I feel something needs to be said about the apparent gathering discordance developing in the countryside at large. There seem to be a rising number of factors disrupting the settled landscape. This has to some extent, become more apparent when combined with a period of deep depression following the Covid epidemic and an economic turndown in general.

Firstly, the countryside has come under the economic pressures of an expanding population. The richer element of society is taking a larger slice of the countryside while younger generations are moving out to find better paid work and cheaper housing. Rural society today does not appear to be able to function as it did in the past.

The farming community have been at their wits-end trying to meet the competitive prices set by the supermarkets. This has caused a need to diversify in order to supplement their income. The situation is somewhat exacerbated by the likes of ‘Stop-Oil’, ‘ulez-type’ campaigns and several uncoordinated developments that have upset the old equilibrium.

Rural cottages are bought-up as second homes or for holiday lets putting further pressure on the younger generations. This is coupled by those dubious greedy developers who buy up land on speculation, to sit on it (for ages) until it is in demand. In the meantime such land is left in a neglected state until any planning takes place. These challenges to the countryside are particularly evident for the commuter villages where there is an urban sprawling. It is becoming noticeably clear how these matters are affecting a discordance between wealth and poverty.

It seems that public political protest campaigns are likely to increase in the near future. One such situation nearby, is that concerning the Malvern Hills, a landscape of outstanding beauty in parts of Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and a small piece in North Gloucestershire.

The Malvern Hills are held in Trust and as such have been owned and managed for over a decade. The Trust is governed by statute, particularly the 1864 Malvern Hills Act. A proposal has been made to introduce a Private (Parliamentary) Bill to allow management changes as required. There has been a suggestion that existing methods of government are outdated, and they are stifling operations.

At this point I must interject that it has been the ancient (restrictive) regulations of forest and field in the countryside that have hitherto protected us all from some unexpected/unwanted ‘developments’ elsewhere. The problems in this (Malvern) case are argued for ‘modernisation’, and the trustees are requiring more ‘muscle’ to act. A danger here is that any such complete freedom to operate, can lead to unnecessary restrictions for public access.

As in the case of the Malvern Hills Trust: An argument is made that the countryside is coming under much greater pressure from public recreation. This has created a further argument for ‘Nature Recovery’ that can be seen in many ways! It also includes compensating for climate change. But relaxing the recognised regulations could lead to undesirable developments and irreparable damage.

Undoubtedly the countryside faces new challenges from increased visitor use and declining grazing and agricultural ‘commoning’ activities. Interference to the countryside, sometimes by famous names, is dangerous and must be carefully and pragmatically considered if we are not to endanger the natural landscape. Re-wilding excesses are worrying and must be very carefully considered.

Though this is not so in the case of the Malvern’s, overall countryside planning should provide more consideration to food production, Britain must not be so reliant on imported food supplies.

When private bills come about, as in the example of the Malvern’s, it can create serious concerns about our freedoms and liberties. I am sure in this case it is a well-meaning exercise, but it could have dangerous consequences. For example will the historic powers of the ‘Conservators’ be defused, can we be confident that new enclosures will not appear, thus preventing public access, (excluding any temporary/necessary maintenance work). This could also lead to a precedence for other managers of areas of outstanding beauty to modify their rural landscape.

I am not knocking the need for conservation, the challenges are huge, but the danger lies in the ambitious intentions to modernise, possibly happening without the oversight of a suitable representative of the public.

Alan Shelley

Gloucestershire Local Access Group member (personal views)

——————————————————————————-

NOTES. Regarding the background to this general discordant situation?

“The Countryside is in Crisis”, so says the FFCC, Food, Farming and Countryside Commission.

Shortages of affordable housing and lack of support networks are a basic problem. Flooding has also become a fact of life as communities bear the brunt of changing climatic conditions. The costs of living have become too great a burden on the country folk.

Major factors affecting the current rural conditions in the countryside appear to be:

Climate Concerns: Nature Depletion, Water Pollution and the probable excess pressures on biodiversity and recovery.

National and International Bodies: ‘Greenpeace’, ‘World Wildlife Fund’, ‘Friends of the Earth’, National Trust, RSPB, and RSPCA.

Largest Rural Landowners: – Ministry of Defence, Forestry Commission, Lancaster, and Cornwall Duchies (Crown Land) and the National Parks. Much of this land will remain restricted from the general public.

Campaigning organisations: ’Extinction Rebellion’ ‘Wild Justice’, ‘Animal Rising’, ‘Just Stop Oil’ and various Wildlife Trusts. Such slogans as “Climate Coalition”, “Restore Nature Now”, “There is No Planet B”, and “Creation Cries Out” from the specifically Christian Groups.

How do we analyse this situation?

1. Global Warming? – (Environmental climatic changes)
2. Population Pressures? – (Pollution of land, water, and air)
3. Agricultural applications? – (Farming methods)

Is ‘Global Warming’ entirely the causal reason for the degree of disruption we are experiencing?

Or are there other influencing factors involved? The population increase must be a major factor.

Population in Britain 50 yrs. ago was 56.23 M. In 2024 it is reckoned as 67.85 M an increase of 11.62 M. The ‘Guardian’ N/P (28 Oct. 2007) said the real figure at that time was somewhere between 77 and 80 M. These may be politically employed but there is no doubt in my mind that the excess pressures on the countryside are a combination of agricultural pressures on farmers, urban development, and greater recreational activities by the public, such as dog walking.

The Green Party are calling for a ‘Rights of Nature Act’ ? I have also heard, I think, on BBC of ‘Country File’, a call for an ‘Environment Act’ to halt the decline by 2030. We must wait, and see?

Has ‘opening up the Countryside’ had any causal implications? Prior to 2003 the countryside was not widely available. Access was particularly campaigned for when Marion Shoard argued for ‘Rights to Roam’ in her book “Theft of the Countryside” in 1980. Later in 1987, she produced “This is Our Land”. Politically this led to the formation of the CRoW Act, 2000 and the creation of our LAF in 2003.

I was and still am an enthusiastic supporter of ‘a right to roam’ safely and responsibly. But unfortunately this principle is not always exercised as was intended. Many, in the general public do not always observe the ‘Countryside Code’.

Prior to 2003 the Common lands and most farmlands were relatively closed to the public, while providing ‘permissive’ paths for local public access. ‘Open Access’ is a luxury we can all enjoy while recognising the needs of the farming culture alongside the delicate natural demands of rural wildlife.

Finally, have intensive methods of farming a great deal to do with wildlife decline? I suspect they do! Farm machinery is much larger and more efficient at managing the crops. But they are probably compacting land and changing the refreshment of the soil in someways. The intensive rearing of animals and in milk production has kept cattle, pigs and poultry off the land and prevented the biological cycles of yesteryear.

AS/26/06/24