for the provision of affordable housing (DCLG, 2006a: Para. 29) to be delivered with a mix of direct finance and developer contributions. This target would be informed by a ‘strategic housing market assessment’ which should also drive an area’s market housing strategy with its aim of achieving broader ‘affordability’ (see next section). The approach to seeking developer contributions remained largely unaltered from earlier policy, though the importance of seeking contributions on smaller rural

Rural housing 187

Box 7.9 Planning and affordable housing: policy development 1971 to 2006 Date 1971

1984

1988

1989

1990

1991

1991

1992

1996

1998

2000

Document Town and Country Planning Act Circular 14/84

Implications/changes Section 52 allows local authorities to attach planning obligations to development permissions, essentially creating a framework for ‘planning gain’. Circular on ‘Land for Housing’ provides advice to planning authorities on their responsibilities regarding land for housing but makes no mention of broader powers accompanying these responsibilities. PPG3: Land for Transfer of the key 14/84 guidance into PPG3 Housing (the third of the PPG series). There is no mention of planning and affordable housing or planning obligations. PPG3 Re-draft Revision of PPG3 (1988) to include ‘planning and affordable housing mechanisms’ setting out approaches (general and exceptions) that have emerged from local practice. Town and Updates the 1971 legislation, with Section 52 Country becoming Section 106. Planning Act Planning and Section 106 (along with Sections 106A and 106B) Compensation is substituted by Section 12(1) of the new act, but Act obligations continue to be known as Section 106 Agreements. Circular 7/91: First circular on Planning and Affordable Housing Planning and (England), with separate version (13/91) in Wales. Affordable Sets out general and exceptions approach. Housing PPG3: Housing New version of PPG3 will full inclusion of planning and affordable housing approaches to be employed on the back of robust local assessments of need. Circular 13/96: Consolidation of legislation by last Conservative Planning and Government and introduction of minimum Affordable development size thresholds above which affordable Housing housing should be sought through the general approach. Circular 06/98: Aimed to clarify policy, encourage cooperative Planning and approach to affordable housing policy, clarify need Affordable for robust evidence, provide guidance on controlling Housing occupancy, and provide assurances to lenders on Section 106 schemes. Also reduced the thresholds defined in Circular 13/96. PPG3: Housing Consolidation of changes in main guidance, especially those introduced in 1998. continued …

188


Box 7.9 continued Date 2004

2005

2006

Document Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act

Implications/changes Discussed in Chapter 2, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act changed the frameworks of regional and local planning, providing an RSS framework in which to gather market intelligence for future affordable housing policy, and building a new local planning system including development plan documents (DPD) which would carry future affordable housing policies. The Act also carried legislation for an ‘optional charge’ that can be levied by planning authorities, essentially alternative fixed payments that can be used in parallel with the negotiated (planning gain) route. Circular 05/2005 Restates use of planning mechanisms to provide affordable homes ‘in line with Local Development Framework (LDF) policies on the creation of mixed communities’. PPG3: Housing Two updates were published: ‘Planning for Updates Sustainable Communities in Rural Areas’ and ‘Supporting the Delivery of New Housing’. The first document amended policy on rural exceptions noting that housing provided through this mechanism should never be released onto the open market. The second document clarified when it was considered appropriate for non-housing land to be brought forward for housing use. PPS3: Housing Establishes a rationale for planning for housing which is ‘visionary and strategic’, ‘market responsive’, built on ‘collaboration’, ‘evidence based’ and focused on ‘outcome and delivery’. PPS3 is about achieving a ‘more responsive approach to land supply’ and is, in effect, a response to the 2004 Barker Review. Delivering This supplement to PPS3 sets out government’s Affordable wider aspirations for how affordable (and Housing (PPS3 intermediate) housing should be delivered. It Companion) ‘encourages the best possible use of planning obligations and other tools’ in the provision of new homes, but the guidance is more concerned with ‘intermediate housing’ (housing ‘between market and social rented housing’) than previous policy, marking governments increasing concern for meeting housing needs through market-led approaches rather than purely social housing led mechanisms.

Rural housing 189

Box 7.10: Planning and affordable housing: general/exceptions approaches The ‘general approach’ involves the inclusion of ‘affordable housing’ in speculative developments. A proportion of homes built – typically between 20 per cent and 50 per cent – form a ‘planning gain’. An obligation is placed on the developer, under the terms of the planning permission, to provide affordable homes within the development scheme. Ownership of these homes often passes to an RSL, which will become responsible for renting them to households deemed in need. The ‘exceptions approach’ involves the granting of an ‘exceptional’ planning permission, often on agricultural land outside a village’s ‘development boundary’. This land would not normally be used for housing. But a partnership between the LPA, an RSL, the landowner and a developer can progress a scheme involving: the release of land at less than full development value; the construction of ‘local needs’ housing for less than market cost (because of the land subsidy); the transfer of these homes to an RSL; renting of the homes to households in need, at a price they can afford.

sites was emphasised, as was the importance of delivering ‘[…] high quality housing that contributes to the creation and maintenance of sustainable rural communities in market towns and villages’ (ibid: Para. 30). Therefore a variety of different thresholds for negotiating a proportion of new development as affordable housing was introduced. The national minimum size threshold where a proportion of affordable housing would be expected is 15, but in rural areas where there is evidence of real need then this threshold can be set much lower (see Box 7.11) and can be as low as one private new build to one affordable housing unit. The real change introduced by PPS3 related not to ‘affordable housing’ but to ‘affordability’ and the need to align approaches with an understanding of changing market conditions, ‘managing delivery’ in such a way as to prevent undersupply from driving price inflation and decreasing access opportunities. We focus on this key change shortly. The second, or ‘exceptional’, ‘planning and affordable housing’ approach (Box 7.10) involves the granting of planning permissions for housing on land not allocated for that particular use within a local authority’s development plan or local development framework. The initiative aims to reduce land value and therefore housing unit costs by establishing a framework whereby developable land can be acquired at below full development value. This approach is specific to rural areas, and is used for procuring a small number of homes for local needs within, or adjacent to, existing settlements. The success of the approach hinges on whether landowners can be encouraged to part with land at a price nearer agricultural than full development value. Research has shown that where there is uncertainty over a planning authority development strategy or its intentions for a particular site are unclear, owners will hang onto all land in the hope that one day, it may be earmarked for market housing (Gallent and Bell, 2000). In the past, the approach was viewed as idiosyncratic: as out of step with plan-led policies. But PPS3 has indicated that a ‘rural exception site policy’ can be one way of ‘allocating and releasing sites solely for affordable housing’ (DCLG, 2006a: Para. 30). The exceptions approach differs from the general approach in that it deals with small sites that would not normally be used for housing, because they are subject to restraint policies. But both approaches generate a land subsidy that is used to part-fund

190


Box 7.11 Affordable rural housing policy in Hambleton District Council Hambleton District Council is one of the largest rural districts in England, although it is sparsely populated. Located in North Yorkshire it was one of the first authorities in England to have its new core strategy, part of the local development framework, adopted in April 2007. One of the key issues that emerged through public consultation and gathering the evidence base was the need to provide affordable housing opportunities for the young, for the elderly and for first time buyers. Over the period of the plan, up to 2021, some 4,350 new housing units need to be provided across the district, of which 43 per cent should be affordable. In the five largest centres thresholds of 15 houses or more (or sites of 0.5 hectare or more) will trigger a planning gain requirement. This falls to 2 houses or more (sites of 0.1 hectare or more) in the smaller settlements. A boundary has been drawn around many smaller villages and any new development should take place with the ‘development limits’. But development proposals may be permitted on sites which are outside but adjacent to this boundary if 100 per cent of the new housing is affordable. This is the ‘exceptions policy’. Both policies are part of the council’s strategy of increasing the percentage of affordable housing provision from 23 per cent of new housing stock to 43 per cent. Thresholds – above which affordable housing is required in order to secure planning permission – are lowering and becoming more varied across rural districts. Such policies are underpinned by recent assessments of rural need and by considerable public support. Source: Hambleton District Council, 2007

affordable homes for local people (PPS3 states that the exceptions approach should be used to address community needs ensuring that ‘rural areas continue to develop as sustainable, mixed, inclusive communities’). The way they generate this subsidy also differs. In the case of the general (developer contributions) approach, land without permission has a ‘current use value’ (CUV) which rises to a higher ‘planning value’ (PV) once development permission is granted. This planning value is determined by market conditions, by how much home buyers are willing to pay for a house. A developer will usually buy an ‘option to develop’ a site from the existing landowner (perhaps a local farmer) which will be somewhere between CUV and anticipated PV. A price is paid which takes account of local planning policy and the anticipated requirements of a Section 106 commitment to deliver an element of planning gain. In other words, the developer will try to judge how much the land is worth with planning permission (its market potential) but then factor in the probable loss as a result of the ‘obligation’ attached to the development. In practice, the landowner and developer are likely to share the cost of the planning gain. In areas where the housing market is strong, sites will be able to ‘carry’ larger Section 106 contributions as there will be a bigger profit margin that can be shared between the developer, the landowner, and the local planning authority. In recent years, larger developer contributions have been achievable in southern England than in the north, notwithstanding local market variations. In the case of the exceptions approach, the difference between the CUV and PV will be considerably diminished. The CUV will be low as the land in question is likely to be agricultural and subject to restraint. The

Rural housing 191 PV will be lower because it is not a ‘market planning value’ but an artificial value determined by negotiation between the planning authority and the landowner. The landowner is made aware of the fact that housing is not for the open market and the sole purpose of the release is to provide for local needs. Therefore, the landowner has an opportunity to achieve more than CUV for the land, but will not realise an open market value. If this is acceptable to the owner then a land subsidy is generated against the relative cost of purchasing land (free of restraint policies) for housing at full market price. In short, the first approach generates a subsidy from market profit and the second from the control of land prices. Housing investment programme (HIP) returns made by local authorities to central government suggest that these planning approaches can deliver about 15,000 affordable homes each year across all areas (Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones, 2007: 137), though a study by Crook et al. (2001) has suggested that the true figure – based on what has been achieved in recent years – is below 5,000 units per annum nationally (ibid: 6–7). The contribution of planning authorities (through the development control system) to the supply of ‘affordable housing’ appears limited. Only a small proportion of all planning-based contributions are realised in rural areas, and yet the estimated annual need for affordable homes in such areas is 11,000 units per annum in all settlements in England with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants (ARHC, 2006: 17), of which two-thirds should be ‘social rented’ units and the remainder for low-cost home ownership (an ‘intermediate’ tenure: DCLG, 2006a). There have been numerous assessments of the contributions that these mechanisms have made to housing supply and to housing access. Some have looked specifically at rural areas. For example, referring to earlier work on planning exceptions, Gallent and Bell (2000) concluded that the approach had proven locally useful if not nationally significant, largely because of uncertainties that surround the policy. There is no ‘model approach’ and local partners wishing to provide homes through a planning exception have tended to muddle through without a great deal of government guidance. This continues to be the case today, with the PPS3 supplement ‘Delivering Affordable Housing’ (DCLG, 2006b) offering nothing new on how exceptions should be pursued. But this is very much a local approach, and partners are left to work out for themselves, how local opportunities might be grasped without central edicts. The same is true for the general approach. How authorities negotiate on the basis of planning agreements is well established and recent guidance has added little on the use of agreements or on the way affordable or intermediate housing might be procured. For instance, the PPS3 supplement lists issues that local authorities should consider when seeking affordable housing (ibid: Para. 19) and reiterates broad policy objectives – at a time of house price increases relative to incomes – but it does not prescribe any particular approach. It simply ‘encourages the best possible use of planning obligations and other tools’ (ibid: Para. 9). Planning authorities have been left to their own devices to work out the best approaches to delivering affordable housing. Consequently, there is great variation in what the policy has achieved in different areas, sometimes owing to market context, and sometimes because of the way policy is implemented. Returning to the HIP data quoted above, total output (i.e. completions) of all affordable housing in England fell from nearly 45,000 units in 2000/01 to just above 33,000 in 2004/05 (Crook et al., 2006: 359). These figures combine planning gain contributions with direct provision and, according to Crook et al., ‘the most obvious implication of these overall figures is that S.106 has been unsuccessful in maintaining provision against a background of falling grant levels’ (ibid: 359). Over the same period, Section

192


106 completions doubled (from just over 9,000 to more than 18,000 completions, though the same authors have previously been critical of these HIP data). It is clear that as grant funding to RSLs declines, a greater proportion of affordable housing output is generated through planning gain, but the absolute Section 106 output is not compensating for the overall decline in the supply of affordable homes. Crook et al. argue that ‘the impact of S.106 is insufficient to offset the decline arising from lower grant rates’ (ibid: 360) and there is also great variation in terms of what the approach can achieve from place to place. A stronger market in southern England meant that the South-East and London contributed 10,000 completions to the 18,000 unit total in 2004/05. Stronger markets with higher land values can carry bigger gains. In contrast, the combined total of the North-East and North-West was fewer than 1,000 units. Economic variations have a temporal as well as a spatial impact on the supply of affordable homes. It is, for example, difficult to predict the future contribution of Section 106 negotiations to the total output of affordable housing. During the period of recent economic prosperity and strong house price growth between 2000/01 and 2004/05, planning gain has been able to make an important contribution to the overall supply of affordable housing. But any future economic downturn could see this contribution plummet (ibid: 362). The state of the housing market will be a major determinant of future success, and so too will be the ‘flow of land through the planning system’ (Crook et al., 2006: 371). Both of these factors are critical in rural areas. The demand and migration pressures discussed earlier can create extremely vibrant rural housing markets where competition is intense and land prices are high. This can create a useful context for the Section 106 approach. But it is equally important that sufficient land is released for house building. If more land is made available, then local authorities might be able to deal with the more general issue of ‘affordability’ (Box 7.1) whilst using Section 106 as an effective device with which to secure land for socially mixed and sustainable communities.

Increasing land and housing supply Constraints on land supply for housing in the countryside limit the capacity of planning authorities to deliver ‘affordable housing’ and also reduce overall ‘affordability’, by ‘squeezing the market’ (i.e. failing to respond to demand pressure), reducing new-build opportunities and focusing competition on existing homes. Surely, the best way to remedy this situation is to release additional land for housing? This option was mooted by Clark in 1984 but was seen as a recipe for disaster: unfettered development wreaking environmental havoc. But impediments to the ‘flow of land’ through the planning system have more recently been viewed as central to declining levels of housing affordability in England and Kate Barker’s 2004 Review of Housing Supply advocated a more flexible, strategic and market-responsive approach to land supply for housing, which has important implications for rural areas, especially as much of Barker’s thinking is now contained in PPS3. In her Review of Housing Supply, Barker argued that: Regional and local planning should be more responsive to market signals. Planning authorities should allocate a buffer of land for development to allow flexibility to meet market conditions. Land should be released for development in response to defined indicators of housing market disequilibrium. (ibid: 33)

Rural housing 193 These indicators of disequilibrium might include a ratio between local incomes and local house prices (i.e. affordability: Box 7.1) revealing that too few homes are being built within an area to satisfy the market. Market ‘disequilibrium’ (supply being outpaced by demand) would be ‘reflected’ in house prices (relative to local wages) and would be used to ‘trigger’ further land releases (with extra land taken from a tenyear supply: see Box 7.12). Hence planning would ‘listen to the market’ (responding to market information and price signals) and attempt to maintain affordability within a sub-regional market. Indeed, arguing that local decision making (regarding land allocations for housing) often serves ‘negative local attitudes to development’ (ibid: 33; Chapter 6), Barker suggested regional planning should play a bigger part in determining additional land releases during the local planning cycle: that land buffers should be identified in sub-regional strategies based on housing market assessments and that additional land should be released for housing to ensure achievement of a market affordability target. This would be a long-term target, with land releases

Box 7.12 Changing the approach to planning for housing

Planning for housing market areas

Identifying land

Plan, monitor and manage

Present policy and practice Regions distribute housing provision to local authorities, including rural authorities, and must take account of household projections, capacity and other constraints. LAs plan for 10 years of housing supply, 5 years of which is allocated but some or all of this may not be available for development. Windfalls (land becoming available unexpectedly during the planning cycle) are expected to ensure delivery of housing. LAs encouraged to phase land for housing development but many LAs not actively managing their supply, particularly where land in the first phase proves difficult to deliver.

Source: Adapted from ODPM, 2005c: 17

Current changes Regions continue to distribute housing provision but use subregional housing markets as a basis for allocating housing numbers, as well as other factors and tailoring the approach to delivery to the circumstances of different markets. Plan horizon extended to 15 years. The first 5 years is allocated and developable with less reliance on windfall in areas where it is possible to allocate land.

5 year supply rolled forward as land is developed, in line with plans. LAs required to bring forward land from their 10 year supply to ensure supply of developable land is maintained. Land will be brought forward on the basis of market information and price signals.

194


for new housing pushing the region along the right trajectory, and towards a better balance of supply and demand in the longer term. Regions would aim to establish a market affordability target by producing a baseline assessment of regional and sub-regional housing markets (ibid: 37) and consequently, make an assessment of how much housing would be needed to achieve the target over a given time period. The differences between such a system and the current approach are identified in Box 7.12. In essence, the Barker Review sought a more significant role for regional planning in determining housing supply, creating a mechanism where land release would be tied explicitly to shifting market conditions. Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones (2007: 179–188) have reviewed the implications of such an approach at length: critics contend that paying too much attention to price signals will result in ‘bad planning’ – diminishing the weight given to environmental considerations. Barker’s response is that the way in which planning authorities currently deal with land allocations (based on local policy control rather than a clear strategic rationale) means that housing schemes are too frequently delayed by local politics, creating an ‘implementation gap’ between what communities actually need and what successfully emerges from an uncertain local planning process. Sub-regional housing market assessments and affordability targets would create new responsibilities for ensuring the adequacy of local housing supply, and local authorities would be charged to ensure that targets were met. This ‘Barker-style’ response to land supply is centrally concerned with reducing the national rate of house-price inflation – from its current 2.7 per cent to 1.1 per cent (closer to European trends: Barker, 2004: 20–21) as a much broader ‘affordability target’ over the longer term – by promoting additional housing supply and addressing the local bottlenecks that may impede house building. Nationally, Barker envisaged increasing national housing output by 120,000 units per annum above currently planned provision (Barker, 2004: 11 – that is, the sum of target building rates set by regional planning bodies). But this national perspective – delivered through a regional framework – has inevitably provoked local concerns especially in many rural areas where the price signal approach is viewed as particularly inappropriate. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has taken issue with both the supposed justifications of the approach, and its apparent insensitivity. In its report ‘Building on Barker’ (2005a), the CPRE argued that ‘there is not a long-term undersupply of market homes’ (ibid: 4) and any move to raise house building levels will result in over-supply with severe environmental consequences. For the CPRE, demand reflected in house prices should not be a driving force in housing supply: ‘[…] we strongly disagree with the Barker Review recommendation that house prices should play a leading role in the planning of new homes, with more land being released when prices are high’ (ibid: 6). This rejection of a demand-led response to rural housing supply is commonplace and is central to the conflicts surrounding housing development examined in Chapter 6. The arguments against ‘triggering’ additional land release by listening to the market are well-rehearsed: demand is itself a product of house building, and without house building, there is no new demand; villages therefore can remain as they are, with planning authorities simply meeting local need (through planning agreements with developers and landowners) when this need arises; all migration can and should be resisted. But the flaw in this argument is that without sufficient land releases, there are few opportunities to negotiate Section 106 contributions except through exceptional planning permissions. And in the face of migration pressures – which often occur

Rural housing 195 in areas of little new house building – there is a need to supply far more affordable housing than can be realised through exceptions or on the small number of market sites coming forward. But there is a critical difficulty in the Barker approach. An important market signal is house price inflation (set against wage levels: Meen, 2005: 970). But in markets subject to strong external pressure – commuting, second home buying and retirement – additional land releases could struggle to achieve affordability targets. The fear is that the strategy summarised in Box 7.12 would see rural planning authorities chasing targets that would lead to dire social and environmental damage long before they produced Barker’s desired market equilibrium. South-east England, for example, is a region of significant complexity in terms of market signals. Work by WSP Consultants (2005) for the Regional Assembly has revealed that in 2001, the South East Region was a ‘[…] net exporter of 175,000 commuters – 5 per cent of its resident labour force’ (ibid: ii). An exodus of home-buyers from London into the South-East – with subsequent return commuting – is a key feature of the region’s housing market. Some villages and towns within easy reach of rail links have become housing demand hot-spots with prices rising well beyond the reach of local buyers. What the CPRE does not want is house price rises in these settlements to be used as a trigger for further house building, which it believes will only fuel additional commuter in-migration. This is an understandable concern. And yet, planning gain mechanisms have become increasingly important in the supply of affordable housing, as Crook et al. (2006) have shown, and can only deliver this housing where there are sufficient opportunities for new house building. The scarcity of land for new housing is a major problem facing rural communities (Hoggart, 2003), many of which have become socially exclusive and imbalanced because of recent urban–rural migration trends. Whilst the Barker approach might be viewed as a blunt instrument, more concerned with national objectives than local peculiarities and needs, it can also be seen as an opportunity. The amount of affordable housing being supplied in the UK is declining and any change in this trend is dependent on land availability for house building. Government recognises that higher house prices are a problem and an opportunity: Where housing commands much higher prices there is greater scope for securing affordable housing through developer contributions or ‘planning obligations’. In traditional high value areas, local planning authorities already have strong experience of negotiating planning obligations to deliver both social rented and intermediate market housing. But there is now a need for local authorities in other areas to raise their game and to recognise that such obligations will increasingly be viable on new housing developments. (DCLG, 2006b: 2) Where additional land for housing is released in markets dominated by commuters, second home buyers and retiring households, it seems likely that there will be considerable scope for levering substantial planning gains. Barker herself pointed to the need for additional social rented housing in areas where there have been significant losses through the right to buy and a growth in local need (ibid: 2). This can be achieved through a combination of additional land releases and continued use of the planning gain approach, which still commands considerable political support.

196


Conclusions Despite the above developments, one obvious problem remains: how to reconcile this strategic vision of future planning for housing – lifted to the level of sub-regional markets – with ‘local choice’ often expressed as opposition to all forms of housing development in the countryside. This is the key challenge for the planning system and for local authorities. We saw in the last chapter that the struggle between competing ‘environmental’ and ‘developmental’ agendas is a persistent cause of rural conflict. The Local Government White Paper (2006) seeks to enhance local choice in how places are ‘shaped’ moving away from policy as public sector-led intervention towards policy which emerges from communities themselves, which is consensual and reflects local aspiration. Yet, the direction of current thinking on planning for housing seems to be odds with more inclusive forms of governance. Arguably, Barker sidesteps local democracy: she suggests that the role of development planning is simply to respond to the market assessments emerging from regional planning. What is needed locally will be determined regionally and, thereafter, any remaining problems will be a result of local authorities failing to meet their obligations (or so it may be argued). Government points out that the success of its new PPS3 approach to planning for housing – which aims to be more ‘market responsive’, using price data to determine patterns and levels of land release – is dependent upon collaborative working between local planning authorities and regional planning bodies (DCLG, 2006a: 7), with the latter being involved in setting targets for the negotiation of affordable housing through planning, based on housing market assessment (ibid: 10). Commitment to planning’s role in delivering affordable housing in rural areas remains strong but is now combined with an overall ambition for achieving affordability across the market (ibid: 12). This ambition may become better understood over time, and more widely accepted if the emphasis in the countryside is placed on the provision of affordable and intermediate housing for local needs rather than the release of additional land solely for speculation.

8

Living in the countryside

Some rural residents face significant difficulties in accessing key services, jobs, housing and transport facilities. ‘Access’ to these services and opportunities is a key issue in rural planning, with Cherry and Rogers (1994) describing ‘the level of service provision in rural communities’ as ‘a key indicator of prosperity and a starting point for rural policy’ (ibid: 162). Access is, in part, about personal mobility with reductions in public transport provision preventing people and communities from reaching essential services. It may result in isolation, particularly of elderly people in the countryside and it can lead to frustration, disadvantage and exclusion between and within rural communities. Because public policy intervention has often proven ineffective at dealing with particular local difficulties, community action and innovation has sometimes provided a route to resolution. We look at some of these challenges in this chapter, focusing on different services and solutions. We conclude by exploring the extent to which spatial planning and new forms of governance offer the potential for positively meeting the needs of rural communities.

Learning outcomes This chapter builds on the introduction to community change provided in Chapter 6, and looks at: • •

• •

the concept of ‘accessibility’ (to services) and the way in which limited accessibility impacts on people and on communities in different ways; the variety of schemes and initiatives that have been applied to addresses various aspects of service delivery, for example, community transport schemes, community shops, access to the ‘networked society’ and how such schemes often build on community and voluntary action; the significance of ‘community planning’ and the potential, limitations and threats facing market towns as key service hubs in rural areas; the potential of effective spatial planning to improve accessibility to key services and to bring equality in service access, thereby combating social exclusion and promoting greater spatial equality.

198


Introduction Past discourse on ‘accessibility’ – as it affected rural populations – presented the problem primarily as one of rural mobility, and concluded that the answer to low accessibility lay in the provision of better and cheaper transport solutions. Access not only affects the residents of ‘isolated communities’ (isolated in terms of the regularity of bus services) who are less able to access the services they need, but also impacts on the services themselves which, disconnected from their users and customers, become less viable. As local services cease, accessibility problems worsen as average distances to the nearest post office, health centre, pub or general store increase. Over the last 50 years, rural areas have experienced depopulation (in some areas) and a growing tendency towards car ownership, resulting in lower utilisation of public transport facilities and therefore to infrequent, costlier services which may eventually cease altogether. As services close, more people become reluctant car owners, which results in: further service closures; more car ownership; more closures and so on. In areas of dispersed population it is impossible to achieve close proximity between all people and all the facilities – shops, schools, jobs and essential services such as health care – that communities need. Hence, connecting people to services becomes a critical concern for rural planning. Accessibility is not simply about mobility, but about the wider issue of ‘connectivity’. Moseley’s (1979) pioneering book on the subject, Accessibility: the Rural Challenge, discussed the extent to which rural services are ‘get-at-able’, arguing that physical proximity and individual mobility play a large part in determining accessibility. However, the concept is a complex one, defined also by personal needs, aspirations and knowledge. During the previous 30 years communities had become more differentiated socially, and fragmented – in some instances – along cultural and economic lines (see Chapter 6). People had different aspirations in terms of the services they felt should be provided and whilst some sectors of rural society looked to the immediate locality as the point at which these should be delivered, others were content to look further afield. Broadly speaking, accessibility was more likely to be problematic for existing residents (those tied to traditional rural occupations), but less of a challenge for commuting incomers. Experiences of accessibility are socially specific, and dependent on personal needs. However, accessibility can also be viewed as absolute: rural populations tend to be cut off from some of the facilities that urban populations take for granted. Today, for example, cash points are far more difficult to find in rural than in urban areas (though there may be little use for cash if there are no nearby shops). But relative differences within a differentiated countryside, highlighted by Moseley in 1979, remain: young people find it more difficult to access the types of services and facilities (for example clubs and leisure facilities) that their urban counterparts enjoy; the elderly rely on declining public transport services; and non-car-owning households suffer general disadvantage (CRC, 2006c). Government has recognised both these absolute and relative accessibility issues. The Local Government Modernisation Agenda (LGMA) – discussed in Chapter 2 – stresses the importance of ‘high quality services responsive to community needs’ alongside greater customer choice. Both the 2000 Rural White Paper (DETR and MAFF, 2000) and DEFRA’s Rural Strategy (2004b) emphasise a need to improve general accessibility to services and also the importance of meeting the needs of key social groups. A ‘rural services standard’ emerged from the 2000 RWP, establishing ‘how equitable access to the everyday public services which rural people need would be delivered’.

Living in the countryside 199 The first standard was published in the white paper itself, re-issued in 2002 (DEFRA, 2002b) and 2003 (DEFRA, 2003a), and subject to performance review in 2004 and 2006 (DEFRA, 2004c; 2006g). The services covered in the standard are: education (including childcare), post offices (including online banking facilities), transport, libraries, health care (including social care), emergency services, access to benefits, and employment (including job-seeking support and tax advice). These are services that government has some direct control over and the standards indicate a variety of commitments including (in some instances): presumption against closure, the monitoring of access levels, geographical access standards, response time targets (for emergency services), telephone services, online access and assistance with fares on public transport (targeted at the ‘disadvantaged’). In larger towns and cities, it is an established principle that new development should be associated with the leverage of gains, and that the public sector should be a principal investor in the infrastructure needed to support communities. Good planning should facilitate and coordinate service provision funded through tax receipts (including planning gains: Chapter 7). In rural areas, and because the nature of services and their associated costs are substantially different, there is greater scope (and need) for community and voluntary action in delivering this infrastructure, though the need for the same good planning – facilitating and coordinating provision – remains. Indeed, top-down intervention in cities is often replaced or augmented by bottom-up initiatives in the countryside. Moseley (2000: 415) has argued that ‘the future of village services in a rapidly changing context is seen to lie with a combination of local innovation, collaboration between service providers, partnership between the statutory, private and voluntary/community sectors, the judicious introduction of ICT and outright subsidy’. In the remainder of this chapter, we explore recent and current responses to the ‘accessibility challenge’.

Key debates The service examples examined here are illustrative of the problems and reactions that have been commonplace in rural areas. We focus on: 1 2 3 4

Transport: issues surrounding the provision of public transport, enabling rural residents to access essential services Public sector provision: education, health care, social services and so on Private services: issues surrounding access to services delivered by the private sector, notably retail and the ongoing debate surrounding rural post offices Information and communication technology: access to new forms of delivery through ICT, and the implications of this delivery – as opposed to locality-based services – for rural communities.

In Chapter 6, we suggested that certain forms of service provision (especially public transport) command less support within some ‘new communities’: commuters do their weekly shop close to where they work rather than where they live; second home owners use services infrequently, and do not send their children to rural schools; and retired households are less likely to support the services needed by younger people. Lower levels of patronage may have a profound impact on viability, as noted at the beginning of this chapter. This shifting relationship between demand and supply (alongside the issue of distance) leads to an escalation of costs. Hindle et al. (2004) argue that three

200


interrelated factors result in higher service costs in the countryside: first, access to many services is dependent on travel, either by the service provider or the customer therefore resulting in a higher ‘travel cost’; second, the distances involved in travelling to access rural services are usually much greater resulting in higher ‘time-related costs’; and third, lower demand levels in rural areas means that economies of scale are less easy to exploit leading to higher ‘running costs’. In an increasingly competitive environment – where economies of scale lead to efficiency gains in service delivery – rural catchments (where travel, time and running costs are higher) are more difficult to service. In contrast, larger centres offer greater choice, more specialisation, and lower costs: they deliver effective economies of scale, and lend support to a policy rationale based around service provision in ‘key settlements’ (Cloke, 1979) or larger towns. In this context, the viability of rural services is constantly questioned leading to a debate over the appropriate scale and form of service delivery in the countryside. Furthermore, closure or the threat of closure often provides a catalyst for community action. Where private or public provision fails to meet community aspiration, local people themselves may become directly involved in delivering services: voluntary action is viewed as both a last resort, and as a means of ensuring the survival of shops, pubs or post offices which are seen as local hubs and centres of community life. The balance between local initiative and policy intervention is now critical for the delivery of all types of rural services.

Transport Transport plays an essential role in allowing people to participate fully in society. It provides access to the services, facilities and activities that are a key part of most people’s lives such as employment, education, health services, shopping and leisure, as well as meeting friends and relatives. (CRC, 2006a: 170) Transport provision is central to the wider service debate in the countryside. Inadequate provision – and contracting services in many areas – means that an ability to access other public or private services is often dependent on owning a car. Reductions in rural bus and train services since 1945 can be attributed to the higher per capita cost of public provision and to the marginal profitability of private delivery. Following the ‘Beeching Report’ of 1963 into the reshaping of British Railways (British Transport Commission, 1963) – since described as one of the most ‘notorious government reports of the twentieth century’ – many local branch lines were closed, removing rail routes through a number of rural areas. Some market towns lost their connecting lines, and swathes of countryside became devoid of rail services. Before 1963, for example, north and south Wales were connected by a western route which linked Carmarthen, Aberystwyth and Bangor. Today, people travelling between north and south Wales must drive, endure an eight-hour (once a day) bus journey, or travel by train via Crewe. It has since been argued that the Beeching closures resulted in a general reduction in train travel as many of the feeder lines (contributing demand to the major routes) were closed. Six years later (on 1 January 1969) the UK government prompted a rationalisation of bus services through the creation of a National Bus Company (resulting from the Transport Act 1968). As local companies became subsidiaries of a nationalised service, strategic decision making resulted in the closure of less profitable routes, and this process accelerated in the late 1970s. A ‘Viable Network Project’,

Living in the countryside 201 also known as the Market Analysis Project, initiated at this time involved a review of passenger demand and a recasting of local networks and subsequent route closures, many of which affected rural areas. One consequence of these processes is that car ownership and use is generally much higher in rural than in urban areas. In 2004, almost 90 per cent of rural households owned at least one car (compared to a figure of 74 per cent for all areas), and 48 per cent had two or more (compared to 29 per cent for all areas) (DoT, 2005). And although the total number of car journeys originating from rural areas has remained roughly the same since 1986, the average distance that a rural resident drives in a year has increased by 27 per cent, to 11,000 km. The costs associated with transport in rural areas are also higher. Households residing in settlements of fewer than 3,000 inhabitants spent, on average, just over £70 per week on transport compared to the £45 spent by households in built-up areas in 2005 (CRC, 2005). Much of this additional expenditure is attributable to higher levels of car use (using more fuel or spending more on maintenance) plus the higher per-mile costs of bus journeys in the countryside. In 2001, the Countryside Agency noted that: weak rural bus services are commonplace. Where services operate, they are often inadequate, even at peak periods. Rural residents also have a longer walk to bus and rail pick-ups, reflecting the differences in public transport proximity and interchange. (CA, 2001a: 63–64) Brunwin et al. (2006) confirm this picture: less than 50 per cent of people in the countryside live within a 13-minute walk from a bus stop associated with a ‘frequent service’ (i.e. more than one bus every hour) compared to 95 per cent of people in urban areas. Almost a third (29 per cent) of rural residents have no nearby bus service at all. The Social Inclusion Unit (2003) has argued that car access and use is a major determinant of social exclusion, adversely affecting women (who may be at home during the day when husbands or partners are at work), children and young people (under the age of 17), older people, the disabled and lower-income households. Banister (2005) estimates that 32 per cent of rural inhabitants do not have access to a car as a driver. Households without cars tend to spend a much higher proportion of their disposable incomes on travel, accentuating their relative disadvantage. The combination of limited choice and car dependency in the countryside is a significant problem for planning – as well as for communities themselves – with the system seeking to promote more sustainable transport modes in contexts where these are rarely viable. The policy framework within which local transport services are delivered is now provided in local transport plans (LTP) produced by local authorities. These are short-term (five-year) programming documents that provide a statement on the local transport strategy and frame funding bids, to central government, for public revenue and capital support for local initiatives. These tend to focus on central government themes and priorities, such as road safety and traffic calming, and the CRC (2006c) has argued that the plans tend to have an urban bias and could do more to focus on the particular challenges – especially limited choice and car dependency – faced in rural areas. Some plans are beginning to connect with the local services agenda, seeing transport inclusion as key to delivering public and private services, making the

202


link between the needs of more disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and transport investment and choice. Hence LTP are being integrated with broader planning and community strategies: they are finding a place within local development frameworks and are becoming more than bidding documents, but also expressions of spatial policy linking housing, employment and health care: they are expressions of the need to coordinate spatial development. Cornwall’s LTP provides evidence of this evolution (Box 8.1). Cornwall’s plan links transport to economic and community development, but does so in order to build a case for additional funding for local schemes. However, public sector investment may be insufficient given the costs associated with rural transport provision. Therefore the plan also connects with community-based solutions which can be supported by, but are not entirely reliant upon, public subsidies. In response to the long-term decline in conventional public transport provision (Nutley, 1998; Goodwin, 1999), a variety of alternative responses have evolved from within communities, led by individuals and by groups concerned by the potential impact that the loss of a local bus (or any essential service) will have on a community’s future prospects. Moseley (2000: 428) notes that many villages in England have a thriving ‘community sector’, with local residents becoming involved in supporting rural services in a variety of ways. •

•

• •

•

Financing: they may help pay for services through fund-raising, which can include money to support a community bus or for local facilities such as village hall. Sometimes, ‘locally generated funding is a requirement of bigger funding packages’ (ibid: 429) and forms match-funding either in a bid for central government or for European funding. Management: volunteers can become involved as ‘transport organisers’ or play a management role in local facilities including community centres. It is sometimes the case that local professionals – perhaps solicitors or accountants – will volunteer their time for such a role. Labour: in relation to transport, local people sometimes drive ‘social cars’ or minibuses, or help with the maintenance or running of local facilities (ibid: 429). Premises: in some instances, there may be community-based provision of premises for village services. This could involve locating a post office in a communitymanaged village hall. Or, as we suggested in Chapter 7, might involve the creation of community land trusts (CLT) and the subsequent leasing of land and property for local retail (as well as local housing). Strategic involvement: Moseley lists involvement in ‘the planning of service provision’ as a key way in which local people may make a contribution to the maintenance and improvement of services. In the late 1990s, this would have involved participating in sector-based local forums (perhaps dealing specifically with transport), but today the same people are more likely to be part of the local strategic partnership and involved in visioning and planning the broad range of services needed by local communities. Strategic involvement is likely to mean engaging with the planning process by helping shaping sustainable community strategies, which link directly to planning tools (Lambert, 2006).

Moseley (2000: 429–30) highlights a ‘substantial contribution by unpaid volunteers’ to the preservation of local services. This contribution was once confined to the maintenance and management of village halls, but it is increasingly focused

Living in the countryside 203

Box 8.1 Cornwall County Council’s Local Transport Plan 2006–2011 In March 2006 Cornwall County council published its second local transport plan. The new plan, produced in consultation with key stakeholders, focused on government priorities of improved access for those in need, local safety, reducing congestion and reducing air pollution, and identified five key aims: • improve access to key services and facilities; • improve local safety for all who travel; • reduce the growth of traffic congestion and transport related air pollution and improve public transport; • provide and maintain an integrated transport network that contributes towards the development of a vibrant and successful Cornish economy and regeneration; • reduce the impact on Cornwall’s natural, historic and built environment. The programme is multidimensional, but an important part of the programme is designed to improve the accessibility or residents in the priority areas for improved accessibility (see map). These have been defined on the basis of evidence collated with local partners and ‘improving access’ will entail subsidising strategic public transport services to make them more viable, whilst also supporting community based transport solutions.

Source: Cornwall County Council, 2006: Para 2.2 and Para 8.8.1. Reproduced with the permission of Cornwall County Council from the Local Transport Plan 2006-11 © Cornwall County Council 2006

204


on transport and primary education as these are seen as fundamental to sustaining community life. This community-led support for service provision (often linked to state support, in some measure, and to local business initiatives) is dependent of there being sufficient ‘social capital’ on which community-led actions can be built. The concept of social capital was explored in Chapter 6. Falk and Kirkpatrick (2000) have argued that social capital can be ‘harnessed in pursuit of deliberative yet benign social change’ (ibid: 87) built on ‘interactive productivity’ (ibid: 93) and this is precisely what has happened in many parts of rural England. Social capital flows from the connections and relationships between individuals – from ‘interactive productivity’ – and varies considerably between places and over time (Gray et al., 2006). Generally, levels of social capital are linked to community cohesion, to agreement around shared values and ideas and, ultimately, around a particular course of action (see Chapter 6). In this context ‘social cars’ (Moseley, 2000: 429) can be seen as a measure of social cohesion and capital. If this is the case, then the current picture is encouraging. In 2005, the Community Transport Association reported that there were over 10,000 local minibuses in the UK (linked to volunteering), carrying 10 million passengers each year, with many of these serving rural communities. Informal arrangements within many communities also lead to car-sharing and this is often coordinated (and managed) by local volunteers (Community Transport Association, 2005). These arrangements now mean that more journeys by non-car-owning households are made by car than by public transport (Farrington et al., 2004; Nutley, 2005). Some examples of community transport initiatives in rural Oxfordshire are listed in Box 8.2.

Public sector provision The public sector has a more direct hand in the provision of some key services, including education and health care, as well as those listed in the rural services standard. The extent and quality of provision of these services offers some indication of, first, the sector’s capacity to overcome and manage the rural cost barriers highlighted at the beginning of this chapter, and second, changing attitudes towards communitybased provision as opposed to centralised services. On the latter issue, community services are seen to deliver local benefits whilst centralisation, in some instances, is seen to produce new efficiencies and effectiveness – especially cost effectiveness – in government services. In this section we focus on education and health care as key public sector responsibilities.

Education provision Concern over education in rural areas has tended to focus on provision at the primary and junior level, and particularly on the plight of village schools (Ribchester and Edwards, 1999). At this level, there been a concern over the educational and the economic viability of smaller schools in the countryside. Educational arguments for and against small schools centre on issues of: curriculum provision (which may be limited, but can be enhanced by clustering of small schools), the teaching environment (which may excessively shelter children, or may contribute to building a sense of community), limited facilities (that can be offset where clusters of small schools pool facilities), and staff or student isolation (ibid: 52). Economic arguments are largely concerned with economies of scale, with ‘pupil unit cost’ declining as school size increases. Isolated small schools are undoubtedly more expensive to run, though cost savings


Box 8.2 Rural community transport schemes in Oxfordshire Oxfordshire Rural Community Council is one of 38 countywide rural community councils across England. The role of these councils is to provide support to rural community activity and thereby help to promote rural well-being and sustainable communities. Oxfordshire RCC was the first RCC, founded in 1920, and is keen to facilitate rural inhabitants’ access to services. Transport is one of the key issues, with the RCC helping communities identify local transport needs and offering possible solutions. Currently there are over 60 Oxfordshire initiatives: some are providing access to particular services, for example health care or shopping facilities whilst others are much more flexible in terms of their delivery mechanisms. A few examples, illustrating the diversity of schemes, are listed below: • Age Concern Banbury Minibus: providing community transport to day-care centres for people in or within five miles of Banbury; • CHATS (Chalgrove Transport Scheme): a transport scheme provided by volunteer drivers taking people to hospital and clinic appointments, the local surgery, dentist, chiropodist and to visit relatives in hospital. It is available to anybody who cannot use their own transport or that of a nearby relative; • Blewbury Flying Squad: providing access to medical appointments including dental, optician and chiropody based on voluntary contributions to the cost; • Grovelands Shopper Service: sheltered housing scheme service provides a weekly shopping service. Organised for the benefit of older people (who must be over 65) and people with disabilities living at Grovelands Court, St Johns Court and Maude House; • Sibford Gower Free Bus: once-a-week free bus to Banbury/Chipping Norton on alternate weeks: Wednesday to Chipping Norton, Thursdays to Banbury; • Sonning Common – Fish Volunteer Centre and Car Scheme: Private car owners run people to hospital, health centre, opticians, social groups etc. Minibus runs shopping trips for old people: Wednesdays to Reading and Thursdays to Henley. They also organise some outings and it covers a network of villages. Source: Oxfordshire RCC (http://www.oxonrcc.org.uk)

can be achieved where schools group together and share resources (ibid: 56). A study undertaken in 1992 revealed that schools with fewer than 50 pupils could have up to three times the unit costs of schools with more than 300 pupils (Mills and Pack, 1992: 6, quoted in Ribchester and Edwards, 1999: 56). More recently, it has been shown that such ‘inefficiencies’ in school provision results in public service costs being 77 per cent higher – per capita – in rural compared to urban districts (Hindle et al., 2004). School costs are higher where teachers teach fewer pupils (Wilson and Pecke, 1998). This, according to Ribchester and Edwards (1999: 56) means that ‘the economic advantages of a centralised pattern of provision can be persuasively argued’ though costs can be reduced where small schools pool resources, and there is also a ‘community argument’ supporting the retention of local provision. This is usually predicated on the idea that local education in a rural setting provides an early building block for greater social cohesion. For this reason, and because parents often favour

206


Figure 8.1 Loxley Primary School – ‘voluntary controlled’

community-based provision, small schools often survive as a result of local support and voluntary contribution (see Moseley, 2000: 429–39). Indeed, ‘locally based professional and voluntary action is helping to maintain the viability of rural education provision’ according to Ribchester and Edwards (1999: 60) in the face of a public sector preference for more centralised services. That said, local education authorities and central government often express support for local delivery where a proportion of costs are met locally. Indeed, they are ‘supportive of the retention of village services to the extent that their resources allow’ (Moseley, 2000: 427). Today, a presumption against the closure of small schools is written into the rural services standard, and the regularity of closures has slowed. Between 2000 and 2006, 19 primary schools closed across rural England (CRC, 2006c) though today, ‘the unpopularity of closures has […] pushed planners and educationalists towards devising alternative reorganisation and support strategies’ (Ribchester and Edwards, 1999: 58) sometimes involving clustering approaches with inter-unit coordination of provision combined with community-led initiatives of the kinds noted by Moseley (2000). However, concern over how early education is provided in rural areas has given ground, in recent years, to growing concern over educational attainment (at all levels) and apparent disparities between rural and urban areas. In 2006, the Commission for Rural Communities highlighted a number of factors that are thought to contribute to ‘educational disadvantage’ in the countryside. This disadvantage occurs not only in early education but also in relation to further and higher education (FE/HE) and to lifelong learning (LLL). These factors are set out in Box 8.3. Locational barriers continue to play a part in determining educational attainment after the age of 16. For instance, rural residents are less likely to benefit from workbased learning, often because rural employers do not have the equivalent learning and


Box 8.3 Factors contributing to rural educational disadvantage Type of education or training Related rural issues Pre-school/early years education

• •

Low numbers of children limit provision Access to training for childcare workers

Compulsory schooling

• •

Size of schools limits curriculum offered Low aspirations and poor educational attainment (of some) Less likely to be specialist provision (e.g. for those with dyslexia)

• Post-16 education

• •

Training for school leavers

• •

Higher education

• •

Transport/access problems as many have to travel long distances Relatively high costs of provision where numbers are small Fewer large employers able to provide workbased learning Lack of motivation among those with no family tradition of training Need to leave home to take-up higher education Lack of motivation (for some)

Adult education

• •

Lack of childcare Limited transport available to attend evening classes

Work-based training

• •

Small employers less likely to provide training Those lacking basic skills are less likely to be offered training

Basic skills

•

Stigma of identifying yourself as lacking basic skills in a small community Availability of English as a second language courses (e.g. for migrant workers)

• Training for the unemployed

•

Access / transport problems

Source: CRC, 2006c

training infrastructure as big urban-based organisations. Similarly, training is more difficult to access for many people living in the countryside, especially those without a car. Patterns of disadvantage that are established pre-16 (linked to pre-school, primary and junior provision) can be reinforced post-16, producing a general division between urban and rural populations. However, within the compulsory education system, access to provision in rural areas is usually good: 87 per cent of households live within 2 km of a secondary school (CRC, 2005) though these are households living very close to or within market towns and the remaining 13 per cent comprise families in smaller and remoter villages. But even secondary schools in rural England tend to be smaller, offer more limited curricula, and have fewer teachers able to address special needs. The range of opportunity, and the capacity of schools, is more limited away from larger towns and cities. This might, in part, explain why qualification attainment in rural areas tends to

208


be lower than in urban areas: currently about a quarter of 16-year-olds gain no GCSEs (general certificate in secondary education) above D grade. But, on the other hand, more people in the countryside hold higher degrees (Stratford, 2000). There is a stark contrast between school (pre-16) and vocational (work-place learning) attainment on the one hand, and higher academic achievement on the other. This is a result of the population movements and gentrification processes discussed in Chapter 6: local populations are disadvantaged in terms of access to compulsory education and workplace training, but the arrival of highly qualified incomers (including commuters and life-style down-shifters) tends to either mask this disadvantage (it may also conceal economic disadvantage by raising ‘average’ income levels) or results in greater variation and a more complex pattern of educational disadvantage. What emerges from this complexity is that some individuals (often those from lower-income households) underperform during compulsory education, are therefore less likely to stay on at school and enter higher education, and become more reliant on vocational or work-place training, which can be difficult to access in rural areas. In 2001, ‘of the 1,683 wards that were the most educationally deprived 20 per cent in England, 286 were rural’ (CA, 2001: 34). A range of initiatives have been put in place designed either to deal specifically with under-performance in rural areas or to overcome generic barriers preventing improved attainment. Motivation is viewed as a generic barrier and through its ‘Connexions’ programme, government has provided financial incentives (via ‘educational maintenance allowances’) to encourage young people to stay in education until the age of 19. Another strategy is to combine facilities providing adult learning in schools during the evening (though access to evening courses can be difficult as bus services become less frequent during off-peak hours – see earlier discussion). Rural pathfinders in Cumbria, Hampshire and Norfolk/Cambridgeshire have used incentives and the integration of facilities as part of a wider package of measures designed to address educational disadvantage. The ‘Fens Rural Pathfinder’ (a sub-regional programme emerging from the 2004 Rural Strategy and run jointly by Cambridgeshire and Norfolk County Councils) has focused specifically on ‘learning and skills’ and aims to drive up low levels of participation and attainment (Fens Rural Pathfinder, 2005: Para, 54). The pathfinder established a Learning and Skills Action Group which identified post-16 participation as a key problem in the Fens, when compared to the east of England as a whole and to national averages. It also found that complexity and duplication in provision often confused potential participants and argued that approaches to education and training needed to be simpler to understand and strategically coordinated. A strategic review was undertaken which identified a need for: • • • • •

increased collaboration between deliverers of learning; adjustments/improvements to existing curricula (tailored to local needs); improved access to learning; enhanced employer engagement in training programmes; improved provision of information, advice and guidance to potential participants. (ibid: Para 68)

The action group pointed to a need for a clustering of existing resources, greater coordination between delivery bodies including local education authorities, neighbouring planning departments, job centres and the Connexion programmes (providing the support mechanisms noted above). It was concluded that the

Living in the countryside 209 coordination of delivery – including the setting of strategic priorities – could do much to address the fragmentation of provision in rural areas particularly where areas of disadvantage straddle local government boundaries.

Health care Like education, health care is a key public sector service in rural areas and one that can be difficult to deliver effectively given the cost and access problems already noted. There is a general perception that rural communities are generally healthier than their urban counterparts. Indeed, Phillimore and Reading (1992: 290) have highlighted wider health inequalities (linked to wealth) in urban compared to rural areas, and have gone so far as to suggest that remoter rural areas tend to be amongst the healthiest in England (ibid.). But, as with education, there is tendency for ‘good averages’ to mask inequalities (CRC, 2006c) and there is evidence that a great many rural households have limited access to health care services. Because access is limited, some health problems may remain hidden and this is particularly true with mental health. In 2001, the Countryside Agency reported that the incidence of mental health (mainly stressrelated) problems amongst farmers in England had reached an all-time high (CA, 2001: 36). Research by Simkin et al. (1998) had already established that money problems, more broadly linked to the state of the farming economy and the future of CAP (ibid: 731), was a cause of stress for nearly 80 per cent of farmers (ibid: 729). Government put in place a Rural Stress Action Plan (RSAP) in 2000 with the aim of reducing the incidence of stress amongst: owners, occupiers and workers on the land; people who run small rural businesses and their employees; those in debt in rural areas; high-risk occupational groups at risk of suicide – i.e. farmers and agricultural workers. Recent crises in farming – including foot and mouth disease and BSE – have accentuated many of the concerns noted by Simkin et al., prompting government to allocate additional funds to combat rural stress in 2001. Thomas et al. (2003) however, confirm that the mental health of British farmers remains a constant concern for agencies charged with monitoring rates of debt, stress and associated mental and social problems. Whilst the idea of the ‘rural idyll’ attracts many people to the countryside (see Chapters 5 and 6), being isolated or facing financial difficulty can turn this idyll decidedly sour. But the key issue for the majority of people in the countryside is how to access the health services and support they need. There is also a concern for demographic ‘ageing’ – on the back of retirement migration – and the future pressure this will place on long-term care services. In 2001, strong demand for retirement homes in north Wales prompted one local politician to describe elderly migrants as a ‘drain on resources’ (quoted in Gallent et al., 2003) and whilst not sharing this exact sentiment, many planning departments in rural areas view retirement as a major challenge, both in terms of meeting housing needs and delivering the additional services that an ageing population requires (Chapter 7). On the issue of general access, a survey by Rushton (2002) revealed that fewer people are able to walk to a doctor’s surgery (a GP) in rural areas (17 per cent) compared to urban areas (38 per cent) and more people rely on cars (77 per cent compared with 51 per cent) when accessing health services. As with schools, access to health care is determined by distance (Table 8.1) and by physical mobility, differentially affecting the elderly and the infirm (those most in need of care), other vulnerable groups and those on lower incomes. The average distances that people need to travel to reach GPs are considerably greater in rural areas – these are set out in Table 8.1 and compared to urban and all-England averages.

210


Government’s broader rural strategy includes a number of initiatives designed to address health inequality through improved service delivery and accessibility. It established 26 ‘health action zones’ (HAZ) in 1997 which were intended to ‘explore mechanisms for breaking through current organisational boundaries to tackle inequalities and deliver better services’. These area-based initiatives were built on partnerships between health authorities, local authorities and community groups which, it was hoped, would work together, link strategic planning to local needs, and deliver improvements in health care within deprived communities. Most HAZ were in urban areas but three – Northumberland, North Cumbria and Cornwall/the Isles of Scilly – had a strong rural focus. Following local government legislation in 1999 and 2000 (Chapter 2), HAZ partnerships became integrated within broader local strategic partnerships (LSP) and the health agenda became a theme within community strategies, linked to the planning service via local area agreements. Planning’s role in this delivery has been one of coordination, facilitating the provision and integration of services in more sparsely populated areas, and working with transport providers to ensure better levels of access. Government’s Health Development Agency reviewed the experience of HAZ in 2004 and concluded that these local partnerships: had been successful in identifying local health problems, particularly ‘hidden’ issues; had broadened understanding of the determinants of health; had helped develop collaborative structures; had improved ‘mainstream’ service provision; and had revealed the importance of systematic planning processes (HDA, 2004: 2). Despite improved coordination and planning, actual service outlets (local surgeries, small hospitals, pharmacies and so on) are inevitably more difficult to sustain in rural areas, resulting in a clustering of facilities or a dominance of provision in service hubs. As with other services, there have been attempts in recent years to ‘assure geographically widespread service delivery’ through ‘the use of information and communication technology’ (Moseley, 2000: 430). In the case of health care, government launched its ‘NHS Direct’ initiative in 1998, providing telephone access ‘24/7’ to health care advice (including basic diagnosis) and an associated service website. In some cases, online or telephone provision may lessen the need to travel to see a doctor, but a ‘significant minority’ of the rural population, including the elderly, are unlikely to use this service (Bowden and Moseley, 2006). The NHS Direct initiative may help government deliver Table 8.1

Geographical availability of GP practices, 2005

Area classification Less sparse

Sparse

% 0–2 km

2–4 km

4–6 km

6–8 km

Hamlet and isolated dwellings

36.3

36.8

19.1

6.4

>8 km 1.5

Village

24.8

43.0

24.0

6.6

1.5

Town and fringe

73.3

18.6

6.5

1.3

0.3

Urban>10K

97.6

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

England

89.2

7.3

2.7

0.7

0.2


17.9

19.9

23.7

17.6

21.0

Village

17.8

22.6

25.8

20.7

13.1

Town and fringe

89.7

3.7

1.7

1.8

3.1

Urban>10K

92.8

5.5

1.6

0.0

0.1

England

52.3

13.5

14.0

10.9

9.4

Source: CRC, 2005: 48

Living in the countryside 211 at least part of its rural services standard, providing service coverage and access – in a limited form – to people living in more isolated areas. But in practical terms, ICT is no substitute for the care or emergency assistance that many people living in the countryside sometimes need. And more broadly, solutions of this kind can create new divisions between those conversant with the technology and those who, because of age, income or background, require face-to-face contact.

Local retail disadvantage ‘Most rural parishes in England have neither a general store nor a village shop’ (Woods, 2005b: 97) and the disappearance of these private services is an expression of the same economic (increasing costs) and social forces (altering patterns of consumption and shaping needs within re-configured communities) affecting local education and health care provision. Like local transport, retail services are often supported through community-led initiatives, which try to resist overarching economic, social and national pressures (Box 8.4). These pressures have resulted in an ongoing rationalisation of small shops as the retail sector has been transformed by the increased dominance of major supermarket chains and, more recently, by the advent of internet shopping. Increased mobility for most – but by no means all – rural residents combined with increased competition means that many rural shops are becoming less viable and many are either going out of business or are being closed by the larger corporations that now own them (again, see Box 8.4). This process creates a division in many rural communities, between those ‘who are able to easily access services located outside the village or town, and those who are more constrained in their mobility’ (Woods, 2005b: 103). These difficulties are not new: between 1950 and 1966, the number of rural shops in north Norfolk declined by 43 per cent (Moseley and Spencer, 1978), and such trends look set to continue with even the bigger outlets finding it difficult to stay in business. In 2004, the Countryside Agency reported an acceleration of closures affecting smaller supermarkets and petrol stations. Between 2001 and 2003, 225 rural petrol stations and 79 supermarkets closed causing the proportion of rural residents

Box 8.4 ‘Overarching global social and economic processes, national and regional factors’ affecting local services ‘First, there are economic forces within capitalism that mean that independent traders have become less common as local companies are bought up by larger corporations, which then seek to rationalise their networks of outlets, closing those that are judged to be unprofitable’ ‘Second, there are social forces that have altered consumption habits. A more mobile population is less dependent on shops and facilities within their place of residence and those commuting to work may even find it more convenient to shop away from the community in a mall or a larger town’ ‘Third … there are national and regional factors that reflect cultural differences and rural settlement geography in shaping the actual trend of service provision’ including the history of low-order rural settlement in the UK and the response through the promotion of key settlement policy in the past, or the Market Towns Initiative today. Woods, 2005b: 96–7

212


living less than 4 km from a supermarket to fall from 22 to 20 per cent. Viability is the key factor determining whether businesses remain open. Some have combined or expanded their functions: many rural shops, for instance, have opened post office desks in an attempt to increase their viability (see below). But the profitability and viability of village stores also hinges on another important factor: these small outlets cannot offer the choices or the savings that are commonplace in urban supermarkets (or over the internet) and this limitation tends to reinforce modern patterns of consumption. They are unable, for example, to provide the same range of fresh foods; they offer a poorer choice of other commodities and brands; and goods tend to be more expensive (CRC, 2006c). There is a ‘rural premium’ on food sold in village stores. In 2004, the Countryside Agency found that rural households spent an average of £47.41 on food and other household commodities compared with a £38.33 average in built-up areas, excluding London (CA, 2004). This difference in costs has implications for rural health (influenced by diet) and may amplify the disadvantages already experienced by lower income groups. How are the agents of rural policy responding to these issues? Lending support to community-led initiatives has been a key strategy in recent years and in relation to retail, this has meant funding the development of community shops. In some places, European funding through the LEADER+ programme (Chapters 2 and 3) has been secured by local groups; elsewhere, the rural community councils have channelled Regional Development Agency grants into these initiatives; and before its demise, the Countryside Agency was responsible for providing over 1,000 grants, between 2001 and 2004, to local groups through its Community Services Grant Programme with community-managed and run shops being major recipients of this funding. By 2006, there were 150 community shops in rural England (DEFRA, 2006h). The success

Figure 8.2 ‘Business for sale’, Newbold Stores and Post Office, Newbold-on-Stour

Living in the countryside 213 and apparent profitability of these ventures rests heavily on voluntary contribution, emerging from communities with considerable social capital on which to draw. As with community-led transport initiatives, the success of community shops depends on local management and labour (reducing revenue costs) and sometimes on finance contributions (to make up shortfalls in grant funding) or even on gifted premises. Measured purely in economic terms, these are rarely viable enterprises. But they are expressions of a deeper desire to maintain a sense of place, to provide spaces for interaction, and to maintain the processes of ‘interactive production’ on which communities are built (Chapter 6). Such initiatives emerge from the community itself and tend to be supported through central funding structures. However, rural planning has a key role in supporting these initiatives. Through the use of planning agreements, local authorities are able to induce developers to provide ‘land or premises for service outlets’ (Moseley, 2000: 431) including community shops. And through a presumption against conversion of shops and pubs to residential use (conversion of this type is often highly lucrative) they are able to ensure that local services do not fall prey to profiteering. DEFRA (2006h) estimates that a combination of voluntary action and state support could see local retail returned to the one-third of villages that currently lack a shop by 2020. An example of this model is provided in Box 8.5. We have used local retail to illustrate the difficulties faced by private business in rural areas, and also to show how a combination of voluntary action and public support (through finance and planning) may prevent closure. But the example of post offices – often cited in studies of rural change – is also useful, partly because there is a growing tendency to view post office services as anachronistic given the availability of ICT alternatives (and this links with the next section), and partly because post offices are strongly defended by communities who view their survival as an indication of government’s broader commitment to rural service provision. The Rural Services Standard (2000) expressed clear support for the maintenance of a rural post office network, but government’s desire to encourage a more profitable and less subsidy-dependent postal service has led to an ongoing rationalisation of this network, sometimes resulting in reduced coverage in the countryside. Government’s aim is to create a viable network, but it also wants to achieve its services standard. For this reason, it has supported rural post offices through its ‘Social Network Payment’ programme (instigated in 2003 and now extended to 2008). However, this programme has failed to stop a ‘net deterioration’ of overall provision noted by Moseley (2000: 423). In 1997, about 200 rural post offices closed (ibid: 423) largely because of customer desertion. In 2003, there were a further 598 closures (CA, 2004); in 2005/06, the number of offices closing fell to 102 (CRC, 2006b) though this was still a significant percentage loss against a shrinking number of remaining offices. And the spectre of further closures hangs over the network following a Department of Trade and Industry consultation on the national post office network (2006) which reveals that the network as a whole remains in crisis: the number of customers fell by 4 million between 2004 and 2006 and weekly financial losses are running at nearly £4 million (DTI, 2006). The rural network loses £150 million annually and only 1,500 of the remaining 8,000 rural offices are profitable (Newman, 2006). Increased use of the internet is in part responsible for the plight of rural offices, as are more modern means of money transfer, including direct debit. Competition for postal business is also a contributing factor. Post Office Ltd has been squeezed by competitors within its more lucrative urban markets, which is preventing it from investing urban profits into rural outlets. The services that post offices provide are

214


Box 8.5 Appleton and East and West Hanley Community Shops In December 1999 Appleton Parish Council learnt that the village shop was about to close. The owners had become disillusioned and had been trying unsuccessfully to sell the business. The Parish Council organised a meeting when it was known when the shop would close. It was well attended and the community was mobilised. Appleton was fortunate to have many professional residents who contributed to fund-raising (over £1,000 was raised when a bucket was passed around at a public meeting), the preparation of business plans, and running the store. The community store opened in May 2000; it has been completely refitted and a secure lease negotiated. The villages of East and West Hanley both lost their village stores in rapid succession in 1996. This galvanised the parish council clerk into action and a public meeting was called. Again the availability of good social capital both in terms of expertise to manage the business and volunteers to run the business (mainly members of the Women’s Institute) ensured its initial success. It now operates out of the village hall, in what were previously football changing rooms. These were relocated closer to the pitches. Once again professional help from within the village enabled this to be done cheaply. Run as a not-for-profit business it has made several donations to the church, the football club, the village hall play group etc. The shop is a ‘vital part of the village providing a meeting place, a financial boost to the village hall and other community groups as well as vital shopping services’ (Oxfordshire RCC, 2004: 60). Both cases illustrate the importance of local social capital both in terms of initiating the project in the first place, but also in building community cohesion through success. Source: Oxford RCC, 2004

still needed, but because of competition and new technology, they cannot always be delivered in the way they have been in the past. This has led Royal Mail Group Plc to look at new ways of delivering these services, including: • •

• •

home ordering (online or by telephone) and collection at a community meeting point: for example, at the village hall or store; partnering other services – and having ‘tandem operations’ (Moseley and Parker, 1998) – which could mean having a counter at a local doctors’ surgery or even in a police station; mobile services involving a post office van doing a circuit of villages on a daily basis; hosting a post office counter in another business such as a pub or local shop; this could involve the other business taking on a Post Office franchise, or the counter being manned, periodically, by an employee of a larger branch.

In some instances, there may be strong grounds for retaining an existing office, perhaps because it is the last surviving service outlet. As with community shops, voluntary support provides one means of keeping outlets open, though Newman (2006) suggests that rural post offices will only be operable if some level of public


Figure 8.3 ‘The Old Post Office’, now a private dwelling, Loxley, Warwickshire

subsidy is made available. Such subsidy might be channelled via local authorities who could use their powers of ‘community well-being’ (provided by the Local Government Act 2000) to support services. This power could be used to support either the existing arrangement (i.e. the current outlet) or one of the new arrangements listed above. The case for retaining an actual community-based post office is likely to rest on an assessment of social impact, grounded in an acceptance that offices provide more than a transactional service, but also a space for the community. Therefore, service retention becomes a social and an economic aspiration within a community strategy delivered through local financial support fixed in a local area agreement (Chapter 2). In relation to the broader retention and viability of rural services, post offices are an interesting case as they illustrate the current tension between alternative delivery arrangements (including ICT) with their cost efficiencies, and the traditional arrangements which are unquestionably difficult to maintain on economic grounds, but which are clearly important to communities. Given the migration trends that have reconfigured and defined communities in recent times, it could be argued that it is only logical to find new ways of serving new needs and ICT provides an obvious and effective answer. But to what extent is ICT a practicable solution, and how might it impact on communities?

Information and communication technology Moseley (2000: 430) observes that a ‘growing mechanism for trying to assure geographically widespread service delivery is the use of information and communication technology’ but ‘the danger, and time will tell, is that telematics could also render many village and small town service outlets redundant’. The possibility of rural

216


residents remaining confined in their homes, tapping away at personal computers, deserting local shops, and shunning face-to-face contact is not perhaps an enticing vision of the future. However, opportunities for home shopping, the availability of medical advice over the internet or through NHS Direct, and being able to access banking services at the touch of a button may all go some way towards alleviating the problem of geographical isolation and the cost of providing services to more dispersed populations. The increased opportunities arising from ICT improvements present a quandary, expressed neatly by Moseley (2000: 430–31): For 30 years attempts have been made to stem the motor-car-driven loss of service outlets ‘up the urban hierarchy’ from villages and small towns to larger towns and out-of-town complexes. It would be ironic if the next 30 years witnessed a struggle to stem the Internet-driven loss of services ‘down the urban hierarchy’ to 20 million outlets at the individual household level! The trick is to achieve a balance: to accept the need for community spaces – real shops, halls and pubs where people can come together – but also the role that ‘judicious use’ of ICT can play in easing distance and mobility barriers. But being able to make best use of the internet is dependent on having the infrastructure in place, and this infrastructure is currently inferior in rural areas (see Table 8.2). This is partly because many service providers, putting in new broadband connections, have concentrated their investments where there are the largest numbers of potential customers. This not only has implications for access to internet-hosted services, but also for economic growth (Chapter 5). Businesses locating in rural areas may find themselves disadvantaged relative to their competitors. In the worst-case scenario, new start-ups may choose not to locate in the countryside because of limited broadband access. Government had hoped to achieve universal access by 2005, but only a quarter of rural homes were connected by 2003 (Broadband Stakeholder Group, 2003). New resources are being channelled through the RDAs to tackle this problem, and the remaining network gaps are slowly being filled. ICT access is clearly important for businesses and for many rural residents, but it is only a partial solution to the key problem of rural accessibility. For some of the most Table 8.2

Geographic availability of broadband, 2004 (% of residential delivery points)

Area classification

Less sparse

Sparse

Source: CRC, 2006

DSL (digital subscriber line) availability 75.4

Cable availability

Village

71.9

3.1

Town and fringe

87.8

15.7

Urban>10K

99.4

60.3


30.0

0.1

Village

33.4

0.0

Town and fringe

63.5

0.1

Urban>10K

91.7

0.0

England

95.2

50.4


4.2

Living in the countryside 217 disadvantaged rural groups – particularly the elderly – their use of and confidence in ICT means that they are the least likely to be ‘digitally engaged’ and there is a growing concern that as more public and private services are provided online, demand for physical provision will decline, services will be withdrawn and access will become more difficult for those without internet access. The key – as Moseley notes – is to achieve a judicious balance between technological and community solutions with the former used to enhance the viability of the latter: for example, if the providers of services run a bigger profit because of cost savings associated with ICT, they may subsequently be able to invest in local outlets; or independent outlets may benefit by reaching some of their customers online. New technology presents a new opportunity and can be used to achieve greater efficiencies. The danger is that imprudent use will accentuate existing social exclusion and work against current community-based initiatives.

Emergent issues: the planning response Planning’s role in rural service provision has changed. It was once primarily concerned with trying to ‘make the market’, i.e. it intervened to cause a restructuring of provision around key settlements, ensuring the services themselves had viable markets (the service challenge was largely viewed in economic terms). Whilst this still happens, there is now a parallel focus on ‘making the communities’, which means supporting services thereby supporting communities, in a variety of ways (and therefore seeing service provision in its wider social context). Some mechanisms have already been mentioned, including facilitating service provision by assisting community-based initiatives through planning agreements, with subsequent ‘planning gains’ (in the form of land, premises or money) being gifted to community land trusts (Chapter 7) and made directly available to local people. Planning’s focus has moved from intervention and physical development, to support, facilitation and community well-being. This change was already evident in the late 1990s (Moseley, 2000: 431) but has gathered pace since the local government reforms of 1999 and 2000, and the arrival of a new planning system in 2004. Communities now have a stronger hand in defining local priorities (through LSPs and community strategies) and planning is being called upon to support the delivery of these priorities. We now consider how this is happening and what a more ‘supportive’ planning process means in practice.

Community-led planning In 2000, the Rural White Paper emphasised government’s belief in the importance of strong rural communities and indicated that they would be ‘empowered’ to identify local concerns, and formulate appropriate responses. The planning system was to be re-orientated to allow this to happen with ‘parish plans’ used as a framework for highlighting the problems, and expressing community aspirations. The Countryside Agency led this process through the distribution of £4.35 million of grant funding, used to support the development of parish plans (from a total pot of £17.25 million allocated to government’s ‘Vital Villages’ programme, available to support transport and other community service initiatives). By 2004, more than 1,000 villages had each received up to £5,000 for the development of parish plans: the money was used for undertaking local appraisals and for plan production. Funding for this purpose continues to be available (at least until 2008) under the ‘Rural Social and Community Programme’, now administered by the 38 rural community councils. There are currently 1,200

218


logged parish plans in England. These can be seen as part of the evidence base feeding into community strategies normally produced at an authority-wide level, highlighting local challenges and aspirations. They are a first step towards delivering communityfocused spatial planning. The form of parish plans varies from place to place, though they are invariably community-led, driven by a desire to build social capital, and reflect concerns that are specific to a community. The ‘parish planning process’ commonly begins with a local survey, scoping issues and agendas that will frame a community ‘action plan’ of some description. For example, the parishes of Dobwalls and Trewidland – with support from Cornwall’s RCC – began their own process with a questionnaire survey of 900 households. Some 242 responses were received and workshops were held to discuss issues arising, leading to an identification of ten themes: • • • • • • • • • •

crime and safety; local shops,services and post offices; the environment and environmental services; housing; community (‘social, interactive and leisure’); transport and road safety; health and health services; education and training; employment opportunities; tourism and local government.

The themes were worked-up into a series of vision statements, and whilst the parish council acknowledges that it can deliver very little on its own (without external funding or the support of the local authority), a consensus was achieved through this bottom-up exercise in data-gathering, perhaps forestalling the conflicts than can plague top-down approaches (Chapter 6) built on a limited appreciation of local concerns. Indeed, the activity of ‘planning’ gave the community a focus, with the process seen as something to engage in rather than something to be opposed (Dobwalls and Trewidland Parish Council, 2005). This part of the wider planning process has two roles: first, it is about gathering evidence and ensuring that higher-level plans reflect local aspirations (see also Morphet et al., 2007); and second, it is about promoting social cohesion, which can lead to more specific actions in support of local services (perhaps through voluntary contribution). But in some instances, parish plans have become more focused dealing, for instance, with maintaining the character of villages. Village design statements (VDS: see PPS7, Para 14) take the form of an ‘advisory document’ produced by the local community in the same way as a parish plan. They deal with visual character but not with the state of services, and if adopted as ‘supplementary planning guidance’ (under the old, pre2004 planning system), have been viewed as an effective way of counterbalancing the perceived homogenisation of rural England (Owen, 1999; 2002a; 2002b) sometimes expressed through standardised architecture and the loss of ‘village character’ or distinctiveness (Owen, 1998). Roughly 600 VDSs have been produced. They are less common than parish plans; first, because they deal with a narrower set of concerns (and may therefore attract less interest); and, second, because their preparation is dependent on having some design skills and knowledge within the community (for example, an architect living locally) or strong support from the local authority (Hughes,

Living in the countryside 219 2006). Like parish plans, VDSs are viewed as an expression of community aspiration. Before 2004, if they were thought to be useful and workable, they were sometimes adopted as supplementary planning guidance (SPG)and then taken into consideration when development applications were received. In some areas, they have been viewed as an important part of the design process. In the Kent Downs AONB, for example, 14 per cent of villages produced VDSs and all were adopted as SPG (Hughes, 2006), becoming material planning considerations. The place of parish plans (and narrower VDSs) within the new planning system – and the extent to which communities can influence planning decisions relating to service provision, housing development or other forms of development and its design – is a subject of considerable debate. Parish plans are sometimes considered, by planning authorities, as ‘undeliverable’ or whimsical and therefore difficult to incorporate into LDFs. VDSs tend to be more consistent in their content, often because of professional input, so potentially easier to adopt. But both documents provide vehicles for community engagement within a wider process. The situation at the current time is that whilst some local authorities are looking at the possibility of adopting VDSs as ‘supplementary planning documents’ (SPDs), others have decided that they are too difficult to formally insert into LDFs, often because they are out of step with broader design guidance (Hughes, 2006). The same is true of parish plans, though variable ‘quality’ makes them potentially more difficult to handle within the statutory planning process – though some community-led plans have been adopted as SPDs (Sylvester, 2005; Hughes, 2006). Part of the problem lies in the need to ‘project manage’ the production of DPDs and SPDs, with a production schedule set out within the local development scheme (LDS). Within the LDS, a local authority sets itself targets, and community plans may not be adopted because the timing of their production is difficult to control and predict. The requirement to project manage the LDF process may, in some cases, be used as an excuse not to translate community aspiration directly into policy. However, the Planning White Paper 2007 (DCLG, 2007a) suggests that the requirement to list all SPDs in the local development framework may be relaxed, enabling local authorities to deal with SPDs in a more flexible way. Such a move could allow authorities to incorporate parish plans and VDSs into the LDF structure, should they wish to. Nevertheless, authorities currently prefer to feed aspirations into community strategies and then derive their own policies in their own time. Despite these difficulties, lobbying groups see community planning (expressed through parish plans or design statements) as an means of influencing planning decisions affecting local service delivery, or as a means of securing wider support for local initiatives. Whilst ‘community plans’ may not always become part of the statutory framework (as area action plans or SPDs), they will play a part in shaping ‘community strategies’ which provide a guide for the development of local planning policy (DCLG, 2006d: Para 5.63). Indeed, the CPRE argues that: parish plans can be used to make sure local concerns and characteristics are taken into account before any planning decisions are made. They can also influence the way local services are delivered. Parish plans are an important tool that can be fed into other plans and strategies such as local development frameworks, where the needs of individual towns and villages and their surrounding countryside might not normally be adequately considered. (www.planninghelp.org.uk; accessed 20 March 2007)

220


This form of community planning can frame the various local initiatives (including community shops or transport schemes) examined earlier in this chapter, and provide a means of winning support for these initiatives from a variety of sources (Chapter 2). Development control decisions will also be influenced by this level of planning, whether adopted into the statutory framework or not. Therefore planning’s support for local services (preventing changes of use or granting changes that create an opportunity for a new local shop, reflecting local aspirations in transport plans, or using Section 106 monies to support local services) will, in part, be determined at this community level. But at a different level effort is often directed at supporting service hubs and their hinterlands.

Supporting service hubs and their hinterlands It is undoubtedly the case that a combination of low demand (resulting from a transformation of consumption habits) and the high costs of delivery have adversely affected both public and private rural services. This has prompted national government to use the planning system to rationalise provision and attempt to create single hubs from which to deliver multiple services. This strategy is not new and was examined in detail by Cloke in the late 1970s (Cloke, 1979): it was essentially concerned with efficiency, rationalisation and cost cutting, distinguishing between ‘key’ and ‘nonkey’ settlements. Sillince (1986: 176) notes that by the 1980s the pattern of service cutbacks, driven by this approach to rural policy, had provoked an adverse local reaction. In County Durham, for example, some ‘fourth tier’ (or ‘Category D’) mining villages were explicitly identified for no further investment, the aim being to bring about settlement rationalisation (Cloke, 1979). Many local authorities wished to distance themselves from government policy, and began to withdraw from the key settlement approach. This was the case in Warwickshire in 1979 when the County Structure Plan was reviewed (feeding into modifications adopted in 1984: Sillince, 1986: 181). The policy not only directed growth into the key settlements, but also limited the expansion of all other villages and was viewed, therefore, as a cause of worsening accessibility (particularly for less mobile rural residents). This was the main problem of key settlement policy from the 1960s onwards: it presumed against a growth of services in the majority of villages and smaller settlements, and was therefore viewed as insensitive and unsupportive. More recent policies focused on ‘market towns’ view small towns not as the only possible points of service provision, but as locations of particular diversity and opportunity where planning has a special role in enhancing and protecting these attributes. Market towns have long provided a centre for rural life, not only for residents of the towns themselves, but for wider hinterlands. They are important functional centres: some have grown into ‘commuter towns’ during the last 40 years (see Newby, 1979), but others have suffered long-term decline as a result of competition from larger urban centres or out-of-town retail facilities (Thomas and Bromley 2002; Richardson and Powe 2004). They have also been adversely affected by the contraction of their primary economies – reducing their importance as centres for farming – and light industrial functions, resulting in the closure of small factories. In 1999, government’s Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) declared that there should be a renewed commitment to these towns, and this was subsequently expressed in the Rural White Paper in the following year, which lauded the importance of:


Figure 8.5 The shopping precinct, Wellesbourne Key Settlement

Market towns as a focus for growth in areas which need regeneration, and more generally as service centres and hubs for surrounding hinterland, exploiting their potential as attractive places to live, work and spend leisure time. (DETR and MAFF, 2000: 73) The accent was placed on ‘smaller’ towns and not on the larger centres which already enjoyed competitive advantage and were acting as gravity sinks for public and private service provision as a result of economies of scale (DETR and MAFF, 2000: 74). Unlike the discredited key settlement policy, this was not intended as a means of exclusively supporting particular settlements at the expense of all others. Rather, it was about recognising the need for multi-functional hubs that would provide wider networks of lower-tier settlements with a focus, and reduce the volume of regular long-distance movement to larger centres. The initiative involved: •

•

•

Small market towns going through a process of critical self-appraisal, performing a ‘health check’ and formulating actions plans aimed at minimising current threats to their viability, and ways of maximizing opportunities. This process was initially piloted by the Countryside Agency in the north-west of England (Caffyn, 2004) and generated a great deal of local enthusiasm. The distribution of £37 million of funding for 140 market towns over three years, and a further £100 million of subsequent funding (via RDAs) once action plans were approved. The possibility of securing additional funding (through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF: Chapter 2), Neighbourhood Renewal or through Rural Regeneration Loans), though Caffyn (2004: 23) asks whether this is just

222


Figure 8.6 A larger centre: the medieval market town of Warwick

another ‘third way’ strategy which is over-reliant on local partnerships and action (aimed at delivering so-called ‘joined-up governance’) and lacks effective central government support. The question of balancing community-led initiative with essential state support is an important one. Moseley (2000) highlights the critical role played by a ‘supportive state’ in all local action, and Caffyn (2004) questions whether the state is really doing enough. Support comes not only through direct investment, but also through the operation of statutory planning. This is true at the community-initiative level and also when planning indentifies certain settlements as service hubs. The draft RSS for the north-west of England (NWRA, 2006) describes a settlement hierarchy which includes: two regional centres (Manchester and Liverpool); 27 regional towns and cities with populations of between 28,000 and 70,000; and 56 ‘key service centres’ with populations of between 2,000 and 28,000, many of which comprise smaller market towns. The 56 centres have been identified as strategically important as they provide a range of retail, leisure, educational, financial and professional services that could not be delivered in lower-tier settlements. The regional strategy highlights potential for future investment in these centres which will: first, help maintain the viability of existing services and; second, ensure that services are available to nearby villages, ensuring that people are not forced to travel greater distances to the regional towns and cities. In this instance, the regional planning body has taken a clear lead in identifying a pattern of investment and support that should assist service provision to rural communities. At the ‘examination in public’ of the RSS – concluded in January 2007 – this strategy was broadly accepted by the region’s local planning authorities, though some authorities felt that even smaller centres might be given support to develop a hub function for their hinterlands. This debate is unresolved, but the principles of supporting some concentration of opportunity in market towns (helping sustain viable

Living in the countryside 223 local services) whilst also backing community-led initiatives in villages has gained broad acceptance. This acceptance begins in rural communities themselves, and finds practical expression in community and LDF core strategies. In the case of community-led schemes, the planning system is likely to provide general development control and Section 106 support. In the case of market towns, the ‘action plans’ produced with the seed-corn funding available after 2000 may be transformed into area action plans (AAP) and become a key ‘delivery mechanism’ for spatial planning (DCLG and RTPI, 2007: 14). The AAP – alongside broader planning policies – will need to provide a contribution against a set of outcomes written into local area agreements. The services standards discussed earlier are now being translated into the performance targets for local authorities. Public service agreements (PSA) – contracts between national and local government setting out what authorities need to deliver in order to receive central funding – have been used to encourage local authorities to set and achieve specific performance targets in return for additional funding. These service agreements have evolved into the LAA and provide a link between community strategies and implementation. The same agreements also connect ‘local transport plans’ – in which local authorities may commit to addressing (amongst other things) the accessibility needs of the elderly, vulnerable or excluded groups – to implementation and this will mean using spatial planning to coordinate the delivery of employment sites, health care, education and housing. Through a combination of strategic investment and local support, and through plan making and development control, spatial planning has a positive role in achieving a number of LAA outcomes (Box 8.6). Transport and services are seen as a key planning contribution to community strategy (and hence LAA) ambitions.

Figure 8.7 ‘The Talbot’, a former public house converted into apartments, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire

224


Box 8.6 The planning contribution to achieving LAA outcomes, with service contributions highlighted Outcomes Health and well-being

Combating climate change

Safer communities Vibrant and sustainable neighbourhoods

Social inclusion

Economic development

Planning contribution Parks, recreation and sports provision, transport, walking and cycling, air quality, access to goods and services, strong economies and access to employment Transport, walking and cycling, energy supply, recycling, housing design and renewal, bio-diversity, access to goods and services, minerals and waste, flood risk Licensing decisions, design, landscaping, recreational and sports provision, transport Housing, strong economies and access to employment, social and community infrastructure, transport, walking and cycling, service co-location, safe and green environments, school provision and design Equal access to goods and services, transport, strong economies and access to employment, housing quality and housing provision, affordable energy, involving communities in plan making Availability of employment sites and access, transport, social and environmental infrastructure, housing – location, accessibility, levels and type of tenure, access to goods and services, energy provision

Source: DCLG and RTPI, 2007: 11

Conclusions For many people, rural living can be idyllic, especially those who are mobile and have access to the goods and services they need. However for a significant proportion of the rural population, access to basic services is either limited or expensive: living in the countryside can be a struggle. Evidence of poor accessibility and disadvantage can be masked when data relating to less mobile and more vulnerable sections of rural society are aggregated with that of more mobile, car-owning, and higher-earning residents. Yet the Commission for Rural Communities (2006c), like the Countryside Agency before it, has revealed severe levels of social exclusion in England’s countryside This exclusion is not new, and is one outcome of the social reconfiguration of rural areas during the last half-century which, together with a weakening market for shops, post offices, pubs and so on, has driven an overall reduction in rural services. Rational planning’s first reaction was to promote a concentration of service provision in ‘key settlements’, a response which starved many smaller communities of the ability to meet their own needs. Today, a similar approach is manifest in the ‘market towns initiative’, but is coupled with support for community initiatives through a mix of subsidy and sympathetic planning. Communities are being empowered to find their own solutions to local problems, but there are doubts as to whether government is doing enough to support local initiatives, either through investment or through the

Living in the countryside 225 planning system which might, for example, presume in favour of community-led applications. Social capital is proving to be the driving force behind most local initiatives and the planning system has a key role to play in nurturing and building this capital. Community strategies, introduced in 2000, are being integrated with LDFs giving local people more opportunity for strategic involvement in the planning process. Communities are also being encouraged to come together and develop parish or other types of community plan. Such initiatives are likely to produce new interest in, and enthusiasm for, planning as a positive tool. Moreover, emergent forms of governance in rural areas – centred upon communities and LSPs, and articulated through parish plans, community strategies and spatial planning – provide a means of more clearly expressing needs and aspirations, and of delivering integrated and balanced solutions (balanced, for example, between the economic focus on service hubs and the social focus on community initiative). Spatial planning’s support for bottom-up approaches to rural service delivery is likely to be important in the years ahead, though many of the system’s emergent tools – including area action plans – have yet to be tested. The move from rational planning intervention to a brand of planning that empowers communities is a positive step, and one that needs to be matched by increased support for local action.

Part IV

Environmental change and planning

9

A changing environment

This chapter examines the changing character and care of the rural environment over the last 100 years. It begins by discussing the factors that shape the countryside environment and the different perspectives that have contributed to its planning and management. This is followed by an overview of the framework of institutional responsibilities and controls that has been established, and how this has evolved in response to economic, social and environmental change. Particular attention is drawn to shifting attitudes to the role of farming in the stewardship of rural areas. Finally, the part that the post-war planning system has played in influencing environmental change and managing landscape assets is considered. The chapter sets the scene for a more detailed discussion in Chapter 10 of the different environmental designations that are now in place, and the potential of the new spatial planning system to deliver a more integrated approach to the planning and management of rural areas.

Learning outcomes This chapter aims to provide: • • •

• •

an understanding of the rural ‘landscape’ as the outcome of the interaction between nature and society; an understanding of different disciplinary perspectives on the rural environment; an understanding of the evolving framework of institutional responsibilities and controls related to the rural environment (building on the introduction provided in Chapter 2); further analysis of changing attitudes to the role of the farmer in managing the countryside; and an understanding of the role that post-war planning has played in influencing environmental change and managing landscape assets.

Introduction A central theme within this introduction to rural planning is that today’s countryside and the pattern of rural living is not uniform but highly differentiated (Chapter 5), reflecting the complex interplay of economic, social and environmental factors

230

Environmental change and plannning

in each locality. The argument developed is that, to date, approaches to rural planning, including those related to land use planning, have tended to underplay this local variation, and, in particular, have failed to integrate economic, social and environmental policy concerns in a satisfactory way. Consequently, rural planning has often lacked coherence and local sensitivity, and has been fraught with internal inconsistencies and tensions. From the previous chapters examining the economic and social challenges facing rural areas, it is evident that environmental policies – and a dividing line between environmental and developmental perspectives on rural change – have been a notable source of such tension. For example, extensive restrictions on development in the countryside – underpinned, in large measure, by environmental justifications – are thought by some to have significantly hampered diversification of the rural economy (Chapter 5) and to have exacerbated the rural affordable housing crisis (Chapter 7). Whether these views are entirely justified is of course debatable. However, it is perhaps surprising that such criticisms can be levelled at all, as an appreciation of the close interaction of economic, social and environmental factors lies at the very heart of environmental concern in the countryside. The next two chapters will explain why environmental planning has emerged as such a significant force within rural policy and how the present search for more environmentally sustainable patterns of development could perhaps, in tandem with spatial planning, act as the catalyst for better integrated and ‘multi-functional’ perspectives (see also Chapters 1, 10 and 11) on planning and management in rural areas. This chapter sets the context for the discussion by explaining why economic and social developments are central to thinking about the rural environment and by examining the different perspectives that have informed planning in this area. This is followed by an overview of the framework of institutional responsibilities and controls related to the environment of the countryside and how this has changed over time. In the context of environmental change, particular consideration is given to the role of farming in managing the rural environment and how views on this have shifted over time. Finally, the part that the post-war planning system has played in influencing environmental change and managing landscape assets is considered. Chapter 10 then explores in more detail the different designations that have been established to protect the rural environment or ‘contain’ urban expansion (including national parks and sites of special scientific interest), their roots, rationale and potential future development. This is followed by an examination of new approaches to environmental management that emphasise local distinctiveness, and, at the same time, the need for a more holistic perspective that encourages closer sectoral, territorial and organisational integration. Finally, the key role which spatial planning could play in delivering a better-integrated and more sustainable approach to rural planning, including planning for the rural environment is discussed.

A man-made landscape It is important at the outset to have a clear appreciation of what is meant by the term environment. There is perhaps a popular conception that the countryside represents the ‘natural’ environment, the antithesis of the worldly or ‘human’ environment of towns and cities. However, as with other widely held views of rurality, this understanding does not live up to scrutiny, for there is practically nowhere in Britain that can truly be described as natural, or completely devoid of human influence. That is not to say that underlying natural structure and natural processes do not significantly determine the

A changing environment 231 character of the rural environment: they clearly do. Beyond this though, the countryside of Britain could be more accurately described as ‘landscape’, which as Zonnefeld defines as ‘part of the Earth’s surface, consisting of a complex of systems formed by the activities of rock, water, plants, animals and man and that by its physiognomy forms a recognisable entity’ (Zonnefeld, 1990: 55). Put more simply, landscape equals the ‘natural habitat’ plus ‘human influence’. This understanding has been developed by numerous authors but none more eloquently than Dudley Stamp in his two seminal works, Britain’s Structure and Scenery (1946) and Man and the Land (1964). In the first of these books, Stamp described how the geological evolution of the British Isles coupled with climate and the operation of physical processes, provides the natural structure upon which British scenery is based. In particular, he drew attention to the fundamental divide between the areas of older, harder rocks, poorer soils and wetter weather of upland Britain, and the younger, softer rocks, richer soils and dryer parts of lowland Britain, and how these differences determine the character of vegetation and the distribution of habitats (see Figure 9.1).

Figure 9.1 Britain’s upland/lowland divide Source: Stamp, 1946: 6

232


In the second book, Stamp explained how this underlying structure has influenced the pattern and form of human development, for example through the capacity of the land to support different types of farming or industrial activity and to supply particular construction materials. However, he also revealed how the landscape kaleidoscope that is evident today reflects the varying social histories of places. A more recent version of Stamp’s analysis is reflected in two categorisations, which together provide a Joint Character Map of England. The first of these, prepared by English Nature, involved the identification of ‘natural areas’ (97 terrestrial and 23 marine areas). These are bio-geographic zones that reflect the geological foundation, the natural systems and processes, and the wildlife in different parts of England and are intended to assist in setting objectives for nature conservation. Complementing this is a second categorisation, produced by the Countryside Agency, which defines areas of distinct landscape character in England. Nested within the natural areas, the 159 ‘countryside character areas’ provide a finer grain understanding of areas of distinct landscape character, which express the varying interaction of people with their natural environment. This spatial classification is similarly used to guide policy and action programmes related to landscape protection and enhancement. Figures 9.2 and 9.3 show the natural areas and countryside character areas identified for north-west England. Supporting this work is the ‘historic land classification’ framework developed by English Heritage that is intended to facilitate a greater appreciation of time-depth within landscape, through the production of a series of overlay maps illustrating landscape change over the centuries. Landscape characterisation exercises have also been undertaken in Scotland by Scottish Natural Heritage leading to the definition of 21 natural heritage zones, which are a counterpart to the natural areas for England. While in Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales has, through its LANDMAP initiative (essentially ‘a geographical information system for recording and managing landscape qualities and character’, CCW, 2002), developed a more holistic framework for understanding the Welsh landscape (see Box 9.1) (Hamilton and Selman, 2005).

Determinants of landscape character It is evident from these classifications that the ‘landscape’ of rural areas reflects a complex interaction of different elements (Box 9.1). These include the physical backcloth of geology, topography, climate and natural processes that determine the underlying form of the landscape, soils and ‘natural’ vegetation. Overlying this is the accretion of millennia of human activity, which Meinig describes as ‘the symbolic expressions of cultural values, social behaviours and individual actions worked upon particular localities over time’ (Meinig, 1979: 6). In addition, increasing recognition is being given to the variability of personal perceptions or experience of landscape, that individual or culturally intimate sense of place, and which influences peoples’ responses to and use of different landscapes (Gray, 2003, Moore-Colyer and Scott, 2005).

Different perspectives on the rural environment What is apparent from the above is that interest in the rural environment combines two related – but at the same time quite distinct – perspectives. The first is science-based, drawing upon disciplines such as physical geography, earth sciences, biological sciences and ecology, including landscape ecology. Here the concern has traditionally centred

A changing environment 233

Figure 9.2 ‘Natural areas’ in the north-west of England Source: Handley et al. 1998a

234


Figure 9.3 ‘Countryside character areas’ in the north-west of England Source: Handley et al. 1998a


Box 9.1 What is landscape? An English (Countryside Agency) view Experience Land use

History Wildlife

Natural form

A Welsh (LANDMAP) view How people perceive the landscape affects how it is used or how it is valued. The current pattern of land use, including settlement, farming, energy production and forestry. Landscapes have also been shaped by past patterns of human activity. The types and abundance of plants and animals, determined by the physical backcloth of the ‘natural’ environment and by economic and social factors Geology, landform, river and drainage systems and soils shape the land and its ‘usefulness’ for agriculture and other human functions.

Visual and sensory Culture/history and archaeology

Biodiversity

Earth science/ function and form

Source: Derived from CA, 2006: 5 and Moore-Colyer and Scott: 2005: 508 (England) and CCW, 2002 (Wales)

upon the protection of species and habitats and significant geological features, but has increasingly begun to embrace wider ecosystem and earth system science perspectives (a theme that will be returned to in Chapter 10). Classic texts reflecting this view of the rural environment include Gilbert White’s Natural History of Selbourne (1788), Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) and Derek Ratcliffe’s A Nature Conservation Review (1977). The second perspective is social science, and even arts-based, and draws upon human geography, anthropology, history, archaeology and landscape design among other disciplines. Here the principal focus has been the personal, social, cultural and aesthetic significance of the countryside with an associated concern to protect landscape beauty, cultural and historic value. Examples of works reflecting this view include, The Making of the English Landscape (Hoskins, 1955), The Theft of the Countryside (Shoard, 1980) and The History of the Countryside (Rackham, 1986). The ways in which these two broad areas of interest have interacted with landscape change over the last century to produce a framework of environmental protection for the British countryside is now discussed.

Key debates The origins of environmental concern The roots of both of these perspectives on the rural environment can be traced back to interest groups and voluntary organisations of the nineteenth century. Influenced by the anti-industrial sentiments and idealised notions of the ‘rural idyll’ of the Romantic movement, appreciation of the ‘natural history’ and ‘natural beauty’ of the apparently

236


unsullied and picturesque countryside attracted a growing body of enthusiasts. A growing body of scientific knowledge of nature exemplified by the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 and the idea of ‘the survival of the fittest’ that it introduced further increased admiration for, and interest in, the rural environment. Moreover, a late-nineteenth-century decline in the importance of agriculture and early signs of an impending loss of rural society, following industrialisation, emphasised the ‘nostalgia for rural roots’ by the landed gentry that had become involved in the structures of power and influence created by industrialisation. Numerous specialist interest groups were established bringing like-minded people together, such as the Selbourne Society for the Preservation of Birds, Plants and Pleasant Places, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, The National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of (now the Campaign to Protect) Rural England (Bishop and Phillips, 2004; Newby, 1988). Led by the urban middle classes, these groups often combined talks and expeditions with practical activities related to the protection of particular sites or features and active lobbying of government for new legislation. State intervention was increasingly perceived as necessary to control the negative influences of human activity and development on wildlife and the countryside. Consequently, Britain was one of the first countries in the world to develop an extensive system of legislative controls related to environmental matters. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries this mainly took the form of single issue acts related to the industrial processes and the protection of individual species or historical features. Examples include the Sea Bird Protection Acts of 1869, 1872 and 1880, which sought to stop the slaughter of birds at Flamborough Head on the Yorkshire coast (Ball and Bell, 1991). By the early years of the twentieth century, interest in healthy and spiritually uplifting rural pursuits, centred on the natural history and beauty of the countryside, was attracting an increasing number of urban dwellers who increasingly sought escape from the urban environment in their leisure time. This was facilitated by developments in transport (including the expansion of the railways and motor transport, particularly in the form of coach and bus services, and the ownership of bicycles), and social trends (for example, shorter working weeks and increased holiday entitlements). Participation in hiking, cycling, camping, mountaineering and caravanning defined the mood of the era, and access to the countryside came to be viewed as an elementary requirement of social justice (Allen, 1976, Moore-Colyer and Scott, 2005). A politically potent combination of widespread interest in the natural history and natural beauty of rural areas emerged, alongside a belief in the right of access of the ordinary (mainly urban) man to the countryside. In the socialist outpouring of the immediate post-war period this was translated into the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 which marked the beginning of a new era of state involvement in the protection of the rural environment.

The post-war framework of institutions and designations The 1949 Act established the framework of institutions and protective designations that formed the basis of government control of the countryside environment for much of the second half of the twentieth century. This framework reflected the disciplinary divide discussed in the introduction to this chapter. Figure 9.4 provides a timeline of the changing pattern of institutional responsibilities from 1949 to the present day, while Box 9.2 charts the growing variety and number of designated areas that


Figure 9.4 Government agencies responsible for conservation of the countryside environment

were introduced and revised by successive acts of parliament, and in response to international agreements. In terms of natural history, the 1949 Act saw the establishment of the Nature Conservancy Council that supervised the development of a pattern of post-war nature conservation based largely upon the designation of sites of special scientific interest, national and local nature reserves. Paralleling these provisions, the 1949 Act also put in place designations related to the protection of the natural beauty of the countryside in the form of areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks in England and Wales. A National Parks Commission was established to oversee the creation of the

238


new national parks. However, it was superseded in 1968 by the more powerful and wide-ranging Countryside Commission for England and Wales charged with keeping under review all matters related to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the countryside and the provision and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside (White, 1976). A parallel organisation was created north of the border in the form of the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Here landscape conservation had focused initially upon the designation of areas of great landscape value (by local authorities in their development plans) and it was not until the early 1980s that higher status designations began to be established in the form of national scenic areas and regional parks. The emphasis on designated areas as the key means of protecting the quality of the rural environment reflected the particular world-view of those leading the introduction of controls in post-war years (Bishop and Phillips, 2004). This can be characterised as follows: • • •

a belief in focusing attention upon ‘special sites’ identified by experts; a belief that control over development in the designated areas could be achieved, and that designation was all that was needed to preserve their special qualities; a belief that both within and beyond these special areas, agriculture could be relied upon to deliver sound environmental management of the countryside.

This latter point is particularly significant. As Cherry (1985) noted, the Scott Committee’s Report on Land Utilisation in Rural Areas (which reflected the professional view of the time): envisaged no conflict between an efficient agriculture and conservation of the landscape and wildlife, on the grounds that the traditional landscape pattern was seen as a derivative of established farming practices, and these practices would remain largely unchanged. (ibid: 136). However, over the years that followed the 1949 Act, the validity of an approach to conservation based largely upon the designation of special areas and benign agricultural stewardship increasingly came to be challenged, as economic and social change – that had not been foreseen in the austerity years that immediately followed the Second World War – unfolded.

Drivers of late-twentieth-century landscape change Important drivers of change in rural areas in the post-war period, some of which were explored in earlier chapters, included: • • • • • • •

a transformation in agricultural practices associated with the ‘productivist’ policies of government (Chapters 4 and 5); a rapidly expanding economy (Chapters 3 and 5); increased leisure time (Chapters 5 and 8); new patterns of leisure activity (Chapter 5); increasing affluence (Chapter 6); population and household growth (Chapters 6 and 7); increasing car ownership (Chapter 8).


Box 9.2 Timeline of key protected area designations in the United Kingdom

Legislation/ International agreement 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (England and Wales) 1954 Protection of Birds Acts 1962 Circular 2/62 Scotland 1965 Amenity Lands Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme 1971 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1972 UNESCO Convention of World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1976 Bern Convention on Wild Flora and Fauna 1979 EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds 1980 Circular 20/80 (Scotland) 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (England, Wales and Scotland)

Principal focus (establishment or amendment to) Nature conservation Landscape conservation Sites of Special Scientific Interest National Nature Reserves Local Nature Reserves Areas of Special Protection

National Parks Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Areas of Great Landscape Value Areas of Special Scientific Areas of Outstanding Interest Natural Beauty Nature Reserves Biosphere Reserve Ramsar Site

World Heritage Site

World Heritage Site

Biogenetic Reserve Special Protection Area National Scenic Areas

Sites of Special Scientific Regional Park (Scotland) Interest Special Protection Areas Marine Nature Reserve SSSIs Scotland Limestone Pavement Orders 1985 Nature Conservation Marine Conservation Area Areas of Outstanding & Amenity Lands Natural Beauty (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 Natural Heritage Natural Heritage Area Natural Heritage Area (Scotland) Act

continued …

240


Box 9.2 continued

Legislation/ International agreement 1992 EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora 1992 Town and Country Planning General Development Procedure (Scotland) Order 1994 Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1995 Environment Act (England and Wales) 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 National Parks (Scotland Act) 2004 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act

Principal focus (establishment or amendment to) Nature conservation Landscape conservation Special Area of Conservation

Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes

SAC European Marine Site National Parks

National Parks

SSSIs National Parks

National Parks

SSSIs

Source: derived from data in Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2007

These socio-economic drivers were responsible for significant physical change in the rural environment over the latter half of the twentieth century. Box 9.3 provides a summary of these changes, and their impacts on nature and landscape conservation concerns, against the key elements of countryside character which have been identified in an ongoing ‘Countryside Quality Counts’ (CQC) initiative, which is aiming to develop a national indicator of how the countryside is changing (HainesYoung, 2007). Drawing upon the summary of key features contained in Box 9.3, the growing questioning of the post-war approach to nature and landscape conservation based around designated areas is now discussed.

Questioning the focus on ‘special’ areas The sheer scale of urbanisation that occurred in Britain in the post-war years was a major factor in changing attitudes. As the twentieth century progressed, the effects of urbanisation were felt in all but the most remote rural areas and, not unnaturally, it was places lying outside the ‘special areas’ that tended to see the greatest levels of development. The rapidly expanding population, together with household growth and the damage to homes sustained during the war years, had combined to create a severe housing shortage. In response, many towns and cities saw a new wave of urban expansion in the form of peripheral council housing estates and private sector


Box 9.3 Countryside character: some key features of late-twentieth-century change Element Woodland Location/ magnitude of cover Extent of active management

Boundaries Extent and condition of hedgerows, walls, and ditches

Agriculture Extent of cultivated land area, changing patterns of arable/grassland farming, extent of set-aside land, stocking density and number, size and type of farm

Nature of change

Nature/landscape impacts

Woodland increased from 5 per cent of UK land area in the 1920s to 12 per cent by 2005. Majority non-native coniferous planting but growing proportion of native broadleaved woodland in recent times.

Coniferous plantations of less value to native wildlife and inconsistent with natural/historic landscape character.

Rapid reduction in boundary features between 1950 and 1990 associated with farm mechanisation. Position now stabilised.

Loss of cover and habitat for flora and fauna, contributing to species decline. Loss of historic landscape features.

70 per cent of UK land area still in agricultural use. Postwar years saw intensive production methods, increased stocking densities, reducing number of farms and increasing size of farm units. Now a declining area under crops, growing area of improved grassland; 80 per cent increase in set-aside land 1998–2005. Reduced stocking levels in upland areas likely as a result of changing pattern of EU support.

Loss of cover and habitat from larger field size. Fertilisers/ pesticides/time of harvesting linked to species loss, diffuse pollution, soil erosion, flooding. Together with modern farm buildings, compromise historic landscape.

Settlement and development Changing Population/household increase, settlement expanding cities, towns and villages, size/structure new towns, out-of-town shopping (morphology), and business development, Changing pattern expanding road/motorway network of land use and global communication infrastructure, e.g. satellite masts and airports. Growing energy supply network, power stations, wind farms, power lines. Mineral extraction supporting urban growth, increasing demand for waste disposal/ management sites.

Physical, noise, light intrusion, fragmentation of countryside, reduced ‘tranquil’ areas results in loss of biodiversity, erodes historic character, homogenises landscapes.

continued …

242


Box 9.3 continued Element

Nature of change

Semi-natural habitats Extent and Increasing development/ condition of semi- recreational pressure on many natural habitats semi-natural landscapes. Pattern of damage and decline of many designated sites 1950–1990. Slow recovery of status now evident for protected sites. Historic features Changes to historic landscape features and buildings

Decline in ‘status’ of many traditional farm buildings either due to dereliction or ‘poor’ conversion. Loss of ponds associated with intensification of farming methods. Damage to some historic land features due to deep ploughing.

River/coastal management Location and Increasing use of hard extent of river defences in coastal and river and coastal management in post-war engineering/ years, but recent shift to condition of river ‘soft’ solutions. Significant corridors new development on flood plains. Gradual improvement in river water quality, but soil erosion and diffuse pollution particularly associated with modern farming methods new focus of concern. Invasive, non-native flora and fauna significant in many river corridors.

Nature/landscape impacts Reduced size of undisturbed ‘core’ areas reduces resilience of species and habitats. Reduced sense of ‘wilderness’

Loss of wetland and other habitats/species. Erosion/ loss of local landscape character.

Loss of habitat and native species associated with engineering methods and invasive non-native species. Reduced value as wildlife corridors due to hard engineering. Introduction of urban elements to rural landscapes.

Source: developed from Haines-Young, 2007

suburban development in the post-war period. Following the gradual introduction of green belt controls from 1955 onwards, development often spread to deeper rural areas, as pressures for new private housing in more rural settings leapfrogged green belt boundaries (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2006). Running alongside these trends – and in response to the housing crisis – the government funded the creation of new towns in the United Kingdom in the years that followed the New Towns Act 1946 and much of this development occurred on greenfield land. The burgeoning economy,

A changing environment 243 together with increasing affluence and car ownership, stimulated demand for new business and retail accommodation and the simplicity, cost effectiveness and ease of access of greenfield sites proved to be particularly attractive to companies. There was a corresponding expansion of the UK’s communication and energy networks and the countryside became criss-crossed by an increasingly dense web of by passes, trunk roads, motorways and power lines. This added to the growing accessibility of both urban fringe and more remote areas and contributed to increasing demand for urban-fringe and rural business and retail parks, recreation facilities, and commuter and second homes, particularly in those areas of greatest environmental quality and control. Here, although new development was restricted, traditional character was often lost due to a process of gentrification. Robinson (1976) described this as the creation of ‘a self-conscious pastiche of the rustic scenes which used to appear on chocolate boxes’ (Robinson, 1976: 185). In support of all these developments, the countryside and, again, rural–urban fringe areas in particular, experienced the growth of some significant temporary uses. These included mineral extraction sites, more often than not related to the supply of building aggregates, and landfill sites accommodating the growing volumes of waste from urban areas. It is against this backcloth, that the limitations of an approach to environmental protection in the countryside based upon the designation of special areas began to emerge. From a nature conservation perspective, there was growing concern about urban encroachment upon protected areas, fragmentation of the countryside, the disruption of important wildlife corridors hampering the movement of species between a diminishing number of areas of refuge, and the reduced quality of habitat and loss of species in the countryside at large. This understanding led to calls for a more wideranging view of nature-conservation activities and a questioning of an approach based around the designation of a limited number of special areas. These designations were frequently justified on the basis of rarity rather than intrinsic value in the wider scheme of things, and tended to focus upon preserving what we have inherited rather than what we might have, or what we did have a long time ago. This resulted in a focus upon preserving species and habitats that were the result of historic agriculture or industrial practices rather than looking at recreating the native habitats of an area. There was also a developing understanding of the ‘island dilemma’: that species reduce in number and abundance with the size of habitat and with increased distance between habitats. Overall therefore it was considered that the post-war approach to nature conservation designations represented an ultimately self-defeating zoo mentality, as wildlife in zoolike islands amidst a hostile sea cannot survive very long (Gilg, 1996). From a landscape perspective too, there was increasing questioning of the basis upon which one type of landscape was judged to be more valuable than others, and corresponding concern about the loss of character in ordinary landscapes. Both the scale of new development in the countryside at large and the lack of local sensitivity displayed in much of this, attracted a growing body of criticism. Rackham (1986) identifies four kinds of loss in the quality of the English landscape in the post-war period. First, he considers that there was a loss of beauty associated with the erosion of small, complex and unexpected local variations in the landscape in the wake of forces of modernity. Second, there was a loss of freedom, as land ownership interests intensified in line with development pressure. Third, there was a loss of historic vegetation and wildlife that underpinned variations in local landscape character. Finally, and most importantly in his view, there was a loss of meaning through the destruction of historic landscape features which he considered provided ‘a record to

244


our roots’ (Rackham, 1986: 26). Such concerns also led to calls for more wide-ranging approaches to landscape protection and for an increasing focus upon enhancement in a effort to regain lost ‘quality’.

Questioning the effectiveness of designations as a protective measure Alongside this questioning of the focus of environmental protection upon designated areas, there was also an increasing appreciation of the limitations of designations themselves in preventing environmental damage. There were two main lines of discussion here. The first of these related to the effectiveness of the designations in limiting development. Although strict planning controls were in place in most of these areas, protection from development was not absolute. By the 1960s, a number of prominent schemes in places attracting the very highest levels of protection, reduced faith in government’s commitment to their preservation. Notable examples of heavily contested projects considered to be in the national interest included; the building of deep-water harbour facilities and an oil terminal at Milford Haven in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park; the construction of Fylingdales – the golf-balllike ballistic-missile early-warning base – in the North Yorkshire National Park; the nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd in Snowdonia; and the proposed third London airport (now Stansted Airport) on the Rainham Marshes (Cherry, 1985). These and other prominent schemes attracted a growing band of vociferous and well-organised nature- and landscape-conservation lobbyists over the latter half of the twentieth century, dedicated to ensuring strict application of planning controls. The second, and arguably more significant, area of debate concerned a growing realization of the importance of landscape management in maintaining the quality of designated areas and a fundamental reappraisal of the role of farming as a positive force in the stewardship of the rural environment from both a nature and a landscape conservation perspective.

Questioning the role of agriculture The transformation of thinking about the role of agriculture – introduced in Chapters 4 and 5 – was summed up in a speech by Sir Colin Buchanan to the Council for Protection of Rural England in 1973. As he put it, ‘the planners and the road engineers have had a good bashing, but they have learnt their lesson. The real danger to the countryside now lies in the agricultural community [which he described as] the most ruthless section of the business community’ (Newby, 1988: 73). The post-war revolution in farming practices, promoted by the government’s productivist policies, were now seen as the main threat to the quality of the countryside environment. Deliberately placed outside the remit of planning controls, farmers encouraged by government support and facilitated by new agricultural technology were dramatically changing the face of the rural landscape. Agricultural specialisation, the decline in mixed farming, the clearance of ponds, hedgerows and trees, reclamation of moorland and lowland heaths for improved grassland, the widespread application of fertilisers and pesticides, and the construction of industrial-scale buildings as part of the adoption of factory farming methods, all took their toll on wildlife and the traditional landscape character of the countryside (Robinson, 1976). The special areas, protected by designations, were not immune from these changes. Due to a lack of recognition of the contradictions between productivist farming practices and the state of the rural

A changing environment 245 environment in conservation legislation, farming went relatively unrestricted even in designated areas. Nevertheless, the resulting scale and pace of landscape change attracted considerable resentment from non-farming interest groups who increasingly lobbied for new approaches to countryside protection. The 1967 and 1968 Countryside Acts for Scotland, England and Wales, marked the end of an approach to countryside protection based mainly around designated sites, although the range of designations was still increasing as a result of the implementation of international agreements and European Union directives (Box 9.2). The Acts laid a duty on all public agencies to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside at large, while the newly created Countryside Commission played an active role in promoting approaches to farming that combined agricultural profitability with conservation concerns. The New Agricultural Landscapes study (Westmacott and Worthington, 1974) funded by the Countryside Commission for England and Wales was particularly forward thinking in its calls for a new more integrated approach to environmental management of rural areas. The study proposed the introduction of parish landscape conservation schemes led by local planning authorities. It suggested that preparation of the schemes should draw together landowners, farmers, parish councillors, Ministry of Agriculture advisors, the National Farmers Union, and Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council representatives to agree an integrated management plan, which combined agriculture and environmental improvement objectives. Key features of the proposed approach included: • • • • •

a whole landscape perspective rather than a focus upon special areas; a proactive management approach rather than an essentially reactive approach based mainly upon negative controls on development; a drawing together of agricultural and nature and landscape conservation considerations; a participatory and locally sensitive system of agreeing environmental management objectives; a forward-looking perspective which sought to plan positively for landscape change in the face of the shifting dynamics of agriculture.

Although the study’s recommendations were not implemented as envisaged, they did set the scene for a reappraisal of established environmental conservation practices and marked the beginning of an epic struggle between the rights of agriculture to take advantage of economic and technological change and the interests of those groups concerned with nature and landscape conservation (Cherry, 1985). The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was an important milestone in this struggle in which the powerful agricultural lobby seemed to gain ground. Following controversies in the Exmoor National Park and the proposed Somerset Levels SSSI – related to farmers’ rights to ‘improve’ their land – the Act set out the principle that even within SSSIs and national parks farmers had the right to maximise their income and, if grant aid for agricultural improvement was refused on conservation grounds, the objecting authority (the NCC in the case of SSSIs and planning authorities in the case of national parks) would be required to offer compensation payments. As Newby comments ‘[…] the farming lobby regarded this as fair recompense for designation; the conservationists on the other hand were appalled’ (Newby, 1988: 102). So began a period when unscrupulous farmers with land falling within a protected area could threaten to change the pattern

246


of management in order to receive guaranteed levels of compensation from the state. Paradoxically, it was the sheer unfairness of this situation, that put the farming lobby on the defensive as never before and led to an eventual recognition on all sides that greening of agricultural policy was the inevitable way forward (Cox et al., 1987). The Agriculture Act 1986 saw the start of this process in its redefinition of the duties of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). This required MAFF to: have regard to and endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between the following considerations: a) the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry; b) the economic and social interests of rural areas; c) the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) and of any features of archaeological interest there; and d) the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by the public. (HM Government, 1986: Section 17) The Act also set the scene for the introduction of environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs). Within two years, 18 ESAs had been designated within which generous financial assistance was given to farmers and landowners who voluntarily agreed to adopt farming practices which maintained or improved the local environment. The agri-environmental issue was rising also on the EU agenda, and the UK acted as a pioneer in introducing the idea of compensating land managers for providing conservation values on their land. As discussed in Chapter 4, between 1986 and the present agricultural policy has increasingly sought to control production within environmental parameters and has developed a two-pronged approach to this (Gilg, 1996). The first has seen the introduction of a raft of financial incentives encouraging farmers to adopt positive environmental management practices. This has most recently resulted in the redirection of CAP payments for farmers away from production subsidies towards land management payments and the introduction of environmental stewardship schemes, which enable compensation payments for conservation measures in all areas and types of farming operation (see Chapter 4). The second element, the so-called cross-compliance mechanism, has involved increasingly stringent penalties for negative actions such as farm pollution from slurry and nitrates and the encouragement for farmers to develop formal environmental management systems and adopt environmental best practice. Therefore, arguably, it would appear that in the present context, the balance of power is swinging towards environmental interests.

Towards a more integrated approach to the rural environment The process of policy integration has also been reflected by strengthening links between nature and landscape conservation concerns. In line with the more recent thinking about landscape discussed in the first part of this chapter, the legitimacy of the traditional distinction between science and social science perspectives on the rural environment has seemed increasingly questionable and there has been a recognition of the need for more integrated approaches from both sides. From a science perspective, the emergence of the ecosystem approach to environmental management has drawn attention to the central place of humans in both influencing the environment and in

A changing environment 247 making value judgements about appropriate management objectives. From a landscape perspective, the move towards more fundamental forms of landscape planning, along the lines of that practised for many years in Germany and the Netherlands, sets planning for the human habitat firmly within natural parameters (Punter and Carmona, 1997). Such thinking, which is explored further in Chapter 10, has underpinned more recent changes to the framework of institutional arrangements and in the requirements of particular designations. The creation of the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage in 1991 (See Figure 9.4) saw the first steps away from the disciplinary divide in care for the rural environment. These organisations brought together for the first time nature conservation and landscape responsibilities within a single organisation. Following the creation of Natural England in 2006 this unified approach now applies across most of Britain. In terms of designations, this trend is also apparent. For example, changes to the remit of national parks in England and Wales, introduced by the Environment Act 1995, meant that both landscape and nature conservation interests were embraced together for the first time, while the new national park designations for Scotland introduced following the 2000 Act have adopted the same approach. The battle between agricultural and conservation interests, together with the perceived degrading effects of much new development in rural areas, has also highlighted the importance of active management of the countryside environment and formal management requirements have increasingly become a feature of designated areas. For example following the 1992 EU Habitats Directive, there has been a new emphasis on ensuring that designated sites are maintained in ‘favourable conservation status’ and that management plans are put in place to help secure this. Similarly, management plans are now required, for example, for national parks and world heritage sites and, following the Countryside and Rights of Way Act of 2000, for AONBs as well. An interesting feature of some of these plans, for example those related to AONBs, is the adoption of a more wide-ranging approach to management bringing together environmental, social and economic objectives in an integrated management framework. This theme is picked up again in the next chapter, but now consideration will be given to the relationship of the planning system to the changing character and pattern of management of the rural environment.

The changing environment and planning While in some areas of rural policy – notably economic development – planning has been criticised for its limited interest and involvement over the years, such accusations cannot be levelled in respect of the rural environment. However, the relationship has, in some respects, been contradictory. As we shall see, planners have been closely involved with the development and implementation of environmental protection of the countryside, yet at the same time key determinants of the rural environment in the form of agriculture and forestry remain outside their direct control. Similarly, while in some protected areas, notably national parks, planners have often been accused of excessive concern for environmental matters (particularly aesthetic controls) at the expense of economic and social considerations, in other areas of the countryside such as green belts, their approach has been criticised as being too simplistic, focusing merely upon limiting development rather than actively nurturing environmental quality. Equally, although it can be argued that planning’s traditional approach to the rural environment has lacked imagination, centring

248


around protectionist controls on development and often poorly developed notions of countryside character, planning has long been recognised as having the potential to play a much more creative role in bringing stakeholders together to think about the future of rural landscapes.

The influence of early planning pioneers The link between planning and concern for the rural environment is longstanding and is evident in the work of early planning pioneers. Patrick Geddes, for example, although perhaps better known for his influence on planning methodology, also played a key role in the incorporation of ‘nature studies’ in the curriculum of government schools in Scotland and England at the beginning of the twentieth century. He was also one of the founding fathers of modern ecology and advocated that a detailed understanding of local vegetation was an essential part of the panoramic regional surveys upon which good planning should be based. His teaching inspired the first detailed vegetation surveys, which led to a growing understanding of the plant geography of Britain (Allen, 1976). However, it was another leading planner of the period, Patrick Abercrombie, who was more directly involved with establishing the framework of protective controls over the countryside environment. Through his initiative, the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and Wales (CPRW) were founded in 1926 and 1928 respectively, and it was these bodies that coordinated protectionist efforts to stem the tide of urban intrusion in rural areas. The CPRE and CPRW campaigned for restrictions on urban growth and the removal of unsightly features of contemporary urban life such as telegraph poles, advertising hoardings and mineral workings in rural settings. The CPRE lobbied vigorously for planning legislation that protected the whole countryside, and for special status to be granted to the wildest and most beautiful areas through the designation of national parks (Newby, 1988). As Moore-Colyer and Scott note, Abercrombie: developed an aesthetic rhetoric in which planners were seen as authoritative composers of landscape. Like the landscapes of the great estate, these would be ‘moral’ landscapes devoid of offensiveness and vulgarity and replete with dignity, composure and civilised values. (Moore-Colyer and Scott, 2005: 507) The CPRE’s views were prominent in the discussions that culminated in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Abercrombie also played a significant role in developing green belt policies. In his 1944 Greater London Plan, Abercrombie took up powers granted to the London County Council during the 1930s and recommended the establishment of a continuous green belt around the capital to stem its encroachment into the surrounding countryside. The belt would be around five miles wide and although not in public ownership, strict planning controls would ensure that land was not used for building purposes (Robinson, 1976). By the mid-1950s, county planning authorities were urged to take up this containment theme in their development plans by designating green belts around other major conurbations, cities and historic towns. Although not a landscape designation, green belts have come to be recognised as one of the most widely supported planning policies in Britain (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2006), the

A changing environment 249 misconception being that they are a tool for preserving the greenery – where it survives – of the urban edge.

The post-war planning system and the countryside environment The focus of Abercrombie’s concerns was reflected in the operation of the new planning system that followed the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. With agriculture and forestry exempt from planning control, and with these activities seen as providing appropriate stewardship of the rural environment, the main task of planning in rural areas was essentially a negative one. Its purpose was keeping the town out of the countryside, or at least limiting and controlling its extension by accommodating new rural housing and industrial development within existing towns and villages as far as possible. As a consequence, development plans of the era: placed little accent on the countryside – which would often be shown as an area for which there were no policies except that existing use should remain for the most part undisturbed. (Robinson, 1976: 180) In this respect, rural policy bore strong similarities to green belt policy and over the years there has been debate about whether there is in fact any practical distinction between the two. In areas attracting special landscape designation such as AONBs and more notably in national parks, however, planning authorities adopted particularly stringent standards of development control. These not only related to more intense restrictions on the scope for new development, but also to the design standards expected in efforts to ensure that schemes reflected local character, for example by the use of local vernacular styles and building materials. By the mid-1960s, the weaknesses of planning controls in relation to protection of the rural environment were becoming evident. Restrictions on urban development could do nothing to counter the transformation of the countryside due to modern farming and forestry methods, or to stem the increasing pressure placed on areas of importance to wildlife by increasing numbers of car-borne visitors. Equally, as demand for new building in rural settlements grew, many lost all appearance of simplicity and countryside character either through the forces of gentrification (often in places with strict design controls), or suburbanisation (in areas without). As the appreciation of the need for active management of the countryside grew, the development control focus of the land-use planning system and the absence of a more strategic and proactive approach to planning for the rural environment attracted growing criticism. The Town and Country Planning Act 1968 seemed to present a new opportunity to rectify this situation. While it did not confer any wider powers in relation to the control of agriculture and forestry, it did try to move away from the urban orientation of the post-war system and to broaden the focus of planning concerns. The new county structure plans (Chapter 2) were to provide a strategic steer on the relationship between settlement, transportation, countryside land uses and environmental conservation. These higher-level plans were supported by local plans, action area plans and subject plans which could be prepared as necessary to deal with areas of significant change or in relation to particular issues such as coastal recreation. Another aspect of the reforms was the requirement for much more wide-

250


ranging consultation and public debate in the plan-making process (Robinson, 1976). In practice, the ambitions for the new planning system were never fully realised and successive changes of government saw a retrenchment back towards the position whereby planning was little more than a system of development control. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 was a key development here. It abandoned the idea of discretionary local, action area and subject plans and introduced a system of mandatory district wide local plans, which became the primary consideration in development control. These arrangements remained in place until the introduction of the new system of spatial planning in 2004. However, despite these developments, the years that followed the 1968 Act did see an increasing experimentation in planning approaches to the rural environment.

Planning and nature conservation In relation to nature conservation, the 1970s saw mounting international concern about species loss and a growing number of international agreements and international designations trying to stem this trend (see Box 9.2). Most significantly, the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the 1992 European Habitats Directive with the associated UK Habitats Regulations, set the context in which planning approaches to nature conservation matured. Interestingly, even the very first government circulars on nature conservation and planning issued in 1977 and 1987 (DoE, 1977; 1987b), recognised that nature conservation cannot be achieved by site protection alone, and planning authorities were encouraged to take wildlife interests into account in all activities which affect rural land use (Gilg, 1996). PPG9 Nature Conservation (DoE, 1994) for England, TAN5 Nature Conservation and Planning in Wales (Welsh Office, 1996) and NPPG 14 Natural Heritage for Scotland (Scottish Executive, 1999) developed this approach in line with the requirements of the CBD and Habitats Regulations. They located planning responsibilities in relation to nature conservation within the context of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, which had been produced in response to the CBD. In addition to emphasising the protection of designated sites, planning authorities were urged to identify wildlife corridors, links and stepping-stones as part of a wider network of natural habitats and to afford these areas protection in their development plans and development control activities. The guidance notes also recognised ongoing site management as a legitimate planning concern for the first time. Development plans were encouraged to include policies related to the management of landscape features viewed as important to wild flora and fauna and, where appropriate, it was suggested that management agreements should be negotiated as part of development control activities (Bishop and Bate, 2004). The guidance also placed a new emphasis on enhancing wildlife value within the wider environment. Planning authorities were encouraged to consider ways in which development could increase the biodiversity of areas. Incorporating planting of native species within landscaping schemes, strengthening existing wildlife corridors, or creating wetlands habitats as part of new developments, are examples of how this could be achieved. In line with government guidance, from the late 1970s onwards planning authorities began to take a more proactive role in relation to nature conservation concerns. However, surveys undertaken in 1993 (Punter and Carmona, 1997) and in 2000 (Bishop and Bate, 2004) revealed a mixed pattern of performance. In the 1993 survey, Punter and Carmona identified a number of (mainly urban) authorities

A changing environment 251 that had developed strong approaches to nature conservation. For example, they cited London, Birmingham and Reading as examples of cities that had undertaken detailed ecological surveys of their areas in order to provide a strong basis for development control work and the production of nature conservation strategies. Similarly, Milton Keynes and other new town authorities were highlighted as among the few cases that had an ecologically sophisticated approach to the protection and enhancement of their open space systems. In many other areas it was judged that planning approaches were very general and lacked sufficient connection with the specifics of the local context to properly inform development decisions. The 2000 survey focused upon the incorporation of policies in development plans that reflected the requirements of the UK Habitats Regulation 37 ‘Nature Conservation Policy in a Planning Context’. The main concern of this regulation is the identification of features of special importance to wild flora and fauna and how the protection and management of these might be secured (e.g. through the use of planning conditions, planning agreements or other means). Although the findings revealed that 85 per cent of emerging development plans included related policies, closer examination again showed that many plans lacked detail, both in relation to the identification of specific sites or features requiring protection and the management mechanisms that might be used. This suggests that planning practice was still narrowly focused upon the protection of formally designated sites and approaches to nature conservation in the wider environment, and creative nature conservation in particular, remained poorly developed in many areas.

Planning and landscape conservation Perhaps surprisingly, the picture in relation to planning and landscape conservation is less well developed. An important omission here, within the English and Welsh contexts, is the continuing absence of detailed government guidance in relation to planning and landscape matters. As Punter and Carmona noted in 1997, central government’s concept of landscape was largely confined to ‘landscaping’ as an aspect of ‘good design’ and this was reflected in the focus of PPG1 (DoE, 1992a). Meanwhile, strategic landscape concerns ‘languished’ somewhere between government advice on open space (PPG17: DoE, 1991 – replaced in 2002), nature conservation (PPG9: DoE, 1994) and Countryside and the Rural Economy (PPG7: DoE, 1992b). Of these, PPG7 was the most significant in developing new planning approaches to protecting the natural beauty of the countryside. While it continued to urge stringent design controls within national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, it advised against the imposition of other local level designations. Instead, PPG7 encouraged local authorities to undertake systematic landscape character assessments of their areas, and use these to inform the preparation of development plans and development control. PPG7, therefore, reflected the wider shift away from the position where only a limited number of areas were regarded as worthy of special protection to one where, in theory at least, landscape sensitivity is encouraged in all areas. In planning, this process started during the 1970s when a number of county planning authorities undertook landscape evaluation studies in order to promote more sympathetic patterns of development in the ‘best’ of their local landscapes. For example, in the case of Cheshire County Council such an exercise resulted in the designation of areas of special county value in the Cheshire Structure Plan. However, the methodological difficulties of

252


Figure 9.5 Aldbury Nowers AONB, land owned by Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust

these exercises, together with a growing appreciation of the merits of different types of landscapes, resulted in the emergence of an alternative form of landscape assessment. This focused on distinguishing landscape character rather landscape quality, and in England this ultimately resulted in the definition of the national map of countryside character areas discussed in the first part of this chapter. Complementing this, the Countryside Commission issued guidance on more local-level landscape character assessment that could be undertaken to obtain a finer grain understanding of landscape distinctiveness. By the late 1990s, over 80 per cent of counties in England had completed such an exercise. The technique was also being embraced in Scotland encouraged by Scottish Natural Heritage (Swanick, 2004). In England, the Countryside Commission and subsequently the Countryside Agency was also promoting the use of complementary techniques such as countryside design summaries and village design statements (Chapter 8), which enabled local communities to identify key elements of local distinctiveness with the intention that this understanding could then inform development control decisions (Owen, 2002a). Statutory weight could be given to these documents through their formal adoption as supplementary planning guidance. However, although there has been an increasingly enthusiastic following for all of these exercises, the extent to which they have been formally incorporated into development

A changing environment 253 plans or have influenced development control decision making has again been limited (Punter and Carmona, 1997; Hamilton and Selman, 2005; see also Chapter 8). So, as with nature conservation, it appears that even in recent times, the planning system’s attention in terms of landscape has tended to centre upon the application of tight controls on the extent and form of built development in designated areas and issues of detailed landscape design. Examples of more strategic and wide-ranging approaches to the rural landscape, particularly those reflecting landscape ecology perspectives, remain rare.

Emergent issues So what can be discerned from the discussion of the rural environment set out above? Three key themes emerge. The first concerns attitudes to countryside change, the second relates to the focus of government intervention in relation to the rural environment, and the third involves issues of integrated management. Each of these areas are relevant to the role that the new system of spatial planning could play in shaping a positive future for the countryside.

Environmental change is fundamental As we have seen in this and in other chapters, the countryside environment has undergone significant change in the last 100 years in the wake of economic and social trends. The nature and pace of change has varied over time and has affected each part of Britain in different ways. The changes have tended to be greatest in the countryside around large urban centres, particularly in the immediate rural–urban fringe (Gallent et al., 2006), but many other rural areas have also seen substantial change, for example as a result of shifting patterns of farming and leisure activity. Figure 9.6 shows the pattern of change in England in the period 1990–98 based upon findings of the Countryside Quality Counts research programme (Haines-Young, 2007). What is evident from the map is that much of the change that has occurred in recent times is considered to be inconsistent with the character of the countryside. This conclusion is not new. Indeed, it was a similar reflection on nineteenth century countryside change that prompted the creation of many of the specialist interest groups, which were influential in establishing the framework of countryside controls we know today. It is possible to infer from this, that the framework of controls that has been introduced since 1949 has been ineffective. However, while this might well be true, at least in part, an alternative interpretation is suggested. This questions the basis upon which such judgements have been made. Following this line, it is apparent that although separated by 100 years, implicit in both assessments is a view that innate countryside characteristics can be defined and that contemporary changes for the most part constitute a deviation from this desired state. The potential flaws in this stance are evident from the discussion set out in the first part of this chapter. This highlighted that a range of natural, economic and social forces, that are all essentially dynamic, determines the countryside character we know today. Even if it were possible to isolate an area of the countryside from all traces of human activity, natural processes would over time transform the view that we see at the present time. The conclusion from this is that the environment is fundamentally a dynamic entity, and that approaches to environmental planning and management should be underpinned by this understanding.

254


Figure 9.6 Change in countryside character 1990–1998 Source: DEFRA, 2005


Future orientation is needed Continuing this line of reasoning, it is apparent that the framework of controls that has emerged over the last 100 years has until recently, largely ignored this essential aspect of the environment. Both in relation to nature conservation and to landscape conservation, as the terms suggest, the emphasis has traditionally been on defending what we have now from the forces of change. This position can be criticised from a number of standpoints. First, given that the current environment, is in itself the product of millennia of change, why should this be considered more worthy of retention than any previous state, other than it is what we know? In relation to biodiversity, for example, would it not be more appropriate to look back to an earlier era and recreate the ‘natural’ habitats that might have once occurred in an area, rather than maintain potentially biologically impoverished plagio-climaxes that are the product of economically redundant farming systems? This type of thinking is in fact evident in some of the activities proposed under the latest UK Biodiversity Action Plan, for example through the re-creation of heathland habitats in areas where they may have once occurred. However, approaches based upon the retention of the present or upon the re-creation of the past can both be accused of displaying a ‘Disneyland’ or what Gilg described as a ‘zoo’ mentality. Not only are they likely to contribute to Rackham’s loss of meaning in the countryside, as they increasingly become divorced from the economic and social realities of the present era, but they are also likely to incur considerable effort and cost in holding the forces of change at bay. Some of these forces may be amenable to control (notably in the current context, built development), others may be more problematic and controversial (such as controlling the spread of alien species), while others may be entirely beyond direct control. The rapidly changing global economics of farming and climate change are examples that fall in this latter category. The long-term sustainability of retrospective approaches to environmental planning and management, faced with the considerable forces of economic, social and environmental change must therefore be questionable. Given this, it seems essential that the framework of environmental planning and management in rural areas should become more forward-looking. That is not to say that the natural backcloth and cultural heritage of each area should not inform the approach adopted, clearly they must if plans are to be environmentally viable, socially acceptable and for local ‘meaning’ to be retained. However, this understanding must be set against the inevitable dynamics of change. Such thinking is of course not new. It was evident for example, in the findings of the New Agricultural Landscapes (Westmacott and Worthington, 1974). It was also a central argument in the seminal work by Nan Fairbrother, New Lives, New Landscapes (1970), in which she set the challenge to the current generation to create ‘living’ environments that become valued as much as the landscapes of the past.

Conclusion: towards an integrated approach This view of planning and management of the countryside environment is demanding. It means that the narrowly defined scientifically and historically focused approaches of the past, together with a reliance on controls that prevent or minimise change, will no longer suffice. Environmental planning in this ‘new world’ is required to engage much more closely with the economic and social realities of the present – explored in previous chapters – and to form part of an integrated approach to the future planning and management for rural communities which balances economic, social and

256


environmental ambitions. For this to be achieved, more discussion, imagination and creativity about the future character of the rural environment will be required. There is already evidence of moves towards a more integrated approach. The creation of the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and Natural England reflects a growing recognition that a more joined up approach is needed. However, key environmental responsibilities still fall outside these organisations. In England and Wales, for example, the Environment Agency still plans separately for water, waste and environmental pollution matters, while these should be regarded as a fundamental part of an integrated strategy for the rural environment. Beyond this though environmental planning still remains somewhat detached from economic and social decision making. This situation compromises all sides. For example, it means that environmental plans are often developed with limited input from economic and social perspectives, while economic and social plans can lack environmental sensitivity. Overall, this situation enables many of those involved to stay within the security of their own working arenas and world views and hinders the development of new thinking. As has been seen, planners are not immune from such criticism. The surveys of planning practice related to nature conservation and landscape matters undertaken by Punter and Carmona (1997), Bishop and Bate (2004), and Hamilton and Selman (2005) in the years that straddled the beginning of the twenty-first century, revealed a disappointing picture. Many planning authorities appeared to be still reliant on the uncritical application of negative controls over development established in the postwar period as the mainstay of their approach to the countryside environment. Wellinformed, more locally sensitive and more imaginative approaches were very much the exception, and where effort had been made to provide this, there often appeared to be a lack of follow through in relation to planning policy and development control decisions. This position may be partly defensible under the old land use planning system as, in the main, farming and forestry activities still fall outside planning control and the restrictions of the system did not encourage broader thinking. However, as will be discussed in the next chapter, such excuses are no longer available under the new spatial planning arrangements. These now provide planners with the remit and responsibility to play a central role in developing a better integrated, more imaginative and forward looking approach to the planning and management of the rural environment. This chapter has examined the changing character and care of the rural environment over the last 100 years. It has drawn attention to: • • • • • • •

the rural ‘landscape’ as the outcome of the interaction between habitat and man; the different disciplinary perspectives that have informed approaches to the rural environment; the linkage between economic, social and environmental change in the countryside over the last 100 years; the evolving framework of institutional responsibilities and controls related to the rural environment; the changing attitudes to the role of the farmer in managing the countryside; the part that the post-war planning system has played in influencing environmental change and managing landscape assets; the inevitability of change, as a force and feature of the countryside environment;

A changing environment 257 In the next chapter we explore, in more detail, the different designations that have been established to protect the rural environment and discuss the role that the spatial planning system might play in delivering a better integrated and more sustainable approach to rural planning, encompassing planning for the rural environment.

10 A differentiated environment

This chapter explores in more detail the different designations that have been established to protect the rural environment (such as sites of special scientific interest and national parks), their roots, rationale and potential future development. It shows that large areas of rural Britain are now subject to multiple types of environmental control. The chapter discusses some of the concerns that this raises from an environmental, social and economic perspective. Drawing upon the disciplines of landscape ecology and spatial planning, the chapter argues that a new more integrated approach to rural planning is needed that is place-sensitive, recognises the multi-functionality of landscapes and respects natural boundaries. It is suggested that there is a key role for spatial planning in delivering this vision and in considering how a socially and economical vibrant countryside can be consistent with a dynamic, sustainable and highly valued landscape. The chapter also examines the green belt tool, not as a landscape designation, but as a strategic approach to integrating environmental, social and economic concerns.

Learning outcomes This chapter aims to provide: •

•

•

an overview of the different nature conservation, landscape conservation and other designations that have been developed to protect the rural environment; and their roots, rationale and potential future development; an appreciation of how contemporary thinking in relation to landscape ecology and spatial planning is highlighting the need for a new approach to rural planning which is place sensitive, gives greater recognition to the multi-functionality of the environment, respects natural boundaries and is better integrated; an appreciation of the key role that spatial planning could play in delivering such an approach and achieving a better balance between economic, social and environmental interests in rural areas.

A differentiated environment 259

Introduction Chapter 9 presented an overview of the development of environmental protection in the countryside in the UK over the last 100 years and introduced the role of planning in this context. It also provided a critique of the system of controls that has emerged. From an environmental perspective, traditional approaches to environmental protection in rural areas have been criticised for being too fragmented and simplistic, while from an economic and social perspective there has been concern that goals of environmental protection have been given undue weight and have hampered the ability of rural communities to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. From all perspectives calls for a more integrated, multi-functional, forward-looking and locally sensitive approach to rural planning are evident. Following on from the discussion in Chapter 9, this chapter looks in more detail at the key environmental designations that have emerged, their roots, rationale and possible future development in light of current understanding. This is followed by an exploration of ways in which contemporary environmental understanding, particularly within the field of landscape ecology, could provide a solid foundation for the development of a new approach to rural planning and the key role that the new spatial planning system could play in delivering such an approach and achieving a better balance between economic, social and environmental interests in rural areas.

Key debates Nature conservation designations As discussed in Chapter 9, interest in the natural history of the countryside increased over the course of the nineteenth century and was one expression of popular reaction to the development of an industrial economy and increasing urbanisation of Britain which contributed to idealisation of the countryside as a ‘rural idyll’. The growth of specialist interest groups such as the Selbourne Society for the Preservation of Birds, Plants and Pleasant Places and the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves reflected this trend, and by the first part of the twentieth century an influential network of voluntary organisations had emerged lobbying for state regulation of urban expansion and the need to establish areas of special protection. As a result, conservation of the countryside became a central element in the post-war vision of building a ‘better Britain’. The 1947 Huxley Report was formative in highlighting a separation between aesthetic and nature conservation interests and advocating that a scientific perspective, and focus on study and learning, should underpin the design of the post war system of wildlife protection (Bishop and Phillips, 2004). This view was evident in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 which established a separate body, The Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), with responsibility for advising the government on wildlife matters and for overseeing the new framework of protective designations. From this point onwards, protected areas emerged as a major tool for the conservation of wildlife in the UK, and over the years there has been a steady increase in the number and geographical extent of designations (Bishop et al., 1997). Since the 1970s, this development has partly been a response to a growing number of international and European obligations. Box 10.1 summarises the key nature conservation designations that currently apply in the UK.

260


Box 10.1 reveals that a hierarchy of designated sites has emerged, ranging from those identified as being of international importance to those of note at the regional or local level. Areas judged to be of national significance and above are designated as sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and by 2005 there were 6,780 SSSIs in the UK, covering almost 2.5 million hectares. Many of the most important sites also attract parallel designations in line with international agreements. For example, the UK’s estuaries are judged to be among its most significant wildlife assets from an international perspective as they support a considerable proportion of the world population of some species of migratory birds over the winter months. As a consequence many estuaries not only attract SSSI status, but are also identified as Ramsar sites under the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, special protection areas (SPAs) under the European Birds Directive and special areas of conservation (SACs) under the European Wild Birds Directive and Habitats Directive. Sites awarded SPA and SAC status form part of the Natura 2000 network representing species and habitats judged to be of importance at the European level. Responsibility for designating sites of national and international importance now lies with Natural England, The Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Beyond these higher-order sites, even as far back as 1949, the case for protecting areas of more localised value was also recognised, and the scope for local authorities to designate local nature reserves (LNRs) was incorporated into the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, subject to a procedure of formal notification and public consultation. These provisions have been supplemented over the years by the identification of many other non-statutory sites (sometimes known as sites of ‘local biological importance’) in development plans or in local nature conservation strategies. Box 10.2 provides an indication of the criteria that may be used to select sites of local biological importance. What is evident from the above is that nature conservation designations now cover an extensive area of the countryside, and the vast majority of these relate to land in private ownership. Within designated sites there is a presumption that special attention should be paid to nature conservation concerns but, as the hierarchy implies, the level of protection that is given does vary. Unsurprisingly, the suite of Natura 2000 sites is afforded the highest levels of protection. This does not mean that new developments or changes in management practices are prohibited in these areas, but that they must be compatible with maintaining the features for which the site has been designated. Adverse effects to such interests can only be contemplated if there is no alternative solution and there are imperative reasons of overriding national public interest, such as threats to human health, or defence or security considerations. In effect, such designations do present very stringent restrictions upon development. Beyond these highest level designations, different degrees of restriction apply, but the trend has been to adopt an increasingly precautionary approach to development and to recognise the importance of establishing appropriate management regimes, particularly in relation to SSSIs. For example, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 enables Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales to refuse consent for damaging activities; provided new powers to combat neglect; increased penalties for deliberate damage and included a new court power to order restoration; improved powers to act against cases of third-party damage; and placed a duty on public bodies (including local planning authorities) to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs. An indication of the outcome of these measures can perhaps be derived from the trend of improvement in the conservation status of SSSIs in England shown in Figure 10.1.


Box 10.1 Key nature conservation designations Importance

Site designation and explanation

Sites of Ramsar sites listed under the international 1971 Convention on Wetlands of importance International Importance Special protection areas (SPA) classified under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds Special areas of conservation (SACs) designated under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna (the Habitats Directive) Sites of National nature reserves national (NNR) designated under the importance National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Amenity Lands Act 1965 (Northern Ireland) Marine nature reserves (MNR) designated under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act Sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Notified as areas of special scientific interest in Northern Ireland under the Amenity Lands Act 1965. Sites of Local nature reserves (LNR) regional/ declared by local authorities local under the National Parks and importance Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Declared as local authority nature reserves (LANR) in Northern Ireland. Non-statutory nature reserve established by a variety of public, private and voluntary bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

UK statutory Number Area (ha) designation of sites SSSI (Ramsar)

144

759,000

SSSI (SPA)

242 1,470,000

SSSI (SAC)

605 2,501,000

SSSI (NNR)

395

234,000

SSSI (MNR)

3

19,000

SSSI (Great Britain) ASSI (Northern Ireland)

6,569 2,341,000 (GB) (GB) 211 93,000 (NI) (NI)

LNR (LANR in Northern Ireland)

1,046

45,000

ND

ND

N/A

continued …

262


Box 10.1 continued Importance

Site designation and explanation

UK statutory Number Area (ha) designation of sites

N/A Sites of local biological interest. These sites are recognised by local authorities for planning purposes. The name and status afforded to these sites varies considerably

ND

ND

Source: Derived from Office of National Statistics, 2005: 284

Box 10.2 Criteria for designating sites of local biological importance Species rarity: refers to the species recorded on the site that are considered to be rare, endangered or vulnerable, in a national or local context, including those listed as priorities in a local biodiversity action plan (LBAP). Habitat rarity: refers to the rarity of a habitat within the national and local context. Habitat naturalness: refers to the degree of current and historic human intervention in natural processes for each habitat type. For example, semi-natural woodland and unimproved grassland are more natural than plantation woodland and improved grassland. Habitat extent: refers to the amount of a particular habitat found on a site relative to the total found in the local area. Connectivity: a measure of the physical links between broadly similar habitats found on a site and in the surrounding countryside, and of the potential for new links to be created. Species diversity: refers to the number of different species found on a site. A comparative assessment should be made of the number of species recorded against what might be expected to occur within the habitats present in that area. Source: Scottish Local Nature Conservation Site Working Group, 2005

The percentage area of SSSIs considered to be in favourable condition increased from 57 per cent in March 2003 to 72 per cent in March 2006. However, further improvement is still needed to meet the government’s public sector agreement target for Natural England of having 95 per cent in favourable condition by the end of 2010 (DEFRA, 2006i: 88). Despite a continuing, and indeed strengthening, commitment to site protection, there has, however, been a growing appreciation of the limitations of such tools in achieving nature conservation objectives (Chapter 9). This is evident in a continuing decline in biodiversity both within the UK and internationally. Bird populations have


Figure 10.1 Conservation status of SSSIs in England 2003–2006 (percentage of areas of SSSIs in England meeting PSA target condition) Source: DEFRA, 2006i: 89 (and previous DEFRA Departmental Reports) © Crown copyright

Figure 10.2 Population of wild birds in England 1970–2004 Source: DEFRA, 2007b © Crown copyright

been selected as an indicator of trends in biodiversity in England and the pattern of change between 1970 and 2004 is set out in Figure 10.2. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), resulting from the United Nations Rio Earth Summit and signed by over 150 countries, was significant in promoting a shift away from a reliance on site designations and encouraging the adoption of a more wide-ranging and proactive approach to biodiversity concerns. In line with CBD commitments, the government has produced a national biodiversity strategy and associated action plans for species and habitat recovery and enhancement. The most recent version of the strategy for England, Working with the Grain of Nature, underlines the importance of incorporating biodiversity considerations in all areas and in ‘all relevant public, private and non-governmental decisions and policies’ (DEFRA, 2002c: 12). Key aspects of the strategy are reflected in Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (ODPM, 2005d) and the expectation that local planning authorities should translate national biodiversity strategy targets into local-level targets and action is evident in the guidance. The current biodiversity and geological conservation objectives for the new spatial planning system are set out in Box 10.3.

264


Key principles identified in PPS9 include the requirement that ‘plan policies and planning decisions should aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests [and] recognise the contributions that sites, areas and features, both individually and in combination, make to conserving resources’ (ODPM, 2005d: 3). Here the guidance reflects a growing recognition that wildlife does not respect human-made boundaries and that both the size and connectivity of sites of wildlife value are critical to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. The issue of connectivity is becoming particularly prominent in light of climate change and associated concerns to facilitate the movement of species in response to changing climatic conditions. As a consequence planning authorities are now encouraged to look for opportunities to incorporate beneficial biodiversity and geological features within the design of all developments and think strategically about the creation of networks of natural habitats. An example of how local authorities might approach this task is set out in Figure 10.3. An example of how such work can begin to translate into planning for an area is illustrated in Figure 10.4, by reference to the outcomes of the Cheshire Econet project. Clearly, current thinking about biodiversity has major implications for the future of the countryside and it may appear that an intensification of environmental controls is the inevitable outcome of such developments. Those concerned with economic and social issues in rural areas may therefore note these developments with some trepidation. However, an alternative perspective can be put forward. For whilst it is inevitable – and indeed, quite proper – that environmental considerations will continue to be central to planning for the countryside, current understanding of the environmental challenges facing rural areas is stimulating a more creative and forward-looking approach to environmental matters than has been the case in the past. For example, there is an increasing questioning among the scientific community of the validity of

Box 10.3 PPS9 biodiversity and geological conservation objectives • To promote sustainable development by ensuring that biological and geological diversity are conserved and enhanced as an integral part of social, environmental and economic development, so that policies and decisions about the development and use of land integrate biodiversity and geological diversity with other considerations • To conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology by sustaining, and where possible improving: the quality and extent of natural habitat and geological sites; the natural processes upon which they depend; and the populations of naturally occurring species which they support • To contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance by: enhancing biodiversity in green spaces and among developments so that they are used by wildlife and valued by people, recognising that healthy functional ecosystems can contribute to a better quality of life and to people’s sense of well-being; and ensuring that developments take account of the role and value of biodiversity in supporting economic diversification and contributing to a high quality environment. Source ODPM, 2005d


Figure 10.3 An approach to developing ecological networks 1 Map the existing habitats and designated areas 2 Identify the clusters of habitats/sites which form the core areas 3 Identify where network links can be formed between core areas 4 Buffer and link habitats to create large habitat areas, and to create functional links between these. This is an ‘ecological network’ 5 Wildlife-friendly management of built or farmed land around and within the network will improve the ecological network’s effectiveness 6 Outside the network, wildlife habitats and sites should still be buffered by habitat creation and / or appropriate land management. Source: Wildlife Trusts in the South East, 2006. By permission of Kent Wildlife Trust on behalf of the Wildlife Trusts of the South East

Figure 10.4 A provisional ecological network for Cheshire Source: Cheshire County Council, 2006. By permission of Cheshire County Council

266


past approaches to nature conservation which often focused upon preservation for the sake of rarity rather than ecological integrity consistent with the underlying ‘natural’ characteristics of the local context. In addition, prompted by mounting concern about climate change, there is a new sense of urgency and openness about the need to plan proactively for environmental change, and a new appreciation of the need to combine economic and social considerations and local sensitivity in formulating future planning and management of the natural environment. Such thinking is evident in the ecosystem approach to environmental planning and management which has emerged from the

Box 10.4 Principles of the ecosystem approach ‘Ecosystem’ means a ‘dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit’ (Article 2 of the CBD). Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choices. Principle 2: Management should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level. Principle 3: Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems. Principle 4: Recognising potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should: a) reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity; b) align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; c) internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible. Principle 5: Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach. Principle 6: Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning. Principle 7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Principle 8: Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag effects that characterise ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term. Principle 9: Management must recognise that change is inevitable. Principle 10: The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity. Principle 11: The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices. Principle 12: The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines. Source: Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2007

A differentiated environment 267 Convention on Biological Diversity and is set out as the primary framework for action under the Convention. Box 10.4 outlines the principles of the ecosystem approach that are increasingly informing environmental policy and practice in Europe and the UK. Principles 1, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are particularly significant in the context of the discussion set out in this Introduction to Rural Planning. From a nature conservation perspective therefore, there does appear to be an important window of opportunity to revisit the purpose and direction of planning for the rural environment.

Landscape conservation designations Paralleling the development of nature conservation concerns, as Chapter 9 also indicated, there has been a longstanding British appreciation of the aesthetics of the countryside and the value of rural recreational pursuits. Flowering in the antiindustrial and anti-urban sentiments of the Romantic movement, concern to protect landscape beauty developed over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Newby, 1988). George Cruickshank’s cartoon (in Figure 10.5) depicting the outward spread of London published in 1829 is evocative of the intensity of sentiments aroused by increasing urban encroachment into the countryside and the perceived threat to the scenic heritage of rural areas. The establishment of organisations like the National Trust and the Council for Protection of Rural England galvanised public opinion against urban sprawl and lobbied government for protection of the nation’s scenic heritage, increased opportunities for recreational access to the countryside for ordinary people, and for special recognition to be given to the wildest and most beautiful stretches of rural Britain. These concerns were the focus of a series of advisory committees in the post-1918 period and culminated in the 1945 Dower Committee and the 1947 Hobhouse Committee reports (Chapter

Figure 10.5 ‘London Going Out of Town’ or ‘The March of Bricks and Mortar’ Source: An etching by George Cruickshank from 1829, appearing in Cruickshank, 1832. By permission of the Museum of London

268


2) which directly informed the preparation of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (Cherry, 1985). The Act put in place the framework of landscape designations that has remained largely unchanged over the past 60 years. Figure 10.6 shows the current distribution of key landscape designations in Great Britain.

National parks There are currently 14 national parks in the United Kingdom (9 in England, 3 in Wales and 2 in Scotland) and one further area, the South Downs, is close to designation. Each of the parks is administered by a national park authority which takes responsibility for planning and management matters and is charged with producing a national park plan and separate spatial planning documents. Table 10.1 provides some key facts about these areas. Table 10.1 reveals that there have been two phases of national park designation in the United Kingdom. The majority of national parks in England and Wales are longstanding and date back to the immediate post-war period (Cherry, 1985). At this time the two purposes of designation were ‘the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty’ and ‘encouraging the provision or improvement, for persons resorting to national parks, of facilities for the enjoyment thereof and for the enjoyment of the opportunities for open air recreation and the study of nature afforded thereby’. From the outset, therefore, a strong focus upon landscape conservation was evident and as the parks matured this emerged as their major rationale. The potential conflicts between the two objectives of the parks soon became apparent and prompted vigorous debates about which should take precedence. As a consequence, in 1971 a National Park Policies Review Committee was established under the chairmanship of Lord Sandford charged with reviewing how far the parks had fulfilled their objectives and making recommendations for their future operation (McCarthy et al., 2002). The findings of Table 10.1

National parks in the United Kingdom: key facts

England Broads Dartmoor Exmoor Lake District New Forest Northumberland North York Moors Peak District South Downs Yorkshire Dales Wales Brecon Beacons Pembrokeshire Coast Snowdonia Scotland Cairngorms Loch Lomond and the Trossachs

Year of designation

Population

1989 1951 1954 1951 2005 1956 1952 1951 Still to be formally designated 1954

5,721 29,100 10,600 42,200 34,400 2,200 25,000 38,000 115,000 19,654

685

9.0

1957 1952 1951

32,000 22,800 25,482

519 240 840

7.0 4.7 10.5

2003 2002

16,000 15,600

1467 720

4.11

Source: Association of National Park Authorities, 2007

Area (square miles)

Visitor days a year (million)

117 5.4 368 4.0 267 1.4 885 22.0 220 Not available 405 1.5 554 9.5 555 22.0 1020 39.0


Figure 10.6 Key landscape conservation designations Source: developed from DEFRA, 2005b © Crown copyright

270


Box 10.5 Statutory purpose of national parks in the United Kingdom England and Wales • To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. • To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities (of the parks) by the public. Scotland • To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area. • To promote sustainable use of the resources of the area. • To promote understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area by the public. • To promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities Source: Association of National Park Authorities, 2007

the committee established the ‘Sandford principle’ which indicated that in cases of conflict between national park objectives, landscape conservation should take priority. However, tensions within the parks were not limited to conservation and recreation matters. Conflicts between park objectives and the economic and social needs of local communities living within park boundaries (see Table 10.1 for current population figures) also became apparent. As discussed in earlier chapters, stringent controls on the extent and form of new development have formed the main planning response to national park conservation objectives, but have been perceived by many commentators to have significantly compromised the ability of national park communities to adapt to changing economic circumstances, particularly the continuing decline in agricultural employment. They are also criticised for exacerbating social problems, such the lack of affordable housing and the exodus of young people from park areas by severely restricting the supply of new homes and employment opportunities. Government recognition of the need to achieve a better balance between different interests in the national parks was reflected in the Environment Act 1995. This revised the objectives of the parks in England and Wales (for example, to include a specific reference to wildlife) and imposed a new duty to foster the ‘economic and social wellbeing’ of local communities. However, this duty was not given the same status as the objectives of the parks and the Sandford principle is still applied. Box 10.5 sets out the current objectives of the national parks in England and Wales and it is interesting to contrast these with those set out for the more recent national park designations in Scotland. In the debates in the Scottish Parliament that led to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, the major issue related to the balance to be achieved between the aims of conservation and the needs of local people. The inclusion of ‘sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities’ as a statutory purpose of the Scottish national parks marks a notable distinction with the position in England and Wales. As McCarthy et al. comment, ‘hence [Scottish] National Parks are not intended to be preserved areas in which all development is fossilised; instead, they are intended to be places that set an example of how to integrate the rural economy with the protection of the natural and cultural heritage’ (2002: 669). The Scottish approach to national parks is of particular interest in the context of the discussion set out in this book and this chapter in particular, as it reflects many

A differentiated environment 271 aspects of contemporary thinking about planning and management of rural areas. The purposes of the Scottish national parks (which remain essentially an environmentally inspired designation) not only require an integrated approach which draws together economic, social and environmental concerns, they also encompass a broad view of environmental considerations. The objective of sustainable resource use is significant because it makes sustainability considerations a statutory requirement for UK national park practice for the first time, and also because it encourages an holistic view of natural resources to be taken. This can be illustrated by reference to the strategic objectives of the Cairngorm National Park Plan (Box 10.6) which, for example, encompasses resource management issues related to energy, water and air, in addition to established national park concerns like the character of the park’s landscapes. However, as Illsey and Richardson (2004) point out in their incisive account of the designation of the Cairngorms National Park, this broader economic, social and environmental perspective has been the subject of intense controversy, and strongly divergent views on the direction of national park management are as much a feature of Scotland as south of the border. There is evidence though that national parks in England and Wales are beginning to follow aspects of the Scottish approach with some fundamental rethinking of their management objectives evident in recent times. In the Lake District, for example, in the post-foot and mouth disease era the need to bring stakeholders together to agree a new vision for the national park was clearly apparent. Box 10.7 shows the outcome of this process and demonstrates quite a significant shift in the focus of national park concerns from that of post-war times. There are therefore signs that some parks wish to become ‘models’ of how to integrate socio-economic objectives with a landscape agenda, embracing change, and reinforcing heritage through economic prosperity. However, it is not clear how such ambitions will be reconciled with strong opposition to growth and change. We look at the requirement for a different planning approach – needed to deliver such a vision – at the end of this chapter.

Figure 10.7 Lake Windermere is a key honeypot in the Lake District National Park

272


Box 10.6 Strategic objectives of the Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007 Conserving and enhancing the park Conserving and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage • landscape, built and historic environment • biodiversity • geo-diversity • culture and traditions Sustainable use of resources • energy • water • air Integrated land management • farming and crofting • forest and woodland management • moorland management • deer management • fisheries management Living and working in the park • sustainable communities • economy and employment • housing • transport and communications • waste management Enjoying and understanding the park • sustainable tourism • outdoor access and recreation • learning and understanding Source: Cairngorms National Park Authority, 2007

Box 10.7 Vision for the Lake District National Park 2006–2030 • The Lake District National Park will be an inspirational example of sustainable development in action. • A place where its prosperous economy, world-class visitor experiences and vibrant communities come together to sustain the spectacular landscape, its wildlife and cultural heritage. • Local people, visitors and the many organisations working within the national parks or that have a contribution to make to it, must be united in achieving this. Lake District National Park Authority, 2005.


Figure 10.8 A café, Ambleside, the Lake District: protection of local vernacular building styles is a key element of planning in national parks

Areas of outstanding natural beauty and national scenic areas The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 also recognised the case for landscape protection beyond National Parks and made provisions for the designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) in England and Wales. These were regarded as areas of equal note to the national parks but were generally smaller and it was judged that controls operated through the planning acts could ensure appropriate protection. There are currently 40 AONBs in England and Wales covering 18 per cent of the land area (35 wholly in England, 4 wholly in Wales and 1 – the Wye Valley – which straddles the border). There are also 9 AONBs in Northern Ireland – and a further two (Erne Lakeland and Fermanagh Caveland) are proposed. The primary purpose of AONB designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. Two secondary aims complement the purpose. These are: to meet the need for quiet enjoyment of the countryside and to have regard for the interests of those who live and work there. National scenic areas (NSAs) are the Scottish equivalent of AONBs and similarly relate to areas considered of national significance on the basis of their outstanding scenic interest which must be conserved as part of Scotland’s natural heritage. There are currently 40 NSAs in Scotland, covering a total land area of 1,020,500 ha and a marine area of 357,900 ha. Responsibility for AONBs and NSAs lies with local authorities and the wider rural community. Typically the approach to protection has been low key, but experience has varied considerably. As a consequence, there has been a continuing debate about whether designation in many instances served any useful purpose (Cullingworth and

274


Figure 10.9 Stile providing access to farmland, Ivinghoe Beacon, Bedfordshire

Nadin, 2006). However, The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 marked a renewed commitment by government to care for these areas by introducing a statutory requirement to produce AONB management plans and also allowing the creation of ‘conservation boards’ that could take over the management function (including the preparation of the management plan) from local authorities. The preparation of management plans for NSAs has also been encouraged by Scottish Natural Heritage. Similarly, a continuing commitment to strict controls upon development in AONBs is evident in PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Despite an apparently more sympathetic stance to the economic and social needs of rural communities in much of the guidance, PPS7 states that Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions in these areas. (ODPM, 2004d: Para. 21) Some AONBs have, in fact, produced management plans for many years, and the experience of Isle of Wight, Solway Coast and Wye Valley AONBs among others, have long been recognised as providing models of good practice in integrated countryside management. For example, a broad-based partnership approach to management has been a feature of the Wye Valley AONB since the early 1990s, and from the outset there was a clear attempt to draw together economic, social and environmental agendas for the area (Wragg, 2000). The current version of the management plan continues this approach (see Box 10.8).


Box 10.8 Wye Valley AONB Management Plan 2004–2009: key themes Theme 1: Our unique landscape – conserved and enhanced • Landscape • Biodiversity • Geodiversity • Heritage • Farming • Woodlands, trees and forestry Theme 2: Development and transport – planning and protection • Development • Minerals • Utilities, services and energy • Transportation • Economy and rural regeneration Theme 3: Vital communities – living and working in the AONB • Community development Theme 4: Enjoying the AONB – sustainable tourism, recreation and appreciation • Sustainable tourism • Recreation and access • Appreciation and understanding Theme 5: Achieving together – effective management of the AONB • Partnership, management and governance Source: Wye Valley Partnership, 2004

Figure 10.10 Footpath leading to Ivinghoe Beacon, Bedfordshire

276


Heritage coasts The map in Figure 10.6 shows that much of the 18,600 km coastline of the UK is covered by various forms of protective designation, including national parks, AONBs and national scenic areas. However, 1,500 km of coastline in England and Wales also attracts heritage coast status (see Table 10.2 for details). The idea of heritage coast designation was promoted by the Countryside Commission in the 1970s following a decade of concern about the impact of urban development on popular areas of coastline. These areas are defined as sections of coast of exceptionally fine scenic quality, substantially undeveloped and containing features of special significance or interest. The most recent national policy framework for heritage coasts in England, published in 1992, sets out the purposes of designations as being: to protect conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the coasts [and]; to facilitate and enhance their enjoyment understanding and appreciation by the public [and]; to maintain and improve the environmental health of inshore waters [and]; and to take into account the needs of agriculture, forestry and fishing and the economic and social needs of the small communities on the coasts. (Land Use Consultants, 2006: 2) Interestingly, heritage coasts have not as yet achieved statutory status. Their adoption, designation and management have been left to local authorities, although they have attracted funding and research support from the Countryside Commission and its successor bodies. This has included involvement in demonstration projects developing best practice in coastal management and assistance with project officer costs. However, a recent review and evaluation of the operation of heritage coasts revealed that activity outside of the key designations – national parks and AONBs – has waned as government funding has been redirected towards other rural initiatives (Land Use Consultants, Table 10.2

Heritage coasts in England

Name Sussex Isles of Scilly North Norfolk Suffolk N Yorks and Cleveland Purbeck West Dorset East Devon Rame Head Gribbin Head – Polperro The Roseland The Lizard Penwith Godrevy – Portraeth

Lateral definition 1973 1974 1975 1973 1974

Full definition April 1973 Dec 1974 April 1975 Sept 1979 May 1981

1981 1984 1984 1976 1976

June 1981 Feb 1984 June 1984 April 1986 April 1986

1976 1976 1976 1976

April 1986 April 1986 April 1986 April 1986

Source: Land Use Consultants, 2006: 2

Name St Agnes Trevose Head Pentire-Widemouth Hartland (Cornwall) South Devon Spurn Hamstead Tennyson Flamborough Head Hartland (Devon) Lundy Exmoor St Bees Head N Northumberland North Devon South Foreland

Lateral definition 1976 1976` 1976 1976 1986 1988 1974 1974 1979 1990 1990 1991 1992 1973 1992 1998

Full definition April 1986 April 1986 April 1986 April 1986 Dec 1986 Oct 1988 Dec 1988 Dec 1988 Aug 1989 Feb 1990 Feb 1990 April 1991 Feb 1992 April 1992 Aug 1992 Jan 1998

A differentiated environment 277 2006). Despite this, heritage coasts remain a recognised ‘brand’ and continue to attract support from local communities and it is yet to be seen if they will be revitalised as part of Natural England’s new focus on coastal issues. For example, it is possible that they could achieve statutory status as part of the proposed legislation to create a new right of public access to England’s coastline along a continuous access corridor (Natural England, 2007). Equally, they may be subsumed within a more wide-ranging coastal management designation as part of the forthcoming Marine Bill (DEFRA, 2007c: 10). What is certain is that global warming and increasing development pressures on the UK’s coastline will continue to focus attention on the need for improved resource management arrangements in coastal areas.

Green belts A review of key protective designations in the countryside would not be complete without reference to green belt (see also, Chapter 11) and the impact of this ‘designation’ or ‘strategic planning tool’ has already been mentioned at several points. Indeed, given the far-reaching consequences of green belt designation – on rural economies, communities and the environment – our treatment of this issue could have been positioned anywhere in this book. Although not an environmental designation, green belts do have significant implications for rural areas surrounding major towns and cities. Perhaps the best known and most widely supported planning policy in the UK (Chapter 11), green belts emerged as a response to the vociferous campaigns of the CPRE and others against urban sprawl in the early years of the twentieth century. Box 10.9 charts the early development of the concept. It was pioneered by Patrick Abercrombie in the Greater London Plan of 1944 and in similar interwar initiatives in Sheffield and Birmingham (Thomas, 1963). As a consequence, the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 made provision for local authorities to designate green belts in their development plans as areas in which very stringent controls on new development could be applied. The idea was subsequently championed by the Minister for Housing, Duncan Sandys through the publication of planning Circular 42/55 which encouraged the establishment of green belts around large built-up areas in order to: stem the outward spread of urban development; prevent the merging of settlements; and preserve the special identity of towns. Over the years that have followed, green belts have achieved a unique place in planning in the UK. As Cullingworth and Nadin comment, they ‘are the first article of the planning creed. They are hallowed by use, popular support, and fears of what would happen if they were weakened’ (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2006: 183). Figure 10.11 shows the current pattern of green belt designations in the UK (which it must be stressed do not cover all urban fringe areas) while Box 10.10 compares current planning guidance in England, Scotland and Wales in terms of the stated purpose of green belts and acceptable uses within designated areas. This analysis reveals that although government support for green belts remains strong, there have been shifts in thinking about their operation over the past 50 years. These reflect the emergence of new concerns and also of criticisms of the nature and impact of green belt policy. For example, the 1980s saw the introduction of urban regeneration as one of the purposes of green belts, in line with growing concern to stem the outward movement of investment from many of Britain’s towns and cities at that time. Strict controls on development within the rural–urban fringe came to be regarded as an important tool for encouraging the re-use of brownfield sites in urban

278


Box 10.9 The development of green belt policy 1926

1931 1932 1933 1935 1935 1938

1944

1947

1953 1954

1955

Patrick Abercrombie publishes The Preservation of Rural England, suggesting that ‘rural planning’ needs to control ‘urban decentralisation’. CPRE formed. 747 acres of land on the outskirts of Sheffield purchased to prevent the sprawl of the city Town and Country Planning Act accepts desirability of ‘rural planning’ Raymond Unwin proposes the creation of a narrow ‘green girdle’ around London for recreational purposes Restriction of Ribbon Development Act provides powers to prevent linear ‘ribbon’ development extending out of towns along main roads. Greater London Regional Planning Committee supports Raymond Unwin’s proposal for a London green belt. Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act results in London County Council allocating £2million to ‘assist local authorities in the purchase of open spaces, offering to pay up to 50 per cent of the cost of any land selected for the green belt’ Patrick Abercrombie incorporates the ‘green belt’ into his Greater London Plan. It has both a recreational objective, and the objective of preventing further continuous suburban outward growth. Town and Country Planning Act allows authorities to include restrictions on development in development plans. ‘Local councils could refuse permission for land to be developed, with any compensation being paid by the Government from a fund of £300 million’. A campaign is launched – by CPRE and the Oxfordshire Preservation Trust – to establish a green belt around Oxford. Circular 45/54 – from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government – declares that development not in accordance with a green belt scheme, where applicable, requires prior reference to the Minister. Duncan Sandys, Minister for Housing and Local Government urges – in Circular 42/55 – all ‘local authorities to protect any land acquired around their towns and cities “by the formal designation of clearly defined green belts”. The circular set out the aims of green belt policy as “of checking the unrestricted sprawl of the built-up areas, and of safeguarding the surrounding countryside against further encroachment”’ (MHLG, 1955)

Source: CPRE, 2007 (adapted from web materials: www.cpre.org.uk)

areas, and green belt boundaries were deliberately drawn very close to the urban edge with this objective in mind. However, while the logic seemed valid enough, research undertaken during the 1990s revealed that it was difficult to connect policy with outcomes, that inner city sites were often not substitute locations for users seeking planning permission in the rural–urban fringe, and that there was evidence that by restricting peripheral development local authorities were simply intensifying development pressure in towns within the green belt or causing it to leapfrog the green belt altogether encouraging longer commuting journeys, traffic congestion


Figure 10.11 Green belt designations in England and Scotland Source: DCLG, 2007c © Crown copyright

280


Box 10.10 Key aspects of green belt designation in England, Wales and Scotland England PPG2 Green Belts, 2001 Purpose of green belt • To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas • To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land • To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

Wales Planning Policy Wales, 2002

Scotland Planning Policy 21 Green Belts, 2006

• To manage urban form • To direct planned through controlled growth to the expansion of urban most appropriate areas locations and support • To assist in urban regeneration regeneration by • To protect and encouraging the enhance the character, recycling of derelict landscape setting and and other urban land identity of towns and • To prevent the cities coalescence of large • To protect and give towns and cities with access to open space other settlements within and around • To protect the setting towns and cities, of an urban area as part of the wider • To assist in structure of green safeguarding the space countryside from encroachment

Use of land within green belts • Opportunities for • Opportunities for access to the open access to the open countryside for the countryside urban population • Opportunities for • Opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor sport and outdoor recreation outdoor recreation • Land for agriculture, near urban areas forestry, and related • Land in agricultural, purposes forestry and related • Maintain landscape/ uses wildlife interest • Retain attractive • Improve derelict land landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live • Secure nature conservation interest • Improve damaged and derelict land around towns

• Recreational uses which are compatible with an agricultural or natural setting • Agricultural uses, including the re-use of historic agricultural buildings in keeping with their surroundings • Woodland and forestry, including community woodlands • Horticulture, including market gardening (but not retailing unconnected with or out-of-scale with this purpose).

Source: DETR, 2001; Welsh Assembly Government, 2002; Scottish Executive, 2006

A differentiated environment 281 and increased pollution (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2006). There were also criticisms that the policy lacked sophistication, as it was concerned merely with preventing development and exhibited little regard for the quality of the environment within green belt areas which, particularly at the urban edge, was often unkempt, poorly managed and home to un-neighbourly uses (Gallent et al., 2006). In more recent times, increasing demand for new housing and growing awareness of climate change and the need to limit travel by car, have prompted calls for a relaxation of green belt boundaries, and even abandoning the policy altogether (Nathan, 2007). Here the argument has been that it is more sustainable to allow development on the periphery of the UK’s increasingly revitalised towns and cities, rather than, in effect, encourage long-distance commuting from new and expanded settlements and deeper rural locations beyond green belt boundaries. The outcome of at least some of these arguments can be detected in the current guidance on green belts. For example, in all parts of the UK, the guidance now requires local planning authorities to consider the quality of the environment in formulating and applying green belt policy, although it is only in the Scottish version that a concern to protect and enhance the landscape setting of towns and cities is set out as one of the purposes of designation. A stronger environmental perspective is similarly evident in Scotland in its recognition of the part that green belts play within the wider structure of green space linking urban and rural areas, and again this is included as one of the purposes of designation. The Welsh and Scottish guidance also indicate a move away from perhaps the core idea of the original designations which was to stem the outward spread of urban development. Instead the Welsh guidance talks about the ‘controlled expansion of urban areas’ while in Scotland a key purpose of green belts is ‘to direct planned growth to appropriate locations’. The relationship between green belt and growth management and the economic, social and environmental implications of the policy continue to stimulate debate. Most recently these issues have resurfaced in the Barker Review of Land Use Planning in England (Barker, 2006). In her final report, Kate Barker provides a new critique of green belt policy. Although she recognises the continuing value of the designation which is reflected in the core purposes set out in planning guidance, she reiterates many of its shortcomings. Key issues from a rural perspective raised in the report include: its effect in encouraging residential growth in small towns and villages that are not self sufficient and thereby promoting long distance commuting to meet economic and social needs; the constraints on economic diversification within the green belt that particularly affect farming which is often at its least viable at the urban edge; the consequent contribution to environmental degradation in the rural–urban fringe where land may lie idle or be occupied by very marginal uses; and the impact of development constraint upon land and house prices and the contribution of green belt to the problems of affordable housing in both urban and rural areas. Flowing from this analysis, Kate Barker makes a number of recommendations about the future operation of green belt policy England which are set out in Box 10.11. Given that many of Barker’s recommendations on future reform of land-use planning found their way into the 2007 PWP (DCLG, 2007a), it is perhaps surprising that government has not shown any intention of looking again at green belt (within the white paper). However, this is a key tool and debate in rural planning and further comment on green belt policy is made in the next chapter, which considers urbanrural interaction and integrated spatial planning approaches for the rural–urban fringe.

282


Box 10.11 Barker Review of Land Use Planning: green belt recommendations In the light of growing demand for land and the need to ensure that areas of high public value (such as sites with important or endangered wildlife) or areas at higher risk from flooding due to climate change are adequately protected: • Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should review green belt boundaries as part of their Regional Spatial Strategy/Local Development Framework processes to ensure that they remain relevant and appropriate, given the need to ensure that any planned development takes place in the most sustainable location; • Local planning authorities should ensure that the quality of the green belts is enhanced through adopting a more positive approach towards applications that can be shown to enhance the surrounding areas through, for example, the creation of open access woodland or public parks in place of low-grade agricultural land; and • The Government should consider how best to protect and enhance valued green space in towns and cities. In this context, the Government should review the merits of different models of protecting valued open space, including the ‘green wedge’ approach. Source: Barker, 2006: 67

Emergent debates It is important to stress that the above account of environmental designations (and green belt) is by no means comprehensive. Many other protective tools exist. These include biosphere reserves and world heritage sites established in response to the activities of UNESCO, forest parks and community forests, regional parks, originally a feature in Scotland but now spreading south of the border, nitrate-sensitive areas and water protection zones, limestone pavement orders, hedgerow protection designations and many others. As Bishop et al. (1997) point out, one consequence of the proliferation in the number, categories and extent of protected areas: has been increasing concern that the situation is getting out of hand […]. Most people are unclear as to the purposes of the various protected areas. The degree of overlap between the different types is often considerable and there can be confusion between similarly named protected areas such as Special Protection Areas and Areas of Special Protection. Where a protected area label leads to management agreements being negotiated with land owners, the need for separate applications for each scheme can lead to confusion and bureaucratic delays. (Bishop et al., 1997: 81) Similar sentiments were expressed in the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) report Environmental Planning which concluded that: at present this combination of regimes does not add up to an effective, accountable and transparent way of setting and achieving environmental goals. There is a complex variety of legislation, and a multiplicity of often overlapping,

A differentiated environment 283 and sometimes conflicting, plans and strategies. Nowhere is the whole picture brought together and the respective responsibilities of all the different bodies clearly assigned. (RCEP, 2002b: 1) It is therefore unsurprising that environmental protection has come to be viewed by many rural businesses and communities as a dominant but bewildering force in rural planning which overwhelms economic and social concerns, but lacks coherence in its arguments and approach except to the extent to which it seems to be preoccupied with minimising change. It therefore appears that, from all perspectives, a new approach to rural planning is needed. In this section some of the desirable features of a future system of planning for the countryside are discussed with particular reference to spatial planning and landscape ecology. New opportunities to combine these differing viewpoints in thinking about the future of rural areas are likely to emerge in response to the European Landscape Convention (Herlin, 2004; Howard, 2004) which is promoting a more holistic approach to landscape matters and better integration with spatial planning mechanisms. The growing discipline of landscape ecology is significant in the context of this chapter as it draws together scientific, aesthetic and socio-economic perspectives on the environment and is encouraging a shift from a rather narrow focus upon protection, to a view of landscape as a multi-functional, socio-ecological and dynamic system responding to the government’s wider sustainability agenda (DEFRA, 2005a). Here attention is less upon action for landscape and more upon action through landscape, by exploring ways in which a landscape perspective can help to secure an environmentally sustainable, but at the same time, economically and socially vibrant countryside (Selman, 2005).

Place sensitivity It seems appropriate to start this analysis by reflecting upon the definition of landscape that was outlined by the Countryside Agency and through the Welsh LANDMAP initiative discussed in Chapter 9. This distinguishes the different layers that combine to produce the British countryside we know today and highlights the close interaction between underlying natural structure, habitat and man. It is suggested that this understanding which literally ‘grounds’ thinking in the specifics of place and time (but also inherently recognises change) forms a solid foundation upon which a future approach to rural planning can be built and should be seen as important as economic and social analysis in setting the context for all levels of plan making. In this context, detailed local landscape character assessments, which were discussed in Chapter 9 (Bishop and Philips, 2004), could be used much more imaginatively, extensively and proactively in directing planning policy and development control decisions. These exercises provide a fine grained understanding of the often subtle and very localised changes in landscape characteristics which give special identity, and in Rackham’s words, ‘meaning’ to places (Rackham, 1986). Recognition of the value of such an understanding in underpinning plan making is of course is not new; it merely reiterates a recurring theme in planning which has been promoted by Geddes (1915), McHarg (1969), Selman (2005) and others over the years. To date, though, as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution suggests, environmental understanding is scattered and rarely brought together in a coherent way in the UK. This contrasts with

284


the experience of countries such as the Netherlands and Germany which have welldeveloped landscape-based approaches to planning (see for example Lorzing, 2004). Unfortunately, as discussed in Chapter 9, the surveys by Punter and Carmona, (1997) and Hamilton and Selman (2005) revealed that where there have been attempts to provide a more integrated environmental perspective within the UK, there has often been a lack of follow through in relation to planning activity and decision making. The importance of a ‘landscape’ view does, however, have a new resonance given the current emphasis on ‘place’ within spatial planning and on sustainability and living within environmental limits more generally (DEFRA, 2005a).

Multi-functionality The value of this approach does not simply lie in the development of a sound appreciation of the local context, it also begins to provide a deeper understanding of the multi-functional capacity and potential of the countryside, in both natural and human terms. This concept was introduced in Chapter 1 and is discussed further in Chapter 11. Brandt et al. (2000, cited in Gallent et al., 2004) identify five basic functions of landscapes. These are shown in Box 10.12. Gallent et al. (2004) argue that past approaches to planning for rural areas and, for the rural–urban fringe in particular, have often appeared blind to the multi-functional capacity of the countryside, and policy approaches have tended to take a narrow view of the role of particular types of rural area. The system of environmental designations that has emerged has, by and large, reinforced this ‘zoning’ mentality, although there is evidence of a shift towards a broader approach in recent times led by examples such as the Wye Valley AONB Management Plan discussed earlier. The challenge for rural planning in the twenty-first century will be to ‘run with the grain of multifunctionality’ (Gallent et al., 2004: 232) ensuring complementarity and mutual benefit between different landscape functions. It is apparent that there is considerable scope for further development of this multifunctional view of the countryside and part of the task here will be to draw together existing strands of understanding under this umbrella concept and explore further their planning and management implications. What is evident from Brandt’s analysis is that multi-functionalism is a concept of great depth, quite different in character to the more established and relatively simple planning concept of mixed use. Mixed

Box 10.12 The multiple functions of landscapes 1. Ecological functionality, meaning that landscape is a ‘an area for living’ for both human and non-human life 2. Economic functionality, with landscapes providing ‘an area for production’ 3. Socio-cultural functionality, or ‘an area for recreation and identification’ with sociocultural attributes 4. Historical functionality, or ‘an area for settlement and identity’ which offers a sense of socio-cultural continuity 5. Aesthetic functionality, with landscapes providing ‘an area for experiences’ Source Brandt et al., 2000: cited in Gallent et al., 2004


Box 10.13 A multi-functional analysis of green infrastructure Ecological functionality Carbon sink Pollution control Air conditioning Microclimate control Flood prevention Soil protection Wildlife refuge Wildlife corridor

Socio-cultural functionality Formal and informal recreation Promotion of physical and mental well-being Promotion of social interaction and community cohesion Education

Economic functionality Direct and indirect setting for business activity Direct and indirect setting for property Direct and indirect employment

Source: Developed from Handley et al. (2007) and TCPA, 2004

use, on the one hand is concerned with the assembly of different functions within a building or site with usually some form of spatial/physical separation between them. Multi-functionalism on the other hand, does not necessarily require such spatial separation and suggests a complex layering of uses or functions within a given space. Ling et al. define multi-functionality as ‘an integration of different functions within the same or overlapping land unit, at the same or overlapping in time’ (Ling et al., 2007: 285). Emerging thinking about green infrastructure (to date principally in an urban context)(Box 10.13) illustrates how ecological functionality (sometimes referred to as ecosystem or ecological services) may coexist with socio-cultural or economic functionality and highlights the potentially wide range of functions any particular site might be expected to serve. This perspective is far removed from the simplistic view of land use containment within the countryside which prevailed in much of the twentieth century, and it underlines the need for a much more sophisticated approach to rural planning in the twenty-first century. In this sketch analysis of green infrastructure opportunities there is an expectation that landscapes will host different functions: that, for example, wildlife corridors, rather than merely being contained, preserved and protected, may have other ecological functions (e.g. flood protection) and will also provide opportunities for education, interaction and recreation, with possible (and probable) economic implications for the local area. The role of spatial planning in this model is to coordinate different interests and to recognise complementarity where it exists. We return to this issue in the next chapter, providing an example of this model in practice.

Respecting ‘natural’ boundaries In recognising multi-functionality, the issue of the appropriate scale of plan-making will inevitably emerge. Natural systems just as much as human systems do not respect administrative boundaries and there is therefore a need to be flexible in thinking about planning boundaries and respect ‘natural’ units in plan making. This is already happening in spatial planning in relation, for example, to housing market areas but, so far, less so in relation to environmental factors. Hamilton and Selman (2005) however, indicate that a range of different approaches to defining bio-geographic areas are now available and there is great scope to increase the use of these for policy development

286


and delivery purposes. From a landscape perspective at the regional level for example, water catchments, which are key determinants of ecological functionality, present coherent landscape planning units and there is a helpful coincidence of the river basin district boundaries identified in response to the Water Framework Directive with government boundaries at this scale (see Figure 10.12). Below this level, much greater use could made of the countryside characterisation work undertaken by English Nature, the Countryside Agency and others in developing policies at the sub-regional and local scale, using natural area and countryside character area understanding to inform planning activities. An interesting example of how these areas may also be aggregated to develop sub-regional perspectives is demonstrated in the Landscape Strategy for the North West Region (Handley et al., 1998). Here five landscape domains were identified: the urban core, the urban fringe, the rural lowlands, the rural uplands and the coast, which were each groupings of countryside character areas based on relevant characteristics. The domains were felt to be valid in both an abstract and a real sense: abstract in that they represented a broad ‘feel’ for the landscape, real in that there were distinct physical characteristics and economic, social and environmental issues associated with them. They were therefore judged to be helpful as a means by which issues of common interest to geographically disparate interests could be explored. The concept has had various applications, for example in informing the content of regional planning guidance and undertaking research on the differential impacts of climate change (Kidd, 2007b). In terms of the former, Box 10.14 shows how a summary analysis of the environmental profile of the North-West’s urban fringe domain, together with a review of environmental initiatives related to these areas, was used as the grounding for a stakeholder workshop considering priorities for action and change. The discussion was structured around the strategic objectives set out in the North West Regional Economic Strategy and Regional Planning Guidance of the time. The remit was to flesh out in more detail what these overarching regional objectives might mean for the rural–urban fringe and to identify the scope for greater coordination, reinforcement and innovation in policy development and delivery. Through focusing upon landscape domains, the initiative sought to provide a bridge between region-wide and local-level policy perspectives but to do so in a way that respected the particularities of different places (Kidd, 2007b). The emphasis here was on the environmental aspects of policy, but it was felt that the approach could readily be extended to be more holistic and embrace economic and social concerns as well.

Better integration A thread running through the above is the need for a much more integrated approach to rural planning than has been the case in the past. This has long been seen as a key to better planning for the countryside (e.g. Cherry, 1976, Cloke, 1987) but has yet to materialise to any great degree. Integration is a central theme in the introduction of the new spatial planning arrangements in England and it is also apparent more generally in the move to more joined-up government and in contemporary thinking about environmental planning, including landscape ecology (Kidd, 2007b). Drawing upon these various disciplines it is possible to set out a framework of the range of integration considerations that a new approach to rural planning should encompass (Box 10.15). A recurring theme throughout this book is the need for better sectoral integration between economic, social and environmental agendas in the countryside.


Figure 10.12 River basin districts and regional planning boundaries Source: EA, 2006: 24 © Environment Agency copyright. All rights reserved 2006

288


Box 10.14 North West Landscape Strategy: an example of policy development for the urban fringe domain Environmental profile

Environmental initiatives

Priorities for action

Buffer between town and

in train Alt 2000

Environmental assets

country

Beal River Valley Project

•

Complex but distinct character

Bollin River Valley Project

Arena of intense activity

Canal and Countryside

Problems of:

Project

• •

Protect and improve wildlife corridors and spaces linking town and country

•

Safeguard industrial heritage

degraded and despoiled

Darwen River Valley Project Environmental quality

land

Groundwork Macclesfield

•

pressures for waste disposal and Vale Royal

Maintain and improve water and air quality

and mineral extraction

Groundwork Blackburn

•

urban pollution

Groundwork East

•

fragmented farmland

Lancashire

•

low-grade management

Groundwork Manchester

Derelict and despoiled land

practices

Groundwork Oldham,

•

poor environmental quality

Rochdale and Tameside

of green belt

Groundwork Rossendale

Positive features:

Groundwork Salford and

•

•

Enhance landscape quality through positive management of green belt Promote strategic approach ensuring appropriate use of brownfield sites

•

Recognise the process of

role of green belt in

Trafford

preventing urban sprawl

Groundwork St Helens,

accessible countryside to

Knowsley and Sefton

large urban population

Groundwork West Cumbria •

Promote development of

opportunities for farm

Groundwork Wigan and

sustainable energy sources

diversification

Chorley

•

rich industrial heritage

Groundwork Wirral

•

arena for innovative

Knowsley Community

management solutions

Woodland Initiative

• • •

natural colonisation and reclamation Resource management

such as coppice woodland •

with community forest objectives

Leeds Liverpool Canal

Recreation/leisure and tourism

Management Scheme

•

Mersey Basin Campaign Red Rose Forest

Expand and enhance greenways traversing urban

Mersey Forest

fringe •

Provide new recreation

Mersey Valley Partnership

resources to divert pressure

NUVIL Project

from wider countryside and

RIVA2005 Sankey NOW

reduce leisure travel Image

Stockport Planting Strategy •

Promote positive image

Wasteland to Woodland

as accessible and valued

Weaver River Valley Project

countryside

West Pennine Moors Management Scheme Wigan and Salford Mossland Strategy Source: Handley et al.,1998

Integrate plans for landfill


Organisational

Territorial

Sectoral

Box 10.15 A framework for integration in rural planning Cross-sectoral integration

Integration of different public policy domains

Inter-agency Iintegration

Integration of public, private and voluntary sector activity

Vertical integration

Integration between different spatial scales of planning activity Integration of planning activity between adjoining areas or areas with some shared interest Integration of planning strategies, programmes and initiatives Integration of delivery mechanisms in all relevant agencies Integration of different disciplines and stakeholders

Horizontal integration

Strategic integration Operational integration Disciplinary/stakeholder Integration

Developed from Kidd, 2007a: 167

Too often it seems that these have been pursued in isolation of one another and the potential conflicts and synergies between them have not been given sufficient attention. Improved integration of public, private and voluntary sector activities is also important. In the rural context for example, organisations like the National Trust and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds are increasingly large landowners and employers, and in this respect, they are often at the cutting edge of changing economic, social and environmental circumstances. They are therefore in a good position to inform public policy development and also to deliver public policy objectives. Equally, the framework draws attention to the need for vertical integration between different levels of plan-making. From regional level strategies such as regional spatial strategies, regional economic strategies and regional housing strategies to local level parish or village area action plans there should be a strong and supportive policy linkage. Similarly, alignment of planning activities between neighbouring areas is important, for example to ensure consistent delivery of catchment management measures. Finally, there is a need to ensure better organisational integration in rural areas. This means not only achieving greater consistency and synergy in the content of plans, but also ensuring that different organisations play their part in the delivery of wider planning objectives by adopting appropriate working practices, and encouraging different rural stakeholders to come together to develop a better appreciation of varying perspectives on the countryside and develop a stronger consensus about future directions.

Conclusions: a key role for spatial planning Spatial planning has a key role to play in developing and delivering this new approach to rural planning. As we have seen in Chapter 2 and in other chapters in this book, the new system has been deliberately set a wide horizon. It is charged with the task

290


of drawing together the many strands of public policy, exploring their implications for particular places, and setting a framework for their future development through the preparation of regional spatial strategies and local development documents which could include small area action plans relating to individual parishes or villages. However, this is not simply an exercise in assimilation and amalgamation. A critical feature of spatial planning is its future orientation. It is expected to take a long-term view enabling the wide community of interest to set out their ambitions and future visions for an area, building upon the consultative traditions and democratic credentials of the previous land-use planning system. The unique position of planning within rural affairs was recognised as long ago 1974 in the New Agricultural Landscapes study (Westmacott and Worthington, 1974). This advocated the preparation of integrated management plans for rural areas which would bring together farmers and landowners and other interested parties to agree on economic and environmental objectives for the countryside. Planners were seen to be the natural convenors of these exercises. The challenge at that time, as the title of the study suggests, was to develop a more creative and forward looking response to the countryside environment, in light of changing farming practices. The challenge for rural areas, at the present time, is not dissimilar and still centres on the the issues of coordingation and integration. This chapter has examined the various designations that currently relate to the rural environment and has revealed a complex web of controls in the countryside. It has indicated that: • • •

•

•

large areas of rural Britain are now subject to multiple types of environmental control, sometimes with competing and contradictory objectives; from an environmental perspective there is an awareness that a more coherent and coordinated approach to countryside planning is needed; from an economic and social perspective, the weight of environmental controls can seem daunting and are considered to provide a significant constraint on the development of effective responses to changing circumstances; a new, more integrated approach to rural planning is needed that is place sensitive, recognises the multi-functionality of landscapes and respects natural boundaries; and there is a key role for spatial planning in delivering this vision and considering how a socially and economical vibrant countryside can be consistent with a dynamic, sustainable and highly valued landscape.

These themes are now carried forward into the final two chapters, in which we examine the (re)integration of rural areas and sectoral issues, and the challenges confronting policy makers and the different partners in the planning process in the years ahead.

Part V


11 (Re)positioning rural areas

This penultimate chapter is concerned with positioning rural areas – and their governance and planning – in a discussion of broader debates over town–country connectivity, the future planning of the rural–urban fringe, and changing scales of governance affecting the countryside. The focus is on exploring linkages: how new structures of governance might promote greater cohesion between town and country, across functional city-regions; the lessons that might be drawn from recent discourse and projects at the fringe which have highlighted spatial planning’s potential in delivering integrated place development; and the balance between community and strategic planning within ‘functional regions’, examining how strategic planning ambitions interlock with a need for local or community responsiveness. This chapter is about connecting areas, but also about ensuring that ‘embedding’ rural concerns in a larger framework does not in fact mean that these concerns are lost or relegated behind strategic economic priorities.

Learning outcomes This chapter aims to provide an appreciation of: • • •

• •

the emergent discourse on functional ‘city-regions’ and some of the implications for rural areas; the interdependence between town and country, especially at the rural–urban fringe and within wider functional regions; the potential for spatial planning to integrate ‘urban’ with ‘rural’ land uses and activities at the fringe, and the possibility of drawing wider lessons for ‘rural planning’ from this interfacial context; the importance of scale when thinking about rural issues and especially the balance between strategy and local intervention; and the continued importance of ensuring that rural concerns are adequately considered in policy-making through a continuation of advocacy and ‘rural proofing’.

294


Introduction Across Europe, an increasing emphasis is being placed on ‘territorial cohesion’ – eradicating ‘geographical discontinuities’ from the structures and processes of governance to achieve equity between citizens and places – and on understanding flows of people and goods within functional regions and sub-regions (Faludi, 2005: 2; Clark, 2005: see Box 11.1). This is a concern for spatial economies and spatial governance, and has the goal of enhancing Europe’s global competitiveness (Combes et al., 2006). This discourse is important for rural areas for two reasons. First, because it suggests a future for these areas tied to core centres, with hinterlands benefiting from strategic planning that understands markets and brings greater economic prosperity, spreading this prosperity across the European territory. Second, it suggests that important strategic decisions may be made outside of these hinterlands, with the countryside becoming increasingly subservient to cities and to urban agendas. It seems to present a risk to the countryside: that many of the social and environmental challenges explored in this book will be sidelined by a drive towards greater economic competitiveness, which could drown out community agendas and see planning lose its local – and more particularly, its community – focus. In recent discourse, a broad concern for economic growth and competitiveness is seen to bring trickle-down benefits to place-communities and individuals, so long as people and places innovate, up-skill, and embrace the opportunities that growth brings. But new wealth imported into the countryside has not always brought new investment in local services (see Chapters 5 and 8) or provided quality jobs in stable sectors, leading many commentators to question the extent to which ‘the market’ – and economic liberalism – offers a panacea to all of the challenges faced in rural areas. But because urban centres are generally viewed as key nodes within potentially more competitive economies – alongside the acknowledgement of a functional interdependence (Box 11.2) between urban cores and surrounding hinterlands (Hall and Pain, 2006; Hoggart 2005) – it is important to think about these linkages, and what they will mean for the countryside in the future. In 1999, the European Spatial Development Perspective (CSD, 1999) sought to provide an informal framework intended to shape thinking on the strategies and policies needed (at a national level) to promote regional, national and pan-European competitiveness and cohesion (Faludi and Waterhout, 2002; Faludi, 2005). It emphasised the need for a new urban–rural relationship, as a means of overcoming the dualism between city and countryside and as an essential prerequisite to achieving territorial cohesion (Box 11.1). In this chapter we suggest that the mainstreaming of rural issues in wider thinking on territory and cohesion has both an upside and a downside. On the upside, rural concerns might be assigned equal importance with urban issues (something that has not been achieved in past planning: Chapter 2) where the ‘rural’ is viewed as a component or a partner within a functional sub-region or region. But on the down side, the peculiarities of rural change and rural challenges may be lost or downplayed. In this book we have argued that the countryside is home to unique problems and challenges, which often require local policy responses within strategic frameworks that are sensitive to rural needs. How will ‘rural planning’ continue to respond to this uniqueness in the future, and how will strategic frameworks remain relevant to rural places and communities? Before it was replaced by Natural England, the Countryside Agency had taken a keen interest in the ‘rural–urban fringe’ (or the ‘countryside in and around towns’) arguing that urban–rural boundaries are often blurred, but that sensitive spatial planning can

(Re)positioning rural areas 295

Box 11.1 Territorial cohesion and functional regions From an EU perspective ‘territorial cohesion’ is about fairness between citizens. It is about fair access to services, and ensuring that territories have equal opportunity to become ‘competitive’. In the Netherlands, the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment states that in practical terms, territorial cohesion implies: • using development policies to better exploit regional potentials and ‘territorial capital’ (i.e. Europe’s territorial and cultural diversity); • better ‘positioning’ of regions in Europe, strengthening their individual profiles, and facilitating their connectivity and territorial integration (e.g. through structures of governance); • promoting coherence across policies, between units of governance (horizontally) and different layers (vertically). Structures of governance and the ‘positioning’ of areas or regions are critical issues in debates over territorial cohesion. The idea of the ‘functional region’ sits in a wider debate concerned with ‘spatial organisation’. Like territorial cohesion, it is closely identified with questions of governance. Functional regions are generally thought to be centred on a node or focal point (e.g. a core city or a key settlement) and surrounding areas, or hinterlands, are linked to that point through different systems, associations and activities. In the past, functional regions have provided a way to examine linkages and flows (Box 11.2) that create interdependences between citizens, communities and different places. Today, the identification of functional regions has become a political ambition across many parts of Europe: the aim being to ensure that government structures are aligned with existing linkages and flows. In the UK, DCLG (2007d) defines a ‘city region’ as ‘[…] the economic footprint of a city and is defined by the ways that people live their lives and the economic relationship between a city and its surrounding area (including smaller cities and towns and rural hinterlands located there)’ Source: DCLG, 2007d

promote comfortable co-existence between built-up and open areas, often using the near countryside as a resource for urban communities, and using urban communities as a natural market for rural products. However, separation of town and country has been compounded by inappropriate administrative boundaries which have not always enabled urban authorities to embrace the opportunities that exist in the rural–urban fringe, or develop strategies and policies that promote interaction. Hence, current debates on the ‘fringe’ – the interfacial landscape between town and country (see Gallent et al., 2006) – as well as broader debates on rural–urban interaction are inexorably linked to questions of spatial governance and its implications for territorial cohesion. In England, government has recently introduced proposals to create new unitary authorities, eliminating the dual county–district structures that have created sometimes unhelpful divisions between town and country (DCLG, 2006d; 2006e). This move has been motivated, in part, by a desire to deliver new cost efficiencies in local government. It is also about transferring power to stronger authorities, enabling them to take a strategic lead on planning and development. Again, a higher-level strategic focus

296


Box 11.2 Functional interdependencies between town and country Housing and residence: evidenced by commuting flows (and defined by travel to work areas) that are frequently rural-to-urban movements; and also by housing growth in urban hinterlands, and sometimes by pressure within housing markets, by social exclusion and gentrification. Labour: the gravitation of rural populations to urban jobs, again evidenced by commuting flows and underpinned, in part, by the decline in agricultural jobs and increasing dependence on urban employment. Goods and services: a two-way flow of goods and services; for example, with agricultural produce becoming keyed into its nearby urban market (in the best-case scenarios, reducing ‘food miles’), or with rural populations becoming reliant on urban services and becoming part of the wider customer base for urban centres. Infrastructure: urban hinterlands provide a context for the provision of infrastructure, but also experience the tension that arises when growth is accompanied by a need for dispersed infrastructure provision across peri-urban areas. This creates an infrastructure interface, and/or the challenge to manage and concentrate infrastructure around growth points. Leisure and recreation: a periodic movement of people between urban and rural areas for the purpose of leisure and recreation; this can entail a movement into the hinterland to enjoy open spaces at the rural–urban fringe, or a movement into cities for nightlife or in order to experience the urban buzz. Economic flows: arguably the most important functional interdependency, of which all the above are components. But added to those already listed, are the wider markets (that transcend urban–rural boundaries), which support service provision and commerce in its various forms, and which supply labour to support regional economies. Economic flows consist of people, goods and services.

might produce greater coherency between urban and rural agendas (perhaps ensuring that higher tier settlement planning does not undermine community initiatives – see Chapter 8), but could also divert attention from (rural) community concerns. The same is of course true of city-regions, and given their apparent focus on economic flows and competitiveness, the danger of rural neglect at this level might be even greater. However, government remains committed to the ‘rural proofing’ of a range of strategy and policy initiatives, and this provides one way of counterbalancing a focus on core cities and economic competitiveness. In the remainder of this chapter we cut a path through these debates focusing on the rise of city-regions and the implications for rural areas and rural planning; the role that spatial planning might play at the interface between town and country, and the lessons that emerge for wider rural planning; the changing structure of governance in the countryside and the drive to achieve new efficiencies in service delivery, and the implications of this for rural areas per se and for local responsiveness in particular; and the more general challenge of ensuring that the ‘rural’ continues to receive due attention in future policy-making and planning. The chapter aims to provide a glimpse into broader debates about city-regions. It is centrally concerned with the need for

(Re)positioning rural areas 297 rural areas to engage with the structures of strategic governance, whilst also asserting their own particular needs. Its focus is on both broader issues of interdependence – functional regions and territorial cohesion – and on the immediate interaction that is possible at the fringe. These issues are brought together in a discussion of community and local governance, and reforms that look likely to reshape rural governance in England in the years ahead.

City-regions: a new strategic framework for rural planning? City-regions are viewed as spatial structures better equipped to deliver economic growth (Jones, 2007; Combes et al., 2006), largely because they have a potential to follow areas of market interaction and interdependency (or areas of common environmental needs: see Chapter 10), and could avoid the erection of false political barriers that might stand in the way of competitiveness. Discourse on functional and economic interaction between cities and their hinterlands has a long history (Wannop, 1995): so too has the focus on ‘global cities’ and their broader field of influence (Hall, 1966; Friedmann and Wolff, 1982; Sassen, 1991). Often, this discourse focuses on the increasing complexity of spatial relationships in the context of the ‘network society’ based on ‘extensive mobility’ and stronger interconnections between places (Castells, 1996: see also Nadin, 2007). At a different scale, Cloke’s (1979) work on key settlements highlighted the hub role played by service centres within rural economies (Chapter 8). City-region debate is concerned with regional rather than local economies, though the principle is the same: markets – constructed from the interactions between individuals, and between producers, sellers and buyers – operate more effectively where political and administrative obstacles are minimised and where appropriate levels of strategic planning actively promote these interactions. Today, it has been accepted that the functional reach of major cities – defined in terms of labour markets – may extend over large parts of the country, with some rural areas linked to more than one core city. An initial view of city-regions as comprising single hubs linked to a defined hinterland has, in recent discourse, been replaced by a more complex pattern of flows (of people and

Airport

A

Economic footprint/ travel to work Contiguous built-up area

B C

Administrative D Centre

F

E

G

Figure 11.1 A theoretical city-region Source: DCLG, 2007d

Town/city within the city-region

298


goods) between rural places and urban centres, between different urban centres, and within rural hinterlands. However, the idea of distinct and identifiable ‘city-regions’ (variously described as ‘metropolitan’ areas or regions, conurbations, polycentric or functional regions) remains attractive because it provides a possible framework for rethinking strategic governance and economic planning. In England, the DCLG has produced a simplified model of a ‘theoretical city-region’ depicting a wider ‘economic footprint’ (Figure 11.1) and multiple centres orbiting a single core. The city-regional ‘goal’ is the product of three inter-related forces. •

•

First, it has emerged from a policy discourse – introduced above – concerned with creating governance structures that enhance economic competitiveness as a route to regional development (Herrschel and Newman, 2005) and cohesion (Committee of the Regions, 2006). Research has highlighted London’s role as an ‘economic powerhouse’ for England, prompting other core cities to market themselves as development drivers in their respective regions. There is evidence to support this ambition: growth in GVA (‘gross value added’: government’s preferred measure for economic output and wealth generation) is often focused in core provincial cities. Newcastle and Sunderland, for example, have the highest levels of GVA per capita in the north-east of England and their importance in the wider regional economy has been steadily growing (Marvin et al., 2006). Internationally, city-regions are seen as the ‘[…] locomotives of the national economies within which they are situated’ and typically have high levels of productivity by reason of their jointly-generated agglomeration economies and their innovative potentials’ (Scott and Storper, 2003: 581). Second, sitting beside those theories of growth and competitiveness that lend support to the concept of city-regions, there is a political rationale for devolving or transferring power to these new structures. Labour came to power in 1997 with a programme of devolution and constitutional reform. By 2000, elected assemblies had been created in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London following referendums in which the devolution agenda seemed to enjoy popular support. Buoyed by this success, government sought to extend its devolution plans to the English regions. The first referendum on regional devolution was held in the North-East in November 2004, but voters in the region rejected the idea of creating a directly elected regional assembly (to replace the existing assembly comprising politicians representing each of the region’s local authorities, together with specialist appointees – see Chapter 2). The ‘no vote’ in the NorthEast caused a general cooling of enthusiasm for English regional devolution. But in this context, city-regions are viewed as an alternative route to decentralising decision making. The current discussion surrounding the city regional model – which was the subject of a DCLG Select Committee Report in 2007 (House of Commons, 2007: 43–57) – comes on the back of legislation handing regional planning bodies a statutory role in developing regional spatial strategies (RSSs) (Chapter 2) and recent experiments in creating new functional regions (the ‘Northern Way’ project comprising parts of the North-East, North-West and Yorkshire is a much-cited example: see Goodchild and Hickman, 2006; Harding et al., 2004). The empowerment of existing structures, and thinking on new structures, goes hand-in-hand. The new RSSs connect directly to economic strategies and should be concerned with functional areas, including strategic housing markets and travel-to-work areas (Figure 11.1), devising sub-regional


•

strategies as appropriate (Bianconi et al., 2006). Within the context of planning reform and emergent thinking on spatial planning and place development, cityregions are often viewed – quite simply – as more logical administrative territories that, if bound by common strategies, will enjoy the benefit of association with one or more core centres. Third – and also concerned with ‘connectivity’ – is the idea that existing local government boundaries (sitting within the regions) do not always make sense and, like the regions themselves, they do not express functional coherence. Local government review and the subsequent redrawing of boundaries has been a frequent occurrence over the last 60 years. The abolition of the county ‘structure planning’ function in 2004 has brought into question the value of retaining a ‘two-tier’ (county and district) structure in many rural areas, and recent local government reform has promoted the idea of smaller districts clubbing together, on a voluntary basis, to form larger and more powerful unitary authorities with a greater range of powers and responsibility and therefore enhanced capacity to engage in coordinated planning. In some instances, a move to a unitary structure at this level may strengthen the case for redefining regional boundaries so local government, below the regional level, becomes integrated within functional regions, enjoying the supposed economic and planning benefits. If city-regions are created, and larger more strategic authorities sit within them, there is likely to be further debate on the division of powers within this structure (Jones, 2007).

For rural planning, these wider debates raise a number of questions and concerns. First, the debate itself appears to suggest a subservient role for ‘rural hinterlands’ which are viewed as appendages to the core cities, without an economic life of their own (or merely falling within the ‘footprint’ of a core centre). This could mean a reduced focus on the needs of rural areas. But it could also mean, second, that rural areas share in the benefits of more effective city-regional planning, with lower-tier settlements being tied into economic strategies which ultimately benefit the entire territory including areas which are geographically more peripheral. This could be an improvement on the past, if functional regions tied together places that operate within common economies, rather than severing the links within these economies by erecting ‘artificial’ divisions, or boundaries that made sense a century ago but have less apparent logic today. Third, there are also more specific concerns over strategic planning between local government areas within the framework of city-regions. For example, the Local Government White Paper 2006 introduced the possibility of adjoining areas developing common policy frameworks. In some places, this could mean planning being called upon to deliver against ‘multi-area agreements’ (MAA) rather than ‘local area agreements’ (LAA). MAAs could be devised by two authorities, or by a number of authorities within a region or a sub-region, with neighbouring planning authorities subsequently being driven by the same goals and targets. Generally, this inter-authority joined-up thinking at the regional level is likely to focus on economic well-being given that the city-region discourse is dominated by ideas of competitiveness. But there are also more specific opportunities falling from this debate to think about the direct interface between urban and rural areas, and in particular, to develop strategies that link neighbouring urban and rural authorities. Within this broader framework of the city-region, we now turn to look at the future planning of rural areas, focusing first on the interfacial relationship between

300


town and country at the ‘rural–urban fringe’; second, the governance and planning of the wider countryside; and third, ensuring that rural voices are not drowned out by excessive emphasis on urban or strategic economic agendas and, indeed, that a local counterpoint to strategic ambition is retained.

(Lessons from) the rural–urban fringe ‘City hinterlands’ comprise a mix of open countryside, immediate urban ‘edges’ and ‘transitional landscapes’ sometimes referred to as the ‘rural–urban fringe’. The latter is a zone of functional interface between town and country. It often has the agriculture and open spaces more often associated with ‘real countryside’, and also the transport infrastructure, industry, distribution and service functions (including power generation or waste processing) usually identified with cities and needed by urban populations. The fringe can be seen as the extension of the city into the countryside, and a zone of direct interface: •

It is the ‘working end’ of the ‘urban system’, performing many of the functions – waste processing, energy generation, manufacturing, distribution and aggregate or mineral extraction – that are fundamental to cities, but which urban populations

Figure 11.2 The rural–urban fringe, New Acres, County Durham, © Countryside Agency, Mike Williams


•

•

(and planners) prefer to push into the ‘hinterland’. Kaika and Swyngedouw (2000) have referred to this collection of functions as the ‘urban dowry’. It has been extended, during the twentieth century, by the expansion of transport infrastructure, and especially by arterial and orbital roads. These have created a web of development located at interchanges, often comprising low-density warehousing and distribution, car-based leisure and retail (including out-of-town shopping centres), light manufacturing and business parks. It is a landscape created by movement and road development, and extended by the expansion of major airports in the fringe. Its continuing development is shaped not by planning, but by spiralling demand for car-based retail opportunities. Arguably, it is a landscape that has received less attention than open countryside (which has been protected from such encroachments: see Chapter 10), and more heavily built-up areas (which have been subject to comprehensive planning: see Gallent et al., 2006).

The rural–urban fringe is sometimes seen as a hybrid landscape: neither town nor country in the conventional sense, but something in between. And because it is inbetween, it has been a contested landscape, with competing urban and rural interests either viewing fringe areas as ripe for development, or in need of special protection. In the last chapter, the role of ‘green belt’ – a strategic planning tool commonly associated with protection – was discussed. Green belt policy has arguably represented the planning system’s key intervention at the rural–urban fringe. It has sought to ‘check sprawl’, prevent the ‘coalescence’ of neighbouring urban areas, safeguard the countryside from ‘encroachment’, preserve what is considered to be the ‘setting and special character’ of historic towns, and assist in regeneration efforts by directing development pressure away from ‘easy’ greenfield to more challenging (inner city) sites. Essentially, it has focused on keeping towns out of the countryside. It has not – to any great extent – been concerned with the interfacial relationship between town and country, or the enhancement of near-urban landscapes for the benefit of urban communities. But it has a place in broader discussions over the future of the fringe because of its potential to become a framework in which to rethink and respond to urban–rural linkages: hence, our treatment of green belt here builds on the discussion provided in Chapter 10. Following its creation in 1999, the Countryside Agency was preoccupied with the potential of the rural–urban fringe to provide a point at which the countryside can be sustainably consumed by urban populations, and also (immediately before its functions were transferred to the Commission for Rural Communities and Natural England in 2006) with the role that green belt might play in enhancing the opportunities for recreation and community enjoyment that exist in this fringe. For the Countryside Agency, and its replacement agency, Natural England, the fringe represents the front line between town and country. But pressure on the countryside beyond the fringe is increasing partly because the potential of the fringe to absorb at least some of this pressure (especially recreation and leisure demands) has not been realised. Restrictions on land-use change, implemented through green belt policy (but also implemented in areas not covered by green belt), tend to keep the potential of the fringe ‘locked up’. In 2004 and 2005, the Agency published two documents on the fringe – Unlocking the Potential of the Rural Urban Fringe and The Countryside in and around Towns – in which it described these interstitial landscapes as a ‘gateway’ or ‘bridge’ between town and country: somewhere that could benefit from a more positive planning approach, which green belt designation had tended to prevent. In recent

302


times, general debate over how to use rural–urban fringe land has become conflated with a policy discourse concerned with the future of the green belt. Again, this was touched upon in the last chapter. Whilst green belt is often praised as a resounding success (CPRE, 2005b) and sometimes held up as the jewel of British planning (Tang et al., 2005), many commentators see the policy as anachronistic, out-of step with strategic planning objectives, and particularly with spatial planning’s aim of promoting integration across land-uses (or wider sub-regional or city regional economies) and achieving wider community objectives. In 2002 the Royal Town Planning Institute published a statement on Modernising Green Belts (RTPI, 2002), identify three key problems with the current policy: •

•

•

a failure to keep pace with current debates and move planning away from a narrowly focused negative land-use planning perspective towards a more positive and integrative spatial planning framework; the public perception of the role and purpose of green belts as being out of step with contemporary agendas, for example the need for urban extensions and the promotion of sustainable development by reducing journey-to-work distances; conflicting aims and objectives within existing green belt policy and the need to promote wider goals of sustainability. For example, the RTPI argued that farming in green belt areas is often marginal and – without greater flexibility and positive planning designed to promote a more diversified economy – the sector may fail, leading to agricultural abandonment and further reduction in environmental quality.

In some respects, the RTPI’s critique of green belt can also be seen as a wider criticism of rural planning: a focus on negative land-use intervention; a failure to promote sustainable development; and an inability to support economic diversification (indeed, green belt policy is often viewed as rural planning: see Chapter 10). Some of these same criticisms are echoed in Kate Barker’s Review of Land-Use Planning (2006), which argues that the designation ‘protects’ land that is not worth protecting – i.e. ‘low-value agricultural land with little landscape quality and limited public access’ (ibid: 9) – and that local authorities fail to make best use of the urban-fringe resource. Barker called on local government to adopt a ‘more positive approach’ to enhancing urban hinterlands and to creating ‘public spaces for recreation’ (ibid: 10). Like the Countryside Agency before her, Barker talks about the potential that exists in the fringe, but which planning has failed to realise. In the context of rethinking the green belt, a debate has emerged focusing on the management of near-urban landscapes that is: (1) fundamentally concerned with rural–urban interactions within new strategic planning frameworks (including enhanced and more ‘strategic’ green belts positioned in emergent local governance structures) and; (2) more widely concerned with the multi-functional planning and management of rural areas. One specific aim is to create a ‘green belt’ that becomes a template for environmental and social opportunity, and a resource for nearby communities. Whereas past green belt policy has focused on policing land-use change, keeping town and country apart, and has failed to promote the integrated management of change or a positive agenda, the emphasis now is moving towards access agreements and seeing green belt (and rural–urban fringe land in general) as a resource for health and recreation, for green energy, for education (of children in nearby urban schools), and for green infrastructure. The desire to achieve the integrated and ‘multi-

(Re)positioning rural areas 303 functional’ management of change is critical, not only at the fringe, but for wider rural landscapes. Indeed, important lessons for broader rural planning are emerging from specific rural–urban fringe projects. In Chapter 2, we suggested that recent planning and local government reform in England, and the emergent opportunities for spatial planning, offer a means of gluing together some of the hitherto disparate interests and activities that emerge from rural change, and to coordinate these interests and minimise conflicts. We now look again at spatial planning’s relationship with ‘multi-functionality’. We have previously argued – in Chapters 1 and 10 – that this concept offers a framework for understanding different landscapes, and also an objective driving their future planning, and that the concept of ‘spatial planning’ – and the departure from a purely ‘land-use’ planning model – offers a means of delivering multi-functional spaces that perform across different social, economic and environmental dimensions (Chapters 1 and 2). The two concepts are closely allied, and it is possible to see a process-outcome link between spatial planning and multi-functionality. In recent years, the term ‘multi-functionality’ has become synonymous with practices that avoid the compartmentalisation of land uses and seek, instead, to find inclusive and integrated responses to development pressure. It suggests how different activities might be beneficially combined; and it shows how objectives can be achieved which are not concentrated on a single issue (e.g. economic performance or environmental quality) or entirely public-sector led. The term is rooted in agricultural economics and is regularly used to describe the way in which farms have expanded into new productive areas (e.g. from mono-functional cereal production into energy crops, vegetables, livestock, fruit and so forth) or entirely new, non-agricultural activities and especially the maintenance of valued features of the rural landscape (Wilson, 2005; 2007; see also Chapter 4). Today, the term is employed more generally with the concept becoming a label for integrated space-using functions built on integrated delivery processes (partnership working, community participation, and ‘spatial planning’: Chapters 1 and 2). In regions or nations with a high population density – and therefore significant demands on land – multi-functionality has been ‘used as a planning concept which addresses the planning challenge to concentrate and combine several socio-economic functions in the same area, so as to save scarce space and to exploit economies of synergy’ (Rodenburg and Nijkamp, 2004: 274). Indeed, the value of a multi-functional perspective on planning may be seen to increase in those landscapes characterised by land-use pressure and by an inherently complex management problem. Wood and Ravetz (2000) have argued that the rural–urban fringe is a landscape with great potential for enhanced multi-functional use. An integrated fringe strategy, they suggest, could embrace: agriculture combined with woodlands, wildlife and small holding; woodlands combined with leisure, education, wildlife, smallholding and low-impact housing; leisure combined with education, small-holding, woodlands and wildlife. The often stark division between town and country needs to be broken down in creative fashion, one in which the former goal of land productivity is steered towards organic cultivation, woodland culture, horticulture and permaculture, all now seen as viable creators of employment and maintainers of diverse and abundant landscapes. (ibid: 15–16)

304


Such a strategy might not begin with a detailed blueprint for combining specific uses – though such a blueprint may eventually emerge – but with a set of more generic objectives for how spaces might function more effectively and efficiently. As noted in Chapter 10, Brandt et al. (2000) have sought to identify what these objectives might be and have distilled the literature on multi-functionality into a simple message: that spaces perform basic functions – economic, ecological, communitarian, aesthetic, and historic (through past association). From this perspective, they suggest that planning can either reject or accept the potential interplay between functions, including that interplay that characterises the rural–urban interface. Land-use planning has traditionally been based on the preparation of ‘appropriate policies’ for different forms of development, often seeking separation so as to avoid anticipated conflict between potential land uses. Policy control, a key function of this system, has been grounded in assumptions over compatibility and non-compatibility of uses and built on limited ‘co-production’ of plans and policies: plans have been owned by local authorities and there has been little dialogue with interest groups, or consensual planning. Rather, the process of planning has been geared to delivering policy control affecting specified land-use types, marked by a preoccupation with the formulation of contingent responses to development pressures as they arise. With no sharing of the planning function outside the local authority and little dialogue with the consumers of planning decisions, there have been few opportunities to develop strategies integrated across different interests. In contrast, multi-functional strategies – an example of which is provided in Box 11.3 – begin by defining common objectives (not concerned with individual land uses, but with broader social, economic and environmental goals) that partners in the planning process can subscribe to, and work towards achieving, on the ground. Therefore, realising multi-functional outcomes is dependent on ensuring that a strategy rather than a policy shapes development and broader patterns of land-use change. Critics of the green belt (see earlier discussion) tend to focus complaint on both national policy itself and on its implementation. The primary criticism is that as a strategic planning tool it is out of step with today’s strategic realities and objectives, including the need for planned growth and to rethink functional boundaries. The secondary criticism is that it is employed as a simple policy control, restricting any and all development, when it should be viewed as a strategic guide for the promotion of more sustainable patterns of development. The link between the process of spatial planning (developing appropriate evidence, and building visions that are community-led, and implemented by partnerships of local interest) and multi-functionality has been emphasised by Brandt et al. (2000): ‘[…] the future management of landscape must include some kind of multi-functionality in its approach […] it is a task of spatial planning to assign function and future forms of function and use to land’ (ibid: 26). The assignment of function needs to be an outcome of an inclusive process: spatial planning provides the potential to deliver such an outcome because it is a strategic ‘[…] socio-spatial process through which a vision, actions, and means for implementation are produced that shape and frame what a place is and may become’ (Albrechts, 2004: 747). Revised planning and local government structures in England – introduced in Chapters 1 and 2 – appear to fit with this model: a system of local development plans (at the district level), structure plans (at the county level) and non-statutory regional planning guidance have been replaced by local development frameworks (LDFs: at the district or unitary authority level) and statutory regional spatial strategies (RSSs). Under the old system, development plans needed to be in compliance with the strategic objectives of structure plans. Under


Box 11.3 ‘Multi-functional’ spatial planning for the rural–urban fringe, and the wider countryside Colliers Moss Common covers 130 ha of land on the site of the former Bold Power Station on the edge of St Helens in Lancashire comprising post-industrial land straddling the main Manchester to Liverpool railway line. The site was formerly a colliery with associated spoil tips and the coal-fired power station itself, all to the south of the railway line. The power station closed in the 1980s, rendering the colliery redundant. The northern section of the site was previously known as Bold Moss, and fragments of a once extensive wetland bordered the coal spoil heap. In 1990, Groundwork St Helens, Knowlsey and Sefton were invited by British Coal to draw up a reclamation strategy for the site. Because the site had previously been an important peat bog wetland (filled with colliery spoil and waste since the 1960s), it was felt that this rich ecology should be reclaimed. The aim was to establish a nature-rich urban common for local people. A Bold Moss Forum was established to provide a link with local users: a key aim was to integrate natural regeneration (a renewed and widened ecological functionality) with community involvement in the first instance, and longer-term socio-cultural functionality. For example, ‘natural variations in soil conditions produced a small-scale vegetation mosaic that requires gentle management suited to volunteer work’. Ten years after the project began, the site is widely used as an informal recreation resource by local residents. But multifunctionality has been achieved in a variety of other ways too: • Some of the former colliery buildings were renovated for community businesses, maintaining the site’s function as an area for production. • Spoil areas were developed into a community park, emphasising biodiversity. • A motorcycle track and fisheries have also been created. There are also new landscape features (including a Millennium Bridge joining the northern and southern sections of the site), and sculptures commissioned from local artists. The site thus provides for a wide range of recreational and cultural experiences. • Historical association: the site’s industrial past has not been discarded, but rather it is celebrated and used to create a sense of place and identity. Some former colliery buildings have been retained and machinery positioned around the site to form points of interest in the landscape, mixing the wild with the humanised. The multi-functional and multi-agency strategy for Colliers Moss has been viewed as highly innovative. Indeed, experience gained at this site provided a framework for the ‘Changing Places’ programme, ‘an ecologically informed and community led programme of land regeneration’ promoted by the Groundwork Trust together with a number of national and local partners. By 2001, a total of 21 projects had been undertaken employing the approach first used at Colliers Moss. Colliers Moss can be held up as an example of what Brandt and Vejre (2003: 21) term ‘real multifunctionality’ with the integration of different uses within a single space. The reality of economic restructuring and global trade have rendered many former industrial sites obsolete. Wholesale industrial redevelopment is rarely a viable option: multifunctional reuse, however, offers a combination of landscape improvement, sociocultural opportunity and new economic openings. None of these individual gains could have been achieved in isolation; all are closely linked. Source: Gallent et al., 2004: 226–9

306


the new system, LDFs need to be in compliance with RSSs and their sub-regional priorities. The new planning system is also retrofitted with the changes implemented in the Local Government Act 2000. This legislation required local authorities to prepare (sustainable) community strategies (SCSs) setting out broad visions for local development along social, economic and environmental lines. These strategies are developed by local (strategic) partnerships in which the public sector was just one player. Following the 2004 Act (and the 2006 Local Government White Paper) LDFs have needed to connect with the SCS and agreement on how to deliver the shared objectives of both needed to be written into local area agreements. Within the new system, planning is viewed as a means to deliver broader visions and promises to become – to a greater extent than in the past – Albrecht’s strategic ‘socio-spatial process’ (ibid: 747). It is no longer just about land-use and space-using functions, but about health services, education, community cohesion and participation, environmental quality, climate change, local policing, and a whole host of other concerns that were previously viewed by many as beyond the remit of the system. Again, these changes create new opportunities for expressing community choice through planning, and for the pursuit of integrated, multi-functional, outcomes on the ground. They move the planning system closer to a hypothetical model set out by Tewdwr-Jones (2004: 562–3) in which spatial planning is centrally concerned with integration and coordination, participation, management, distinctiveness, difference and place-making: essentially becoming an enabling force rather than a contingent response based on policy control (see Albrechts, 2004: 749–50). The opportunities this presents for rural planning and management have been recognised. In June 2005, a partnership between the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, English Nature and the Environment Agency resulted in the publication of Environmental Quality in Spatial Planning. In relation to how planning should work, the Agencies argued for: A move away from a ‘topic-based’ to an ‘objectives-led’ approach for plans and strategies [adding that] we are promoting the environment and rural issues in a new and better integrated policy framework, addressing wider sustainability issues whilst meeting local needs within a national, regional, and district-wide context. (Countryside Agency et al., 2005: 4) The same document acknowledged the importance of setting clear objectives for plans and strategies (across topics); defining integrations and connections (across policies); dealing with issues of scale; and setting a spatially variable framework for intervention through plans and strategies. Box 11.4 brings together a number of checkpoints contained in Environmental Quality in Spatial Planning (ibid: 4) with some of the thinking relating to spatial planning and multi-functionality outlined above and in earlier chapters: it outlines how a spatial planning approach might be taken forward at the rural–urban fringe and in the wider countryside.

Governance, scale and reform in rural England The general messages contained in Figure 11.1 have currency across the wider countryside, and are concerned with harnessing the shifting focus, scope and rationale of planning for the benefit of all rural areas. However, the dynamism of the fringe – and the town–country interface – can give way to different sets of issues elsewhere in the countryside. Whilst clear lessons for integrated planning and management


Box 11.4 Spatial planning at the fringe, in the wider countryside and within the context of functional or city regions Plans that are ‘evidence based’

Initiatives that are ‘adequately resourced’

Solutions that are ‘genuinely visionary’ and action-orientated, and ‘realistically ambitious’ Initiatives that are ‘objectives-led’ and ‘better connected’

Plans that are ‘more inclusive’

Initiatives that are ‘fully integrated’

Plans and initiatives that are ‘spatially variable’

Initiatives that demonstrate quality in their delivery and management

Grounded in local intelligence, and that also recognise the interplay between existing uses and functions; Demonstrate a commitment to the rural– urban fringe and the wider countryside and to management over the longer-term, rather than ‘quick fixes’; Demonstrate a concern for ‘place-making’ and, where applicable, are design-led; They are not defined by topics but seek interplay between space using functions and set broader objectives for space (e.g. healthy communities) rather than for individual issues (e.g. more housing); Demonstrate a reliance on participatory approaches, bring together all stakeholders and landowners with a view to building consensus; Across policy areas and across topics; solutions that integrate the fringe with more urbanised areas and with more open countryside; solutions that are concerned with landscape functionality; Grounded in a concern for scale, connecting the very local with broader spatial agendas and, where appropriate, view what happens within the fringe/countryside in a wider subregional, regional and city-regional agenda; Demonstrate value for money, are adequately monitored and reviewed (are ‘long-range’) and fit with government’s wider agenda of quality in planning.

Source: adapted from Gallent and Shaw, 2007.

emerge from rural–urban fringe discourse and projects, it is important to consider the changing context for planning in remoter and more peripheral rural areas. It is here in areas potentially more removed from core centres that the dangers associated with a strategic and city-regional focus loom largest, with areas seen as economically peripheral also running the risk of becoming politically marginal. The danger of such areas being forgotten within larger unitary government structures or city regions has already been noted, as has the counter-balancing role of community and parish planning (Chapter 8). Effective planning in the wider countryside is likely to be dependent first, on planning at appropriate scales and ensuring that communities

308


enjoy the twin benefits of effective strategic planning and policy-making that is locally responsive, and second, on proofing generic programmes and policies to ensure that they are appropriate to rural areas.

Issues of governance and scale I – local government reform Besides issues of functional integrity and cohesion relating to city-regions, there are now specific concerns being raised over the structure of local governance (at the district/county level) within rural areas. This debate was introduced earlier in this chapter, and in the countryside is largely concerned with service provision (though it also links to other challenges, including environmental management: Chapter 10); either those services provided directly – health, education or housing – or private services that authorities indirectly support in order to ensure community well-being. The inability of some smaller rural authorities to summon the resources to deliver or support services is seen as a critical factor accentuating the patterns of rural disadvantage examined in Chapters 1 and 8 (although many rural authorities, particularly those which have already become part of unitary structures, are already large. Indeed, England’s local authorities are amongst the largest units – by land area – of local government in Europe). For this reason, local government reform in the countryside is motivated by a desire to achieve new efficiencies in scale. This can mean local authorities working together: setting common goals within an MAA framework (see above); sharing experience with the hope of achieving new efficiencies; pooling expertise; and developing joint planning strategies. But as well as being motivated by efficiency goals, such practices are also driven by an acceptance that functional subregions – arguably a more logical and effective scale for strategic or environmental planning – transcend local boundaries. In the past, some rural authorities have developed joint development plans, often recognising that authorities comprising sparse hinterlands are linked to neighbouring authorities containing key employment centres by a daily flow of people and goods. These practices have been formalised by recent local government reform. But whilst some areas can identify natural partners – enabling them to think about planning problems at more appropriate scales – such efforts elsewhere have been thwarted by political rivalries. But this problem can be minimised where a common interest is obvious. In the Lake District, for example, six local authorities and Cumbria County Council have worked together to produce a joint SPD on wind energy. A common approach and a common policy means that local effort is not duplicated, and resources can be dedicated to other issues. But where such practices occur, questions are raised over the appropriateness of having so many small authorities and responsibilities divided between counties, districts and (in this instance) a national park authority. Had there been one responsible authority in the first place, then resources and skills would already have been pooled. Indeed, we are only talking about ‘efficiency gains’ because patterns of local government in some parts of England are intrinsically inefficient; and local authorities are being applauded for overcoming difficulties that are not inevitable. The present two-tier system of rural local government has recently been critiqued by the Commission for Rural Communities (2006f) which argues that: •

There is confusion amongst the public as to where responsibility for service delivery really lies: in the counties or in the districts?

(Re)positioning rural areas 309 •

•

There is a concern regarding the capacity of small district councils to effectively and efficiently deliver public services. (Again, not all rural authorities are small in terms of their land area, but they often have more limited resources, by virtue of their smaller populations). There is also concern as to whether these same districts have the critical mass needed to make effective strategic decisions, or whether they can attract the same entrepreneurial leadership that seems to bring success in many urban areas and core cities (or are such areas doomed to suffer second-rate politicians and remain peripheral to more dynamic, well-led, areas?). Such debates are seen as particularly important in the context of proposals for large and, and potentially powerful, city-regions. There are also questions regarding the cost of delivering services in rural areas. It is acknowledged that delivery costs in the countryside are higher (Chapter 8). But by combining local government into larger units it ought to be possible to generate savings through organisational efficiencies thereby directing more resources towards service delivery. For example, a reduction in the number of local authorities should in theory reduce the numbers of senior managers needed to manage the services: in plain terms, lower internal costs will mean more resources to support local initiative and provision. The Gershon Report (2004) lends support to this view, arguing that a simpler structure of more powerful unitary authorities should form part of a programme of efficiency savings that could, it was estimated, cut public spending by £20 billion by 2007/08 (ibid: 35). The Lyons Report (2007) also came out in favour of structures that provide stronger local leadership, ‘convene’ across the full range of public services, champion efficiency and are less dependent on central government for guidance and support.

The Local Government White Paper (DCLG, 2006d) proposed two options for change: first, to enhance the existing structure of local government by formalising the processes of local collaboration; and second, to move to a unitary structure. The white paper also established a time-frame for reorganisation. Twenty-six proposals were submitted to government by January 2007 and by March, sixteen had been selected to go forward to consultation. Seven areas proposed the creation of county-based unitary structures: Cumbria, Durham, North Yorkshire, Shropshire, Wiltshire, Somerset and Cornwall. In Northumberland, Cheshire and Bedfordshire, the counties championed similar ‘unitary county’ bids, but rival bids were put forward from a number of districts, some wanting to go it alone as unitaries or to partner neighbouring districts, with the ultimate aim of forming smaller unitary structures. Most of the bids linked core centres to hinterlands; however, three further bids – from Norwich, Ipswich and Exeter – appeared to be motivated by a desire, on the part of these core centres, to break free of their surrounding counties. Whether wholesale restructuring or more open, informal partnerships is the best route to coordinated and efficient governance remains contested (Smullian, 2007: 16), but if the proposals are accepted (and by late July 2007, it was suggested that eleven of the sixteen proposals consulted on would be taken forward to implementation (DCLG, 2007e)), then by 2009 the governance of rural areas will be transformed with potentially immense implications for rural areas and rural planning. By the end of this decade, the structure of local government for rural areas could be characterised by fewer, larger, single-tier authorities. This move to more strategic authorities runs parallel with the desire, amongst some politicians, to create functional regions. But this up-scaling of rural governance raises inevitable concerns over the ‘spatial variability’ of plans and the capacity of authorities to respond

310


to the needs and aspirations of specific communities and villages. Hence, one obvious question is how to counterbalance – or mitigate the negative effects of – any rescaling of local government with a ‘very local’ community focus.

Issues of governance and scale II – community planning Since the 2000 Rural White Paper (DETR and MAFF, 2000), government has been striving to enhance the part that community planning plays, first, in providing a source of knowledge about local agendas and priorities and, second, in framing local community action (action which often supports or directly delivers local services). In the context of strategic and regional planning, community plans are assuming an increasingly important role: the plans themselves provide part of the evidence base for community strategies, they help define local objectives and ambitions, they are part of a wider inclusive process; and in the context of broader spatial agendas, they are key to the delivery of ‘spatially-variable plans’ (see Box 11.4). They are also part of a Local Government Modernisation Agenda (Cowell and Martin, 2003; and Chapter 2) that is concerned in part with the most efficient and effective means of delivering services across rural areas. Again, away from the immediate rural–urban fringe, and key service hubs, one of the most pressing challenges for rural communities is the future delivery of essential services. Arguably, this challenge is a result of economic peripherality, with services becoming unviable in weakening economies. Therefore, greater connection to core centres (expressed in the flow of goods, services and people) will strengthen these economies and create more viable service markets. However, there is evidence to suggest that the opposite will happen. Through commuting flows, many previously peripheral areas have been drawn into the travel-to-work areas that underpin functional sub-regions or regions. These flows have generated investment in land and property, but they have not brought new investment in services; often because they introduce a change in consumption habits (Chapters 6 and 8) with people sourcing goods and services elsewhere. City-regions might be useful in terms of competitiveness and overall GVA, but they can work against fragile, sensitive and sometimes remote rural place-communities. In this context of shifting scale, the challenge for community and very local planning is to balance strategic economic interests (which are also local interests, but which can bring negative effects) with local community objectives. Community planning provides a potential counterpoint, as do different forms of service delivery including: •

•

•

integrated approaches which aim to achieve new economies of scale; for example, with different services sharing the same physical space and becoming the coordinated initiatives that spatial planning should actively pursue; innovative delivery including the use of information technology (Chapter 8) to provide certain key services, though it is important – in community planning terms – that ICT is not viewed as a simple substitute for local provision; delivery based on partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors aimed at supporting local solutions through direct public funding and through levering in private contributions, directly from local business or indirectly through planning gain mechanisms (see Moseley, 2000; see also Chapter 8).

Such approaches are reliant on a culture change within local government, and a willingness to empower communities to find their own solutions to local problems. The

(Re)positioning rural areas 311 local government and planning reforms introduced in Chapter 2 are challenging the notion of local government as being both the organisation that determines levels of need and provides services, to one that helps to coordinate, articulate, facilitate and enable public-service provision through a local ‘governance’ rather than ‘government’ mode of engagement and delivery (Jessop, 1997). In this context, issues of scale are critical, with authorities needing to balance their strategic role as effective coordinators with a local focus, enabling them to support local initiative. It cannot be assumed that rural areas and communities will uniformly benefit from their repositioning in larger strategic authorities or in functional regions. For this reason, a strong local focus and presence is important in future spatial governance (perhaps achieved through a strengthening of parish plans), as is the need for rural advocacy – actively working to ensure that local concerns are not relegated behind strategic priority, or that rural issues simply slide off the political radar. Indeed, Morphet (1998: 8) argues that: Given the distinctive pattern of rural areas and the small scale means by which intervention will need to be considered, developing effective rural policy at a strategic level could provide a real challenge. Rural areas need tailored rather than ‘off the shelf’ solutions. Future policy needs to show an appreciation of the rural dimension, and rural areas need to clearly assert their own interests.

Asserting rural interests Rural advocacy The importance of urban centres as drivers of national economic prosperity is now well understood and accepted. There is also a growing acceptance of the need to achieve new efficiencies in local government. Within this shifting template, important lessons for spatial planning are emerging from the specific context of the rural–urban fringe. This could mean that the strategic planning of rural areas becomes more effective, integrated and coordinated in the years ahead. But the example of rural service provision reveals that achieving a new level of global competitiveness will not mean rural needs or aspirations are automatically satisfied. Indeed, the Rural White Paper (DETR and MAFF, 2000) pointed to a continuing need to give special recognition to rural areas in policy-making, through both advocacy (an agency championing rural concerns) and the ‘proofing’ of future policy to ensure that it reflects or can be tailored to the specific needs of rural communities. In the recent past, the advocacy role was performed by the Countryside Agency. It monitored the different dimensions of rural change, commissioning research which highlighted environment threats, economic fragility, and the day-to-day challenges faced by rural communities. The Agency’s chairperson was afforded direct access to ministers, and was able to identify how and why generic policies for health, housing, transport or education might be failing the countryside. In 2006, the advocacy, advice, and ‘watchdog’ role passed to the Commission for Rural Communities. The CRC maintains a responsibility for evidence gathering and for monitoring the ‘state of the countryside’, and its chief executive is the ‘Rural Advocate’. At the same time, ‘rural affairs forums’ at the regional level have been created, which bring together key interest

312


groups and identify current and future challenges in their respective regions. In the north-west of England, the Rural Affairs Forum comprises 300 separate organisations but acts as a coordinating body and a single voice for rural issues, responding to national policy consultations. Yet the effectiveness of this advocacy at the national and regional levels, and the influence it has over national policy agendas, is unclear. Do rural areas have an effective voice in national policy discourse? The Countryside Agency and now Natural England and the CRC have generated a huge amount of baseline data over recent years, throwing light on a range of rural issues. The degree to which government policy is ‘rural proof’ gives some indication of the success of rural advocacy.

Rural proofing ‘Rural proofing’ – a process pioneered by the Countryside Agency – requires policy-makers at all levels to think systematically about the impacts policies and programmes might have on rural areas. In practice, it means that policy-makers are encouraged to evaluate new or amended policies before they are agreed and implemented. Specific ‘rural impacts’ should be considered, and adjustments (or compensatory measures) should be made as required. The Agency – and now the Commission for Rural Communities – guide policy-makers on the proofing process and have published a number of guidance and explanatory notes. In rationale, it is similar to strategic environmental assessment (SEA), but applied specifically to rural places and communities. It is a process of thinking through consequences, and has been applied to government’s policies regarding postal services (Chapter 8), leading to the conclusion that although post offices are not always the most cost-effective means of service delivery, their presence in rural areas serves a broader social function leading to continued (often indirect) support for communities wishing to retain a post office counter though voluntary initiative. In relation to strategic–local balance, competitiveness, and local government reorganisation, the process of rural proofing is critical. It has regularly demonstrated how the ‘rational’ or ‘liberal’ economic response to service decline, and an emphasis on competitiveness and market-based solutions, is often problematic in the countryside. It also reveals how the particular needs of rural communities differ from those of communities situated in larger towns or cities. However, the CRC has recently warned that: Government still has some way to go in ensuring that rural needs and circumstances are sufficiently taken into account. There is a welcome level of commitment, but rural proofing is not a regular part of policy development or implementation in most government departments (CRC, 2006g: 2–3) The Commission argues for a stronger ‘presumption in favour’ of rural proofing at both a regional and national level, ensuring that broader strategies are alive to the needs of rural areas (ibid: 3). Proofing is an admission of the uniqueness of rural places (and environments), and the need for tailored policy and planning responses. It often leads to the conclusion that rational economic responses do not serve the best interests of some communities, and that planning in the countryside needs to think ‘outside the box’ in order to deliver solutions that will work for communities, for the environment and for rural economies.

(Re)positioning rural areas 313 Policy proofing lends strong support to the idea that communities themselves should take a large share of responsibility for future planning. However, these same communities are not isolated from market processes. Kate Barker’s review of housing supply (see Chapter 7) provides a reminder of the need to respond to wider forces, and the more recent Planning White Paper (DCLG, 2007a: 22) notes that ‘a purely local approach to planning cannot deliver the best outcomes for us as a society or nation, of for the environment’. The flow of people and investment to (and from) the countryside is an inevitable part of rural life. It brings both opportunities and challenges: but an acknowledgement of the special qualities and sensitivities of rural places – through proofing and advocacy – provides a basis for a brand of rural planning that can effectively balance strategic ambition and logic with community need. Such planning is likely to ‘value rural areas for their own sake’, ‘match sustainability objectives with the rural way of life’, and understand that rural areas ‘differ in their needs and priorities’ (Morphet, 1998: 10).

Conclusions In this chapter, we have explored the possible ‘repositioning’ of rural planning in the years ahead. Planning, more generally, is currently being recast as a central function of ‘spatial governance’, leading to its reinvention (or rediscovery) as more than a tool for policing land-use change (Chapter 1) but as a means of achieving ‘spatial development management’ (Nadin, 2007). Arguably, it is moving nearer to the idea of ‘comprehensive planning’ envisaged 60 years ago, but now based on partnership rather than public control. But as well as rethinking the purpose of planning itself (a topic that we return to in the final chapter), structures of spatial governance are also under intense scrutiny. Discourses on functional cohesion and competitiveness, which gave rise to the European Spatial Development Persprective (ESDP), tend to support the view that decision making should occur at a scale that will not disturb market flows, but will rather enhance such flows within functional regions or sub-regions. These discourses – which have spawned the notion of (modern-day) city-regions – have led to greater interest in urban–rural linkages and the peri-urban interface. Some of this interest centres on economic growth and the forces that bind town and country. For example, the city-region debate tends to focus on: •

•

• •

the tensions within regions when (urban) jobs are separate from (rural) homes, leading to the conclusion that adjoining areas are economically interdependent, but also to questions over environmental sustainability; this focus may lead to; concerns about the over-dependence of hinterlands on core centres, or the consequences of creating new economic nodes at transport interconnections (or allowing the ‘indiscriminate construction of industrial parks’ within the fringe: Briquel and Collicard, 2005: 37); the social consequences of housing demand pressure in hinterlands, including social exclusion and gentrification; and a general decentralisation of population away from the core city may lead to further concerns over infrastructure provision in the hinterland and the conclusion that ‘well coordinated development strategies that extend beyond municipal or other administrative boundaries would be one means of dealing more efficiently and effectively with uneven tensions in city-regions’ (ibid: 37).

314


This is the economic dimension, supplemented by recognition of the socioenvironmental implications of centrifugal growth. In this chapter, we have argued that this ‘functional reality’ – of the dependency between urban and rural areas – has resulted in more specific debates that are currently ongoing in the English countryside. These include the interfacial or immediate relationship between town and country at the rural–urban fringe. Rather than being dominated by economic concerns, the fringe debate is about: •

•

•

•

what to do with the ‘countryside in and around towns’ (Countryside Agency and Groundwork UK, 2005) and whether the fringe can become a resource for local urban populations; how spatial planning and governance can coordinate different agendas: finding a future for farming at the fringe, perhaps linking it to nearby urban markets; ensuring that people have access to this landscape for reasons of recreation, health and education; securing landscape improvements, and managing the centrifugal (and centripetal) forces identified in city-region debate; and ensuring that fringes play a leading role in sustainable development, including new energy forms and cleaner modes of waste processing; the future of green belt policy, and whether it might be re-invented as a strategic tool for managing this interfacial link and, more broadly, for shaping the relationship between town and country within the template of a city-region; and the lessons that can be drawn from the context of the rural–urban fringe and extended to planning in the wider countryside.

The other debates that stem from this functional cohesion and association discourse relate to scales of governance and the balance between strategic control and local responsiveness. In this chapter we have argued that this is a major concern for rural planning. Proposed reform of local government, and the movement to bigger and more powerful authorities, is predicated on the belief that strategic decisions will deliver rational and coordinated responses, essentially working with the economic flows that define functional regions. However, the practice of rural proofing – and the general evidence-base that rural advocates have built-up over recent years – reveals that topdown responses and economic liberalism do not always serve the interests of rural communities. Rather, it confirms that a unique planning challenge remains in the countryside: one that cannot simply be answered by policies that emphasise market connectivity, or rational strategic interventions. In terms of scale, rural planning needs to retain a strong community dimension.

12 Conclusions Integrating agendas, coordinating responses

In previous chapters, we have looked at the evolving role of rural planning and have considered how it has responded to a variety of different challenges, linked to economic, social and environmental change. It has been suggested that the role of statutory planning in rural areas has been limited over the last 60 years. The evolution of post-war planning was predicated on the assumption that rural land uses, especially agriculture and forestry, would be exempt from planning restriction. Hence the statutory system of ‘land-use planning’ was sidelined, largely confined to settlement planning in a context of development constraint. It has also been characterised by an emphasis on negative control functions. In this vacuum, as Bishop and Phillips (2004: 4) observe, the broader activity of rural planning has been promoted by a number of national and regional agencies with an interest in environmental resource management and economic development. These agencies, introduced in Chapter 2, have pursued different agendas reflecting responsibilities that emerged during the 1930s and 1940s. Sometimes these agendas appeared contradictory or at least lacked clear integration. In recent times, however, enthusiasm for developing a more coordinated rural strategy (e.g. Haskins, 2003) has emerged and has paralleled a renewed interest in the idea of ‘spatial governance’, with strategies brought together in an integrated manner and coordinated by a reformed system of local government. Within this context, spatial planning emerges as a strategic hub: not merely concerned with policing or even promoting development, but as a means of delivering local aspirations and balancing the environmental, social and economic pressures that rural areas now face. In this final chapter, we consider how planning is responding to current pressures, and whether it can play a bigger role in rural spatial governance.

Learning outcomes The objective of this chapter is to look across sectoral issues, to consider how these are inter-related, and to define the broader rationale and role of spatial planning in rural areas. The chapter is also about: •

understanding how the general role of planning is changing in the countryside, often moving from top-down responses to solutions that are locally designed and which respond to a wider array of concerns;

316 •

•

Governance, coordination and integration appreciating the key challenges for the planning system; these centre on frictions between competing interests – often focused upon resources or conflicting values – generating a uniquely rural dilemma. These conflicts will persist in the future, but might spatial governance and spatial planning play a more effective part in easing tension? The emergent opportunities are considered; and finally understanding how spatial planning can become an integrating hub in rural policy development and delivery, giving equal treatment to competing interests and tackling the conflicts that have defined rural society for at least the last 60 years.

Introduction Is statutory planning moving to centre-stage in rural policy delivery? The aim of this book has been to consider planning’s role in responding to the processes of rural change. But in the opening chapters, we noted that after the Second World War the fledgling planning system was handed curtailed powers for dealing with the processes and outcomes of change in the countryside. The 1947 system was preoccupied with an urban agenda and, ultimately, with controlling development. Despite some dissenting voices in early debates on the future form and function of the system, most land and many forms of ‘development’ in rural areas were placed beyond the reach of planning. Thus the system was measurably weaker in the countryside than in towns and cities. In the years after 1947, the situation steadily worsened with planning gradually reduced to a ‘regulatory rump’ (limited to the regulation of land and property uses) policing the smaller number of development applications coming forward in the countryside. Some towns were permitted to grow during this period, becoming commuter settlements within the spheres of larger cities or key settlements acting as employment and service hubs for the wider rural hinterland (Newby, 1979). But in many parts of the countryside, planning became a regulatory activity closely identified with conservation and with the preservation of rural character. That is not to say that these large swathes of rural Britain were free from development during this era: the 1960s bore witness to an unprecedented programme of road building and infrastructural development largely removed from the control of local planning. Indeed, the local system’s inability to influence such change only fuelled belief in its impotence, or limited ‘sectoral’ significance. Beyond this general picture of the system, the experience of different parts of the countryside has varied depending on proximity to urban influence, relative ‘remoteness’, and the extent and nature of local development pressures. In parts of the country where development has been viewed as generally inappropriate – especially in areas of appreciable and normative landscape quality – the development control function of planning has been often considered vital and the system praised for its tenacious and dogged resistance to development pressure. This remains the case today, with local development control and key tools such as the green belt celebrated as crucial to maintaining the openness of the countryside for future generations (CPRE, 2005b). But this celebration of planning’s defence of the countryside might be considered one-sided. The development control function is certainly concerned with preventing ‘change for the worse’, but should it not also be about ‘development for the better’? Critics of the operation of planning in rural areas frequently argue that the system seeks to freeze communities ‘in aspic’ (ARHC, 2006) or that, by simply resisting change, it fails to make best use of existing resources (Barker, 2006). On occasions, it falls into the trap of seeing development as inherently negative and is unduly influenced by

Conclusions 317 the idea of a ‘timeless’ countryside to be preserved at all cost. The great weakness of planning during the last 60 years has been its focus on a single dimension of change. It has concerned itself with the built environment, policing alterations to buildings and regulating new development. But the countryside has changed in ways often unrelated to built form. The ‘natural environment’ and the landscape of rural areas has been transformed out of all recognition. For instance, farmers have introduced new agricultural methods; land has been drained; drystone walls and hedgerows have been removed; wooded areas have been deforested; and many thousands of hectares of new woodland have been planted. The rate of land-use and landscape change in some parts of the countryside has been fantastic, but statutory planning – unlike some of the programmes and agencies reviewed in Chapter 2 – has wielded very little influence over this process. It has also been largely powerless, until very recently, to respond positively or proactively to economic trends. Agriculture’s privileged position after 1947 meant that farmers could erect new buildings or, in some instances, knock old ones down without any recourse to local authorities. They could justify these actions by claiming that they were merely responding to economic forces, and attempting to maintain viability. But the same privileges were not extended to other industries which remained tightly constrained by planning regulation. Recent crises in farming have highlighted the industry’s superior standing, in policy terms, next to ‘new industries’ such as tourism (with farming receiving the lion’s share of compensation when struck by BSE or foot and mouth disease) but also its miniscule economic contribution compared to these same industries. Farming’s position in the countryside has gradually become abstracted from its direct economic worth. Continued support has increasingly been justified on the basis of retaining the type of landscape and rural society that ‘the nation’ (or sections of society) appears to want, rather than on the basis of the contribution of agriculture output to the wider national economy. But recent events affecting farming, and discourse on the future of the industry, have revealed growing concerns for the way the landscape and economy of the countryside is managed. There has been new interest in developing coordinated strategies for an economically, socially and environmentally more complex countryside, and a concern for greater sophistication and local sensitivity in the way policy is delivered. This does not mean a removal of the privileges extended to farming in 1947 or a simple relaxation of planning control to benefit new economies. Indeed, the new planning system of 2004 maintains the same concern for regulating land-use change, as a ‘sectoral’ function (Nadin, 2007: 55). But the focus of planning is shifting. In the opening pages of this book, we noted how difficult it can be to define the boundaries of statutory planning’s influence in rural areas. A cynic might argue that its influence ends with the regulation of land-use change, but throughout the last 60 years, some planning authorities have probed these boundaries, using the system to help new industries (perhaps by permitting the conversion of buildings to alternative uses); to procure affordable housing for local need (using the mechanisms described in Chapter 7); to mediate between competing interests using a variety of innovative methods; to provide support to community initiatives (Chapter 8); to plan the way people visit the countryside and so alleviate environmental pressure; and to develop more considered and strategic approaches to planning for the rural environmental and proactively managing landscape change (Chapter 10). But at the same time, other agencies have engaged in their own planning, quite separate from local authorities and from the statutory system. There has been growing frustration, not least amongst

318


planners themselves, over the system’s limited role in coordinating the activities of different actors and of the fragmentation of the rural planning responsibilities shared by these actors, which many have argued have hampered the ability of rural communities to adapt to economic, social and environmental change and has fostered and compounded conflict in the countryside. Statutory planning’s role in rural affairs has been limited in the sense that it has adopted an increasingly narrow ‘sectoral’ (and regulatory) focus on land and property use. But it has also been dramatic, concentrating on the control of land and land use, whilst rarely referencing or integrating with the programmes or ambitions of other groups. This has reduced its effectiveness in responding to the economic shifts explored in the second part of this book; it has also narrowed its understanding of the community changes reviewed in the third part, with planning struggling to build consensus over the need for housing, or respond to declining service levels in a way that works with and supports communities. And its direct influence over environmental change has either been limited per se, or constrained by a limited understanding of ‘the environment’ or ‘landscape’, as we noted above and in the fourth part of this book. But this is not to say that these different ‘dimensions’ have not felt the hand of planning. They have all been shaped by the policies and programmes of a broad range of agencies, operating at different levels, which collectively influence, plan, and respond to, rural change. Indeed, planning interests – and the ‘activity of planning’ – extend beyond local authorities, and the current desire of statutory planning – to influence or ‘shape’ places across their multiple economic, environmental and social dimensions (managing ‘spatial development’) – will only be realised if the 2004 system can create policy communities comprising actors and groups able to work together towards shared goals. For this reason, planning has embraced the ambition of becoming an intersectoral hub and of playing an integrating role in ‘managing spatial development’ (Nadin, 2007: 48).

Making sense of the reforms The period since 2000 has been critical for local government and planning and has brought a context in which a different approach to rural planning might emerge. New opportunities have arisen to reframe local policy delivery and to think about planning across multiple dimensions. If we take planning to mean more than land-use control – and instead to mean the broader integration of aspirations, strategies and policies with planning becoming a ‘corporate cross-sectoral exercise of policy integration and strategy development with wide ownership’ (Nadin, 2007: 55) – then ‘planning reform’ in Britain has emerged from two separate policy streams. The first stream has been concerned with local government and incorporates the ‘modernisation agenda’ discussed in Chapter 2 and a critical Local Government Act in 2000. The 2000 Act handed local authorities the responsibility to foster ‘well-being’ and led to the creation of ‘local strategic partnerships’, intended to promote and coordinate stakeholder, community and business involvement in local decision making. The same legislation also established ‘community strategies’ (now termed sustainable community strategies – SCS) which have become, in essence, an expression of the aspirations of the local partnership members. These are now produced by the local strategic partnership (LSP), and it is intended that planners ‘should’ play a part in their production (DCLG and RTPI, 2007: 10). The SCSs set out the social, economic, environmental issues that local partners ‘should be’ addressing. The message emerging from local government

Conclusions 319 reform is a powerful one: that communities are to be given a central role in shaping – and coordinating the actions that affect – their own local areas, and this should be part of the ‘shared ambition’ for local public sector agencies (including local government) and others, embodied in the concept of ‘place shaping’ (Lyons, 2007). Through this process it could appear that statutory planning is to become subservient to community aspiration and wider LSP and SCS processes: with local planners asked to ‘ensure that key spatial planning objectives for the area are fully aligned with the priorities identified in the SCS’ (DCLG and RTPI, 2007: 10) and to contribute to the successful delivery of the goals (of the SCS) set out in local area agreements. However, the discussion in this book has offered an alternative interpretation of the new arrangements. It has been argued that, far from being sidelined, statutory planning has been given a central role. Through the LDF process planning is expected to make a key contribution in connecting wider community aspirations, as set out in the SCS, to the specifics of individual localities. Similarly, the development control function should be considered a key tool in the process of place shaping. The second stream has been directly concerned with statutory planning, with recent planning reforms originating partly from the 1992-based projections of future household growth (Breheny and Hall, 1996) and the challenge this posed for the planning system, and partly from the Urban Task Force report of 1999 and its emphasis on the role of strategic planning in delivering sustainable development and urban regeneration (UTF, 1999). This stream has been largely concerned with the effectiveness and efficiency of the statutory planning system: effectiveness in dealing with a growth and regeneration agenda, and efficiency in terms of the bureaucratic function of planning: for example, how quickly plans are produced or reproduced and how fast planning applications are turned around. It has also been strongly associated with the planning system’s ‘strategic priorities’, especially the delivery of new homes and associated infrastructure. We return to these themes later in this chapter in the context of rural conflict and its mediation. These different streams reflect responses to underlying drivers. Nadin (2007: 49) suggests that: The drivers for change in government are the broad forces of globalisation and shifting relations between the state and the market. Economic and political dynamics stimulate changes in the way government intervenes in all spheres including spatial development. In formulating a response, many factors come into play. In England, these have included the increasing complexity of spatial relationships (examined in the last chapter), New Labour’s political priorities and especially its modernisation agenda (explored in Chapter 2) reflected in its ‘fundamental rethink of […] how planning could assist in democratic renewal through engaging communities’ (ibid: 50), the goal of ‘environmental’ sustainability and European discourses on spatial planning, and particularly debate focused on the ESDP with its emphasis on coordination and joint-working (ibid: 49–53). In England, these drivers and these factors provide an undercurrent to the policy streams noted above. The local government reforms have arguably been more important in defining what planning in the future should be than recent planning legislation. The planning stream – incorporating the 2004 Act and the 2007 Planning White Paper – might define what planning tools can do and the scope of planning concerns; but local

320


government reform determines how these tools will be framed and used, and how different actions will be managed and coordinated. We suggested in Chapter 2 that spatial planning is rapidly becoming an instrument of wider spatial governance. In the same chapter, we reproduced a diagram (Figure 2.2) highlighting the integration of statutory planning and community strategies, and their respective roles in delivering ‘shared outcomes’ using a variety of tools including funding drawn down from external sources and land-use control policies. In this vision, planning becomes a broader process binding together different actors and integrating different policy frameworks. This is what we mean by planning as a hub or a focus for the delivery of rural policy. It becomes a point at which different interests converge and coordinated actions are devised and delivered.

Integration across agendas The various chapters of this book provide introductions to some of the major challenges associated with rural change during the twentieth century, and the early years of the twenty-first century. The patterns and processes of economic, social and environmental change explored are closely linked and interdependent. Indeed, social trends and environmental change are underpinned by key economic drivers. It seems only logical, therefore, that planned responses to different sectoral challenges should look across these dimensions of change, expressing a broader concern with the functioning of rural places and spaces. We now reconsider some of the key messages emerging from earlier chapters and look at what role the planning system and process might play in responding to the challenges of rural change. The aim is to think about the broader objectives of rural planning, to weigh the importance of local-level community support with top-down rational responses, and to consider the central focus of rural planning in the twenty-first century.

1 A ‘multi-dimensional’ challenge requiring a coordinated response It seems obvious that economic well-being is central to the vitality of rural communities: however, delivering on a variety of fronts simultaneously, and balancing different needs and pressures is the essence of sustainable development. The idea that spatial planning should aim to achieve ‘multi-functional outcomes’ (Brandt and Vejre, 2003), ensuring that places ‘work’ against economic and social objectives, whilst using environmental resources in a sustainable way, makes a lot of sense. But realising this idea means thinking carefully about the links between economy, society and environment. This has not always been a major concern of policy-making in the UK, or a key objective of local planning. The past organisation of policy agencies reflected a division between ‘built’ and ‘environmental’ concern, and also between economic development (presumed to bring social benefits) and planning for communities (sometimes focusing on new housing and services rather than jobs). At the local level, some planning authorities have pursued ‘affordable housing’ policies without much concern for the economy or for labour demand, resulting in a house-building logic that serves a local ‘right’ rather than an economic need (Chapter 6). The Rural Strategy Review 2004 sought to address some of these concerns, but the creation of Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities – intended to overcome some of the sectoral divisions in rural governance (Chapter 2) – has not silenced criticism. The new arrangements for policy delivery appear to reaffirm the same ‘built’

Conclusions 321 and ‘natural’ environment division that first emerged from post-war planning debate. Much now depends on how the programmes of these agencies are jointly coordinated, are reflected in national policy design, and are combined within local strategies. The notion of ‘place shaping’, emerging from the 2007 Lyons Review, embraces the idea of bringing together different agendas and strategies, and delivering against shared goals. But in the countryside, planning has been overtly concerned with defending a status quo (Evans, 1991: see Chapters 7 and 10) and the notion of a ‘timeless’ countryside, needing to be preserved, can stand in the way of new thinking on rural development and place shaping. Contrary to the perception of timelessness, revolutionary change has been a recurring feature of rural areas over the last century and economic factors have closely intertwined with political, social and environmental forces to shape the various transformations in rural life that have occurred. Government has recently signalled its concern over whether local government is sufficiently equipped to deal with these transformations, and whether it is sufficiently strategic in its outlook. Following a Local Government White Paper in 2006 (DCLG, 2006d), the prospect of a new round of reorganisation has emerged, with smaller rural districts being invited to come together to form larger unitary authorities (Chapter 11). As with the reconfiguration of rural policy agencies, this move is motivated by a desire to achieve new efficiencies in resourcing, with government aiming to create what it believes will be more powerful and more strategic rural authorities. Up-scaling can bring improved coordination – with authorities assuming a wider range of responsibilities and gaining a greater capacity to engage with regional and national agencies – but it can also create a bigger melting-pot of local tensions and conflicts, with rural residents feeling increasingly distanced from what appears to be a more centralised bureaucracy. Successful coordination is often dependent on evolving a strategic capacity, but this needs to be set against the need for a local focus. Support for ‘community planning’, and the integration of community planning processes into a system of spatial governance has now become a key strategy for balancing local and strategic concerns, and this issue is examined in greater detail below.

2 An economic priority linking to social and environmental change Contrary to popular public perception, a rural economy directly underpinned by agriculture and primary industries is now only evident in remote rural locations. Elsewhere the aggregate pattern of employment has gradually come to resemble that of urban areas. Many ‘rural economies’ are dominated by micro-enterprises and an above-average dependence on low value-added business sectors (Chapter 3). Greater economic diversity has been accompanied by policies focusing on economic regeneration, social justice and on marketing rural products and places. At the same time, agricultural policy has shifted towards environmental enhancement, food safety and animal welfare and is currently shifting again to encompass the delivery of wider ecosystem services including those related to mitigation and adaptation to climate change. As well as driving social change in the countryside, value shifts that transcend rural–urban ‘boundaries’ (Chapters 5 and 6) and which are reflected in increased demand for ethically produced food, concerns over climate change (and therefore over local environmental practices), and attitudes towards conservation and heritage, are themselves the drivers of new economic activity and diversity, illustrating the complex interplay between economic, social, environmental and ‘cultural’ (i.e. value-driven) change affecting rural areas.

322


In previous chapters, we have shown that policies towards both primary and new industries have been problematic largely because they are shaped by single agendas and have not adequately reflected the social and environmental challenges or processes that run alongside economic change. The agricultural sector is economically fragile and its direct role in the rural economy and communities is continuing to narrow. Equally, in many places it is also on an unsustainable course in terms of its environmental impact (Chapter 4). Following attempts to respond to mounting problems, the goals of present day agricultural policy can be described as ‘bifurcated’ (Potter and Tilzey, 2005), aimed, on the one hand at serving an agenda focused on international competitiveness in the global market, while on the other promoting a ‘multi-functionality’ agenda, which accommodates ideas of a ‘pluri-active’ and ‘quality-orientated’ agricultural sector. The most notable consequence of this policy development is that a decreasing amount of the farming budget is spent on food production and more is being allocated to wider rural development concerns. But the critics of current practice suggest that government policy is insufficiently focused on managing the environmental and social dimensions of farming, sometimes because funding is not locally controlled or allocated. More money might perhaps be spent on dealing with the social problems that often accompany decline in the farming sector, perhaps being used to fund initiatives designed to support local services, allowing local authorities to play an ‘enabling’ role supporting voluntary actions (Chapter 8). Some of this action might derive from the ‘radical rural’ (Chapter 5), with mainstream development programmes making way for locally ‘embedded’ initiatives. The balance of concern between ‘economic competitiveness’ and ‘social wellbeing’ agendas – a key debate in areas of economic transition and subsequent peripherality – is revisited under the heading of ‘supportive community planning’. There now exists a highly differentiated pattern of economic well-being in the countryside, with rural economic fortunes increasingly determined by the strength of linkages to urban areas (Hoggart, 2005). Those areas closest to cities or of high environmental quality are experiencing pressure for in-migration and tend to be economically buoyant, whilst remoter rural areas or areas of lesser environmental quality, may have very fragile economies. However, below-average income levels are a feature of many parts of the countryside (Chapters 4 and 6). For much of the past 100 years rural planning can be criticised for its lack of engagement with economic change and a simplistic approach to rural affairs. It was argued in both Chapters 4 and 8 that planning has placed undue emphasis on development restraint outside key service centres and aesthetic protection of an increasingly outmoded agricultural landscape. Such policies have had contradictory economic consequences. At one level, and in some areas, they have provided an environmental setting which has encouraged inward investment and new forms of employment (particularly in tourism and related industries) which have compensated to some extent for the decline in jobs in agriculture and primary industries. However, many commentators argue that the ability of rural areas generally to respond to changing economic circumstances has been unnecessarily constrained. The social costs for many rural communities, in terms of limited access to well-paid and varied employment opportunities and affordable housing, have been high. As a result, a more integrated approach to rural planning policy has long been called for. The challenge for planning, when dealing with the consequences of economic transition, is of course to balance protection with development. This challenge has been expressed in various terms throughout this book: as competing ‘rationalities’ for planning underpinned by divided representations of rural space in Chapter 6; and as

Conclusions 323 need to prevent ‘change for the worse’ whilst promoting ‘development for the better’ earlier in this current chapter. Planning has a key role to play in achieving this balance, not least because recent local government reforms suggest the need for a planning process which is more readily engaged with, and which might provide a context for, achieving new compromises between competing interests. We turn to the enhanced ‘mediation role’ that the new spatial planning system might play later in this chapter, but it is clear also that the new arrangements offer the prospect of achieving improved integration of economic, social and environmental objectives in rural areas. PPS7, for example, places significant emphasis on fostering economic diversification, and permitting economic development outside local service centres in order to maintain the vitality of remoter villages: it is part of a more ‘supportive’ approach to planning which is considered in greater detail below. The guidance does, however, retain a concern for landscape protection (as one might expect) and it is still too early to tell whether a better balance in rural planning policy will be achieved. On a more negative note, it is perhaps worrying that PPS7 fails to locate planning concerns for the countryside within a wider strategic context and lacks clear reference to regional economic strategies. However, past policy has been fragmented to such an extent that it will take some time to bring a new alignment between different planning tiers and different strategies. The hope remains that regional strategies will feed into community strategies and ultimately re-emerge as part of an integrated package of local response.

3 A proactive response to landscape change The countryside in Britain is a man-made landscape, reflecting the complex and changing interaction of habitat and man over many millennia. Interest in preserving the natural history and beauty of the countryside grew in the nineteenth century and has attracted considerable support over successive generations, particularly amongst an urban middle class. This interest in the landscape has shaped attitudes to the countryside, playing a major part in many areas of rural planning debate, for example in relation to physical and economic development and support for agriculture. It has spawned and reinforced the competing representations of rural space first introduced in Chapter 6. An acceleration in the rate of change in the English countryside during the twentieth century (Hoskins, 1955) galvanised support for protective designations (Chapter 2 and 10), either serving an aesthetic or a scientific purpose. Over recent decades there has been increased criticism of the system of environmental protection. First, some critics contend that protective landscape designations pander to redundant farming practices, supporting ways of managing the land which are inefficient and anachronistic, and resulting in a backward-looking and fragmented approach to countryside planning and management with adverse economic and social consequences (Chapters 9 and 10). Second, it is argued that landscape designations are simply an ineffective means of environmental protection. Third, there is a now pressure to update ‘environmental policies’ particularly in relation to the challenge of climate change. And fourth, there has – over recent years – been increasing challenge to the assumption that agriculture can be relied on to deliver appropriate ‘stewardship’ for the rural environment without the kind of guidance and regulation that planning could have provided had the Scott Report not led to a limitation of its powers. But despite planning’s lack of influence over agriculture, there is a strong link between planning and the system of countryside protection that developed in the post-war era. Key planning figures – including Patrick Geddes and Patrick

324


Abercrombie – were prominent in lobbying for protective measures. In the immediate post-war era, planning focused on keeping development – as far as possible – within existing settlements (whilst granting agriculture exemption from planning controls in recognition of its nationally valued role in food production and environmental stewardship). Arguably, this focus on ‘containment’ handed planning a passive role in the ‘natural environment’, defending farming interests rather than pursuing proactive environmental or landscape agendas (the same point has been highlighted, in relation to areas of green belt, in the recent Review of Land Use Planning: Barker, 2006: 10). It also reinforced the division between policy regimes ostensibly dealing with town or country. Economic shifts, and particularly the changing practices and fortunes of farming since 1947, have driven a reappraisal of the planning system’s ‘hands off’ approach to environmental management. By the 1970s, a more proactive and wideranging form of planning had taken root, but this continued to focus on defending the status quo and resisting change wherever the prospect of change arose. In areas of landscape designation, particularly the national parks, more vigorous protection regimes tended to prioritise the defence of existing landscape attributes. Protection strategies have frequently been uncritical (of the purpose or value of protection), unsophisticated (in terms of their methods) and, most importantly, one-dimensional. They were not thought of as part of an integrated or forward-looking approach to rural development: they were simply considered to be the business of planning. Since the 1970s, planning discourse has emphasised the importance of recognising that change is an essential feature of the British ‘landscape’ and to develop approaches to environmental planning and management that are future-orientated and seek to achieve a positive relationship between the quality of the environment and economic and social change. The New Agricultural Landscapes study (cited in Chapter 10) was significant in altering professional attitudes during the 1970s, highlighting the potential of the planning system to bring together – and coordinate – divergent interests and to plan positively for the future management of the countryside. It sowed the seeds of an ambition which more recent local government and planning reforms could bring to fruition. Recent debates in this area have highlighted two key objectives for landscape planning: first, to think across environmental, social and economic concerns; and second, to be far more integrated and locally sensitive. The first objective reflects the highly connected nature of rural issues and increasing recognition of the multifunctional character of the countryside. For example, Brandt et al. (2000) draw on the dominant paradigm in landscape science, arguing that landscapes are not merely ecological phenomenon, but also function across economic, communitarian, aesthetic and historic dimensions. Similarly, current paradigms of ‘environmental care’ emphasise the need for an integrated approach to environmental policy, encompassing both natural and human systems, recognising that environmental goals are essentially social constructs. Therefore landscape planning should concern itself with ‘built’ as well as with ‘natural’ features: together these produce a ‘landscape’ which in both form and abstraction is ‘man-made’. They cannot be separated, and therefore good spatial planning will involve co-production of plans across interest and expert groups. On the other hand, bad planning is likely to resist change and will fail to work with the processes that ‘make’ landscapes (see Gallent et al., 2006: 27–45). Development has a critical role to play in the production of space, and development of an appropriate type and quality can make an important contribution to the functioning and value of rural landscapes.

Conclusions 325 The second objective reflects the diversity of rural experience and the need for locally tailored planning responses; it also emphasises the ‘local’ as the most appropriate point of integration and plan co-production. It was noted in Chapter 10 that an increased understanding of ‘local distinctiveness’ – evident in countryside character and landscape character assessment – provides a starting point for thinking about the future of rural places, for appreciating local character, and for feeding this evidence into community strategies and subsequently engaging in a shared process of place shaping grounded in a multi-functional understanding of landscapes and landscape change. An example of how new approaches to rural planning could be developed at the regional scale, with evidence feeding into local frameworks, can be gleaned from experience in the north-west of England and the production of a regional landscape strategy. This drew together regional economic and spatial planning objectives and considered planning scenarios for five different landscape domains – ‘rural uplands’, ‘rural lowlands’, ‘the coast’, ‘the urban fringe’ and the ‘urban core’, with the landscape features of each domain seen as an aggregate of ‘human’ and ‘natural’ attributes. At a regional and strategic level, such an understanding needs to inform the development of RSS, thereby shaping planning’s proactive response to landscape change. At a community level, village design statements (VDS) (Chapter 8) already deal with a component of landscape considerations when establishing local design aspirations and provide a means by which development can be seen to play a positive role in the evolution of rural landscapes. But the idea of proactive intervention in the local landscape should perhaps be extended into parish plans, with their less rigidly defined remit. There is a case for combining VDS with parish plans and for seeing them as an opportunity to build local capacity and interest in broader ‘landscape’ concerns, supporting their production with expert guidance, and assigning them a wider role in setting local aspirations for rural planning across the dimensions of environment, social change, economic development, built form and ‘natural’ aesthetics. This might also provide evidence for more formal area action plans, which are able to integrate agendas and interests and provide a comprehensive and statutory basis for the delivery of community aspirations. Recent thinking on the environment and on the nature of landscape provides a foundation for the development of a new approach to rural planning in respect of the ‘landscape’. It emphasises the variety of forces that make rural landscapes, and also highlights the fundamental mistake of seeing these areas as changeless or as solely ‘natural’ entities. It also reveals the linkages between man and nature, and the importance of a variety of interactions in producing ‘the environment’ which, as we saw in Chapter 1, is the fundamental concern of planning. A multi-functional perspective on rural change and on the role and potential of the countryside is fundamental to the development of integrated spatial strategies, and this perspective will be critical in future rural planning. It emphasises the need for a coordinated effort aimed at managing change in an integrated way. Many agencies and actors have a vested interest in the rural landscape. None will benefit from a reduction in landscape or environmental quality, but all – from developers to environmentalists – have different views on what constitutes quality in the English landscape. Acceptance that multiple components – both ‘natural’ and ‘man-made’ – contribute to its production and its quality, including new housing, farm buildings and different agricultural practices, is a starting point on a long road towards possible consensus over its management. Spatial planning needs to facilitate this journey, and ultimately to coordinate the different activities that contribute to spatial development.

326


4 Balancing agendas within a local planning process The passing reference to competing representations and rationalities earlier in this chapter does little justice to what is a major concern for rural planning: the need to balance agendas – affording even-handed treatment to different priorities or ambitions – through ‘conflict mediation’, or preferably, by forestalling those conflicts before they arise. This issue received some attention in Chapters 6 and 7. The ‘revolutionary change’ in rural society noted earlier, and expressed in the various works of Howard Newby and Ray Pahl, is central to the current challenge faced by rural planning: it expresses underlying economic processes, but also links forward to environmental change or at least to an aspirations of what the future countryside should become. As Woods (2005b) points out, within new communities, split between ‘local’ interests and incomers ‘a multitude of conflicts have erupted about the legitimacy or appropriateness of different developments, initiatives and policies’ (ibid: 210) and planning often finds itself at the centre of these conflicts. But planning is not a panacea for all the tensions that affect rural communities. The best it can hope for is to be an effective arbitration service (when needed) and to be means of giving equal hearing to ‘competing’ agendas rather than a cause of division. Some of the new ideas on planning’s role in ‘spatial governance’ and ‘place shaping’ are particularly important here. In the past, development planning was often viewed as a top-down process: ‘policy intervention’ was imposed on communities. Indeed, ‘rational’ land-use planning took as its starting point a view that effective policy control must be guided by strategic principles and that local communities needed to be convinced of the wisdom of particular courses of action. Hence, participation in the planning system often involved the presentation of different development options followed up by consultation exercises and the subsequent receipt of feedback. If the feedback was especially negative, then planning (and its partners) could either re-think the proposal, or defend it with ‘strategic necessity’ arguments born of a paternalistic philosophy – ‘we appreciate your concerns, but are acting in your best interests’. Today, planning is supposed to be concerned with mediating and managing change, bringing communities into this process: in the rhetoric of spatial governance, it is within the process of planning that compromise should be achieved. But the extent to which this is possible is difficult to judge. A planning process that does not accentuate conflict is a plausible goal. But a process that overcomes self-interest, and always delivers agreed solutions is somewhat less likely. If local compromise between environmental and developmental interests is possible, then it is conceivable that a process of spatial governance and planning may have more success in bringing about this compromise than a ‘rational’ process that decides ‘what’s best’ before engaging with communities. However, planning remains a normative activity: whilst the system is concerned with management and meditation, it is also tied to evidence-based outcomes around which agreement is not always possible. For instance, a new motorway may be supported by hard evidence of need, but is unlikely to enjoy universal support in all the areas through which it passes. Likewise, there may be a strong case for building 10,000 new homes at a ‘growth point’ in order to satisfy housing demand across a sub-region, but people in the immediate vicinity might be excused for not welcoming it with open arms. Perhaps the biggest tension in planning today is between the ‘local choice’ agenda promoted by the local government stream of planning reform, and the ‘strategic necessity’ claims of the statutory planning stream. These were introduced above.

Conclusions 327 The Local Government Act 2000 prompted the creation of local strategic partnerships, with significant input from a wider community of local residents, businesses and other interest groups; ‘community strategies’ emerged from the same legislation and were intended to be a bottom-up ‘plan of plans’ shaping and influencing all other planning and local delivery strategies. In 2006, it was proposed that local planning strategies should be integrated with community strategies (and hence with local aspiration) becoming a means by which communities could realise their own goals (Lambert, 2006). As we have already seen, planning therefore becomes a key part of ‘spatial governance’ at the local level and a means of delivering local objectives, sidestepping the adversarial relationship between planning professionals and communities that has plagued all kinds of recent development proposals, but especially new housing. This link between planning and communities sounds like a perfect marriage and suggests that planning, over the last 10 years, has emerged entirely from a local government agenda and has evolved into the means by which communities get exactly what they want. However, this is not entirely the case. Whilst local government reforms have been concerned with a promotion of local choice, predicated on the belief that greater responsibility generates understanding and compromise, direct reform of the statutory planning system has focused largely on strategic priority. The 2001 Planning Green Paper – ‘Delivering Fundamental Change’ – reflected Hooper’s (1996) concerns (set out in Chapter 7): that planning has tended to prioritise the regulation of land use (being largely bureaucratic) and has had insufficient ‘[…] influence upon the social and economic forces determining current patterns of use’ (ibid: 30). The Labour Government coming to power in 1997 wanted a system that would work for communities and for business (S. Byers, foreword to DTLR, 2001), but a central concern for speed and efficiency resulted in reforms that emphasised a strategic perspective. In 2004, planning legislation sought to streamline the system, emphasising the coordinating role of regional planning bodies (RPB) and the part played by local authorities in facilitating change rather than merely policing development. During the next four years, further influences on statutory planning (including the Barker Reviews of 2004 and 2006) seemed to galvanise government’s commitment to creating a system that worked for business and for the market, widening the divide between the strategic priorities of planning and the community emphasis on local government reform. As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, the combination of these two policy streams have contributed to the creation of Britain’s own brand of ‘spatial planning’, straddling ‘spatial governance’ and the statutory planning function. On the face of it, these streams – with their competing claims – have a capacity to pull planning in opposing directions, suggesting that the system today is no more effective at mediating local conflict or balancing priorities than it was when Labour first came to power in 1997. Indeed, planning remains a normative activity with its sights fixed firmly on strategic priority. But there is a difference between accommodating competing interests and balancing different agendas. Inevitably, local planning will provide an arena in which diverse expectations will be debated. But it is also a context in which difficult choices will need to be made. The fact that strategic necessity arguments may win over local choice (though it is hopefully more likely, with the new system, that strategic decisions will be shaped by local forces) is – seen in the context of national, regional or sub-regional goals or against of long-term priority – no bad thing. Planning needs to strengthen its capacity to make difficult decisions, though in making these decisions, the local

328


government reforms of recent years provide an opportunity to think across different areas of policy; across strategic priorities; and to bring together the evidence relating to economic change, agriculture, the environment, local communities and services, and housing and employment at a single point, from which future strategies can be plotted.

5 Supportive community planning and ‘strategic responses’ Strategic, normative responses have a part to play in future rural planning because rural areas are part of a greater whole, connected to cities and forming a part of wider cityregions. What happens in the countryside will impact on these larger entities and vice versa, and therefore strategic planning remains critical. But in the past, strategic, topdown decision making has been a substitute for, rather than a partner to, community planning processes. ‘Key settlement policy’, examined in Chapter 8, represented a top-down response to a declining demand for local services in some rural areas, but a strategy of concentrating rural services – shops, schools, post offices and also housing – went hand-in-hand with a conscious decision not to supply or support services in smaller settlements. The strategy was concerned with creating a viable market for the services, rather than delivering services for viable communities. More recent policy, whilst accepting the historic and continuing role of service hubs and market towns, is trying to support different scales of service delivery and is lending particular support to community-based initiatives. Planning – as a set of tools able to support government – has a key role to play in both assisting local initiative and as a broader framework for community action. We saw in Chapter 8 that the ‘parish plan process’ provides a starting point for understanding local needs and aspirations, and can form part of the local evidence base feeding into community strategies. But statutory land-use planning also has its part to play in supporting local initiatives through the production of area action plans giving statutory backing to local ambitions, generation of gains from planning permissions and through development control decisions that help services remain in operation. The community planning process can provide a counterpoint to strategic decisions (and especially to the economic rationality of land-use planning). The latter often emphasises efficiency and effectiveness, whilst the former reflects local values and ambitions, providing the context in which voluntary action continues to support local shops or transport initiatives. Malcolm Moseley’s work on village services highlights the growing importance of local action in sustaining service provision in England. It also points to a high degree of social cohesion (and an abundance of social capital) in many small rural communities, which can draw on a plentiful pool of residents willing to commit time to manage and run local schools, shops, post offices and buses. But how do strategic responses and statutory planning relate to these community processes? The architects of the 1947 system envisaged planning to be a supportive process, creating ‘opportunities for all’ according to Buchanan (1972). This same view was reaffirmed in the government’s 2000 Rural White Paper: support for ‘vital village services’ was posited as the number one priority for government. But planning has, over recent years, become more visibly concerned with viability and with achieving market efficiencies. This is particularly true in relation to housing, with Kate Barker’s recent housing supply and land-use planning reviews (2004; 2006) being arguably preoccupied with efficiency and effectiveness and with delivering homes according to market signals (see Chapter 7). If the same principle were applied to service provision,

Conclusions 329 then it is likely that the remaining shops, post offices and schools in many of England’s smaller rural settlements would disappear. Current discourse in planning – especially that centred on city-regions, regional development and peripherality (at a European level) – regularly emphasises the importance of competitiveness. Areas need to be making money: they need to be able to ‘hold their own’, to have viable economies and to contribute to growth in broader national economies. Barker’s thinking on housing and the wider functioning of the planning system is part of this discourse. But community planning can appear divorced from this thinking, and local initiatives of the types examined in Chapter 8, may be viewed as futile attempts to buck global trends. But these initiatives underscore the belief that shops and post offices do not merely provide a ‘transactional service’ but also a focus for communities. Their existence, and the level of official support they enjoy, also raises questions about the spirit and purpose of planning, and whether the system is there to ensure that development efficiently follows the market or whether it has a broader social purpose. At different scales and at different points in the process, it possesses both purposes. Across regions and sub-regions, there is growing concern for economic competitiveness and a desire to listen to market signals. This is evidenced in the form and content of recent policy guidance on housing, and also additional guidance on employment, on retail and market towns and on rural economies. But locally, planning is being aligned with community aspiration with its inherent focus on social concerns, including the desire of retaining local services irrespective of their ability to deliver a profit. Inevitably, there needs to be room for both the strategic and the local within any planning process and for planning to become more closely concerned with social issues than it has often been in the past. The planning system’s ‘supportive role’ in community initiatives was indicated in the Rural White Paper and emphasised in the ‘power of wellbeing’ handed to local authorities in the Local Government Act 2000. But is public-sector support matching the enthusiasm of local communities, or is voluntary action viewed as a substitute for (or even a way of sidestepping responsibility for) funding and delivering services? Inevitably, there are those who argue that a ‘supportive state’ could do more to assist local initiative, especially though additional funding. Local authorities have a key role to play in coordinating bids to national and European programmes. They can also draw down a range of other capital and revenue funding. They have their own capital programmes (including money for education, and funds channelled to the Highways Agency), money is available from a regional infrastructure fund (RIF) and from the RDA (linked to rural economic development); EU funding can be accessed, either to achieve territorial cohesion or for community projects under LEADER+; and Section 106 agreements can generate additional money for community facilities or for local housing (from 2009, it is possible that some form of local tariff, rather than a planning gain supplement which government has now backed away from, may substitute or augment this funding). These provide key funding streams, but others also contribute to local authority coffers including prudential borrowing, the appreciation of assets – land or buildings – in public ownership, income raised from asset management, interest on existing funds and, of course, National Lottery money that is sometimes made available for local community projects (Morphet et al., 2007). Where community initiative and ‘voluntary action’ plays a part in delivering the ‘shared outcomes’ agreed in community strategies, it is perhaps incumbent on spatial planning to ensure that sufficient financial and statutory backing is provided to support these actions.

330


Direct funding is one of a number of delivery mechanisms available through spatial planning (Figure 2.2), though partners in the spatial planning process might facilitate responses to agreed priorities through other means, perhaps by gifting assets to community land trusts or by ensuring that land-use planning decisions do not run contrary to local interest. However, as yet, there is no mechanism in the planning system for looking favourably on ‘community applications’ though planning authorities will doubtless be minded to approve changes of use or proposed developments that deliver against agreed community strategy priorities set out in local area agreements (Chapter 8).

6 Responding to housing growth pressures Debate over the extent to which planning adopts a local perspective, lends support to rural communities, and successfully integrates local choice with strategic priority is one that frequently centres on housing: both the use of existing homes in the countryside and the case for new development. Housing debate is inexorably linked to broader social, economic and environmental questions. But its treatment as a single theme within this book emphasises its importance in rural policy and planning discourse more generally. Where local controversies arise, linked to planning decisions or to proposed development, they frequently focus on housing: on house building and its environmental impacts; on housing growth and social change; on the style, form and extent of development; on the balance between supplying homes for local need and building for ‘non-local’ demands; on who occupies housing and for what purpose; and on the social and environmental pressures generated by commuting, retirement and second home buying. Conflicts that flare up over housing development, local needs and migration are often expressions of deeper tensions, linking back to representations of rural space and competing rationalities for planning. It is often the case today that a broad housing challenge – one which is expressed in terms of market affordability, house price inflation, labour supply, accommodating international migration, and serving the interests of regional and national economies – competes against a diversity of local challenges, the features of which may include: second home buying, retirement, achieving sustainable growth for the good of local economies, and managing the landscape impacts of housing development. In recent years, government has been accused of prioritising the former and playing down the latter. For instance, the government’s housing minister argued in 2006 (Hansard, 11 July 2006: Column 405WH) that second home acquisition has little overall impact on housing affordability and is therefore not a policy priority. This view angered many authorities in areas which have seen large portions of their housing stock bought by seasonal residents over the last few decades. They were upset because the official line appeared to confirm their suspicion that government intends to pursue a growth agenda with little regard to the differences in circumstances and pressures that shape local housing markets (a view rebutted by the minister: ibid: 405WH). Indeed, government has paid considerable attention in recent years to the advice of Kate Barker: that housing is being hugely undersupplied in England and that this is the root cause of price inflation and housing unaffordability across much of the country (see Chapter 7). Barker has viewed the resolution of this structural and strategic problem (produced by ‘inefficiencies’ in the planning process and linked to demographic change and new pressures on the housing stock) as mission critical,

Conclusions 331 arguing that it is significantly more important than the ‘investment momentum’ that can drive demand for rental properties in cities or second homes in the countryside. Arguably, a strategic and developmental agenda is prevailing against the local agendas pursued by many planning authorities and their partners, generating a critical policy and political challenge for rural areas at the present time. This challenge has been amplified by local government reform. Local expectations have been significantly raised since 2000 and from a rural standpoint, government’s insistence that development – serving the interests of the wider economy, bringing new sub-regional market equilibrium, or delivering against an affordability target hypothecated by civil servants – should be accepted is generating new frictions, and fuelling more radical sentiment within and beyond local government. Opposition to new house building is common across much of Britain, especially in the shire and home counties of England. In remoter areas, and those which have come to expect development constraint and limited levels of new-build, protest has focused on housing consumption and on the rights of local residents to access housing at a reasonable cost. Some politicians have called for new planning powers, enabling their constituent authorities to prevent homes being used only on a seasonal basis: others have argued for tax penalties to be imposed on second and holiday homes (Hansard, 11 July 2006: Column 396WH). The task for spatial planning is manifold. Government is projecting a significant increase in household numbers during the next 20 years, but how can this be managed within the existing housing stock and through levels of new build that are appropriate to local circumstances? National policy is promoting greater alignment between housing land release and market signals: how can rural planning (at a regional, local and community level) adapt this policy, tailoring it to markets dominated by seasonal and retirement pressure, and where further land releases might fuel additional migration or second home demand? It seems likely that planning authorities will need to release additional land for housing use, but will be able to prioritise building for local needs. It seems less likely that significant restrictions will be placed on housing investment, including the purchasing of second homes, largely because new national rules could have profound effects on the housing market and because the current policy trajectory is towards supply rather than demand solutions to the housing affordability crisis which is now affecting much of England and the rest of the UK. Local and national preference in terms of housing policy is divided: in broad terms, the local is dominated by an environmental rationale, by a preference for demand management responses, and by reduced trust in market solutions. The national perspective seems to sit in entrenched opposition to this position, driven by a developmental rationale, a preference for supply solutions, and by greater trust in the market and the need to re-establish market equilibriums in areas where housing demand is currently weak, and also in areas where house prices have rocketed. There has been little convergence of these positions in recent years. In areas where government had hoped for significant housing growth, applications and proposals have become embroiled in local disputes generating what Barker (2004) has called an ‘implementation gap’ between the national objective of building more homes and what local planning actually delivers. This debate was examined at some length in Chapter 7 and is characterised by a language of conflict: local concerns being dismissed as mere ‘NIMBY-ism’; local planning accused of ‘parochialism’; and national policy, invariably, being labelled ‘urban’, as if development were only appropriate and acceptable within existing built-up areas.

332


PPS3 does not offer a useful articulation of the role of planning in managing and responding to housing issues in rural areas. It reaffirms government’s commitment to local needs policies, but is largely concerned with the evidence that flows to planning authorities from above (especially evidence emerging from strategic market assessments). Authorities are instructed to work closely with regional planning bodies, stakeholders (including housebuilders) and infrastructure providers in order to identify ‘broad locations for future growth’ (DLCG, 2006a: Para. 55) in addition to an immediate supply of ‘deliverable sites’. It is a strategic document, preoccupied with promoting growth. Yet it stops short of incentivising additional housing provision. A draft version of PPS3 (ODPM, 2005e) held out the prospect of a system of ‘housing and planning delivery grant’ (HPDG), with local authority finance tied to the achievement of growth targets. A consultation on HPDG ended too late in 2006 for the mechanism to be incorporated into PPS3. But government appears intent on tackling the ‘implementation gap’ in local housing supply, arguing in its consultation paper on the proposed grant that: ‘the current financial framework in which local authorities operate does not encourage them to respond to the growing housing needs of their local community’ (DCLG, 2006f: Para. 19). It endorses Barker’s view that the ‘fairest and most transparent way to incentivise housing delivery is to pay an incentive proportionately based on the increase in housing in a locality’ (ibid: Para 19) adding that such an approach would aim to ‘encourage local authorities to be proactive in unlocking blockages throughout the delivery chain’, i.e. within the planning process. The housing challenge is therefore reduced to the need to ‘unlock blockages’ and achieve growth. But where blockages exist in rural areas they are more often political than systemic, with debate focused on developing a suite of solutions to local pressures, rather than simply building new homes. Rural housing policy is hotly contested: the challenge for spatial planning is to lead a mature debate on local housing difficulties, linked to social and economic change, devising solutions that can work with the strategic objective of delivering growth against national targets and which do not ‘fetishize’ rural land or the rural landscape (Chapter 7). At the same time, the view that rational planning can be ‘a partner’ to local choice could be undermined by any attempt to ‘bribe’ local authorities (and communities) into accepting new housing, without adequately evaluating alternative solutions.

7 Uniting town and country This disunity between strategic ambition and local aspiration, between different representations of rural space and competing rationales, and between the natural and built environments, is also a disunity between town and country. This tension is evidenced in housing policy, as illustrated in the last section. It is also evident in discourses on competitiveness and community well-being, and has prevented – or at least retarded – the formulation of any unifying approach to social, economic and environmental change in the countryside. Planning has been a loyal servant of this division since 1947, being periodically updated by a series of ‘town and country’ planning acts, instruments and orders. It is only very recently that the ‘town and country’ suffix has been dropped in legislation and by universities teaching professional planning programmes. Yet despite a new focus on ‘spatial planning’ and its links with the concept of ‘spatial governance’, the same divisions that have been a feature of planning in England for the past 60 years remain.

Conclusions 333 Rural and urban areas are different, and experience contrasting sets of challenges, and therefore a tailoring of planning responses to suit rural and urban contexts is often welcomed. But there are now calls to build a more effective process of (strategic) spatial planning by better understanding urban–rural linkages, and therefore to use planning as a means of uniting town and country. Indeed, a growing chorus of voices is calling for greater understanding of the links between urban and rural, rather than seeing them as polar opposites. There is a clear logic to this approach (see Chapter 11), although there is also a fear that rural areas may become junior partners to the core cities, with rural policy being hijacked by a growth agenda which is driven by the pursuit of global economic competitiveness. Current debate on ‘city-regions’ has heightened this fear. Rather than being concerned with rural–urban or city-hinterland agendas, city regions are viewed as a way for the Labour government to resurrect its devolution project in the wake of its failed attempt to create a system of elected regional government in England. Moreover, the dominant argument in favour of city-regions is an economic one: as spatial entities they ‘are seen as the drivers of regional economic growth, and key to the PSA target of reducing regional economic disparities’ (Jones, 2007). More detail on the form of city-regions and their administrative arrangements may emerge over the coming years, and there is at least a possibility that more attention may be paid to the role they might play in strengthening town and country linkages. But in this book we have been primarily concerned with the attitudes that reinforce division, paying particular attention to conceptions of the ‘environment’ (and the man–nature split in landscape protection), to the local and strategic tensions in policy making that can fuel the belief that the countryside does not need or want growth, and to the competing representations of rural space that associate protection with the countryside and development with towns. In Chapter 7 we recorded Peter Hall’s (2001) observation that planning has been handicapped by a ‘fetishisation’ of rural land, preventing it from thinking clearly about future development needs or from making the decisions that might be needed to stabilise and grow rural economies, thereby creating sustainable and secure communities. Uniting town and country is not merely about identifying appropriate scales of strategic planning, and integrating these with local frameworks (though this is clearly vital), but about challenging the dogma of town and country, reflected in man–nature debates, and in developmental and environmental rationalities. Population movement from town to country over the last 40 years, and subsequent replacement of reasonable development expectations with what is sometimes a fiery resistance to change, is a major challenge for rural planning. Spatial governance and local partnership has a part to play in rebuilding consensus around a need for reasonable and appropriate development. But on occasions, planning should have the strength of commitment to make the hard decisions needed to secure the homes or the services that communities require. It needs to distinguish between reasonable concern and NIMBY self-interest hiding behind a façade of environmental consciousness. A spatial planning process that is open, integrated, coordinated, evidence based and which empowers communities has a better chance of making this distinction.

Planning moves to centre stage Does ‘planning’ – a set of institutions and tools that has hitherto supported government, but might in the future support a broader ‘policy community’ – have a central role to play in shaping rural places? This question has been asked for a number of decades.

334


The power of planning in the countryside appeared limited after 1947, reduced by concessions made to farming. But over the last 60 years, the activity of rural planning has been identified with a wider range of actors and as encompassing many different strategies and actions. The regulatory and ‘sectoral’ focus of statutory ‘comprehensive planning’, which has been far from comprehensive in the countryside, has arguably been sidelined by more potent forces shaping rural areas and moderating the processes of change. But ‘statutory’ planning is now being repositioned, not as an independent force controlling and regulating economic, social and environmental change, but as a coordinating focus for different levels of territorial governance. It is being integrated with community and governance processes and it is becoming a hub for the different agendas, actors and frameworks that have been identified as the components of ‘rural planning’ since 1947. The key challenges for planning include the need to: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

coordinate responses to the multiple dimensions of rural change, working within new governance structures and with the different agents of rural policy delivery, positioning itself at the heart of new ‘policy communities’ (Nadin, 2007: 57); link the priority of achieving economic well-being with social and environmental policies and programmes, and to counterbalance the pursuit of competitiveness with policies that endorse social well-being, particularly in respect of support for local services; pursue a proactive approach to landscape planning, which breaks down divisions between human and natural environments and sees landscapes as the sum of these parts and as multi-functioning entities; balance and integrate (apparently) competing agendas and to seek continuing improvement in its conflict mediation role, but also to accept that planning is a normative process that sometimes needs to take responsibility for difficult decisions, integrating local preferences with strategic priorities; play a full and supportive role in community planning, helping to build social capacity in rural communities through a combination of financial support for local initiative where possible, the development control function, and through further improvement to community planning frameworks such as parish plans; lead a mature debate on housing growth, and also to seek local distinctiveness in the way areas manage housing pressures, recognising that strategic priorities should be balanced against local circumstances; and continue to evolve its hub function and to maintain a central position within the changing structures of spatial governance, to promote an understanding – through evidence-gathering – of the interdependence of both town and country, and developmental and environmental interests and objectives.

A theatrical analogy is useful in describing planning’s changing position in rural policy debate. For much of the twentieth century it has been relegated to the status of bit player, pursuing a ‘narrow purpose’ rather than ‘broader goals’ (Nadin, 2007: 48). In recent times, and largely because of a growing frustration with uncoordinated policy and the opportunities created by local government reform, it has rejoined the central cast. In the early years of the twenty-first century, there are promising signs that promotion is at hand, and that planning will take the lead in confronting the many challenges and controversies that define the countryside.

Bibliography

Abercrombie, P. (1926) The Preservation of Rural England: The Control of Development by Means of Rural Planning, University of Liverpool Press: Liverpool. Abercrombie, P. (1943) Town and Country Planning, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Abercrombie, P. (1959) Town and Country Planning, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Abram, S. and Cowell, R. (2004) Learning policy – the contextual curtain and conceptual barriers, in European Planning Studies, 12, 2, pp. 209–28. Addison and Associates with Arup (2005) Evaluation of Planning Delivery Grant 2004/5, OPDM: London. Addison Report (1931) Report of the National Park Committee, Cmnd 3851, HMSO: London. Affordable Rural Housing Commission, (2006) Affordable Rural Housing Commission: Final Report, Affordable Rural Housing Commission: London. Albrechts, L. (2001) In pursuit of new approaches to strategic spatial planning, a European perspective, in International Planning Studies, 6, 3, pp. 293–310. Albrechts, L. (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined, in Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 5, pp. 743–58. Allanson, P. (1996) A sustainable rural economy, in Allanson, P. and Whitby, M. (eds) The Rural Economy and the British Countryside, Earthscan: London, pp. 119–31. Allanson, P. and Whitby, M. (1996) Prologue: rural policy and the British countryside, in Allanson, P and Whitby, M. (eds) (1996) The Rural Economy and the British Countryside, Earthscan: London, pp. 1–18. Allen, D.E. (1976) The Naturalist in Britain: A Social History, Pelican Books: London. Allmendinger, P. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2006) Territory, identity and spatial planning, in Allmendinger, P. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (eds) Territory, Identity and Spatial Planning, Routledge: Oxon, pp. 3–21. Armstrong, H. (1999) A new vision for housing in England, in Brown, T. (ed.) Stakeholder Housing: A Third Way, Pluto Press/Labour Housing Group: London. Ashworth, W. (1968) The Genesis of Modern British Planning, 2nd edn, Routledge and Kegan Paul: London. Association of National Park Authorities (2007) National Parks, Facts and Figures, http://www. nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/factsandfigures.htm, accessed, 19 April 2007. Baldock, D., and Lowe, P. (1996) The development of European agri-environmental policy, in Whitby, M. (ed.) The European Environment and CAP Reform, CABI: Wallingford. Ball, S. and Bell, S. (1991) Environmental Law, Blackstone Press: London. Banister, D. (2005) What are Sustainable Rural Communities? A Thought Piece for the Commission for Rural Communities, CRC: Sheffield. Barker, K. (2004) Review of Housing Supply: Delivering Stability: Securing Our Future Housing Needs, HM Treasury: London. Barker, K. (2006) Barker Review of Land Use Planning: Final Report: Recommendations, HM Treasury: London.

336

Bibliography

Barlow Report (1940) Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, Cmnd 6153, HMSO: London. Barrett, C. (2002) Food security and food assistance programs, in Gardner, B., and Rausser, G. (eds) Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Volume 2B, Elsevier Science: Amsterdam. Barton, H., Grant, M. and Guise, R. (2003) Shaping Neighbourhoods: A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality, Spon Press: London. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage Publications: London. Bell, D. (2006) Variations of the rural idyll, in Cloke P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 149–60. Bell, C. and Newby, H. (1971) Community Studies, George Allen and Unwin: London. Bell, C. and Newby, H. (1980) (eds) The Sociology of Community: A Selection of Readings, Frank Cass: London. Bianconi, M., Gallent, N. and Greatbatch, I. (2006) The changing geography of sub-regional planning in England, in Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 3, pp. 317– 30. Bichard, M. (1994) Changing and managing in the Benefits Agency, in Lovell, R. (ed.) Managing Change in the New Public Sector, Longman: Harlow, pp. 261–74. Billing, P. (1998) Towards sustainable agriculture: the perspectives of the common agricultural policy in the European Union, in, Dabbert, S., Dubgaard, A., Slangen, L. and Whitby, M. (eds) The Economics of Landscape and Wildlife Conservation, CABI: Wallingford, pp. 1–9. Bishop, K. and Bate, R. (2004) The link between landscape, biodiversity and development plans: a move towards ‘positive’ planning? in Bishop, K. and Phillips, A. (eds) Countryside Planning: New Approaches to Management and Conservation, Earthscan: London, pp. 222–36. Bishop K. and Phillips, R. (2004a) Then and now: planning for countryside conservation, in Bishop, K. and. Phillips, A. (eds) Countryside Planning: New Approaches to Management and Conservation, Earthscan: London, pp. 1–15. Bishop, K. and Phillips, A. (eds) (2004b) Countryside Planning: New Approaches to Management and Conservation, Earthscan: London. Bishop, K., Phillips, A. and Warren, L. (1997) Protected areas for the future: models from the past, in Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40, 1, pp. 81–110. Blacksell, M. and Gilg, A. (1981) The Countryside: Planning and Change, Allen and Unwin: London. Bollom, C. (1978) Attitudes and Second Homes in Rural Wales, University of Wales Press: Cardiff. Bowden, C. and Moseley, M. (2006) The Quality and Accessibility of Services in Rural England: A Survey of the Perspectives of Disadvantaged Residents, ADAS: Wolverhampton. Bramley, G. (2006) Belated enlightenment or Trojan horse? Affordability-based planning for housing in England, paper presented at RSA Seminar: International Reflections on Managing Growth, 31 May 2006, University College London. Brandt, J. and Vejre, H. (2003) [2000] Multifunctional landscapes – motives, concepts and perspectives, in Brandt, J. and Vejre, H. (eds) Multifunctional Landscapes Volume 1: Theory, History and Values, WIT Press: Southampton (note: page numbers in text refer to earlier 2000 draft of this chapter but readers should refer to the final version). Brandt, J., Tress, B. and Tress, G. (eds) (2000) Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape, Research and Management. Conference material for the International Conference on Multifunctional Landscapes, Centre for Landscape Research, University of Roskilde, Denmark, 18–21 Oct. 2000. Breheny, M. and Hall, P. (1996) The People: Where Will They Go? National Report of the TCPA Regional Inquiry into Housing Need and Provision in England, Town and County Planning Association: London. Briquel, V. and Colliard, J.-J. (2005) Diversity in the rural hinterlands of European Cities, in Hoggart, K. (ed.) The City’s Hinterland: Dynamism and Divergence in Europe’s Peri-Urban Territories, Ashgate: Aldershot, pp. 19–40.

Bibliography 337 British Transport Commission (1963) The Reshaping of British Railways – Part 1 (The Beeching Report), HMSO: London. Britton, D. (1990) Agriculture in Britain: Changing Pressures and Policies, CABI: Wallingford. Broadband Stakeholder Group (2003) Broadband in Rural Areas: BSG submission to Committee, http://www.broadbanduk.org/reports/BSG_EFRA_submission.pdf, accessed 3 February 2007. Brouwer, F. and Lowe, P. (2000) CAP Regimes and the European Countryside: Prospects for the Integration of Agricultural, Regional and Environmental Policies, CABI: Wallingford. Brun, A.H. and Fuller, A. (1992) Farm Family Pluriactivity in Europe, The Arkleton Trust: Oxford. Brunwin, T., Clemens, S., Deakin, G. and Inglis, G. (2006) Attitudes to Rural Disadvantage: A Segmentation Analysis Report, A report by BMRB to the Commission for Rural Communities, CRC: Sheffield. Bruton, M. (ed.) (1974) The Spirit and Purpose of Planning, Hutchinson: London. Buchanan, C.D. (1972) The State of Britain, Faber and Faber: London. Buller, H. and Hoggart, K. (1994) International Counterurbanisation: British Migrants in Rural France, Avebury: Aldershot. Buller, H., Wilson, G.A. and Höll, A. (eds) (2000) Agri-Environmental Policy in the European Union, Ashgate: Aldershot. Buttel, F.H. (2006) Sustaining the unsustainable: agro-food systems and environment in the modern world, in Cloke P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 213–29. Caffyn, A. (2004) Market town regeneration: challenges for policy and implementation, in Local Economy, 19, 1, pp. 8–24. Cairngorms National Park Authority (2007) Deposit Local Plan, CNPA: Ballater Campaign to Protect Rural England (2005a) Building on Barker, CPRE: London. Campaign to Protect Rural England (2005b) Green Belt: 50 Years On, London: CPRE. Campbell, S. (1996) Green cities? Growing cities? Just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development, in Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 3, pp. 296–312. Carmona, M. and Sieh, L. (2005) Performance measurement innovation in English planning authorities, in Planning Theory & Practice, 6, 3, pp. 303–33. Carmona, M., Carmona, S. and Gallent, N. (2003) Delivering New Homes: Processes, Planners and Providers, Routledge: London. Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin: Boston. Carter, E. and Stansfield, J.M. (1994) British Farming: Changing Policies and Production Systems, Farming Press: Ipswich. Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell: London. Champion, A.G. (2000), ‘Flight from the cities?’, in Bate, R., Best, R. and Holmans, A. (eds) On the Move: The Housing Consequences of Migration, York Publishing Services: York, pp. 10– 19. Champion, A.G., Atkins, D., Coombes, M. and Fotheringham, S. (1998) Urban Exodus, CPRE: London Cherry, G. (1974) The Evolution of British Town Planning, Leonard Hill: Leighton Buzzard. Cherry, G. (1976) Rural Planning Problems, Leonard Hill: London. Cherry, G. (1978) The town planning movement and the late Victorian city, in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 4, pp. 306–19. Cherry, G. (1985) Scenic heritage and national parks lobbies and legislation in England and Wales, in Leisure Studies, 4, pp. 127–39. Cherry, G. and Rogers, A. (1994) Rural Change and Planning: England and Wales in the Twentieth Century, E&FN Spon: London. Cheshire County Council (2007) An Ecological Network for People and Wildlife, http://www. cheshire.gov.uk/SREP/NHE_ECOnet_Ecointro.htm, accessed 19 April 2007. Christaller, W. (1933 [1966]) Central Places of Southern Germany, Prentice Hall: London.

338

Bibliography

Clark, D. (1984) Rural housing and countryside planning, in Blacksell, M. and Bowler, I. (eds) Contemporary Issues in Rural Planning, in SW Papers in Geography, pp. 93–104. Clark, G. (2005) Cities, regions and the metropolitan development agencies, in Local Economy, 20, pp. 404–11. Clark, M. (2001) Teleworking in the Countryside: Home-based Working in the Information Society, Ashgate: Aldershot. Cloke, P. (1977) An index of rurality for England and Wales, in Regional Studies, 11, pp. 31–46. Cloke, P. (1979) Key Settlements in Rural Areas, Methuen: London. Cloke, P. (1983) An Introduction to Rural Settlement Planning, Methuen: London. Cloke, P. (1987) Rural Planning: Policy into Action? Harper and Row: London. Cloke, P. and Edwards, G. (1986) Rurality in England and Wales 1981: a replication of the 1971 index, in Regional Studies, 20, 4, pp. 289–306. Cloke, P. and Goodwin, M. (1992) Conceptualizing countryside change: from post-Fordism to rural structured coherence, in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS, 17, pp. 321–36. Cloke, P., Milbourne, P. and Thomas, C. (1994) Lifestyles in Rural England, Rural Development Commission: London. Cloke, P., Mooney, P.H. and Marsden, T. (2006) The Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage: London. Clout, H. (1972) Rural Geography: An Introductory Survey, Pergamon Press: Oxford. Combes, P.P., Duranton, G., Overman, H.G. and Veneble, A.J. (2006) Economic Linkages across Space, ODPM: London. Commission for Rural Communities (2005) State of the Countryside 2005, CRC: Cheltenham. Commission for Rural Communities (2006a) State of the Countryside 2006, CRC: Cheltenham. Commission for Rural Communities (2006b) State of the Countryside Data, http://www.rural communities.gov.uk/projects/stateofthecountrysidedata/overview, accessed 3 March 2007. Commission for Rural Communities (2006c) Rural Disadvantage: Reviewing the Evidence Base, CRC: Cheltenham. Commission for Rural Communities (2006d) About Us, CRC: Sheffield, http://www.rural communities.gov.uk/content/about, accessed 19 June 2007. Commission for Rural Communities (2006e) Report of the Rural Advocate, CRC: Cheltenham. Commission for Rural Communities (2006f) Discussion Paper: Shire Local Government – Time for a Change? CRC: Cheltenham. Commission for Rural Communities (2006g) Challenging Government to Meet Rural Needs: Rural Proofing Monitoring Report 2006, CRC: Cheltenham. Commission for Rural Communities (2007) A8 Migrant Workers in Rural Areas: Briefing Paper, CRC: Cheltenham. Commission for Rural Communities and the Housing Corporation (2005) The Use of Existing Housing Stock in Rural England, Housing Corporation: London. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1999) Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 12 July 1999 on the European Regional Development Fund, Official Journal of the European Communities, 21, 3/1, 13 August 1999, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2004) New Perspectives for EU Rural Development: Fact Sheet, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2005) Organic Farming in the European Union, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. Commission of the European Community (2006) General Budget for the European Union for the Financial Year 2006: The Figures, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. Committee for Spatial Development (1999) The European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Territorial Development of the Territory of the European Union, European Commission: Luxembourg.

Bibliography 339 Committee of the Regions (2006) Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on cohesion policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions, in Official Journal of the European Union, 2006/C 206/04. Community Transport Association (2005) About the Community Transport Association, http:// www.communitytransport.com, accessed 2 March 2007. Cornwall County Council (2006) Cornwall Local Transport Plan 2006–11, Cornwall County Council: Truro. Countryside Agency (2001) State of the Countryside: 2001, CA: Cheltenham. Countryside Agency (2003) Rural Economies: Stepping Stones to Healthier Futures, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham. Countryside Agency (2004) State of the Countryside: 2004, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham. Countryside Agency (2006) Landscape Beyond the View, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham. Countryside Agency and Groundwork UK (2004) Unlocking the Potential of the Rural Urban Fringe, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham. Countryside Agency and Groundwork UK (2005) The Countryside in and around Towns, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham. Countryside Agency, Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office for National Statistics and the Welsh Assembly Government (2004) Rural and Urban Classification 2004: An Introductory Guide, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham. Countryside Agency, English Heritage, English Nature and the Environment Agency (2005) Environmental Quality in Spatial Planning, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham. Countryside Council for Wales (2002) An Introduction to LANDMAP, CCW: Bangor. Courtney, P. and Errington, A. (2000) The role of small towns in the local economy and some implications for development policy, in Local Economy, 15, 4, pp. 280–301. Cowell, R. and Martin, S. (2003) The joys of joining up: modes of integrating the local government modernisation agenda, in Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21, pp. 159–79. Cox, G., Lowe, P. and Winter, M. (1987) Landscape protection and nature conservation, in Cloke, P. (ed.) Rural Planning: Policy into Action?, Harper and Row: London, pp. 56–71. Crook, A., Currie, J., Jackson, A., Monk, S., Rowley, S., Smith, K. and Whitehead, C. (2001) The Provision of Affordable Housing Through the Planning System, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge: Cambridge. Crook, A., Monk, S., Rowley, S. and Whitehead, C.M.E. (2006) Planning gain and the supply of new affordable housing in England: understanding the numbers, in Town Planning Review, 77, 3, pp. 353–73. Crouch, D. (2006) Tourism, consumption and rurality, in Cloke P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 355–64. Cruickshank, G. (1832) Scraps and Sketches, Published by the Artist: Myddleton Terrace, Pentonville. Cullingworth, J.B. (1976) Town and Country Planning in Britain, 6th edn, Allen and Unwin: London. Cullingworth, J.B. (1996) A vision lost, in Town and Country Planning, 65, 6, pp. 172–4. Cullingworth, J.B. and Nadin, V. (2002) Town and Country Planning in the UK, 13th edn, Routledge: Oxon. Cullingworth, J.B. and Nadin, V. (2006) Town and Country Planning in the UK, 14th edn, Routledge: London. Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, John Murray: London. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (2006) Northern Ireland Rural Strategy 2007– 2013, DARD: Belfast. Department for Communities and Local Government (2006a) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, DCLG: London.

340

Bibliography

Department for Communities and Local Government (2006b) Delivering Affordable Housing, DCLG: London. Department for Communities and Local Government (2006c) Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism, DCLG: London. Department for Communities and Local Government (2006d) Strong and Prosperous Communities: Local Government White Paper, DCLG: London. Department for Communities and Local Government (2006e) Invitation to Councils in England to Make Proposals for Future Unitary Structures; To Pioneer, As Pathfinders, New Two-tier Models, DCLG: London. Department for Communities and Local Government (2006f) Housing and Planning Delivery Grant: Consultation Paper, DCLG: London. Department for Communities and Local Government (2007a) Planning for a Sustainable Future: The Planning White Paper, DCLG: London. Department for Communities and Local Government (2007b) Live Tables: Table 104 -Dwelling Stock: by Tenure, England (Historical Series), DCLG: London, http://www.communities.gov. uk/pub/10/ Table104_id1156010.xls, accessed 24 June 2007. Department for Communities and Local Government (2007c) Local Authority Green Belt Statistics: England 2006, DCLG: London, http://www.communities.gov.uk/ index.asp?id =1002882&PressNoticeID=2345, accessed 24 June 2007. Department for Communities and Local Government (2007d) City-regions and Why They are Important, www.communities.gov.uk, accessed 13 June 2007. Department for Communities and Local Government (2007e) Councils’ Proposals for Unitary Local Government: An Approach to Implementation (Discussion Document), DCLG: London Department for Communities and Local Government and the Royal Town Planning Institute (2007) Planning Together: Local Strategic Partnerships and Spatial Planning – A Practical Guide, DCLG: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002a) The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing the Future, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002b) Rural Services Standard 2002, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002c) Working with the Grain of Nature, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003a) Rural Services Standards 2003, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003b) BSE Risk Status: Progress in the United Kingdom, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004a) Changing Patterns: UK Government Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production, DEFRA (and DTI): London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004b) Rural Strategy 2004, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004c) Rural Services Review: Reviewing Standards 2004, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2005) Securing the Future: UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2005b) Environmental Protection Digest of Statistics, DEFRA: London, http://www.defra.gov.uk/enviro nment/statistics/land/kf/ldkf12. htm, accessed 4 July 2007. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006a) Modernising Rural Delivery, DEFRA: London, http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ruraldelivery/default.htm, accessed 7 January 2007. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006b) What do we do? DEFRA’s Strategic Priorities, DEFRA: London, http://www.defra.gov.uk /corporate/what-do-we-do/index.htm, accessed 19 June 2007.

Bibliography 341 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006c) Rural Development National Strategy Plan, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006d) England Rural Development Plan: Annual Report 2005, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006e) Summary of UK Food and Farming, DEFRA: London, http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/quick/agri.asp, accessed 24 June 2007. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006f) Compendium of UK Organic Standards, DEFRA: London, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/standards/pdf/ compendium.pdf, accessed 24 June 2007. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006g) Rural Services Review: Reviewing Standards 2006, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006h) Sustainable Models of Community Retailing, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006i) Departmental Report 2006, DEFRA: London. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007a) DEFRA Delivery Landscape, DEFRA: London, http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/delivery/landscape/index.htm#1, accessed 19 June 2007. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007b) e-Digest Environmental Statistics, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics, accessed 24 June 2007. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007c) Sea Change: A Marine Bill White Paper, Cmnd 7047, DEFRA: London. Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2001) Delivering a Fundamental Change: The Planning Green Paper, DTLR: London. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (2000) Our Countryside The Future: A Fair Deal for Rural England, Cmnd 4909, DETR and MAFF: London. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2001) Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts, DETR: London,. Department of the Environment (1977) Circular 108/77 Nature Conservation and Planning, HMSO: London. Department of the Environment (1987a) Circular 16/87 Development Involving Agricultural Land, HMSO: London. Department of the Environment (1987b) Circular 27/87 Nature Conservation and Planning, HMSO: London. Department of the Environment (1991) PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, HMSO: London. Department of the Environment (1992a) PPG1: Planning General Policies and Principles, HMSO: London. Department of the Environment (1992b) PPG7: The Countryside and the Rural Economy, HMSO: London. Department of the Environment (1994) PPG9: Nature Conservation, HMSO: London. Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (1995) Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside, Cmnd 3016, HMSO: London. Department of Trade and Industry (2006) RDA Allocations: 2005–2008, http://www.dti.gov.uk/ regional/regional-dev-agencies/funding-financial-gov/allocat ions/page20022.html; accessed 7 January 2007. Department of Trade and Industry (2006) The Post Office Network: A Consultation Document, DTI: London. Department of Transport (2005) Transport Statistics Bulletin: National Travel Survey 2004, DoT: London. Dobson, A. (2003) Citizenship and the Environment, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

342

Bibliography

Dobwalls and Trewidland Parish Council (2005) Dobwalls and Trewidland Parish Plan, http://www.caradon.gov.uk/media/adobe/e/k/dobwalls%20and%20trewid land%20Parish%2 0Plan%202005_2.pdf, accessed 2 February 2007. Dower Report (1945) National Parks in England and Wales, Cmnd 6628, HMSO: London. Dower, M. (1972) Amenity and tourism in the countryside, in Ashton, J. and Long, W. (eds) (1972) The Remoter Rural Areas of Britain, Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh, pp. 74–90. Drabble, M (1990) Safe as Houses: An Examination of Home Ownership and Mortgage Tax Relief, Chatto & Windus: London. Dryzek, J.S. (2005) The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press: Oxford. East of England Development Agency (2006) About Rural, http://www.eeda.org.uk/rural/, accessed 7 January 2007. Edwards, R. and Foley, M. (1997) Social capital and the political economy of our discontent, in American Behavioural Scientist, 40, 5, pp. 669–78. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. and Woods, M. (2001) Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance, in Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, 2, pp. 289–310. Elson, M. (1986) Green Belts: Conflict Mediation in the Rural–Urban Fringe, William Heinemann: London. ENTEC UK (2005) Area Action Plans for the Countryside: Final Report for the Countryside Agency, ENTEC UK: Leamington Spa. Environment Agency (2006) The Water Framework Directive and Planning: Initial Advice to Local Planning Authorities in England and Wales, EA: Bristol. European Voice (2006) Are Europeans worrying themselves sick over pesticides?, in European Voice, November, pp. 23–9. Evans, A.W. (1991) ‘Rabbit hutches on postage stamps’: planning, development and political economy, in Urban Studies, 28, 6, pp. 853–70. Evans, N., Morris, C. and Winter, M. (2002) Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of postproductivism as the new orthodoxy, in Progress in Human Geography, 26, 3, pp. 313–32. Fairbrother, N. (1970) New Lives, New Landscapes, The Architectural Press: London. Falk, I. and Kilpatrick, S. (2000) What is social capital? A study of interaction in a rural community, in Sociologia Ruralis, 40, 1, pp. 87–110. Faludi, A. (2005) Territorial cohesion: an unidentified political objective, in Town Planning Review, 76, 1, pp. 1–13. Faludi, A. and Waterhout, B. (2002) The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No Masterplan, Routledge: London. Farrington, J., Shaw, J., Leedal, M., Halden, D., Richardson, T. and Bristow, G. (2004) Settlements, Services and Access: The Development of Policies to Promote Accessibility in Rural Areas, Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. Fens Rural Pathfinder (2005) Fens Rural Pathfinder Project: Draft Plan 2005, http://www.defra. gov.uk/rural/pdfs/pathfinders/fens.pdf, accessed 14 June 2007. Fischler, F. (2004) Speech to the COPA/COGECA, Brussels, 5 October 2004. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (2003) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2003, http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/j0083e/j0083e00.htm, accessed 23 March 2007. Food Ethics Council (2005a) Power in the Food System: Understanding Trends and Improving Accountability, Workshop Series Report, The Food Ethics Council: Brighton. Food Ethics Council (2005b) Power in the Food System: Understanding Trends and Improving Accountability, Background Paper, The Food Ethics Council: Brighton. Food Ethics Council (2006) Sustainable Farming and Food: Emerging Challenges, The Food Ethics Council: Brighton. Friedmann, J. and Wolff, G. (1982) World city formation: an agenda for research and action, in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 6, pp. 309–44.

Bibliography 343 Gallent, N. and Bell, P. (2000) Planning exceptions in rural England – past, present and future, in Planning Practice and Research, 15, 4, pp. 375–84. Gallent, N. and Shaw, D. (2007) Spatial planning, area action plans and the rural–urban fringe, in Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50, 5, pp. 617–638. Gallent, N. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2007) Decent Homes for All: Planning’s Evolving Role in Housing Provision, Routledge: Oxon. Gallent, N., Andersson, J. and Bianconi, M. (2006) Planning on the Edge: The Context for Planning at the Rural–Urban Fringe, Routledge: Oxon. Gallent, N., Mace, A. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002) Second Homes in Rural Areas of England, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham. Gallent, N., Mace, A. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2003) Dispelling a myth: second homes in rural Wales, in Area, 35, 3, pp. 271–84. Gallent, N., Mace, A. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2005) Second Homes: European Perspectives and UK Policies, Ashgate: Aldershot. Gallent, N., Shoard, M., Andersson, J., Oades, R. and Tudor, C. (2004) Britain’s urban fringe: multi-functionality and planning, in Local Environment, 9, 3, pp. 217–34. Garbett-Edwards D. (1972) The establishment of new industries (with particular reference to recent experience in mid-Wales), in Ashton, J. and Long, W. (eds) The Remoter Rural Areas of Britain, Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh, pp. 50–73. Garrod, B., Wornell, R. and Youell, R. (2006) Reconceptualising rural resources as countryside capital: the case of rural tourism, in Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 2, pp. 117–28. Garrod, G. and Whitby, M. (2005) Strategic Countryside Management, Elsevier: Amsterdam. Geddes, P. (1915) Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study of Civics, Williams and Norgate: London. Gershon Report (2004) Releasing Resources to the Front Line: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency, HM Treasury: London. Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Polity Press: Cambridge. Giddens, A. (2000) The Third Way and its Critics, Polity Press: Cambridge. Gilg, A. (1976) Rural employment, in Cherry, G. (ed.) Rural Planning Problems, Leonard Hill: London, pp. 125–72. Gilg, A. (1978) Countryside Planning, David and Charles: London. Gilg, A. (1996) Countryside Planning: The First Half Century, 2nd edn, Routledge: London. Gilg, A. (2005) Planning in Britain: Understanding and Evaluating the Post-War System, Sage Publications: London. Goodchild, B. and Hickman, P. (2006) Towards and regional strategy for the north of England? An assessment of the ‘northern way’, in Regional Studies, 40, 1, pp. 121–33. Goodwin, P. (1999) Transformation of transport policy in Great Britain, in Transportation Research A, 33, pp. 655–69. Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, in American Journal of Sociology, 91, 3, pp. 481–510. Gray, J. (2003) A rural sense of place: intimate experience in planning a countryside for life, in Interface, 3, 100, pp. 93–6. Gray, D., Shaw, J. and Farrington, J. (2006) Community transport, social capital and social exclusion in rural areas, in Area, 38, 1, pp. 89–98. Greer A. (2005) Agricultural Policy in Europe, Manchester University Press: Manchester. Grievink, J.W. (2003) The changing face of the global food supply chain, OECD Conference on the Changing Dimensions of the Food Economy, The Hague, 6–7 February 2003. Guy, C. (1998) Off centre retailing in the UK: prospects for the future and implications for town centres, in Built Environment, 24, 1, pp. 16–30. Haines-Young, R.H. (2007) Countryside Quality Counts: Tracking Change in the Character of the English Landscape, 1999–2003, English Nature: Cheltenham. Halfacree, K. (1993) Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural, in Journal of Rural Studies, 9, 1, pp. 23–37.

344

Bibliography

Halfacree, K. (1999) A new space or spatial effacement? alternative futures for the postproductivist countryside, in Walford, N., Everitt, J. and Napton, D. (eds) Reshaping the Countryside: Perceptions and Processes of Rural Change, CABI: Wallingford. Halfacree, K. (2006) Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture, in Cloke P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage: London, pp. 44–62. Halfacree, K. (2007) Trial by space for a ‘radical rural’: introducing alternative localities, representations and lives, in Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 2, pp. 127–41. Hall, P. (1966) The World Cities, Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London. Hall, P. (1996) Cities of Tomorrow, updated edn, Blackwell Publishers: Oxford. Hall, P. (2001) Sustainable cities or town cramming? in Layard, A., Davoudi, S. and Batty, S. (eds) Planning for a Sustainable Future, Spon Press: London, pp. 101–14. Hall, P. and Pain, K. (eds) (2006) The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-City Regions in Europe, Earthscan: London. Hall, P and Ward, C. (1998) Sociable Cities: The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard, Wiley: London. Hambleton District Council, (2007) Core Strategy, Development Plan Document, Adopted 3 April 2007, Hambleton DC: Northallerton. Hamilton, K. and Selman, P. (2005) The ‘landscape scale’ in planning: recent experience of biogeographic planning units in Britain, in Landscape Research, 30, 4, pp. 549–58. Handley, J., Pauleit, S. and Gill, S. (2007) Landscape sustainability and the city, in Benson, J. and Roe, M. (eds) Landscape and Sustainability, Taylor & Francis: London, pp. 167–95. Handley, J., Kidd, S., Wood, R. and Douglas, I. (1998a) Greening the North West: A Regional Landscape Strategy, Sustainability North West: Manchester. Handley, J., Wood, R. and Kidd, S. (1998b) Defining coherence for landscape planning and management: a regional landscape strategy for North West England, in Landscape Research, 23, 2, pp. 133–58. Hansard (2006) Affordable Housing (Rural Areas) 11 July, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ whall/?id=2006–07–11a.384.0, accessed 14 June 2007. Harding, A., Marvin, S. and Sprigings, N. (2004) Releasing the National Economic Potential of Provincial City-Regions: The Rationale For and Implications of an ‘Northern Way’ Growth Strategy, ODPM: London. Hart, K. and Wilson, G. (2000) United Kingdom: from agri-environmental policy shaper to policy receiver, in Buller, H., Wilson, G. and Höll, A. (eds) Agri-Environmental Policy in the European Union, Ashgate: Aldershot, pp. 95–117. Haskins, C. (2003) Rural Delivery Review: A Report on the Delivery of Government Policies in Rural England, DEFRA: London. Healey, P. (1997) An institutionalist approach to spatial planning, in Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A. and Needham, B. (eds) Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in Europe, UCL Press: London, pp. 21–38. Healey, P. (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective, in Planning Theory 2, 2, pp. 101–23. Health Development Agency (2004) Lessons from Health Action Zones (HDA Briefing No. 9), HDA: London. Heidegger, M. (1971) Building, dwelling, thinking, in Poetry, Language, Thought, Harper and Row: New York. Henderson, S. (2005) Tensions, strains and patterns of concentration in England’s city regions, in Hoggart, K. (ed.) The City’s Hinterland: Dynamism and Divergence in Europe’s Peri-Urban Territories, Ashgate: Aldershot, pp. 119–53. Herlin, I.S. (2004) New challenges in the field of spatial planning: landscapes, in Landscape Research, 29, 4, pp. 399–411. Herrschel, T. and Newman, P. (eds) (2005) Global Competition and City-Regional Governance in Europe, Ashgate: Aldershot. Hindle, T., Spollen, M. and Dixon, P. (2004) Review of Evidence on Additional Costs of Delivering Services to Rural Communities, SECTA: London. HM Government (1909) Housing, Town Planning Etc. Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1909b) Development and Road Improvement Fund Act, HMSO: London.

Bibliography 345 HM Government (1919) Housing and Town Planning Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1919b) Forestry Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1932) Town and Country Planning Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1935) Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1944) Control of Land Use, Cmd 6537, HMSO: London. HM Government (1946) New Towns Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1947a) Town and Country Planning Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1947b) Agriculture Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1949) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1966) Industrial Development Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1967) Forestry Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1968) Town and Country Planning Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1968b) Transport Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1971) Town and Country Planning Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1972) Local Government Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1974) Housing Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1980) Housing Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1981) Wildlife and Countryside Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1986) Agriculture Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1987) Housing: The Government’s Proposals (White Paper), HMSO: London. HM Government (1988) Housing Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1990) Town and Country Planning Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1991) Planning and Compensation Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1995) Environment Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1996) Housing Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1998) Regional Development Agencies Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (1999) Local Government Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (2000) Local Government Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (2000b) Countryside and Rights of Way Act, HMSO: London. HM Government (2003) Local Government Act, TSO: London. HM Government (2004) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, TSO: London. HM Government (2004b) Housing Act, TSO: London. HM Government (2006) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, TSO: London. Hobhouse Report (1947) National Parks (England and Wales), Cmnd 7121, HMSO: London. Hobsbawm, E. (1968) Industry and Empire, Pelican Books: London. Hodge, I. and Monk, S. (2004) Editorial: the economic diversity of rural England – stylised fallacies and uncertain evidence, in Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 3, pp. 263–72. Hoggart, K. (1990) Let’s do away with rural, in Journal of Rural Studies, 6, pp. 245–57. Hoggart, K. (2003) England, in Gallent, N., Shucksmith, M. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (eds) Housing in the European Countryside: Rural Pressure and Policy in Western Europe, Routledge: London, pp. 153–67. Hoggart, K. (2005) City hinterlands in European space, in Hoggart, K. (ed.) The City’s Hinterland: Dynamism and Divergence in Europe’s Peri-Urban Territories, Ashgate: Aldershot, pp. 1–18. Hooper, A. (1996) Housing requirements and housing provision: the strategic issues, in Breheny, M. and Hall, P. (eds) The People: Where Will They Live?, Town and Country Planning Association: London. Horsfall, T.C. (1904) The Improvement of the Dwellings and the Surroundings of the People: The Example of Germany, Manchester University Press: Manchester. Hoskins, W.G. (1955) The Making of the English Landscape, Hodder and Stoughton: London. House of Commons (1908) House of Commons Debates, Vol. 188, 12 May 1908, Col. 949, HMSO: London. House of Commons (Communities and Local Government Committee) (2007) Is there a Future for Regional Government? Fourth Report of Session 2006–07, TSO: London.

346

Bibliography

Howard, E. (1898) To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, Swan Sonnenschein: London. Howard, P. (2004) Spatial planning for landscape: mapping the pitfalls, in Landscape Research, 29, 4, pp. 423–34. Hughes, C. (2006) Do village design statements make a difference? in Town and Country Planning, 27, 4, pp. 119–21. Hughes, D. and Parpworth, N. (with Lowther, T.K and de Prez, P.) (2002) Environmental Law, 4th edn, Butterworths: London. Huxley Report (1947) Conservation of Nature in England and Wales: Wild Life Conservation, Cmnd 7122, HMSO: London. Illsley, D. and Richardson, T. (2004) New national parks for Scotland: coalitions in conflict over allocation of planning powers to the Cairngorms, in Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47, 2, pp. 219–42. Jessop, B. (1997) Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance, in Review of International Political Economy, 4, 3, pp. 561–81. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2007) Protected Sites and Designations Directory, http:// www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1527, accessed 23 February 2007. Jones, A. (2006) LGIU and STEER Commentary on ‘Rural Disadvantage: reviewing the evidence base’, LGIU/STEER: London. Jones, A. (2007) LGIU and STEER Commentary on ‘The Future of Regional Government’, LGIU/ STEER: London. Jones, C. and Murie, A. (2006) The Right to Buy: Analysis and Evaluation of a Housing Policy, Blackwell Publishing: Oxford. Juntti, M. (2006) Riding the green wave in the European agricultural sector? A discourse analysis of the new cross compliance mechanism, CSERGE Working Paper EDM, pp. 6–15. Juntti, M. and Potter, C. (2002) Interpreting and re-interpreting agri-environmental policy: communication, knowledge and trust in the implementation process, in Sociologia Ruralis, 42, 3, pp. 215–32. Kaika M. and Swyngedouw, E. (2000) Fetishising the modern city: the phantasmagoria of urban technological networks, in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 1, pp. 120–38. Kay, G. (2002) Access for Countryside Walking: Politics, Provision and Need, Staffordshire University Press: Stoke-on-Trent. Kidd, S. (2007a) Towards a framework of integration in spatial planning: an exploration from a health perspective, in Planning Theory and Practice, 8, 2, pp. 161–81. Kidd, S. (2007b) Landscape planning and the regional scale, in Roe, M. (ed.) Landscape and Sustainability, 2nd edn, Spon Press: London, pp. 118–37. King, P. (2004) Private Dwelling: Contemplating the Use of Housing, London: Routledge. Kirwan, J. (2004) Alternative strategies in the UK agro-food market: interrogating the alterity of farmers’ markets, in Sociologia Ruralis, 44, 4, pp. 395–415. Kunzmann, K. (2000) Strategic spatial development through information and communication, in Salet W. and Faludi, A. (eds) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences: Amsterdam, pp. 259–65. Lake District National Park Authority (2005) A Vision for the Lake District National Park 2006– 2030, LDNP: Kendal. Lambert, C. (2006) Community strategies and spatial planning in England: the challenges of integration, in Planning Practice and Research, 21, 2, pp. 245–55. Land Use Consultants (2003) Planning For Sustainable Rural Economic Development, Land Use Consultants: Bristol. Land Use Consultants (2004) Planning for Sustainable Rural Economic Development (Part B: A Strategy for Sustainable Rural Economic Development in the South East), Land Use Consultants: Bristol. Land Use Consultants (2006) Review and Evaluation of Heritage Coasts: Executive Summary, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham.

Bibliography 347 Lang, T. and Heasman, M. (2004) Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets, Earthscan: London. Ling, C., Handley, J. and Rodwell, J. (2007) Restructuring the post-industrial landscape: a multifunctional approach, in Landscape Research, 32, 3, pp. 285–309. Lloyd, G. and Peel, D. (2006) City-regionalism: the social reconstruction of an idea in practice, in Allmendinger, P. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (eds) Territory, Identity and Spatial Planning, Routledge: Oxon, pp. 285–304. Lobley, M., Potter, C. and Butler, A. (with Whitehead, I. and Millard, A.) (2005) The Wider Social Impacts of Changes in the Structure of Agricultural Businesses, CRR Research Report Number 14, University of Exeter: Exeter. Lobley, M., Reed, M. and Butler, A. (2005) The Impact of Organic Farming on the Rural Economy in England (Final report to DEFRA), Centre for Rural Research, University of Exeter: Exeter. Local Government Association (2001) Reforming Local Planning: Planning for Communities (Report of a working group chaired by Nicky Gavron), LGA: London. Local Government Association (2006) City Regions and Beyond, LGA: London. Local Government Association (2007) Prosperous Communities II: Vive la Dévolution!, LGA: London. Lörzing, H. (2004) Spatial planning and landscape: a Dutch example, in Landscape Research, 29, 4, pp. 357–69. Lowe, P. (1995) Vision without strategy:the Rural White Paper, in Countryside Recreation News, 3, 3, pp. 18–19. Lowe, P. (1996) Blueprint for a rural economy, in Allanson, P. and Whitby, M. (eds) The Rural Economy and the British Countryside, Earthscan: London, pp. 187–202. Lowe, P. and Ward, N. (2007) Rural Futures: A Socio-Geographical Approach to Scenario Analysis, Paper presented at the Institute for Advanced Studies Annual Research Programme, 9–10 January 2007, Lancaster University. Lyons, M. (2007) Place Shaping: A shared Ambition for the Future of Local Government – Final Report, TSO: London. Lyson, T. (2006) Global capital and the transformation of rural communities, in Cloke P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 292–303. McCarthy, J., Lloyd, G. and Illsley, B. (2002) National parks in Scotland: balancing environment and economy, in European Planning Studies, 10, 5, pp. 665–70. MacGregor, B. (1976) Village life: facts and myths, in Town and Country Planning, 44, 11, pp. 524–7. McHarg, I. (1969) Design with Nature, Natural History Press: New York. MacKinnon, D. (2002) Rural governance and local involvement: assessing state-community relations in the Scottish Highlands, in Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 3, pp. 307–24. Marquand, D. (2004) Decline of the Public: The Hollowing Out of Citizenship, Polity: Oxford. Marsden T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R. and Flynn, A. (1993) Constructing the Countryside, UCL Press: London. Marsden, T. (1998) New rural territories: regulating the differentiated rural spaces, in Journal of Rural Studies, 14, 1, pp. 107–17. Marsden, T. (2006a) Pathways in the sociology of rural knowledge, in Cloke, P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 3–17. Marsden, T. (2006b) The road towards sustainable rural development: issues of theory, policy and practice in a European context, in Cloke, P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 201–12. Marshall, S. (2006) The emerging ‘silicon savanna’: from old urbanism to new suburbanism, in Built Environment, 32, 3, pp. 267–80. Martin, E.W. (1962) The Book of the Village, Phoenix House: London. Marvin, S., Harding, A. and Robson, B. (2006) A Framework for City-Regions, ODPM: London. Matthews J., Philip, M. and Cumming, D. (1972) Forestry and forest industries, in Ashton, J. and Long, W. (eds) The Remoter Rural Areas of Britain, Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh, pp. 25–49.

348

Bibliography

Meen, G. (2005) On the economics of the Barker Review of housing supply, in Housing Studies, 20, 6, pp. 949–71. Meinig, D.W. (1979) Introduction, in Meinig, D.W. (ed.) The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Ministry for Housing and Local Government (1955) Circular 42/55: Green Belts, MHLG: London. Monbiot, G. (1999) Hidden extras: homelessness and second homes, in Urban 75, www.urban75. org/archive/news072.html, accessed 13 October 2002. Moore-Colyer, R. and Scott, A. (2005) What kind of landscape do we want? Past, present and future perspectives, in Landscape Research, 30, 4, 501–23. Morphet, J. (1998) Rural Aspects of the Regional Agenda, LGA Rural Commission: London. Morphet, J., Tewdwr-Jones, M., Gallent, N., Spry, M., Hall, B. and Howard, R. (2007) Shaping and Delivering Tomorrow’s Places – Report, Findings and Recommendations, RTPI: London. Morris, C. and Potter, C. (1995) Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’ adoption of agrienvironmental schemes in the UK, in Journal of Rural Studies, 11, 1, pp.55–63. Moseley, M. (1979) Accessibility: the Rural Challenge, Methuen: London. Moseley, M. (2000) England’s village services in the 1990s: entrepreneurialism, community involvement and the state, in Town Planning Review, 74, 1, pp. 415–33. Moseley, M. and Parker, G. (1998) The Joint Provision of Rural Services, Rural Development Commission: London. Moseley, M. and Spencer, M.B. (1978) Access to shops in rural Norfolk, in Moseley, M. (ed.) Social Issues in Rural Norfolk, Centre of East Anglian Studies: University of East Anglia, pp. 33–44. Murdoch, J. (1996) The planning of rural Britain, in Allanson, P. and Whitby, M. (eds) The Rural Economy and the British Countryside, Earthscan: London, pp. 132–49. Murdoch, J. (2006) Networking rurality: emergent complexity in the countryside, in Cloke P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 171–84. Murdoch, J. and Abram, S. (2002) Rationalities of Planning: Development versus Environment in Planning for Housing, Ashgate: Aldershot. Nadin, V. (2006) The Role and Scope of Spatial Planning: Literature Review, DCLG: London http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/898/TheRoleandScopeofSpatialPlanning_id1504898. pdf, accessed 23 March 2007. Nadin, V. (2007) The emergence of the spatial planning approach in England, in Planning Practice and Research, 22, 1, pp. 43–62. National Audit Office (2006) The Right of Access to Open Countryside, NAO: London. Nathan M. (2007) A Question of Balance: Cities, Planning and the Barker Review, Discussion Paper no. 9, Institute for Public Policy Research: London. National Assembly for Wales (1999) Rural Development Plan for Wales 2000–2006, NAW: Cardiff. Natural England (2006) About Us, Natural England: Cheltenham, http://www.natural england. org.uk/about/default.htm, accessed 7 January 2007. Natural England (2007) Improving Coastal Access, Paper NEB P07 03, Natural England: Cheltenham. Newby, H. (1979) Green and Pleasant Land? Social Change in Rural England Hutchinson: London. Newby, H. (1988) The Countryside in Question, Hutchinson: London. Newman, I. (2006) The Future of Rural Post Offices, Local Government Information Unit: London. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1985) The Concept of Dwelling: On the Way to Figurative Architecture, Rizzoli: New York. North West Regional Assembly (2006) The North West Plan: Submitted Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of England, North West Regional Assembly: Warrington.

Bibliography 349 North, R. (2001) The Death of British Agriculture: the Wanton Destruction of a Key Industry, Duckworth: London. Nuffield Report (1986) Town and Country Planning, Nuffield Foundation: London. Nutley, S. (1998) Rural areas: the accessibility problem, in Hoyle, B. and Knowles, R. (eds) Modern Transport Geography, Wiley: Chichester, pp. 185–215. Nutley, S. (2005) Monitoring rural travel behaviour: a longitudinal study in Northern Ireland 1979–2007, in Journal of Transport Geography, 13, pp. 247–63. Office of National Statistics (2005) UK Year Book 2005, TSO: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004a) Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004b) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004c) Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004d) Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005a) Diversity and Equality in Planning: A Good Practice Guide, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005b) Fact Sheet 1: Summary Outlining the Barker Response, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005c) Planning for Housing Provision – Consultation Paper, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005d) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005e) Draft Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2006a) A Framework for City-Regions, ODPM: London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2006b) Household Projections to 2026, ODPM: London. Owen, S. (1998) The role of village design statements in fostering a locally distinctive approach to village planning and design in the UK, in Journal of Urban Design, 3, 3, pp. 359–80. Owen, S. (1999) Village design statements: some aspects of the evolution of a planning tool in the UK, in Town Planning Review, 70, 1, pp. 41–59. Owen, S. (2002a) From village design statements to parish plans: some pointers towards community decision making in the planning system in England, in Planning Practice and Research, 17, 1, pp. 81–9. Owen, S. (2002b) Locality and community: towards a vehicle for community-based decision making in rural localities in England, in Town Planning Review, 73, 1, pp. 41–61. Oxfordshire Rural Community Council (2004) How to Create a Community Shop and Post Office, Oxford RCC: Whitney. Pahl, R. (1965) Urbs in Rure: the Metropolitan Fringe in Hertfordshire, London School of Economics: London. Pahl, R. (1975) Whose City? And Further Essays on Urban Society, Penguin: London. Performance and Innovation Unit (1999) Rural Economies, TSO: London. Pettigrew, P. (1987) A bias for action: industrial development in mid Wales, in Cloke, P. (ed.) Rural Planning: Policy into Action?, Harper and Row: London, pp. 102–21. Phillimore, P. and Reading, R. (1992) A rural advantage? Urban–rural health differences in Northern England, in Journal of Public Health, 14, 3, pp. 290–9. Planning Inspectorate (2005) Development Plan Examination – A Guide to the Process of Assessing the Soundness of Development Plan Documents, PINS: London. Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (PCFFF) (2002) Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future (The Curry Report), http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/farming, accessed 20 March 2007.

350

Bibliography

Potter, C. (1998) Against the Grain: Agri-Environmental Reform in the United States and the European Union, CABI: Wallingford. Potter, C. and Tilzey, M. (2005) Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist transition: neoliberalism, neomerchantilism and multifunctionality, in Progress in Human Geography, 29, 5, pp. 581–600. Pratchett, L. (2002) Local government: from modernisation to consolidation, in Parliamentary Affairs, 55, pp. 331–46. Punter, J. and Carmona, M. (1997) Cosmetics or critical constraints? The role of landscape in design policies in English development plans, in Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40, 2, pp. 173–97. Racher, F., Vollman, A.R. and Annis, R. (2004) Conceptualizations of ‘rural’: challenges and implications for nursing research, in Online Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care, 4, 2, http://www.rno.org/journal/issues/Vol-4/issue-2/Racher_article.htm, accessed 10 October 2006. Rackham, R. (1986) The History of the Countryside, Phoenix: London. Raco, M., Parker, G. and Doak, J. (2006) Reshaping spaces of local governance? Community strategies and the modernisation of local government in England, in Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 4, pp. 475–96. Rashman, L. and Radnor, Z. (2005) Learning to improve: approaches to improving local government services, in Public Money and Management, 25, 1, pp. 19–26. Ratcliffe, D.A. (ed.) (1977) A Nature Conservation Review, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Ratcliffe, J. (1974) An Introduction to Town and Country Planning, Hutchinson: London. Reinhardt, N. and Barlett, P. (1989) The persistence of family farms in United States agriculture, in Sociologia Ruralis, 29, pp. 203–25. Rhodes, D. (2006) The Modern Private Rented Sector, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (and Chartered Institute of Housing): York. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1994) The hollowing out of the state: the changing nature of the public service in Britain, in Political Quarterly, 65, 2, pp. 138–51. Rhodes, R.A.W. (2000) New Labour’s civil service: summing-up joining-up, in Political Quarterly, 71, 2, pp. 151–65. Ribchester, C. and Edwards, B. (1999) The centre and the local: policy and practice in rural education provision, in Journal of Rural Studies, 15, 1, pp. 49–63. Richardson, R. and Powe, N. (2004) Service implications of population growth in market towns in the UK, in Planning Practice and Research, 19, 4, pp. 363–73. Robertson, R.W. (1977), Second home decisions: the australian context, in Coppock, J.T. (ed.) Second Homes: Curse or Blessing?, Pergamon Press: Oxford, pp. 119–38. Robinson, D.G. (1976) Rural landscape, in Cherry, G. (ed.) Rural Planning Problems, Leonard Hill: London, pp. 173–214. Rodenburg, C.A. and Nijkamp, P. (2004) Multifunctional land use in the city: a typological overview, in Built Environment, 30, 4, pp. 274–88. Rogers, A. (1999) The Most Revolutionary Measure: A History of the Rural Development Commission, Rural Development Commission: London. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2002a) Environmental Planning, Cm 5459, The Stationery Office: London. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, (2002b) Twenty Third Report: Environmental Planning, Summary Report, TSO: London. Royal Town Planning Institute (2001) A New Vision for Planning, RTPI: London. Royal Town Planning Institute (2002) Modernising Green Belts: A Discussion Paper, RTPI: London. Rozee, L. (2006) Meeting the challenges of the new local development framework system, Paper presented to the Joint Planning Law Conference, Oxford, September 2006. Rushton, D. (2002) Difficulty in Accessing Key Services, Office of National Statistics: London.

Bibliography 351 Salletmaier, C. (1993) The development and superimposition of tourism: second homes and recreation within the rural fringe of an urban center, in Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 135, pp. 215–42. Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton University Press: Princeton. Saunders, P. (1984) Beyond housing classes: the sociological significance of private property rights in the means of consumption, in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 8, pp. 202–27. Scott Report (1942) Report of the Committee on Land Utilisation in Rural Areas, Cmnd 6378, HMSO: London. Scott, A.J. and Storper, M. (2003) Regions, globalization, development, in Regional Studies, 37, 6/7, pp. 579–93. Scottish Executive (1999) Rural Development Plan for Scotland, Scottish Executive: Edinburgh. Scottish Executive (1999) National Planning Policy Guidelines 14, Natural Heritage, Scottish Executive: Edinburgh. Scottish Executive (2006) Planning Policy 21: Green Belts, Scottish Executive: Edinburgh. Scottish Local Nature Conservation Site Working Group (2005) Guidance on Establishing and Managing Local Nature Conservation Site Systems in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage: Edinburgh. Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2007) Ecosystem Approach Principles, United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.biodiv.org/ programmes/cross-cutting/ ecosystem/principles.asp, accessed 20 April 2007. Selman, P. (2005) Planning at the Landscape Scale, Routledge: Oxon. Seyfang, G. (2001) Working for the fenland dollar: an evaluation of local exchange trading schemes as an informal employment strategy to tackle social exclusion, in Work, Employment and Society, 15, 3, pp. 581–93. Seyfang, G. (2006) Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: examining local organic food networks, in Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 4, pp. 385–95. Shaw, D. (1999) Wither rural planning?, in Allmendinger, P. and Chapman, M. (eds) Planning Beyond 2000, John Wiley: Chichester, pp. 63–58. Shoard, M. (1980) The Theft of the Countryside, Temple Smith: London. Shoard, M. (1997) This Land is Our Land, Gaia Books: London. Shoard, M. (1999) A Right to Roam, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Shoard, M. (2002) Edgelands, in Jenkins, J. (ed.) Remaking the Landscape: The Changing Face of Britain, Profile Books: London, pp. 117–46. Short, B. (2006) Idyllic ruralities, in Cloke P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 133–48. Shucksmith, M. (1981) No Homes for Locals?, Gower Publishing: Farnborough. Shucksmith, M. (1990a) A theoretical perspective on rural housing: housing classes in rural Britain, in Sociologia Ruralis, 30, 2, pp. 210–29. Shucksmith, M. (1990b) Housebuilding in Britain’s Countryside, Routledge: London. Shucksmith, M. (2007) Sustainable development and sustainable rural communities – who gains and who loses? Housing Studies Association Annual Conference, York 2007. Shucksmith, M., Thomson, K.J. and Roberts, D. (2005) The CAP and the Regions: The Territorial Impact of the Common Agricultural Policy, CABI: Wallingford. Sillince, J.A.A. (1986) Why did Warwickshire key settlement policy change in 1982? An assessment of the political implications of cuts in rural services, in The Geographical Journal, 152, 2, pp. 176–92. Simkin, S., Hawton, K., Fagg, J. and Malmberg, A. (1998) Stress in farmers: a survey of farmers in England and Wales, in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55, 11, pp. 729–34. Simmie, J. (ed.) (1994) Planning London, UCL Press: London. Smullian, M. (2007) Councils take single track, in Planning 1717, 4 May 2007, pp. 16–17. Social Inclusion Unit (2003) Making the Connections: Fuel Report on Transport and Social Exclusion, SIU: London.

352

Bibliography

Soil Association (2001) Organic Food and Farming: Myth and Reality, The Soil Association and Sustain: Bristol, http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/9f788a2d1160a9e580256a 71002a3d2b/915aa86cf16fd77f80256e45005cdcb3/$FILE/Myth&Reality.pdf, accessed 10 October 2006. Stamp, L.D. (1946) Britain’s Structure and Scenery, Collins: London. Stamp, L.D. (1964) Man and the Land, Collins: London. Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Stockdale, A. (2006) Migration: prerequisite for rural economic regeneration?, in Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 3, pp. 354–66. Stratford, N. (2000) Rural and Urban Views on the Countryside: Findings from the British Social Attitudes Survey 1999, National Centre for Social Research: London. Sutcliffe A. (1981) Towards the Planned City: Germany, Britain, the United States and France, 1780–1914, Blackwell Publishers: London. Swanick, C. (2004) The assessment of countryside character and landscape character in England: an overview, in Bishop, K. and Phillips, A. (eds) Countryside Planning: New Approaches to Management and Conservation, Earthscan: London, pp. 109–24. Sylvester, F. (2005) More lessons from parish plans programme, in Town and Country Planning, 74, pp. 337–8. Tang, B.S., Wong, S.U. and Lee, A. (2005) Green belt, conservation and local politics: a Hong Kong case study, in Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, 17, 3, pp. 230–47. Terluin, I.J. (2003) Differences in economic development in rural regions of advanced countries: an overview and critical analysis of theories, in Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 3, pp. 327–44. Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2004) Spatial planning: principles, practices and cultures, in Journal of Planning & Environmental Law, B19–B20, pp. 560–9. Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Williams, R. (2001) The European Dimension of British Planning, Spon Press: London. Tewdwr-Jones, M., Gallent, N. and Mace, A. (2002) Second Homes and Holiday Homes and the Land Use Planning System, Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. Tewdwr-Jones, M., Morphet, J. and Allmendinger, P. (2006). The contested strategies of local governance: community strategies, development plans, and local government modernisation, in Environment and Planning A: Environment and Planning, 38, 3, pp. 533–51. The Wildlife Trusts in the South East (2006) A Living Landscape for the South East: An Ecological Network Approach to Rebuilding Diversity for the 21 Century, Kent Wildlife Trust: Maidstone. Thomas, D. (1963) London’s green belt: the evolution of an idea, in The Geographic Journal, 129, 1, pp. 14–24. Thomas, C. and Bromley, R. (2002) The changing competitive relationship between small town centres and out-of-town retailing: town revival in South Wales, in Urban Studies, 39, 4, pp. 791–817. Thomas, H.V., Lewis, G., Thomas, D.R., Salmon, R.L., Chalmers, R.M., Coleman, T.J., Kench, S.M., Morgan-Capner, P., Meadows, D., Sillis, M., Softley, P. and Jenkins, R. (2003) Mental health of British farmers: a commentary, in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60, 3, pp. 181–6. Thomson, D. (1964) England in the Twentieth Century, 1914–1963, J. Cape: London. Thornley, A. (1991) Planning under Thatcherism: The Challenge of the Market, Routledge: London. Town and Country Planning Association (2004) Biodiversity by Design – A Guide for Sustainable Communities, TCPA: London. Travis, A. (1972) Policy formulation and the planner, in Ashton, J. and Long, W. (eds) The Remoter Rural Areas of Britain, Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh, pp. 186–201. Troughton, M. (1999) Redefining ‘rural’ for the 21st Century, in Ramp, W., Kulig, J., Townsend, I. and McGowan, V. (eds) Health in Rural Settings: Contexts for Action, University of Lethbridge Press: Lethbridge, AB, pp. 21–38. Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance, Spon Press: London.

Bibliography 353 Uthwatt Report (1941) Report of the Expert Committee on Compensation and Betterment, Cmnd 6291, HMSO: London. Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2006) Agricultural production in crisis, in Cloke P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P.H. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 258–77. Van Huylenbroeck, G. and Durand, G. (eds) (2003) Multifunctional Agriculture: A New Paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural Development, Ashgate: Aldershot. Vidal, J. (2001) Hunters and saboteurs resume feud, in The Guardian, 18 December. Walford, N. (1999) Geographical transition from productivism to post-productivism: agricultural production in England and Wales 1950s to 1990s, in Walford, N., Everitt, J. and Napton, D. (eds) Reshaping the Countryside: Perceptions and Processes of Rural Change, CABI: Wallingford. Wannop, U. (1995) The Regional Imperative: Regional Planning and Governance in Britain, Europe and the United States, Routledge: London. Ward, N. (1996) Pesticides, pollution and sustainability, in Allanson, P. and Whitby, M. (eds) The Rural Economy and the British Countryside, Earthscan: London, pp. 40–61. Ward, N. (2000) Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The UK National Report, Research report to the WWF and the Statutory Countryside Agencies of Great Britain, Department of Geography, University of Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle upon Tyne. Ward, S.V. (2004) Planning and Urban Change, 2nd edn, Sage Publications: London. Welsh Assembly Government (2001) Farming for the Future: A New Direction for Farming in Wales, Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff, http://new.wales. gov.uk/topics/environment countryside/countryside_policy/farming/susfarming2020/farmingforthefuture/?lang=en, accessed 20 October 2006. Welsh Assembly Government (2002) Planning Policy Wales, WAG: Cardiff. Welsh Office (1996) Planning Guidance (Wales) TAN5 Nature Conservation and Planning, TSO: Cardiff. Westmacott, R. and Worthington, T. (1974) New Agricultural Landscapes, Countryside Commission: Cheltenham. White, G. (1788) A Natural History of Selbourne, Frederick Warne & Co: London. White, J. (1976) Recreation and tourism in the countryside, in Cherry, G. (ed.) Rural Planning Problems, Leonard Hill: London. Wiener, M.J. (1981) English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit 1850–1980, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Williams, R. (1973) The Country and the City, The Hogarth Press: London. Williams, R. (1996) European Union Spatial Policy and Planning, Paul Chapman: London. Wilson, G. (2001) From productivism to post-productivism and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture, in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS, 26, 1, pp. 77–102. Wilson, G. (2005) Towards a post-productionist agriculture in the UK and Germany, in Bayreuther Geographische Arbeiten, 26, pp. 111–19. Wilson, G. (2007) Multi-functional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective, CABI: Wallingford. Wilson, V. and Pecke, J. (1998) Managing Change in Small Scottish Primary Schools, Glasgow University: Glasgow. Winter, M. (1996) Rural Politics: Policies for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment, Routledge: London. Winter, M. and Rushbrook, L. (2003) Literature review of the English Rural Economy – Final Report to DEFRA, Centre for Rural Research: Exeter. Wood, J. (2004) Rural Health Care: A North West Perspective, A Public Health Information Report for The North West Public Health Observatory, http://www.nwpho.org.uk/reports/ ruralhealth.pdf, accessed 15 February 2007. Wood R. and Ravetz, J. (2000) Recasting the urban fringe, in Landscape Design, 294, 10, pp. 13–17. Woods, M. (2005a) Contesting Rurality: Politics in the British Countryside, Ashgate: Aldershot.

354

Bibliography

Woods, M. (2005b) Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in Rural Restructuring, Sage: London. Wragg, A. (2000) Towards sustainable landscape planning: experiences from the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in Landscape Research, 25, 2, pp. 183–200. WSP Consultants (2005) Journey to Work Analysis: Part 1 Regional, WSP Group Plc: London. Wye Valley Partnership (2004) Wye Valley AONB Management Plan 2004–2009, WVP: Monmouth. Zonnefeld, I. (1990) Scope and contents of landscape ecology as an emerging science, in Zonnefeld, I. and Forman, R. (eds) Changing Landscapes and Ecological Perspective, Springer: New York.

Index

Abercrombie, Patrick 12, 13, 31, 64, 248–9, 277, 323–4 access management 122–4 accessibility 198–200; to the countryside 122–4; education 204–9; health care 209–11; housing 185 (Box); information and communication technology 215–17; planning and 217–24; public transport 200–4; retail 211–15 Addison Committee Report 33 (Box) Agricultural Council 102 (Fig. 4.6), 103 agricultural policy: birth of agrienvironmental policy 103–4; CAP see Common Agricultural Policy; early agricultural and planning policies 97–100; environmental management expenditure 86; exemption from planning control 33 (Box), 71, 98, 324; farming policy network 102 (Fig. 4.6); government support in productivist era 66–7; present challenges for agricultural planning and 106–11; subsidies see agricultural subsidies agricultural subsidies: access incentives 122; control by 71; cuts in 29; domestic production subsidies 155; environmental compensation payments 104; EU funding 77–8, 94 see also Common Agricultural Policy; friction with preventative environmental payments 104; national administration 109; single farm payments (SFPs) 105; and the ‘technological treadmill’ 100 agriculture: the agrarian question 93, 109; agricultural diversification 119, 120–1; change of character 241 (Box), 317; conflict with conservation 104, 155, 244–6; disembedding of 108–10; economy see farming economy;

embeddedness in rural space 91–3, 108–10, 115; employment in 62–3, 67, 73, 95, 144; farming as a family business 100, 108; first agricultural revolution 62–3; job losses through mechanisation 107, 144, 148; policies see agricultural policy; post-productivism 110–11; relationship with environment 91, 96, 104, 107, 155, 244–6 Agriculture Act 1947 32, 66, 97–8 Agriculture Act 1986 246 Agri-environmental Regulation 103–4 Albrechts, L. 18–19, 306 Allmendinger, P. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. 35 animal transportation 107 annual monitoring report (AMR) 53 AONBs (areas of outstanding natural beauty) 55 (Box), 219, 247, 249, 273–6 area action plans (AAPs) 223 Audit Commission 43 Banister, D. 201 Barker, Kate 35, 192, 330–1, 332; Barker Reviews 162–3, 166, 167–71, 180, 192–6, 281, 282 (Box), 302, 328–9 Barlow Report 33 (Box), 64, 66 Beck, Ulrich 127–8 Beeching Report 200 beef production 91–3 biodiversity 107, 250, 262–7; biodiversity action plans (BAPs) 45, 250, 255 Birds Directive 1979 40, 260 Bishop, K.: and Bate, R. 256; and Phillips, A. 4; and Phillips, A. and Warren, L. 282 boundaries 241 (Box), 285–6 Brandt, J., Tress, B. and Tress, G. 22–3, 284, 304, 324 broadband 216

356

Index

Brun, A.H. and Fuller, A. 107 Brunwin, T. et al. 201 Bruton, M. 14, 17, 36 BSE crises 36, 91, 107, 209, 317 Buchanan, Sir Colin 14, 36, 244, 328 CA see Countryside Agency Caffyn, A. 222 Caingorm National Park 271, 272 (Box) Campaign to Protect Rural England see CPRE Campbell, S. 158 CAP see Common Agricultural Policy car ownership and use 201 Carson, Rachel 235 Central Place Theory (CPT) 72 Champion, A.G. 145 Cherry, G. 13, 64, 238 Christaller, Walter 72 city-regions 297–300, 310, 333 Clark, David 184, 192 clientilist countryside 130 (Box), 138–9 climate change 37, 43, 74, 86, 92 (Box), 224 (Box) Cloke, P. 9, 220, 297; and Edwards, G. 9; and Goodwin, M. 73 Clout, H. 149 coal industry 69 coastal management 242 (Box); heritage coasts 276–7 Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) 10, 44, 45, 125, 176–7, 181, 308–9, 311–12; affordability data 177 (Tbl. 7.3), 180; education 206; State of the Countryside reports 9, 126; transport 200, 201 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 39, 41, 77, 78, 86, 94; birth of agrienvironmental policy 103–4; era of 101–3; new, decoupled CAP of quality production 104–6; principles and mechanisms 101 (Box) communication technologies 116, 126; ICT 210, 215–17 Communities Plan 167, 168 (Box) community change: and changing needs 152–3; communities in transition 146–52; economic change and 144–6; and rural conflict 150, 154–6, 157–63; spatial planning and 156–63 community planning 51 (Fig. 2.2), 217–20, 223–5, 310–11, 321, 328–30; see also community strategies community shops 212–13, 214 (Box) community strategies (CSs) 20–1 (Box), 49, 51 (Fig. 2.2), 210, 217–19, 223,

225, 318; sustainable 53, 55, 162–3, 202, 319 community transport 204, 205 (Box) Community Transport Association 204 commuters 22, 130 (Box), 149, 153, 195, 199, 208; housing 160, 173 (Box), 174, 175, 195; ‘reluctant commuters’ 151, 173 (Box) ‘comprehensive’ planning 22, 31 Connexions 208–9 conservation 23, 31, 116, 155; access management and 122–4; agriculture and 104, 155, 244–6; compensation payments 104; effectiveness of designations 244; English Nature see English Nature; landscape 237 (Fig. 9.4), 243–4, 251–3, 267–82; nature 237 (Fig. 9.4), 243, 250–1, 259–67; origins of environmental concern 235–6; planning 250–3, 266–7; post-war framework of institutions and designations 236–8; special areas of conservation (SACS) 40, 240–4, 260, 261 (Box) contested countryside 130 (Box) ‘Control of Land Use’ (1944 White Paper) 14 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 250, 263, 266–7 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1971 260 coordination 24, 135–7; Haskins Review and 37–8; local 49, 51, 57; regional 46–8; spatial planning and 17–18, 23, 29, 51, 52, 56, 127, 320–1; see also integrated strategies Council for the Protection of Rural England see CPRE council houses 151–2, 182 counter-urbanisation 74–5, 134, 144–6 Country Landowners Association (CLA) 98 country parks 123 countryside see landscape; rurality Countryside Acts 1967 and 1968 245 Countryside Agency (CA) 45–6, 237 (Box), 252, 294–5, 301, 311–12; household spending 212; Land Use Consultants report 135–7; parish plan grants 217; retail 211, 212–13; second homes 175; Stepping Stones report 85, 86; transport 201 Countryside Alliance 160 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 122, 247, 260, 274 Countryside Commission for England and Wales 237 (Box), 238, 245, 252, 276

Index Countryside Commission for Scotland 237 (Box), 238 Countryside Council for Wales 237 (Box), 247, 256, 260 Courtney, P. and Errington, A. 126 CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) 160, 194, 195, 219, 236, 248, 267 CPRW (Council for the Protection of Rural Wales) 248 CRC see Commission for Rural Communities Crook, A.: and Currie, J. et al. 191; and Monk, S. et al. 186, 191, 192 crop production 95–6 Cruickshank, George 267 Cullingworth, J.B. and Nadin, V. 17, 277 Curry Report 106–7, 110 Darwin, Charles 236 DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) 41, 42 (Box), 53, 195 decentralisation 34, 35, 46, 68, 139, 266; of population 144–6, 179, 313 see also in-migration DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 42–3, 79; creation 36–7; delivery landscape 43–6; OELS scheme 120; retail 213; Rural Strategy 38, 114, 124, 127, 198, 320 demographics 6–9, 10–12, 144 Dennison, S.R. 33 (Box) Department for Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) 79 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 41, 42 (Box), 53, 195 Department for Local Government, Transport and the Regions (DTLR) 41 Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs see DEFRA Department of the Environment (DoE) 41 DETR (Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions) 36–7, 41; Modernising Rural Delivery (MRD) Programme 38–9 development areas 69–70 Development Commission 63, 70 development control 16, 32, 34 (Box) development management 34 (Box) development plan documents (DPDs) 53, 55–6, 186 development planning 15, 34 (Box)

357

devolution 3, 35, 139, 298, 333 Dower Report 33 (Box), 267–8 DPDs (development plan documents) 53, 55–6, 186 DTLR (Department for Local Government, Transport and the Regions) 41 East of England Development Agency (EEDA) 47 (Box) ecological networking 265 economic liberalism 34, 35 economy: farming see farming economy; rural see rural economy ecosystem approach 266–7 ecosystem services 119 Eden, Anthony 166 education 204–9; educational disadvantage 27 (Box), 206–9 EEDA (East of England Development Agency) 47 (Box) Elson, M. 154–5 employment: agricultural 62–3, 67, 73, 95, 144; agri-food sector 95; changing balance of rural employment 19611971 71, 72 (Tbl. 3.1); distribution 1961-1971 72 (Tbl. 3.1); educational disadvantage and 206–9; employment disadvantage 27 (Box); in forestry 68; growth sectors and small and medium-sized businesses 125–7; job losses through mechanisation 107, 144, 148; rural entreprenuerialism 74–5, 125–6; self-employment 74–5, 85, 126; in service industry 95, 122, 125; and the shift from production to consumption 73–4, 85; structure of rural employment in England in 2001 75 (Fig. 3.4); in traditional rural industries 63 empty homes strategies 185 (Box) energy crops 119 England Rural Development Plan/ Programme 47 (Box), 79, 80 (Box) English Nature 45; role in forestry 69 environment: birth of agri-environmental policy 103–4; compensation payments 104; conservation see conservation; damage through agricultural practices 73, 104, 107; drivers of landscape change 238–40; environmental planning 247–53, 266–7; farming’s relationship with 91, 96, 104, 107, 155, 244–6; fundamental change in 253–5, 317; intertwining of economic, social and environmental factors

358

Index

83–4; management expenditure 86; as a man-made landscape 230–2; as a ‘multi-functional’ space 22; planning as a response to 13; policy integration 245–7, 255–6, 286–9, 320–34; science and social science perspectives 232–5, 246–7; sustainability 96, 107, 110, 122 see also sustainable development Environment Act 1995 43, 247 Environment Agency 43, 256, 306 Environmental Quality in Spatial Planning 306, 307 (Box) environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) 246 European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) 77 European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) 104 European Commission 103 European Community (EC) 101 European Landscape Convention 283 European Regional Development Fund 77 European Social Fund 77 European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) 294, 319 European Union (EU) 39–41; agricultural funding 77–8, 94; allocation of 2006 budget 106 (Fig. 4.7); Birds Directive 40, 260; Cohesion Policy 39; Common Agricultural Policy see Common Agricultural Policy; DirectorateGeneral for the Environment 40, 41; Habitats Directive 1992 40, 247, 250, 260; INTERREG programmes 40; LEADER+ programme 40, 87, 127, 212, 329; Rural Development Regulation 77–8, 85, 86; structural funds 39–40, 77–8, 87 Evans, A.W. 178, 179, 180 factory farming 155 Fairbrother, N. 255 Falk, I. and Kilpatrick, S. 161, 204 farmers’ markets 110, 120 farming see agriculture farming economy: CAP see Common Agricultural Policy; embeddedness and 93, 108–10; figures and trends in British farming 94–6; part-time farming and 107–8; subsidies see agricultural subsidies Fens Rural Pathfinder 208 fertilisers 107 financial disadvantage 27 (Box) Fischler, Franz 105–6 fishing industry 69, 95

Food Ethics Council 2006 report 110 food imports 62 food security 91, 92 (Box) foot and mouth disease 73, 107 Forest Research 43 forestry: environmental management expenditure 86; government policies from 1986 68–9; government support in productivist era 67–8; and the manufacturing industry 125 Forestry Act 1919 67 Forestry Act 1967 43 Forestry Commission 43, 67–8 Forestry Enterprise 43 fox hunting 155–6 Friends of the Earth (FoE) 159 (Box), 160 functional regions 28, 138, 294, 295 (Box), 297, 298–9, 309; market flows in 313, 314 Fylingdales 244 Gallent, N. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. 194 garden cities 64, 65 (Fig.3.2) Garrod, B., Wornell, R. and Youell, R. 121 Geddes, Patrick 248, 283, 323–4 General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) 104 Gilg, A. 15, 157–8, 255 governance: community planning and 310–11; local government 48–51, 161–3, 166–7, 308–10, 318–20, 326; new rural governance and planning 86–7, 161–3; regional government 46–8; rural governance and spatial planning 48–57, 134–5; rural policy, the ‘third way’ and 35–8; and scale 306–11; spatial 4, 48–50, 86–7, 118, 139, 163, 313, 326 Government Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production 17 Government offices (GOs) 46 green belts 242, 248–9, 277–81, 301–2; Barker recommendations 35, 170 (Box 7.2), 281, 282 (Box); policy 34, 35, 159 (Box), 301 green politics 135 greenfield land 242–3 Greer, A. 101–3 Habitats Directive 1992 40, 247, 250, 260 Halfacree, K. 9, 73, 127, 135 Hall, Peter 29, 180–1, 333 Halvergate Marshes 104 Hamilton, K. and Selman, P. 256, 285–6 Haskins, C. 37, 45

Index Haskins Review 37–8, 45 health action zones (HAZs) 210 health care 209–11; health disadvantage 27 (Box), 209–11 hedgerows 107, 150, 317 Heidegger, Martin 147 Henderson, S. 131 heritage coasts 276–7 Highlands and Islands Development Board 70, 71 Hindle, T., Spollen, M. and Dixon, P. 199–200 historic landscape 242 (Box), 243–4 Hobhouse Report 33 (Box), 267–8 Hooper, A. 327 housing: accessibility strategies 185 (Box); affordability and affordable housing 167 (Box), 176–7, 186–95; arguments against rural house building 180 (Box); conflicts over 157, 160; council houses 151–2, 182; counterurbanisation and 145–6, 150; decline in rural house building 181–2; demand pressures 172–7; development on greenfield land 242; grants 182, 183 (Box), 184; housing disadvantage 27 (Box), 174; ‘NIMBY-ism’ 157, 160, 171, 178, 331, 333; planning for future supply 183–95; planning responses to housing growth pressures 330–3; policy 166–71, 186–92, 331; prices 178–9; regional 47; scarcity 171–83; second homes see second homes; supply pressures 178–83; tenure patterns 174 Housing Act 1980 182 Housing Act 2004 183 (Box) Housing and Town Planning Acts 14 Housing Corporation 10, 43 Howard, Ebenezer 28, 64, 65 hunting 155–6 Huxley Report 1947 259 Illsley, D. and Richardson, T. 271 Imperial Food System 97 information and communication technology 210, 215–17; see also internet in-migration 85, 144–5, 149–52; see also international migration integrated strategies 20 (Box), 51 (Fig. 2.2), 53, 255–6, 286–9, 320–34 inter-connectivity, of places 26–8 international migration 152, 153 (Box), 173 (Box) internet 213, 216

359

Jones, C. and Murray, A. 182 Kaika, M. and Swyngedouw, E. 301 Kay, G. 124 key settlements 200, 211 (Box), 217, 220, 224, 316, 328 LAAs (local area agreements) 162, 223, 224 (Box), 299 Lake District 63, 124, 271, 272 (Box), 308 land ownership 62, 151, 289; countryside accessibility and 122–4; the paternalistic countryside 130 (Box); transfer of property 129 land prices 178–9 land supply 185 (Box), 192–5 Land Use Consultants reports 135–8, 276 landscape 230–2, 233 (Fig. 9.2), 234 (Fig. 9.3), 235 (Box), 283–4; changing character 241–2 (Box), 317; multifunctionality 284–5, 325; proactive response to change 323–5 landscape conservation 237 (Fig. 9.4), 243–4, 251–3; designations 267–82; see also conservation land-use planning 15–17, 28, 32–5, 304; Barker Review 169–70 (Box); spatial planning and 20–1 (Box) Lang, T. and Heasman, M. 109 LDFs see local development frameworks LEADER+ programme 40, 87, 127, 212, 329 leisure pursuits see recreation; tourism ‘less favoured areas’ (LFAs) 86, 104 LGMA (Local Government Modernisation Agenda) 49, 198, 310, 318 Ling, C. et al. 285 Lloyd George (of Dwyfor), David 166 local development documents (LDDs) 53, 83, 87, 136 (Box), 186 local development frameworks (LDFs) 53, 111, 162, 219, 223, 304–6, 319; PPS12 55, 56 local development scheme (LDS) 53 local food 24, 110, 118, 119, 120–1 local government 48–51, 161–3, 166–7; governance and reform 308–10, 318–20, 326 Local Government Act 1972 33, 49 Local Government Act 2000 49, 162, 215, 306, 318, 327, 329 Local Government Association 48 Local Government Modernisation Agenda (LGMA) 49, 198, 310, 318

360

Index

Local Government White Paper (LGWP) 2006 20 (Box), 50 (Box), 56–7, 162, 169 (Box), 196, 306, 309 local nature reserves (LNRs) 260, 261 (Box) local strategic partnerships (LSPs) 49–50, 138, 162 local transport plans (LTPs) 201–2 Lowe, P. 35; and Ward, N. 12, 118, 131–4 LSPs (local strategic partnerships) 49–50, 138, 162 Lyons Review 2007 321 McDonalds 109 McHarg, I. 283 McSharry, Ray 103; McSharry reforms 103, 104 MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries) 36, 246 manufacturing industry 63–4, 70, 71, 73, 125, 126; food manufacturing 109, 118 marine nature reserves 261 (Box) market towns 47 (Box), 126–7, 211 (Box), 220–3, 224 Marsden, T. 118, 129; et al. 129 Martin, E.W. 147–8, 149, 151, 152 mass food market 118 mechanisation 98–100, 107, 144, 148, 155 Mid Wales Industrial Development Association 70, 71 middle classes 129–30, 155; conservation 236; counter-urbanisation 144–6; inmigrants and ‘gentrification’ 149–52; and the preserved countryside 130 (Box); pressure groups 123 Milford Haven 244 mining industry 63, 69, 130 (Box) Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) 36, 246 Moore-Colyer, R. and Scott, A. 248 Moray Firth Urbanisation Programme 72 Morphet, J. 311 Moseley, M. 198, 199, 201, 215–16, 217, 222, 328 motorways 146, 149, 179, 241 (Box), 243, 326 MRD (Modernising Rural Delivery) Programme 38–9 multi-functionality 19–24, 284–5, 303–5, 320–1, 325 Murdoch, J. and Abram, S. 155 Nadin, V. 4, 51, 52, 319

National Agricultural Advisory Service 98 National Assembly for Wales 79 National Bus Company 200 National Farmers Union (NFU) 98, 245 national nature reserves (NNRs) 45, 261 (Box) national parks 43, 115, 268–72; Dower Report and 33 (Box), 267–8; Hobhouse Report and 33 (Box), 267– 8; recreation planning and 123–4; Scott recommendations 33 (Box) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 32, 43, 236–8, 239 (Box), 259, 260, 273 National Parks Commission 32, 237 (Box), 238 National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 270 National Rural Development Strategy Plan (NRDSP) 74, 78, 79, 86, 87 National Trust 119, 236, 267, 289 Natura 2000 network 260 Natural England (NE) 10, 28, 44–5, 237 (Box), 256, 260, 301 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 44 Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) 237, 245, 259 nature conservation 237 (Fig. 9.4), 243, 250–1; designations 259–67; see also conservation NDPBs (non-departmental public bodies) 43–6 New Agricultural Lanscapes study 245, 290, 324 New Labour 35, 46, 88, 327 New Towns Act 1946 242 Newby, Howard 61, 149, 150, 151, 158, 245, 326 Newman, I. 214–15 Newtown 72–3 NHS Direct 211, 216 Norberg-Schulz, C. 146–7 North West Landscape Strategy 286, 288 (Box) NSAs (national scenic areas) 273–4, 276 Nuffield Report 1986 41 OELS (Organic Entry Level Scheme) 120 OPDM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) 10, 28, 41 organic farming 107, 119, 120–1 Pahl, R. 149, 151–2, 326 parish planning 217–18, 219 paternalistic countryside 130 (Box)

Index Pennines Rural Development Board 70 Performance and Innovation Unit 81–3, 220 pesticides 107 Phillimore, P. and Reading, R. 209 PINS (Planning Inspectorate) 43, 56 place shaping 20 (Box), 29, 319, 321, 325, 326 planning: 1947-2004 planning system 16 (Box); in the 1980s 34–5; 2004 planning system 52–6; accessibility and 217–24; for agricultural and tourist needs 115; city-regions and 297–300; community see community planning; community change and 156–61; ‘comprehensive’ planning 22, 31; conflict resolution and 154–6, 158–63; conservational 247–53, 266–7; current planning activity and the rural economy 81–3; early agricultural and planning policies 97–100; environmental 247–53, 266–7; housing 181, 183–95, 330–3; integration across agendas 320–34; land-use see land-use planning; local government and the new planning system 48–51; mainstreaming of planning agenda 56–7; making sense of the reforms 318–20; multifunctionality and 19–24, 303–5, 325; new rural governance and planning 86–7; participation of interest groups 130–1; policy statements see planning policy statements; postwar development of rural policy and 32–5, 97–100; present challenges for agricultural policy and 106–11; prewar planning and the rural economy 64–6; in the productivist era 71–3, 98–100; purpose of 13–15; recreation planning 122–5; regional 47, 194; role in rural areas 12–24; rural proofing 312–13; ‘rural system’ 31; rural–urban fringe and 300–6; spatial see spatial planning; strategic 26–8; supporting service hubs and hinterlands 220–3; for sustainability see sustainable development; ‘urban system’ 31 Planning and Compensation Act 1991 250 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPC) 2004 4, 162, 167; regional government 47–8 Planning Green Paper (PGP) 2001 51, 166, 327 Planning Inspectorate (PINS) 43, 56

361

planning permission 15, 18 (Box), 32, 178–9 planning policy guidance (PPG) 41 planning policy statements (PPSs) 42 (Box); Statement 3 167, 169 (Box), 186–90, 191, 332; Statement 7 81–3, 87–8, 136 (Box), 274, 323; Statement 9 264 Planning White Paper 2001 35 Planning White Paper 2007 170 (Box), 219, 313 politics, green 135 pollution 107, 281 population 6–9, 10–12, 73, 83–4; decentralisation 144–6, 179, 313; retired 151 post offices 213–15 Potter, C. and Tilzey, M. 111 poultry 94, 107 poverty 116; housing and 152 preserved countryside 130 (Box) Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme 79 productivism 73, 74 (Box), 86, 98, 109– 10; negative externalities of 106–8 productivist era (1945-mid 1970s) 66–73, 98–100 property prices 178–9 public access 122–4 public service agreements (PSAs) 223; PSA areas 79, 82 (Fig. 3.7), 126 public transport 27 (Box), 153, 157, 172 (Box), 198–9, 200–4; community transport 204, 205 (Box) Punter, J. and Carmona, M. 250–1, 256, 284 quality produce 91, 104–6, 109–10, 118, 119 quarrying 63, 69 Racher, F., Vollman, A.R. and Annis, R. 10 Rackham, R. 283 railways 200 Ramsar sites 45, 239 (Box), 260, 261 (Box) RAs (regional assemblies) 47–8 Ratcliffe, Derek 235 RDAs (regional development agencies) 46–7, 79, 109, 122, 127, 216 recreation 22, 73, 115, 116, 121–5 Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 47 regional economic planning councils 70–1 regional government 46–8

362

Index

regional planning bodies (PRBs) 47, 48, 53, 327 regional planning guidance (RPG) 53 regional spatial strategies see RSSs Reinhardt, N. and Barlett, P. 100 Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935 30, 64–6 retail disadvantage 27 (Box) retail industry 109–10, 125, 126–7; retail disadvantage 211–15 retired population 151, 173 (Box), 176 Ribchester, C. and Edwards, B. 205–6 river management 242 (Box) Robertson, R.W. 144 Robinson, D.G. 243, 249 Royal Agricultural Society of England 98 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) 282–3 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 261 (Box), 289 Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) 19, 302 RSLs (registered social landlords) 171, 182, 183 (Box), 184, 185 (Box), 186, 189 (Box) RSSs (regional spatial strategies) 53, 55, 83, 87, 111, 136 (Box), 304–6 rural advocacy 311–12 Rural Advocate for England Report 2006 83 Rural Development Commission (RDC) 45, 46, 63 rural development funds 105 Rural Development (National) Strategy Plan (NRDSP) 74, 78, 79, 86, 87 rural development programmes and strategies 47 (Box), 77–80, 86 Rural Development Service 45 rural disadvantage 27 (Box), 206–15 Rural Economies, Stepping Stones to a Healthier Future (CA report) 85, 86 rural economy: before 1940 62–6; commodification of the countryside 114–25, 129; current planning activity and 81–3; diversification 63, 78–81, 85–6, 94, 107, 116–25; economic change and community change 144–6; embeddedness and 117, 127–9, 138; and emergence of regionalised ruralities 129–35; farming economy see farming economy; growth sectors and small and medium-sized businesses 125–7; integrated planning and 322–3; intertwining of economic, social and environmental factors 83–4; new economic activities 116–17, 125; new role(s) of agriculture and the

evolving agri-food sector 119; of the productivist era (1945 – mid 1970s) 66–73, 98–100; role of new spatial planning system 135–8; and the shift from production to consumption 73–4, 85, 115–16, 118; state intervention in 85–6; today 74–80, 321–2; urban– rural relationships and 84 Rural Enterprise Scheme 79, 85 rural governance see governance Rural Industries Intelligence Bureau 63 rural policy 35–8; agricultural see agricultural policy; housing 166–71, 186–92, 331; post-war development of rural planning and 32–5, 97–100; proofing 312–13; sustainability 135; see also governance rural proofing 312–13 Rural Services Standard 198–9, 213 Rural Social and Community Programme 217 Rural Strategy Review 2004 38, 114, 124, 127, 198, 320–1 Rural Stress Action Plan (RSAP) 209 Rural White Papers (RWPs): (1995) 35, 118; (2000) 36–7, 121–2, 127, 198, 199, 217, 220–1, 328–9 rurality: changing rural communities see community change; countryside accessibility 122–4 see also accessibility; countryside change 238–42, 253–5, 317; differentiated countryside 127–9, 130 (Box), 138, 173, 198; emergence of regionalised ruralities 129–35; functional interdependencies between town and country 294, 296 (Box); the nature of rural areas 6–12; overview of special challenges in rural areas 24–6; rural conflict 150, 154–6, 157–63; rural development scenarios 134; the ‘rural idyll’ 73, 114–16, 129, 235; rural spaces as ‘carbon sinks’ 74, 86; ‘rural way of life’ 155–6; typologies of rural England 129–34; urban–rural relationships 84, 332–3 rural–urban fringe 300–6 Rushton, D. 209 SACs (special areas of conservation) 40, 240–4, 260, 261 (Box) salmonella 107 Sandford principle 270 Sandys, Duncan 277 Saunders, P. 174 SBS Phoenix Fund 85

Index schools see education Scott Report 33 (Box), 64, 66, 71, 238 Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) 79 Scottish Natural Heritage 237 (Box), 247, 252, 256, 260, 274 Sea Bird Protection Acts 236 second homes 174–6; costing 185 (Box); demand pressures of 173 (Box); and the ‘environmental rationality’ 155; local opposition to 160; ‘pioneers’ of 146; social structure and 152, 153; in a ‘twenty-first century good life scenario’ 134 Selbourne Society for the Preservation of Birds, Plants and Pleasant Places 236, 259 self-employment 74–5, 85, 126 Selman, P. 283 service industry 95, 122, 125; service hubs 126–7, 220–3 settlement change 241 (Box) Seyfang, G. 120 SFPs (single farm payments) 105, 106 Shucksmith, M. 152, 173, 174 Sillince, J.A.A. 220 Simkin, S. et al. 209 Simmie, J. 32 single farm payments (SFPs) 105, 106 sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) 45, 239 (Box), 260–2 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 125, 127 social capital 161, 163, 164, 204, 214 (Box), 225, 328 social exclusion 224; see also rural disadvantage Social Inclusion Unit 201 social interaction 146–7 Social Network Payment programme 213 social structure: community change and 146–53; of post-war England 151–2 social trends 73, 83–4; counterurbanisation 74–5, 144–6 Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves 236, 259 Soil Association 120 soil management 119 SPAs (special protection areas) 40, 45, 260, 261 (Box) spatial governance 4, 48–50, 86–7, 118, 139, 163, 313, 326 spatial management 24 spatial planning 4, 17–19, 23, 28–9, 127, 289–90; community change and 156–61; community planning 51 (Fig.

363

2.2), 217–20, 223–5, 310–11, 321, 328–30; concept of rurality and 6; housing growth pressures and 330–2; integration across agendas 320–34; inter-dependence and 28; land-use planning and 20–1 (Box); local government and 48–51; and the mechanics of the 2004 planning system 51–6; multi-functional 303–5, 307 (Box), 320–1, 325; and new forms of governance 161–3; role in supporting a new rural economy 135–8; rural development scenarios and 134; rural governance and 48–57 SPDs (supplementary planning documents) 53, 55, 219 special areas of conservation (SACS) 40, 240–4, 260, 261 (Box) Stamp, L.D. 231–2 Stansted Airport 244 statement of community involvement (SCI) 53 statutory planning see planning Stepping Stones report 85, 86 Stern Review 74 strategic planning 26–8 structure plans 16, 33 subsidies see agricultural subsidies supplementary planning documents (SPDs) 53, 55, 219 sustainable communities 147, 163–4, 172 (Box), 223; strategies for 53, 55, 162–3, 202, 306 sustainable development 17, 23, 135–8, 160; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7) 81–3, 87–8, 136 (Box), 274, 323 technology 98–100; communication technologies 116, 126; ICT 210, 215–17; see also mechanisation tenure patterns 174 Terluin, I.J. 127 territorial cohesion 294–7, 329 Tesco 109 Tewdwr-Jones, M. 306 Thatcherism 34 ‘third way’ 35–8 Thomas, H.V. et al. 209 tourism 27 (Box), 73, 75, 86, 115, 121–5 ‘town and country planning’ 4, 14, 30 Town and Country Planning Act 1932 30, 64 Town and Country Planning Act 1947 4, 14, 32, 71, 98, 277; nationalisation of development rights 15–16, 32

364

Index

Town and Country Planning Act 1968 249–50 Town and Country Planning Act 1971 16, 33 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 186 ‘town planning act’ 1909 13–14 training 206–7 transport: community 204, 205 (Box); disadvantage 27 (Box); of live animals 107; private 201; public see public transport Travis, A. 71, 72 Trawsfynydd power station 244 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 250, 263, 266–7 unemployment 27 (Box), 62, 64, 130 (Box) Urban Task Force report 1999 319 Uthwatt Report 33 (Box) village design statements (VDSs) 218–19, 325

Vital Villages programme 217 Vocational Training Scheme 79 Wal-Mart 109 Water Framework Directive 286 water management 119 water pollution 107 White, Gilbert 235 ‘white land’ 15, 34 (Box), 71 Wild Birds Directive 260 wildlife 83, 107, 123, 235 (Box), 243, 244; corridors 242 (Box), 243 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 103, 239 (Box), 245 Williams, R. 6 woodland 241 (Box) Woods, M. 154, 155, 326 World Trade Organisation (WTO) 92 (Box), 96, 109, 128 World War I 97, 166 World War II 14, 32, 66 Wye Valley 273, 274, 275 (Box), 284 Zonnefeld, I. 231

Introduction to Rural Planning (Natural and Built Environment)

Spatial Planning and Climate Change (Natural and Built Environment Series)

Introduction To Environmental Impact Assessment (Natural and Built Environment Series)

Public Transport (Natural and Built Environment Series)

Planning for Disaster: How Natural and Manmade Disasters Shape the Built Environment

Rural Property Planning

Ethics and the Built Environment (Professional Ethics)

Sustainable Rural Systems (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning)

Measuring the natural environment

Design, Technology and the Development Process in the Built Environment (Built Environment Series of Textbooks)

Introduction to natural language semantics

Governing Rural Development: Discourses And Practices of Self-help in Australian Rural Policy (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning) (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning)

Controlling Development: Certainty, Discretion And Accountability (Natural and Built Environment Series, 9)

Improving Healthcare Through Built Environment Infrastructure

Traditional Islamic Principles of Built Environment

Economics for the Modern Built Environment

Transforming Markets in the Built Environment: Adapting to Climate Change

Evaluating Sustainable Development: in the Built Environment

Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability

Marketing Planning: Strategy, Environment and Context

Access for All: Approaches to the Built Environment

Advanced research methods in the built environment

Environmental Law Techiques for the Built Environment

Rural development, natural resources, and the environment: lessons of experience in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Protection of Built Environment Against Earthquakes

Transforming Markets in the Built Environment: Adapting to Climate Change

Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment

Representing Modeling and Visualizing the Natural Environment

Caves: Processes, Development and Management (Natural Environment)

Economics of the Environment and Natural Resources

Partnership Agencies In British Urban Policy (The Natural and Built Environment, No 6)

Introduction to Rural Planning (Natural and Built Environment)

Spatial Planning and Climate Change (Natural and Built Environment Series)

Introduction To Environmental Impact Assessment (Natural and Built Environment Series)

Public Transport (Natural and Built Environment Series)

Planning for Disaster: How Natural and Manmade Disasters Shape the Built Environment

Rural Property Planning

Ethics and the Built Environment (Professional Ethics)

Sustainable Rural Systems (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning)

Measuring the natural environment

Design, Technology and the Development Process in the Built Environment (Built Environment Series of Textbooks)

Introduction to natural language semantics

Governing Rural Development: Discourses And Practices of Self-help in Australian Rural Policy (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning) (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning)

Controlling Development: Certainty, Discretion And Accountability (Natural and Built Environment Series, 9)

Improving Healthcare Through Built Environment Infrastructure

Traditional Islamic Principles of Built Environment

Economics for the Modern Built Environment

Transforming Markets in the Built Environment: Adapting to Climate Change

Evaluating Sustainable Development: in the Built Environment

Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability

Marketing Planning: Strategy, Environment and Context

Access for All: Approaches to the Built Environment

Advanced research methods in the built environment

Environmental Law Techiques for the Built Environment

Rural development, natural resources, and the environment: lessons of experience in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Protection of Built Environment Against Earthquakes

Transforming Markets in the Built Environment: Adapting to Climate Change

Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment

Representing Modeling and Visualizing the Natural Environment

Caves: Processes, Development and Management (Natural Environment)

Economics of the Environment and Natural Resources

Partnership Agencies In British Urban Policy (The Natural and Built Environment, No 6)

Recommend Documents