Last week the government unveiled it's blueprint for rural regeneration. The white paper, under the wing of Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott proposed measures that the government plans to introduce, in order to overcome what it sees as growing problems of social exclusion and the post-industrial economic decline of rural areas. In this latest article we examine the governments plans, and ask whether rural development is really an urban myth.


The problems of rural life are well documented. Property prices are well beyond the reach of many rural citizens. Prices are fuelled by high demand for second homes from affluent city dwellers. Few affordable houses are under construction. There is a saturation of lower paid jobs and a drain of brains to the city where wages are higher. Services are fewer and there is less choice of suppliers, from anything ranging from supermarkets to newsagents to interior designers. Agriculture is suffering with land values well below the levels previously enjoyed. Post offices are closing all over the country, along with many schools. The government rightly believs that the situation needs addressing.

So that's exactly what the government have done. They have proposed a package of measures and aid to tackle a wide range of problems and breathe life back into countryside living, including:

• A 50% rate cut for village shops, pubs and garages intended to promote economic growth.
• Local councils have been given the option of ending the 50% council tax discounts for second homes.
• £100 million has been earmarked for one-stop health care centres in 100 communities nationwide.
• £270 million has been set aside to support rural post offices and prevent further closures.
• £240million is to be pumped into rural transport schemes to reduce the burden on existing infrastructure, with a new £15m special transport fund to support car clubs, taxi services, and community transport.
• Extra tax rate relief will be granted to farmers who diversify into new businesses.
• The number of farmers' markets is to be increased from 250 to nearly 400.
• 9,000 affordable new homes are to be built each year across rural districts.
• £37m extra regeneration money is to be given to market towns to bring in new business.
• Use of information technology is to be promoted, in order to connect people in rural areas to good and services.

This all sounds very nice but what exactly will the impact of this 'living countryside' be? Put simply, it looks as though the aim is to raise living standards by modernising the rural way of life, and by reducing dependency on the traditional means of sustenance for countryside dwellers.

The upshot is that what we are likely to see is lots of new development. There will be improvements in public services and social infrastructure, new roads, and support for local businesses. There will also be help for rural dwellers who want to convert buildings into new homes, and maybe even for farmers who wish to sell off land to developers, if this can be counted as diversifying into new lines of business.

But don't worry about spoiling countryside views, as we are assured by both the government and the builders that all new developments will slip in right alongside the original architecture of the towns and villages, so as to be almost seamless. Though quite how new estates can appear in place of fields without anyone noticing is an intriguing mystery...

Let's just suppose that the measures work, and manage to stimulate economic growth in the countryside. The jobs are there, the people come, prosperity shines on the English countryside (or what's left of it). Then what? The problems that the measures aim to alleviate are pretty much ubiquitous, but are dressed up differently in various geographic areas.

Addressing high property is a high priority amongst the list of complaints regarding countryside living. Is this really any different in towns and cities? There is a huge wave of concern about the lack of affordable housing in London, with even those on middle incomes hard pushed to find somewhere to live.

The countryside needs better transport. But ask the residents in Hackney. London or Sparkbrook, Birmingham, and they'll soon tell you they need drastic improvements in transport as well. Go to London and ask what the tube was like this morning, oh, and find out how much it costs while your there.

As for the need for new jobs, well they would be just as welcome in Bradford, Sunderland, Sheffield, Plymouth, Bristol or any other city in the country.

Obviously, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that people living in the countryside don't get left behind, living in some kind of dark age rural backwater. But at the same time, great care must be taken to ensure that the positive aspects of traditional rural life are not destroyed forever.

It's all very well building more homes but the reality is that the jobs just aren't there and it will take more than a pledge of money to bring them coming. Encouraging the owners of a bakery to turn it into a house to increase its value does not create jobs or affordable housing. Changing the usage of many properties in towns and villages may result in the closure of some small businesses - making villages even less viable for those relying on low paid jobs. And if the type of jobs on offer do become more like those in towns and cities, it is likely to be the city folk that possess the skills to fill the employment vacancies.

 Print

Copyright (c) 2008 TheMoveChannel. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

• Developers
• Agents
• Advertisers
• Partners
• Press

Our International Property Portals: Bulgaria • Cyprus • Florida • France • Italy • Portugal • Spain • Turkey