National Planning Policy Framework

Gary Bosworth / / Interpreting Rurality, Planning

The new National Planning Policy Framework has stirred up a lot of controversy, especially among organisations claiming to represent the countryside.  I have written before about the dangers of preserving green space at the cost of economic opportunities and I think the new framework offers real opportunities for local areas to take more control of local planning issues.  

In its own words, the document “provides a framework within which local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities.”  This is the carrot, but if local and district councils fail to update their plans or communities do not engage in the process, the presumption in favour of development (sorry…sustainable development!) then kicks in.

Beyond the first couple of pages where the presumption in favour of sustainable development is set out along with the presumption in favour of planning decisions that reflect effective local plans, the remainder is largely guidelines for what local plans should include. In essence, not even 50 pages of “policy” but 10 pages of policy and 40 pages of guidance for those designing local plans.

With this guidance, the key message for the rural economy is on page 27 and states:

“Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood
plans should:
● support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;
● promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses;
● support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; and
● promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.”

Does this reflect the features and qualities of rurality that we understand?  Can rural communities achieve these goals through a local planning process or will the power of developers enable them to lay a greater claim to rural England?  I guess only time will tell.

Farm tourism

Gary Bosworth / / Agriculture, Economy, Interpreting Rurality, Landscape

A new paper in Regional Studies “Regions” magazine provides new evidence to show that farm diversification into tourism is aiding the resilience of farm households as well as contributing to a more sustainable local economy and local community.    The key success stories came where farmers recognised ways in which they could “sell” local characteristics, turning the “rural” itself into a commodity, rather that it being a space just for the production of agricultural commodities.

Not all farmers have the same access to opportunities nor are they all as entrepreneurially-minded to recognise opportunities and the research indicates that better targeting of business support can extend the benefits of diversification to more farmers, and by implication, create more sustainable rural communities in remote parts of Wales.

This paper was written my Mandy Talbot who is studying for a PhD at Abersytwyth University. It was initially presented to the Rural Tourism Symposium held in September 2011 at the University of Lincoln.

Regional Development in Northern Europe

Gary Bosworth / / Economy, Interpreting Rurality

A new book has been published critiquing concepts of “marginality” and “peripherality” and exploring the economic potential of more peripheral regions.  It can be previewed here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Regional-Development-Northern-Europe-Peripherality/dp/0415601533/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1331885882&sr=8-2

Further details of the editors and associated research network are also available at www.pemabo.net

Who owns rural communities?

Gary Bosworth / / Interpreting Rurality, Planning, Society

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9125653/Feudal-row-over-cottage-holiday-homes.html

This article in the Telegraph raises some interesting questions about the ownership of rural communities.  The three cottages in this Derbyshire village are “owned” in a legal sense by the Duke of Devonshire, but the community have come together to oppose plans to turn them into luxury cottages, arguing that for generations they have been homes for local estate workers.  Once the leases expire, the freehold owner has every right to use the buildings as he wishes, subject to planning permission, and could let the cottages to anyone he sees fit.  If these were not being turned into holiday cottages, the likelihood of a rural worker being able to afford an open market rent, or worse a purchase price, is negligable. In opposing the planning permission and raising a petition against the Estate, local people are effectively asking the landowner to give up income to which he is entitled in order to preserve “their” community as they see it.

The interesting issue here is that there is big difference in the monetary values placed on the cottages. For local workers, the value of the cottages is determined by their income and the convenience of living on the estate but for tourists or rural in-migrants, their higher incomes combined with their perceptions of an idyllic place to visit or live confers a much higher value on the buildings.  As the freehold owner, the Estate can sell or lease to the highest bidder but the outcome is that people from outside of this rural community, drawn to it by picture-postcard imagery, are dictating the changing dynamics of that community.  One wonders whether this rural idyll will be so idyllic if the community is divided and rural workers are displaced by decisions of this nature?