Only one chance to get it right

Just as people often justify investment in land by saying 'they don't make it any more' so when people build in the countryside that will be an irreversible change not least because of the value that building has added to the underlying land. It is hardly surprising therefore that debates about the future of the countryside have become so heated with the fires stoked by the planning reforms introduced by the coalition Government.
At the HHA AGM last week Simon Jenkins, immediate past Chairman of the National Trust, spoke about his idea of listing the landscape in the same way as buildings are listed grade I,II or II*. I remember debating this on the Today programme in 2007 when I expressed my doubts about this- doubts which I still have.

One of the advantages of our current listing system is that it is moderated by English Heritage which ensures some consistency of approach. It is salutary when a building which you or your local council think is particularly important is revealed by English Heritage to be one of many and not as unusual as you think. As with other designations (SSSIs for example) listing is sometimes used as a tool by those opposed to development whether for personal or aesthetic reasons so the procedure must be robust.
Listing the landscape would immediately introduce a flood of applications from wealthy incomers to rural areas determined to oppose development which might spoil their view whether it was for a necessary agricultural building, a discreet development of affordable homes or an inappropriate sprawl of identikit modern houses. Left to determination at a local level would leave the system exposed to abuse when the rules would be set and enforced by understaffed and harassed local authorities without the bigger picture and with the inherent risk of acting as judge and jury. Set nationally it would require a body such as Natural England- itself starved of resources- to set the rules.
What would those rules be? It is difficult enough with listed buildings where variations in building styles and materials have varied through time and with geography. Yet it has become possible through the application of expert historical, architectural and archaeological knowledge to develop some rules. With land it is a much more subjective judgment that may be less about physical form and more about interpretation and individual appreciation.
Whether we are talking about buildings or landscape we cannot create museum pieces. They must live. Simon Jenkins himself has been a strong advocate of bringing life back to National Trust houses- something I have been delighted to see happen in the last few years. Just as I have been a strong advocate of finding a viable use for historic buildings (to provide an income stream for their repair and maintenance) so would this be necessary for landscapes, which carry the strong imprint of man.
A friend of mine who is keen on music and an opera lover told me how he now finds music without the human voice less fulfilling. Many consider that the stone walls and barns of the Yorkshire Dales do the same for their stunning landscapes.
If we were to list what we consider our 'best' landscapes then I feel sorry for those who would end up looking out on those that were at the bottom of the pile. How could planners prevent the inevitable rash of development on these unexceptional but important landscapes which perhaps provide important green space for those living nearby.
All this highlights the complex and changing nature of the factors which bear on the development of our landscape. We have developed a somewhat tortuous but generally effective system of planning in the countryside which had become perhaps too stultifying and may now have become too loose. In my view to set the future of our landscape within the straitjacket of a listing system would be a mistake. This is not to say that I disagree with Simon about the need to protect our wonderful countryside and the settings of some of our iconic buildings. I believe that we need the pendulum to swing back so that we can develop a planning system which is consistent, fair and appropriate and resourced appropriately. Perhaps it is this question of resourcing that needs the most attention.     

Rural Representation- Have we got it right?

It has become fashionable over the last thirty years to claim that the Government is 'out of touch' with rural communities and businesses. Although the Tories and perhaps the Lib Dems were seen to be the parties of the Shires with a natural understanding of rural issues, nevertheless there was a feeling that farmers, in particular, had done better under Labour perhaps because the concept of taxpayer support to subsidise production was perceived by some to keep food prices lower.
I remember being one of the after dinner speakers at the first Labour rural conference at Harper Adams College in July 2002 orgained by Peter Bradley. It was well supported by a range of senior Ministers and it represented a proper attempt to get to grips with a range of rural issues. This meant looking not only at the expected subjects of rural deprivation, housing, transport, education and health issues but also the need for profitability and re-investment.
Yet shortly after this the 'Liberty and Livlihood' march took place in London in September 2002 bringing 400,000 onto the streets. This was ostensibly about supporting the right to hunt with hounds yet presumably in an attempt to ensure high numbers the organisers invites all those with any rural grievance from farming to post offices. This led to confused messages providing the Government with the opportunity to sidestep any particular rural issue that was difficult or uncomfortable.
The organisers of the march- the Countryside Alliance-illustrate the difficulty that any one organisation has in representing rural views accurately.Their membership is largely comprised of those interested in field sports and their attempt to portray themselves as something more than this has not been taken seriously. They have not succeeded for example in gaining a seat at the National Trust Council despite a recent application. Their executive Chairman has recently issued a plea for rural organisations to combine so as to improve their lobbying effectiveness yet this ignores the fact that rural issues are more complicated than that.

Flooding in the SW needs a co-ordinated response

 People get involved only if they feel strongly about issues. A consensus often means, as with the recent revised framework for National Planning Policy, that people interpret something in the way that they want to! Within the rural lobbying fraternity there are those who want to preserve the countryside in aspic and those that see it needing to change as the source of development and jobs; those who are landlords and those that are tenants; those who farm conventionally and those who farm organically; those who believe that shooting promotes conservation and those who oppose shooting on principle; those who believe bus routes should be subsidised and those who don't and those who believe that nature should be free to take its course free from any interference from man and those who believe the opposite.Most of these opinions are represented by some form of organisation or body!
I was invited to spend a couple of years as a Board member of the South West Regional Development Agency as it was being wound up.There were positives and negatives about the RDAs but I was horrified about the duplication that took place over rural representation. In addition to the meetings organised by the main rural lobby organisations there was the Rural Affairs Forum; the SWRDA Rural Group ; the Rural group of GOSW (Government Office SW) and the SW Chamber of Rural Enterprise to name but four, all requiring the attendance of the same busy people. What they all did was reflect the views of a diverse range of people and then pass them up the line to Government without any imperative to resolve them themselves.
What the Government has introduced to replace these groups is a network of Rural and Farming Networks around the Country. We have designed ours in this part of the world on the model of the three legged 'sustainability' stool. The commercial business of farming and rural business is represented by the SW Chamber of Rural Enterprise and this body is joined by the SW Environment Network and the SW Rural Community Councils thus representing economic, environmental and community strands of opinion.The main lobby organisations (e.g NFU;CLA; FSB; RSPB) work through the most appropriate sector. We recognise that funding is very tight and we therefore concentrate on the issues that really matter. We try and reach some consensus ourselves rather than expecting Goverment to arbitrate (or perhaps divide and rule!).
Whether or not this is localism in action I am not sure but the system is not yet perfect in my view. Having a direct link to Ministers and Government is helpful but in order to act in this way some basic administrative capacity is needed. Ours is provided by SWCoRE which is a membership organisation yet this administration takes valuable resource which could otherwise be used on problem gathering. We could be more effective with a tiny bit of help.  Others have no finance at all so inevitably have to find a funding source- a source that may well want influence over results. Ours attempts to balance the three 'legs' yet others have no such balance. Some, as we do, attempt to reflect common views over a wider area- such as the livestock interests of the SW Uplands for example while others are very confined geographically.
Duplication has not entirely disappeared either. We will have Nature Improvement Areas; Local Enterprise Partnerships, Local Nature Partnerships, Rural and Farming Networks all feeding into DEFRA and probably into different parts of it!
Government has a financial challenge- we all recognise that. The question is how to organise structures that work effectively in this brave new world and how to provide at least a modicum of resource so that they can operate dispassionately. We will not end up with one body representing rural views- they are too diverse. What we need is a properly designed model that facilitates debate at a local, and not too local, level so that the issues, when they reach Government, have been discussed and hopefully moderated making it easier to provide appropriate solutions. 

SW Coastline- can farming survive here?

One of the wonders of our British landscape is our coastline. Leaving aside its impact on our history as an island nation; from Romans to William the Conqueror; from smugglers to launching the D Day armada; it is staggering in its beauty. Walking the stretch from Prawle point to Salcombe, I was struck by several thoughts.
The scenery is dramatic but so also is the birdlife and the plantlife. The song of the skylark is uplifting here but is rarer elsewhere these days. Plants thrive in the muddle and disorder of the climax vegetation of the cliff edge beyond the reach of the fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides; products that are so necessary for profitable farming but which create uniformity and lack of diversity in the landscape.
People walking the path seem universally friendly. Smiles and waves (the human kind!) suggest that the experience is doing them good both mentally and physically. We were also made welcome by two volunteers from the National Coastwatch Institution at Prawle Point. This wonderful organisation, made up entirely of volunteers, plays a vital role for those in trouble at sea.
The other organisation that deserves credit too in this area is the National Trust under whose stewardship much of the land falls. Car parks are provided at both ends of the route and one is reassured that the coastline is in good hands.
People seem happy to follow the path. We certainly were with a party of nine including two dogs. The need for swathes of extra land as 'spreading room' suggested by Natural England as part of the coastal access debate seems unnecessary.
Yet there are some downsides too. The popularity of the route and the numbers of walkers is leading to erosion of the path. This erosion is severe in places.
 Most people use cars to access the path. Car parks are needed. A similar dependence on the car is often used as a reason why planners turn down diversification applications in rural areas.
The much vaunted benefits to farmers and landowners whose property adjoins the path is a bit of a myth too. We walked for some 5 miles and not once did we see an opportunity for them to add value from the visitors crossing their land until we reached Salcombe. The National Trust is a charity and can afford to take a lower return; private owners do not often have that option.
I was particularly interested also to note the agriculture. There is evidence near Prawle Point of ancient field systems with field boundaries marked by flat stone slabs set on edge and, from the C18th until the 1960s vegetable production using the abundant seaweed fertiliser. For modern farming however it is uneconomic with tiny fields, poor access and fences undercut by the retreating coastline. Left to the free market, I doubt that it would continue yet we know the importance of grazing to the maintenance of biodiversity and where it doesn't happen topping, flailing and rolling is needed to control the bracken and gorse and this, of course, costs money.
Surely another example of the wider benefits from agriculture beyond simply food production and the need to find a way to fund it...