Rural imagery
Many people have a romanticised view of rural areas – as places with pretty lanes, thatched cottages and rosy-faced farmers.
Such a ‘chocolate box’ image is of course very inaccurate and highly patronising.
But it is many people’s views.
And it part explains why today’s needs of rural areas are misunderstood and neglected.
Rural Services Network – 2010
Planning
The origins of these views stem from planning policies made in the 1940s.
Under the Barlow Commission of 1940, growth was to be dispersed from the South East – but only to other urban areas. There was to be no development in the countryside.
And under the Scott Committee’s report of 1942 into land utilisation in rural areas, the overwhelming need for more food meant all other development in the countryside was to be resisted.
The evolution and impact of these policies was explained by Professor Nigel Curry, in a speech he gave at his inauguration as Director of the Countryside and Community Research Institute (April 2008) – a transcript of which is available.
SOURCE: http://www.ccri.ac.uk/AboutUs/Staff/Images/CCRI%20Inaugural%20lecture.pdf
http://www.ccri.ac.uk/Index.htm.
The resultant Town and Country Planning System has been ‘remarkably successful … at resisting development in the countryside,’ writes Professor Curry.
But it has had three ‘casualties’ for rural areas, he says.
Rural areas
First, they developed a one-sector economy of agriculture and forestry – but a sector that has employed fewer and fewer people, and on very low wages.
Second, services declined as people left the countryside in search of other employment.
And finally, the ‘no development’ ethic restricted the supply of housing. This led to house prices exceeding wages, with the result that houses were taken by higher urban incomes, either for commuting or as second homes.
Changes
Despite attempts to dismantle the ‘no development’ ethic since then, it is as strong as ever today, writes Professor Curry.
The Rural White Paper of 2000 was well intentioned, but the national outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease reprioritised agriculture over broader rural development.
Similarly, the broadening of a Department for Rural Affairs into a wider Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs focussed attention on environmental issues at the expense of rural policy.
What is more, recent policies such as city-regions and regional spatial strategies have maintained the focus on urban over rural areas.
And rurally minded policies such as mainstreaming and rural proofing are, respectively, concludes Professor Curry, ineffective and ‘very blunt.’
NIMBY
At a local level, the mismatch between romantic views and real needs is played out in planning applications for new housing, business space and infrastructure.
On the one hand, organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England view most such developments as a threat.
SOURCE: http://www.cpre.org.uk/home
‘NIMBYS: your country needs you’, was an editorial headline in November’s Country Life magazine, typifying the ‘no development’ view.
SORUCE: http://www.countrylife.co.uk/
On the other hand, people need housing, employers and support services.
The population of rural areas (10m) is growing faster than elsewhere, and by around 5% in many places. Nearly 5m people are employed in rural areas – very few of who work on farms. And nearly 500,000 people are on rural councils’ housing waiting lists.
NIMBY-ism and local planning policies have made rural areas a dormitory for the retired and rich, sustainable for those who have cars and drive long distances to work but not in terms of services, employment or affordable housing, says Trevor Cherrett, expert advisor at the Commission for Rural Communities.
Other commentators go further, saying policy is out of touch with rural areas today.
People view rural areas as ‘a pastoral place, deeply rooted in history … having a bit of agriculture and recreation and that’s it – merely a backdrop for people to play,’ says Professor Mark Shucksmith, professor of planning at Newcastle University.
But globalisation, and the flourishing of social and knowledge networks, have changed things, he says.
According to research he cites, innovation is higher in rural areas; rural firms (especially non-traditional ones) are more linked to external sales networks; and over the last decade growth has been faster in rural economies.
Instead of thinking about areas’ geographic proximity to one another (ie urban and rural) we should consider their ‘relational reach’, ie the sum of human settlement, economic and social activity, says Professor Shucksmith.
Under this approach, some rural areas are growing fast and are well connected, while others are very remote – but both need concomitant support.
It’s time people updated their views.
