Planning and the CountrysideReport of a Meeting with Mrs Maddy Winter, Head of Planning at Test Valley Borough Council
Thursday 31st March 2008In a wide ranging and very thoughtful presentation, Maddy considered the physical environment, the uses of land, and then people: how did she view each as a planner?
Physical EnvironmentThe countryside is a place of natural beauty: an avenue of mature trees on a hillside, an owl caught in headlights, kites circling. It also has a built environment, some of it mellowed into the landscape. The landscape has changed over the last 40 years: more traffic, building on what had been fields, fewer butterflies, more mechanisation in farming, hedge removal (and replanting). There is a wide raft of EU and national regulation to protect the natural world of the countryside. Legislation has replaced trust.
Land UseMaddy generated discussion about different types of land use under a number of headings. The list under the heading Leisure was the biggest. How has the balance of uses changed over forty years? Villages were very much more self-contained. Broughton had 15 shops in 1950s: now there is one. The 20th century was about globalization: the 21st, localisation. In 1960s food took up 1/3rd of average income, now it takes just 1/10th. The national store of food is just 10 days. There is a loss of the sense of farming: hobby farmers are buying farms, but not for food production. There is great financial advantage in securing residential development if possible.
The People1)
Partners in Control: consulting with other agencies.
2)
Applicants: every applicant is a developer. Homes are increasingly seen as a pension fund and investment. Applicants argue on the basis of ‘need’, about which planners have a high degree of cynicism. 70% of applications are non-controversial. An applicant has a right to planning permission unless it can be demonstrated that permission would cause ‘harm’ and does not fit in with policies. TV worked for 10 years on the local policy document, facing 7000 objections and a 6 month enquiry, yet some claim not to know about it. Pressure from applicants has undoubtedly become greater: there are more challenges on technical grounds, some vexatious.
3)
Objectors: need to rebuild bridges between neighbours after a planning decision. Where a high-profile campaign fails sometimes villages can be split.
4)
Stakeholders: 52 parish councils, most councillors offering for the sake of the community, but farmers are under-represented and often cynical about the processes. In-comers buy a house in a village and then think they have bought the village.
5)
Conservation Groups6)
Housing Associations.
Two Hard CasesIn the afternoon, Maddy introduced us to two hard cases, bringing the full files for scrutiny, one an affordable housing development which had strong opposition, the other an application for a site for travelling show people. Discussion suggested that often opposition revealed hidden tensions within villages: they went deep because of people’s fears and insecurity. Feelings were quite fragile, and hurts hard to heal after the decision. There might be ways in which churches could bring opposing sides together. This is, however, a very delicate balance for clergy living in the villages and having to face (literally) people nursing irreconcilable differences. It makes sense to begin neutrally, but keep in touch with those involved on a balanced basis. It is interesting that affordable housing can be welcomed in one village, and aggressively fought against in another. There was also an educational role (love your neighbour), and sometimes a need to challenge greed and selfishness and stand with (relatively) persecuted minorities, as a minority ourselves. Maddy said that she would be prepared to attend constructive meetings organised by churches.
(Papers circulated on the day can be read
here.)
Planning is a tool for resolving conflict between uses, but leaves issues between people unresolved. Perhaps that is where the church might be able to offer something of real value to the community.ReflectionThe earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it. [Ps 24.1] The psalmist moves in very few verses from the Lord’s sovereignty over the land to the righteousness of man : in his theology, the two are connected. There is serious competition in the countryside for using the land. Planning offers a way of adjudicating between different uses, protecting vulnerable natural environments, building harmoniously with the landscape. Yet it is under stress from those who seek to (mis)use the process to achieve the outcome they wish for, even if this is at the expense of community or neighbourly harmony. As Maddy identified, Planning can deal with the controversial questions of land use, but fails to address the human aspects of the question – neither the greed (sinfulness) nor the fear and insecurity (lack of peace), nor the need for personal reconciliation after serious breakdown. If Christ truly is our peace, if one of the local tasks of the church is to pray for the peace and healing of the parish, then it is right that we address the issues. It is much less aggravation to ignore the problem and hope the cloud will blow over. We need theological imagination and pastoral support in order to do so. As one of the members suggested, the approach of Jesus to difficult problems might help us in our very different circumstances: he told a story. All of this is a little addressed training issue. It relates to the mission of the church, to its ecclesiology, to the exercise of the ministry of healing and reconciliation. But while the church is not showing itself capable of resolving its own ecumenical or internal difficulties, how can we take a lead? Local strength can still flourish when there is national/regional weakness: the rural church has extraordinary local opportunities. In connection with Christian reconciliation, the
Mennonite practice is often commended: could it be adapted for these sorts of situation?
There is scope for further work together on the issues raised from this meeting.
this is the book cover for future reference! 
11.00am Arrival and introductions: there is very adequate car parking on the site: enter the estate by Gate 1, which is nearer to the railway viaduct and has a (usually unmanned) security box. Go to reception. The visit is being arranged by Eunice Hiscocks, PA to the Operations Director, Mike Rushworth.