PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND RURAL RECOVERY

A Research Proposal

The position of the countryside in British society is at a turning point.  Decreasing farm incomes are making many small to medium sized farms uneconomic.  Agricultural subsidies, available in various forms since the 1930s agricultural slump, are gradually being reduced.  BSE and foot and mouth have only accelerated this existing decline and created a heightened perception of crisis.

Mechanisation has reduced the labour to hectare ratio from 0.07 in 1950 to 0.037 in 2000.  60,000 have left the land in the last three years.  As agriculture-based populations have declined, commuter and holiday occupation have filled vacant properties at significantly lower densities. Demand for these houses and restrictions in supply have created social exclusion.  With an increasingly urban-based population, sympathy with and an understanding of rural attitudes and life are increasingly absent and the countryside is often seen as a park to be sanitised and conserved.  Rural communities, faced with financial decline and urban ignorance, feel threatened and isolated.

The countryside remains, however, a concept central to British self-identity.  Surveys of lifestyle options consistently show a village environment to be a popular ideal.  Many successful entrepreneurs invest their new wealth in farms and manor houses.  In the contrast between these ideals and the crisis-ridden reality lies, either increasing national schizophrenia and a growing burden on the economy, or a solution to an apparently intractable problem.

The British countryside is wholly man-made.  It is the product of centuries of agricultural development and investment.  The rural economy has seen successive economic crises and rural poverty has been a cause of concern for more than two centuries.  Nonetheless, since the 16^th century the unique status of the countryside in British life has attracted investment from the beneficiaries of national and international trade.  The establishment of rural estates has traditionally brought outside wealth into the countryside, provided employment and shaped the physical environment.  The houses, villages and parks so created are recognised as one of Britain’s major contributions to western culture.

Since 1947 control of the countryside to prevent urban sprawl has curtailed this form of investment.  This was accelerated by state redistribution of wealth and the consequent loss of more than 630 country houses.  A changed perception of the countryside led to the protection of a singular idea of rural activity and environment for its own sake.  While farm subsidies provided a substitute investment from the state, farming communities could survive in this rarefied environment.  The loss of subsidies, increased efficiency in food production and outside competition has broken the spell but the control culture remains.  Official attitudes to the countryside must be urgently reassessed.

The successful redistribution of wealth and the success of the British economy have transformed society.  A new and larger generation of successful entrepreneurs have accumulated significant personal wealth. The lure of the countryside remains and has created an increased demand for attractive rural dwellings and farms. Post-war control of the countryside, however, includes restrictions on the living standards and occupations of many farmers according to farm size and location.  The consequent restrictions in supply have increased prices of houses and farms with good dwellings.  These values are reflected in farm rents, regardless of the attractiveness of the holding, so exacerbating the problems of farming profitability.

In 1997 The Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer, introduced an unprecedented provision for the construction of new country houses.  This is an exceptions policy which runs contrary to the post-war control culture and perception of the countryside.  It is based on wholly qualitative criteria and gives equal weight to landscape and architecture.

It took some time for the possibilities of this new planning opportunity to be realised.  Planning authorities were often hostile to the concept of rich individuals building in a countryside that all their experience and training told them was sacrosanct.  The high design standards required were often not met by early applicants and, being subjective, were also an easy route to refusal. Eventually two appeal decisions within  a  year brought this policy to the fore and the number of applications is rising. 

Comment has been largely limited to style and wealth.  Architectural commentators concentrate on the largely traditional style of proposals (although this is the choice of applicants, the policy is silent on style).  Much daily press comment has concentrated on the wealth of the applicants.  This led to questions in Parliament and in April 2001, Ms Beverley Hughs stated that, as the government’s priority was for new low cost housing in the countryside, this policy would be removed.

Very few houses under this policy have been built and it is estimated that there are only 7 consents.  This is only 0.9% of the country houses lost since the war.  It is clear from these consents that there is significant pent up demand and that the policy allows for extensive control of farming practice and landscape benefits.  The impact of these houses, at most 2,000 square metres, in landscapes of between 20 and 200 hectares is minimal.  The investment brought into the immediate countryside is significant.

Rather than discard this policy before the results are known on the grounds of dogma (low cost housing and new country houses are not mutually exclusive), would it not be better to examine the phenomenon to see if there are any benefits in its retention or modification?  Is this, in fact, a new means of introducing investment into the countryside at no cost to the taxpayer?  Would these new owners not undertake the very activities that new policies will seek to achieve – tree planting, low intensity or organic farming, countryside stewardship?  Do these developments not achieve a key objective of government rural policy – employment of unskilled and semi-skilled workers?  Should the policy not be extended to smaller farms where restrictive occupation policies based on farm income are not only unsustainable but positively discourage personal investment and environmentally friendly farming?

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Objective: 

To assess the environmental, economic and visual impact of new country houses and enlarged farm houses on the countryside.

Process

1.         Establish criteria for research:

• establish farm size, farm income levels, housing provision and employment levels in representative areas,

• select representative geographic and demographic types,

• establish base-line environmental impact levels for different farming and geographic types,

• establish visual impact criteria for different geographic areas and house types.

2.         Choose case studies (actual and hypothetical):

• different house size to farm size ratios,
• different geographic areas,
• different income and employment areas.

3.         Assess impact of case studies according to criteria on: 

• the environment, farming practice, carbon credits and debits, pollution (to include building activity and traffic impact);
• the economy, employment, business activity, taxation, subsidies;
• visual impact, landscape, visibility, density, quality.

Method:

Input required from land agents, ecologists, landscape architects, economists, planners/geographers and architects.

1.         Establish criteria:  desk top studies.

2.         Case study sample:  desk-top, field studies and interviews.

3.         Original field, statistical research and analysis in specialist areas.

Output:

Target:              Ministers and civil servants, professional and popular press.

Medium:           Written report with common introduction, research outcome in specialist areas and common conclusion. 

Promotion:        Press release, executive summary for wide circulation and lobbying.

Robert Adam Architects, February 2002