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.     

Come back King Solomon- Wisdom needed

This week will see the publication of the Government's long anticipated National Planning Policy Framework.
This has already been the subject of a 'phoney war' carried out between Developers and Conservationists in an increasingly shrill way mostly in the media.
Most of those genuinely interested in rural areas will have, I suspect, the same broad aims. These include allowing businesses that are responsible for providing jobs and looking after the landscape in rural areas to prosper. This means allowing justified expansion of premises; the use of cars (which will soon be carbon neutral) and the construction of sufficient housing for those working in such businesses to live locally. It also includes however the protection of our most valuable habitats,biodiversity and landscape- whether designated or not; preserving the setting of historic buildings and monuments; ensuring that 'brownfield' land has been looked at first before 'greenfield' and creating sensibly designed housing developments that do not 'concrete over the countryside'.
At the best of times it is difficult to reconcile these aims. When fossilisation of the countryside is advocated by rich bankers seeking to protect the view from and value of their second home or the need for critical mass and therefore large scale housing is argued on viability grounds by developers who can bemuse local planners with their financial calculations, we need an arbitrator.
Traditionally the balance has been provided by planning policy both national and local. The local, in the form of Development Plans, takes into account the national, in the form of Planning Policy Guidance.
The question therefore is will there be sufficient guidance to provide some future certainty for those on either side of the debate? However much of a fan you are of 'localism' it is essential to have consistency around the Country.
One problem, identified by many, is the lack of a definition of sustainable development.If you are going to have a presumption in favour of something you need to know what it is.The widely used 'development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' doesn't really help us come up with answers in a particular case. What is a 'need? What does 'compromise' mean? The Government's 5 guiding principles from 2005 are ambitious but imprecise.
The laudable aim of reducing unnecessary beaucracy may leave scope for continuing argument which could end up with horse-trading or in the Courts. This won't speed the process up. Let's hope that the megaphone diplomacy of recent months will have resulted in a sensible document this week. If not we will need King Solomon back to adjudicate on every planning application in the country.