A better future for the uplands

Book Reviews Following from this, part three looks again at the whole of the planning system and attempts to place local planning in a wider theoretical context. Finally, a different way of discussing land policy and planning practice is suggested, relating them to four conceptual interest groups - - as opposed to the 'public interest'. The material presented is impressive and it will undoubtedly contribute to the debate on the future of the planning profession. However the book makes for very depressing reading. Halfway through it, I started to wonder whether it was all worthwhile or whether planners had been wasting their time. I suspect that this was not necessarily the impression Patsy Healey wanted to give; but even her ideas for reform - - abstractions for discussion, rather than practical suggestions for action - - give little hope for the future. Perhaps this pessimism is characteristic of the professional mood in Thatcher's Britain. However, some of Patsy Healey's points could be challenged, and though the space available here does not do her service, I shall raise a few. She indicates that there is no proof that local planning has helped the 'public interest'. Though this is mostly true, there is no proof either that it has gone against it. The property interests have been favoured - - but would it not have been much worse without the planning system, imperfect though it is? Surely some policies have benefited communities, and even though they may not have been entirely the results of 'a plan' per se, the planning process has had a role in the achievements. And can we still assume that 'public' and 'private' interests always clash? That property developers are always the class enemy of the people? Trade union pension funds often invest heavily in property companies: in whose benefit do these then operate? Are not a number of planning failures a reflection of the system of representative democracy, with its drawbacks and advantages? Finally, the British planning system was conceived, to a large extent, to allocate, land resources in a period of expansion. It cannot work in the same way in a period of recession: different concepts and processes have to evolve. But this can only be achieved if confidence in the system and its capacity to change exists amongst the professionals. I hope they will be stimulated by Patsy Healey's book and that they will enjoy discussing it, and are not paralysed by depression. SEBASTIAN L O E W

Town Planning Department Polytechnic of the South Bank London, U. K,

A Better Future for the Uplands, The

Commission, Cheltenham, packing

Countryside 1984, £5 inc. postage &

This is a clear, well presented, comprehensive but relatively short report of the Countryside Commission's far-ranging enquiry into the many diverse and complex issues and problems which are encountered in the upland areas of England and Wales. The uplands are identified as those areas which are predominantly above 240 m (800 ft),

195

this contour corresponding closely to the boundaries of the less favoured areas (LFA) of England and Wales as defined and approved under the EEC Directive 75/268, prior to the recent application to include marginal land. The area includes nine National Parks, three Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (including the North Pennines which has yet to be confirmed). The two sections of the report - - The Uplands To-day and The Way F o r w a r d - - summarise and synthesise the results of discussions with the statutory bodies - - county, borough, district and parish councils, the Tourist Boards, National Parks authorities, Regional Councils for Sport and Recreation and Water Authorities, and at least twenty-five other organisations or groups. It also draws upon a range of published reports which have contributed to the upland debate to which references are made in the text. In addition, analyses of the Small Area Statistics of the 1971 and 1981 Census data compiled from Development Boards, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Welsh Office Agricultural Department ( W O A D ) and the European Parliament are presented as tables and graphs set in the margins as evidence in support of the conclusions made in the text. This study treats the uplands as a whole and in the words of the Countryside Commission's Chairman is about 'all those men and women who wrest a living in a difficult climate; who lamb ewes and feed cattle, rebuild stone walls, plant and fell trees; who rear or teach children; who welcome tourists into their homes and work in quarries and hotels. It is about those who come to the uplands for relaxation and r e c r e a t i o n . . , and those who will come after [them] to work in or enjoy this unique part of England and Wales.' The tensions between conservation and the various economic activities of agriculture, forestry, industry and tourism are faced and the controversies surrounding the conditions of grant aid to agriculture under the EEC L F A Directive (EEC/75/268) are discussed. It is clear that the problems of the uplands are complex and that attempts to deal with agricultural problems, service provision, transport, conservation and tourism under compartmental and departmental headings is unlikely to provide satisfactory solutions. The report treats the uplands as a dynamic whole and recommendations for the way ahead detail the need to find a balanced strategy which encourages economic growth, reduces conflict and passes decisions to the local administration wherever possible. In all, thirty-six recommendations are presented under five headings: a clear role for the uplands, strengthening the upland economy, conserving and enjoying the uplands, meeting the needs of upland communities and policy co-ordination. The fulfilment of the objectives of this exploration of the upland's potential now depends on the willing co-operation not only between statutory bodies and agencies, and the numerous organisations but also upon the perceptions and actions of those who actually live, work or visit the uplands, namely those who are subject of the report. Policies and directives can set the framework; it is people in the management of their lives and businesses who make the impact. C L A R E T. L U K E H U R S T

Countryside Research Unit Brighton Polytechnic, U.K,