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.     

 Climate Change- what does it mean for rural business?

The climate change debate is like a boxing match. In the red corner are the climate change ‘enforcers’ and in the blue corner the climate change ‘deniers’. Both ‘boxers’ have been training in separate gyms. They have issued their own statements to the pre-fight press conference. They don’t speak and then the bell goes and they start hitting each other. No communications can the heard except for grunts and the noise of glove on jaw.

It is hard for the majority of people to know where to start in this debate although that doesn’t stop some individuals from pronouncing with great certainty. It is hard because it is so complicated and the climate is a model with so many moving parts. Think of how sophisticated climate modeling computers are and how they still struggle with a forecast that is more than 10 days away.

As I try to make sense of it I remember the flawed information on climate change from the University of East Anglia apparently supporting the notion of climate change, the fact that the weather recordings over the last 20 years or so have shown negligible temperature increases and the snow falls that have taken place in this country together with ships have becomes locked in pack ice in the Arctic recently.Yet I also note that passages through the ice have opened up for the first time for many years, that some glaciers have retreated miles and that some plants are flowering in the middle of winter.

Then there is the question of what to blame if you do accept that the climate is changing and, if so, what should be done about it and by whom. Is it CO2 or is it methane? Is the problem the drying out of peat or emissions from agriculture or from power stations? In a world climatic system how can one country influence another? Is this done by example or treaty? Should countries economic growth be held back when such growth can save lives? What is the ‘whole-life’ carbon cost of new technology that hasn’t been fully tested and while CO2 emissions from burning wood balances its absorption by growing trees, is that the right way of looking at it?

I tend to feel that the greater the professed certainty that people have in this debate the more uncertain I become. Without the benefit of huge computers and scientific laboratories I have to rely on my own experience.

What I have noticed is that we are suffering more extremes, in both directions. This is not a surprise in a country that sits on the edge of the European continent and whose climate is artificially controlled by the operation of the Gulf Stream. The jet stream seems to need oiling to restore its flexibility. If you live in the country you see it at first hand. If you are farming the impact is raw. How much summer feed can you make and how much will you need in the winter? How many pests and diseases will affect your crops or trees and how will you protect them. If you run a tourism business, the weather impacts on visitor numbers not only for day visitors but also holiday makers. These questions all therefore, have £ signs against them. Naively I thought that after the storms of 1987 and 1990 most of the mature trees that were going to come down had come down. These trees were destroyed last month by a lightening strike.

Whatever the experts say we are definitely living in more challenging climatic times and anything that we can do to help the situation we should. Whatever may be happening to the climate naturally we don't want to make it worse. What we need however is clarity, open debate, scientific consensus and this then needs to be translated into clear political consensus around which we can coalesce. Am I too optimistic? In the meantime we need to work out how to mitigate the effects of this variability. Farming and tourism will be in the front line.

 

Support from Conservation organisations

We recently had a visit from Harry Barton, the Chief Executive of the Devon Wildlife Trust. We have been members of this excellent organisation for over 30 years. I nearly sold them Downes Mill near Crediton when I was auctioning the property in a previous life which they wanted as their HQ.

He was affable, helpful and friendly as we discussed plans for creating a wild-flower meadow and some over-wintered stubbles.

We also discussed the relationship between the Conservation societies and the farming and landowning community- something that has been in the news recently with the debate about the effects of and possible solutions to the floods on the Somerset levels.

Rather like the debate about religion, conversations about the environment become infiltrated by extremists on both sides. I noted some wild comments on Twitter from some understandably frustrated farmers (although not, interestingly, in Somerset) accusing the Environment Agency of pandering to the environmental lobby by refusing to dredge the rivers Parrot and the Tone. Quite rightly the RSPB pointed out that, replacing grazed pastures with flood water and then dead vegetation when it disappears (if it ever does) will not favour wildlife. The problem in Somerset is about cash and the Environment Agency doesn’t have enough to go round. Whether that is because they are wasting money elsewhere or because the public expenditure costs have been too harsh is a difficult call to make without knowing more of the detail- something that it is hard for laymen to work out!

The Environmental lobby does have its extremists too and to some of them those who farm and own land constitute the problem and not the solution, rather like they are or were to Robert Mugabe. Some of these protagonists are unhappy with the concept of property rights for the individual. The problem is that alongside property rights goes the confidence to invest in property and for many responsible property owners that includes protecting and enhancing the environment. This can include taking some responsibility for some preventative measures on the Somerset Levels and elsewhere. In a property owning democracy we need a balance between the rights of the state and the individual.

As I discussed with Harry however it would be helpful if the Conservation lobby was able to lobby more often in partnership with those whose businesses are located in the countryside. The fallen beech tree that brought down our phone and internet lines (see my last blog), was a hedgerow tree which contributed hugely to the biodiversity of its immediate area. The fact that my business and no doubt other people’s too are now suffering and we can’t get a sensible answer from BT should be an issue for the Conservation bodies as much as for those that represent rural business like the CLA or NFU.

Technology and the Countryside

After a prolonged absence from blogging due to time pressure I have decided to start again. This is prompted particularly by a series of technology frustrations that began with a brave idea to upgrade my mobile phone.

It’s a long and boring story but in the saga of lost data, a lost password, a dud iPhone and a blame-shifting game between o2, Apple, Eclipse internet and our IT support company which continued until the phone was replaced I realised that the real frustration was not being able to speak to anyone to help sort the problem unless you can go into real live premises. With Eclipse I had to type my questions in a form of telephone tennis and wait for an answer so that something that could have taken 5 minutes took an hour. If you live in ‘deep country’ getting to live premises isn’t easy (if they will let you in at all) although I have to say that the Apple store in Exeter have been excellent.

Life has become more complicated since the recent storms brought down a beech tree and, with it, the telephone line which of course carries the internet connection. We run a holiday business as well as the farm at home and, gloriously peaceful as the radio silence is, I can’t help but think that we are losing business. We only just got the tax and VAT sorted out in time (sadly!) There must be others in the same boat. My replacement phone cannot be backed up now because we have no connection. Thus my last lifeline has been severed and the saga continues!

 Of course you can’t speak to anyone who can really help at BT.I am planning a gentle ambush of a telephone engineer to get his mobile number which I will auction for charity. You can get in a queue to speak to someone in Mumbai but then you get general answers not specific to your locality. I would just like to know when they are going to mend the line. Apparently someone has been out to look at it and has decided that a survey is needed. What rubbish! The tree broke the line. It needs to be mended. We could have told them that.

A privatised BT beholden to its shareholders may have saved the public purse lots of money and made its investors wealthier but there needs to be a balance. An effective monopoly providing basic infrastructure to rural businesses needs to provide a better and more accessible service and send its employees on the sort of customer service courses that tourism businesses use. It is the ‘old fashioned’ concept of personal communication using the spoken word that has been lost. Technology encourages this. On-line bookings dealt with remotely, reliance on texts, emails and social media, the lack of phone numbers displayed on websites- too much is for the convenience of the provider rather than the customer.

Better broadband speeds will be welcome in the countryside but not if it means that essential service providers forget that their customers can feel very cut off and their businesses vulnerable if there is no-one to talk to!

Bureaucrats rule

I was once a civil servant. I don't always admit it although actually I rather enjoyed it. I think that this helps me understand the mentality. In designing a process or a scheme you try and think through all the permutations: what could go wrong and then come up with a scheme that you hope doesn't land your Ministers in hot water. If you get it wrong it can lead to fines from Europe; political problems for your boss and a job move for you! Its rather like a game of chess. It seems very hard to design a simple scheme.
If you are running a business you are always short of time. You always seem to have too many jobs to do and you are responsible for them all! You are perpetually fire fighting. Interruptions happen all the time. The phone goes just when you are trying to do something else and you seldom have time to sit down to uninterrupted desk work. So what you want are simple schemes.
What really catches you out are the questions that you can't answer in the short period of uninterrupted time that you have allocated. Often this is on Sunday or late in the evening when you can't phone anyone.

Cadbury Castle-under an HLS agreement

We are in a Higher level Scheme- an environmental scheme. It is complicated. Tight deadlines are laid down (presumably so that Natural England can manage their budget). The prescription involves getting approval for certain capital works from the Natural England Adviser; English Heritage and Devon County Council. Is this really necessary? The cuts have meant that these advisers are very thin on the ground or have moved jobs although these days they are much more willing to help when you can get them. Getting everyone together however is nigh on impossible. Some jobs too have been delayed by the weather so that deadlines can't be met. The payments don't cover the costs, although they are better than they were.
Here I am now on a Sunday wanting to get a claim form as my cash flow is under pressure. I can't ring obviously so I try the Natural England website. I try the search function... "Capital works claim HLS" seems a good place to start. No trace. Tomorrow morning the phone will start ringing again. I think that I'll head-butt the wall.

Dilemma in a Parish Church

Cadbury is a hamlet of just over 50 houses in the rolling hills of Mid-Devon. It doesn't have a shop or a post office. It doesn't even have a proper village hall. It does have great views!
It does also have a church.

 A recent village survey showed 95% of the high proportion who responded thought it was important to keep a functioning church and while over 100 attended the carol service last year; regular attendees have dwindled and income has dropped so that the available funds for maintenance and repair are very thin. It is a challenge for the PCC to know whether it is better to spend their limited funds on the roof and the walls or loos and heating. Added comfort would undoubtedly make it easier to widen the use for the building and bring in more people. A listed building has to have a viable use if it is to survive.

Different tastes and styles over the last 800 years have left their mark on the church. A 12th century font; a 13th century tower; a 15th century stained glass window; a 16th century north aisle and porch and lots of 19th century restoration and addition including by the gothic revival architect William White. In 1842 George Wightwick designed  a reredos to which marble work was added in 1890 by R.M.Fulford.

The reredos was funded by one of my ancestors. The work added to it in 1890 was funded by another of my ancestors. The trouble is that the reredos blocks out the east window behind the altar and it has always looked awkward.

 It has now started to deteriorate. The ironwork holding the stone together has started to fail probably due to damp.Segments of stone are starting to come loose.

 We now have a health and safety problem. Another of my ancestors- in this case my uncle who died last year-left a little money (£50!) in his will towards the removal of the reredos. Would removal and the consequent saving of money on repairs not be a sensible course of action? Would it not leave money for other investments to help the future of the church?It is after all a lack of heat and ventilation that has caused its deterioration. Could the reredos be useful somewhere else where there is the money to restore it properly and a better location for it?

These are typical of the sort of dilemmas faced by those responsible for looking after historic buildings.The question will be- how will the faculty procedure of the Church of England deal with this one?

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.