Originally published: March 2023
An important point that is left out of the housing debate in the UK is our identity as a country. We like to think of Britain as a ‘green and pleasant land’, but what proportion of Britons now actually experience that, other than on the occasional holiday? Most new development comes in large batches of houses in or on the edge of towns, meaning it is urban or suburban. The result is that, why we might not be actively decreasing the number of people who live rurally, as a percentage of the total population it declines every year.
Is that a problem? Well, it depends on your vision for the country, but it is gradually changing our national identity, and our priorities. Common sense dictates that if less of the electorate lives or works in a rural setting, the government of the day will care less about rural issues. I remember back in 2005 my MP in Newbury lost his seat – in part – because he defended his position on fox hunting by saying that ‘he didn’t represent a rural constituency’. His electors begged to differ. Today, more and more MPs would get away with such a statement.
So what’s the solution? Well, logically, to arrest this change you either need to decrease new homes in urban settings or increase it rural settings. But the former would exasperate the rising cost of housing and make it even harder for young people to get on the housing ladder. And the latter risks coming up against fervent local opposition and the fact that too much rural building would erode the very rural identity we’re trying to protect. So perhaps it’s no surprise that the issue hasn’t been seriously addressed.
One idea though that would at least improve the situation is making it easier to convert existing rural buildings for new uses. Anyone who lives in a rural area knows that the is no shortage of agricultural buildings – many of them in a poor state and underused. Allowing farmers to convert these existing buildings into homes, offices, or even retail, while keeping the original rural/agricultural aesthetic, would allow more of our countrymen to live or work in the countryside without changing its fundamental nature. It would also support farmers at a time when we’re asking a lot of them – in terms of environmental protection and carbon reduction – against a backdrop of vanishing profit margins.
It’s obviously not as simple as all that – for example, clear aesthetic guidelines would have to be created, you’d have to ensure it doesn’t reduce food production, and you’d need to apply it only to pre-existing buildings so you don’t incentivise famers to build new barns just to convert them. But done right, it could gain public support and begin to get people back into the countryside.
As things stand, the planning system is stacked heavily against farmers trying to diversify the use of their buildings. When even applying to open a farm shop opens you up to a broadside from the local planning department, it’s no surprise that most famers wouldn’t dare suggest converting an old barn into some attractive, in-keeping, family homes.
Post-Covid working patterns mean people now have more freedom on where they live, and there is more demand for smaller workspaces out of town. If we can get as many people living and working in farmyards as at the height of the agricultural revolution – albeit with more laptops and fewer ploughs – we will not only be creating better lives for British families, we’ll also start to address the decline of the British rural identity.
Comentários