Urban myths

“Towns are greener than the countryside.” Says who?

Q: What’s the difference between the carbon footprint of an urban and a rural dweller?

A: Not much, according to the Commission for Rural Communities’ State of the Countryside report. While each person living in rural areas is responsible for an average 12 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year, that’s only 2.5% more than the urban average.

“There’s relatively little difference,” says Trevor Cherrett, programme manager for sustainable rural communities at the Commission. “Out-of-town superstores rack up the car travel of urban people just as much as they do for rural people.” It’s figures like the above that will put an end to the myth that rural areas are intrinsically unsustainable, hopes the CRC.

As an independent watchdog and ‘rural advocate’ with a remit to ensure that government policies reflect the real needs of people in rural England, the organisation is focussing on dispelling three other such ‘urban myths’.

1. That high levels of new housing will “concrete over the countryside”. In fact, says the CRC, prospective growth is expected to increase the urban proportion of total land by only by 2-3% over the next 20-30 years.

2. That we should protect the countryside “for its own sake”. While there are plenty of good reasons for slowing development, the CRC argues that we need to be specific about them, with “policies based on rational arguments rather than vague presumptions”.

3. That new housing should only be located in settlements with a minimum level of services, such as shops or a doctor’s surgery. Yet when a similar constraining approach was attempted by planners in the 1960s, smaller villages rebelled. Besides, the ongoing declineof many services such as shops, health facilities and public transport affects urban areas too.

The CRC points out that recent trends in home-working, localised health diagnostic equipment and community ownership of shops and other resources mean that planners can think more constructively about the sustainability of new rural housing, rather than simply opposing it.

“What we’re trying to do is prevent this wholesale neglect and ‘no development’ approach, so that each community can plan for it’s own future in a way that is appropriate to it,” says Cherrett. “That might mean no development in some cases, but it could mean substantial development in others. We have to recognise that rural communities have a lot to offer and help them make the most of that.”

A major improvement, suggests Cherrett, would be to move on from some of the basic rules of planning policy developed almost half a century ago. “The history of planning is all about containment in towns, while the country bit was about agricultural development and a bit of tinkering with villages. As a result, the debate tends to be dominated by battles – housebuilders versus planners, or planners versus the Campaign to Protect Rural England.”

The CRC is not entering the fray itself. Instead, it seeks to broker an intelligent peace. “We want to get the parties round the table to develop a new agenda.” What is essential, he says, is that the debate is refocused on a more holistic understanding of sustainability. In rural areas it “is often crudely defined in terms of the viability of services and the carbon footprint of car travel”, when it should cover economic, social and environmental issues. “Ultimately,we need to focus on how to make rural communities more sustainable, rather than simply condemning them for failing to meet a definition of sustainability that many urban areas fail to meet too.” –Trevor Lawson

Read more in ‘State of the Countryside 2007’ and ‘Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities: A New Agenda’.

The Commission for Rural Communities is a Forum for the Future partner.

20 September 2007

Trevor Lawson