Rethinking Rural Planning: A Call for Sensible, Radical Reform
Steve Hesmondhalgh
Managing Director & Business Owner at AMS Planning with expertise in Planning, Development and Sustainability. Author of Newsletter 'Planning at the Coalface' and Owner of the Rural Planning and Diversification Group
(Taken from a presentation I gave at the National Rural Planning Conference on Thursday 10th October)
As we confront the challenges facing rural planning in the UK today, it's clear that something fundamental has to change. We hear a lot about sustainability in planning circles, but are we truly considering what rural areas need to thrive economically, socially, and environmentally? Too often, current planning policies fall short, favouring a preservationist mindset that is stifling the very communities it seeks to protect.
In this article, I’ll argue for a new, more dynamic approach to rural planning. One that balances environmental sustainability with economic growth and social vitality.
It’s time to rethink how we manage rural development to unlock the full potential of these areas, before rural Britain is reduced to a picturesque museum rather than a vibrant part of the country.
The Problem with Rural Planning: A Broken System
At its core, rural planning in the UK is fundamentally broken. It’s an outdated, overly rigid system that prioritises preservation over progress. While we all appreciate the importance of protecting our rural landscapes, the restrictive nature of current policies has led to unintended consequences—housing shortages, economic stagnation, and a lack of opportunity for younger generations. If this trajectory continues, rural Britain risks becoming a relic of the past, with communities frozen in time, unable to adapt to modern challenges.
It’s important to recognise that the needs of rural areas differ vastly from those of urban environments. Yet planning policies often impose a one-size-fits-all approach, limiting the potential for tailored solutions that encourage rural development. The focus on limiting development, protecting landscapes, and minimising car use, while commendable in some respects, has often come at the expense of economic growth and diversification.
The Reality of Car Dependency: Time for a Reassessment
Take, for example, the fixation within planning policies on minimising car use. This is a prime example of how rural realities are often misunderstood by policy-makers. In many rural areas, public transport is either non-existent or too infrequent to meet the daily needs of residents. Despite this, planning policies are drafted as though rural dwellers can simply hop on a bus or cycle to work, school, or the nearest shop.
It’s time to admit that, in most rural areas, cars are essential.
...Ignoring this fact only serves to perpetuate the myth that rural communities can exist without the infrastructure that modern life demands. Rather than penalising car use, we need to acknowledge its importance while simultaneously encouraging the adoption of more sustainable technologies, such as electric vehicles (EVs). With the rise of EVs and improved digital connectivity enabling more remote working, we can reduce carbon emissions without halting development or rural growth.
Breaking the Myths: Car Dependency and Sustainable Development
One of the most damaging myths in rural planning is the notion that car dependency is inherently unsustainable. This binary thinking fails to account for the ways technology can support sustainability without forcing rural areas into the same mould as urban centres. The solution lies in leveraging new technologies—EVs, better broadband for remote working, and infrastructure that supports both—and adapting our planning policies accordingly.
Learning from Diddly Squat Farm: Rural Diversification in Action
Jeremy Clarkson’s Diddly Squat Farm may polarise opinion, but there are valuable lessons to be learned from his efforts at rural diversification. Clarkson’s farm has attracted tourists, created jobs, and showcased the potential for rural businesses to tap into new markets. Yet, despite these successes, planning policies continue to throw up barriers for farmers and other rural enterprises looking to diversify into sectors like tourism, retail, and renewable energy.
领英推荐
The government’s Class Q changes and other reforms to permitted development are a step in the right direction, but they simply don’t go far enough.
If rural areas are to thrive, we need far more flexibility in the planning system to encourage diversification and innovation. Farms need the freedom to explore new business opportunities without being bogged down by overly restrictive planning rules.
NPPF Reforms: A Step Forward, But Not Radical Enough
The recent proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have been welcomed by many, but they don’t go far enough to address the specific challenges facing rural Britain. While the reforms take small steps toward promoting development, they still cling to a cautious, conservative approach, focusing on larger settlements and prioritising brownfield development over more creative, flexible approaches.
If we’re serious about revitalising rural areas, we need to be bolder. The current NPPF reforms don’t do enough to promote housing or economic growth in rural communities. What’s required is a radical overhaul of the planning system—one that genuinely encourages development and diversification, rather than stifling it with over-regulation.
The Modern Rural Economy: A Need for Affordable Housing
One of the most critical issues facing rural areas is the acute shortage of affordable housing. Young people are being driven out, and forced to relocate to cities where there are more opportunities. This exodus leaves rural communities ageing and shrinking, threatening their long-term sustainability.
The rise of short-term holiday lets, particularly in high-demand areas like Cornwall, exacerbates this problem. But banning second homes or short-term lets isn’t necessarily the only solution. Instead, we need a planning framework that actively supports the development of affordable housing in rural areas. Without it, rural communities will continue to suffer as schools close, local services disappear, and the social fabric of these areas unravels.
Radical Solutions for Rural Planning
To revive rural Britain, we need radical change. Below are five key recommendations that could transform rural planning and put these areas on a path to economic and social recovery:
Conclusion: The Time for Change is Now
Rural Britain cannot survive under the current planning system. We’re already witnessing the economic and social decline of rural areas as a result of restrictive policies that prioritise preservation over progress. Policymakers need to act swiftly and decisively to overhaul the planning system and embrace a more flexible, dynamic approach that encourages growth and diversification.
Yes, protecting the landscape is important, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of rural communities. If we get this right, rural areas can be dynamic, economically vibrant, and sustainable. Let’s seize the opportunity to make these changes before it’s too late. The future of rural Britain depends on it.
#ruralplanning #sustainable #farming #diversification
Associate Director at CarneySweeney
1 个月Yes yes and yes!
RTPI Student Member | MS in Urban Regeneration and Development @ University of Manchester | Actively seeking Graduate Consultancy Roles | Sustainability & Green Building
1 个月This is a really insightful take on the challenges faced in rural planning. Having recently visited a few rural areas in the UK, I noticed similar issues as you've outlined. While preserving the rural landscape is important, the current system indeed contributes to housing shortages and limits opportunities for younger generations. Your point about car dependency is spot on—it highlights how the realities of rural living are often overlooked/oversimplified. In many areas, limited access to public transport and inadequate infrastructure demands alternative (and practical) solutions to reducing carbon emissions, as you suggest. A new, bold approach is certainly needed, and it would be interesting to explore the level of community involvement that may be required to shape these changes successfully.
Senior Environmental project manager within the National Environmental Assessment Services at the Environment Agency
1 个月Incidentally, the broken planning system has not prevented Jimmy Doherty of Jimmy’s Farm fame – situated on the edge of Ipswich – who started out rearing rare pigs for meat from subsequently diversifying his business by converting a barn into a restaurant, creating a wedding venue, holding music festivals and more recently he created a wildlife park. This demonstrates that development does happen. One unintended consequence of Brexit might be opportunities to set up farming co-operatives through which farmers can better promote their products and negotiate from strength with retailers such as supermarkets for better, realistic prices.?
Senior Environmental project manager within the National Environmental Assessment Services at the Environment Agency
1 个月There’s much force in your view about a new, more dynamic approach to rural planning. However, I’m not entirely convinced we should relax the rules further for the benefit of farmers\landowners if it means we simply get more expensive converted barns beyond the pocket of the rural population. When criss-crossing Suffolk I see frequent infilling and edge of settlement boundary housing development sites, converted barns, new glamping sites, farm shops, wedding venue and other businesses popping up. Although Jeremy Clarkson is to be commended for trying to gain planning permission for a restaurant which used locally based farm products, I haven’t come across and wouldn’t expect to see new restaurants in quiet areas of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths National Landscape area.? Any new, bold approach should start from the position of showing a degree of respect for communities who do indeed wish to preserve the landscape. Many rural dwellers consider the landscape/countryside should be protected for its own self and any new bold approach may well incur their ire if they think there’s the risk of turning the countryside into some kind of Disney World.?
Director at MSC Planning Associates
1 个月This is an insightful perspective on the shortcomings of the current system—it's evident that it's outdated and needs a significant overhaul. While I recognise that the existing policies have, to some extent, helped preserve our open countryside for the benefit of all, it's important to ensure that this doesn't hinder the organic development of local initiatives. I strongly believe that people would prefer a gradual addition of 5 units each year over the chaotic consequences of having hundreds of units hastily constructed on the outskirts of the village. I have an example of this today when I received an appeal decision for 1 house (on PDL) for an elderly couple (who are struggling to live in their 4-bed house and wanted to downsize) that vividly illustrates this issue. It's clear that there is a need for more thoughtful policy provisions and well-informed leadership.