Managing the rural environment: An emerging role for planning authorities

Journal of Environmental Management (1990) 31, 185-196

Managing the Rural Environment: an Emerging Role for Planning Authorities Annabel J. Barker

Department of Environmental Science, University of Bradford, Bradford, U.K. and P. H. Selman

Department of Environmental Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, U.K. Received 2 March 1989

Five case studies in Britain are described where collaborative approaches have been used to resolve rural land use conflicts. Typically, these rely on the initiative of local planners, and involve producing a land use plan and convening a multi-agency forum. Although there are few planning powers available to control countryside change, it is often possible to agree land use proposals which are in the public and community interest. This type of approach is still experimental and has required the use of imaginative and innovative techniques in strategy formulation.

Keywords: land use; conflict resolution, planning. 1. Introduction Lack of controls over rural land use change in Britain has meant that planners have had no effective means o f moderating conflicts between development and conservation interests. However, the intensity of certain recent disputes over ecological and landscape resources has made some form of arbitration highly desirable. Rural resources such as nature conservation, landscape, recreation, agriculture and forestry are largely the purview of specialist government agencies or departments, and so disputes, if sufficiently serious, m a y ultimately be resolved at ministerial level. Yet the disputes themselves affect local communities, and it is therefore axiomatic that cases should be resolved with regard to their particular social and land use circumstances, rather than purely on the basis of centralized policy. This suggests that there may be a role for local planning authorities in the determination of rural land use patterns. M a n y commentators believe that full planning control is necessary for this to take place, but it m a y also be noted that a variety o f instruments already exist which enable planners to exert some degree of influence over rural land use. Current government policy is, in any case, so antipathetic to any further

185 0301-4797/90/060185 + 12 $03.00/0

9 1990 Academic Press Limited

186

Rural environment planning

extension of countryside planning controls that short- and medium-term solutions must be based on the limited powers already available and the promotion of voluntary partnership between public, private and conservation interests. These powers include management plans, management and access agreements, compensation, consultative procedures, financial incentives, extension work, co-ordination and monitoring. Thus, there has been a recent tendency for planners to become involved in matters concerning farming, forestry, archaeology and nature and landscape conservation--a grey area which lies within planning influence but generally beyond planning control. A number of justifications may be cited in support of this role. First, planners are answerable to an elected body accountable to the local public, thus making them acceptable intermediaries between communities and centralized agencies. Second, whilst it can be argued that planners' final responsibilities are to local, rather than national, interests, they are well placed to take an overview of land use demands and liaise with agencies. Third, planning departments have gained increasing credibility in conflict resolution and opportunity realisation in the countryside, particularly as a result of project-oriented managerial work. Finally, through their normal consultative procedures, planning authorities have a tradition of seeking, interpreting and balancing advice from more expert, single-function agencies. 2. T h e case study areas

This research project examined five cases in which planning authorities had collaborated with other statutory and private interests to seek agreed approaches to rural land use (Figure 1). They are concerned both with the resolution of conflicts and the realization of community development opportunities. The most northerly case was the island of Fetlar in Shetland, where a continuing decline of population and farm viability had reduced the economy to a precarious position. Proposed designation of the greater part of the island as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) by the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) would have imposed restrictions on farmers' ability to improve their land and this proposal provoked deep concern for the future. The island of Islay, off the west coast of Scotland, has experienced similar problems, although here the interests are more complex. Again, the land is of exceptional value for nature conservation, but conservation has variously conflicted with peat extraction on the Duich Moss SSSI (for the whisky industry), forestry, tourism proposals and farming. (It may be noted that farmers were particularly aggrieved by damage to crops by geese). The Loch Lomond area lies in the accessible hinterland of the Clydeside conurbation, and so does not suffer from the same problems of marginality and remoteness. Rather, there is a requirement to manage the land and water surface so that the recreational and heritage interests are balanced with the needs of farming, forestry and water supply. The Loch Rannoch/Glen Lyon area comprises distinctive highland landscape whose sparse population is supported by hill farming, forestry, hydro-electric power generation and tourism. It has been designated as one of Scotland's 40 National Scenic Areas (NSA)--as has Loch Lomond--and such designation brings with it additional development controls, viewed by some as economic disincentives. The Somerset Levels and Moors are a lowland area of predominantly pastoral agriculture, which has potential for more extensive arterial and field drainage, and thus for conversion to arable farming. This prospect has alarmed conservationists, who prize the area as one of Britain's most valuable remaining wetlands, but the balance of land use is also complicated by the extensive archaeological remains (preserved by the high water table) and important horticultural peat industry.

A. J. Barker and P.H. Selman

187

&Fetlar

t , ,;,p

A

T

L

A

N

T

I

C

O C E A N

6

mit,~ 6o

Figure I. The case study locations.

In each of these situations, an approach has been taken to integrated resource planning which combines (1) practical land use plans delineating appropriate planning and management options; with (2) formal collaborative arrangements between central and local agencies, private individuals and organisations, and the affected communities. The responses range from statutory local plans to informal indicative frameworks, whilst the Fetlar plan emphasised opportunities for economic diversification. In each case, a planning department was the lead agency, with the exception of the Rannoch/ Lyon project which was promoted as a research study by the Countryside Commission

188

Rural environment planning

for Scotland (CCS). The performance of these collaborative groups is reviewed more fully elsewhere (Selman and Barker, 1989). 3. The land use frameworks

3.1. FETLAR The central land use conflict on Fetlar is between farming and nature conservation. The island's considerable nature conservation interest derives from its geology and former grazing regimes, and it contains a high density of rare breeding species, and significant numbers and diversity of breeding waders. Agriculture (predominantly crofting) is by far the most important source of employment and income, and responses to market trends in the sheep sector will tend to encourage the re-seeding of hill land in order to increase efficiency and productivity. This improvement would, however, normally be incompatible with SSSI designation. A report by the North of Scotland College of Agriculture (Daw, 1985) thus noted that crofters needed to improve lambing percentages and/or increase their scale of operation. Both of these improvements would require additional winter feed, for which the only economic source is better grass mainly through reseeding. The final proposals centred on the rationalization of croft land, including, ideally, the creation of some five new crofts. Rationalization would give a better return than re-seeding hill land and so would more readily integrate with conservation needs, although it would raise many technical and legal problems. In recognition of the difficulties facing the island, and the critically low population levels, a broadly representative consultative group was formally established with the purpose of preparing an integrated development plan. This plan was published in 1986 and comprised a set of ambitious measures directed at land use and facility provision. First, the NCC agreed to a zonation of the North Fetlar SSSI for relative scientific importance. Zone A (46%) is of outstanding quality within which there is a strong presumption against habitat change; Zone B (45%) is high quality land within which limited improvement is permitted depending on its nature and scale; Zone C (9%) is important for its contiguous, intact habitat and buffering influences, but in which the NCC will not oppose normal agricultural developments. It is recognised that this zonation reduces, but far from eliminates, potential conflict, and considerable reliance is being placed on the conclusion of management agreements and the associated payment of compensation. The remaining major areas of activity are centred on proposals for the provision of facilities and thus have cost implications: Shetland is relatively well placed to meet these as it has a considerable reserve fund arising from North Sea oil revenues. In addition, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS) and Highland and Islands Development Board (HIDB) may grant aid a number of activities, including crofters' housing and industrial projects. Thus, new financial incentives were to be made under an "outgoers' scheme" to encourage crofters to release under-worked or surplus land and to compensate them for the island's unfavourable house sale prices and building costs. Equally, incomers were to be encouraged by assistance with removal expenses, and acquisition of land and housing. In addition, a range of other service, community and industrial facilities were to be grant-aided. The administration of the IDP has been by the island's Community Council. Significant initial difficulties in implementing outgoers' and incomers' provisions were experienced: the number of incomers so far has only been small, and few were young, had families or obtained jobs.

A. J. Barker and P.H. Selman

189

Furthermore, protracted delays in payment led to a successful appeal to the Ombudsman for maladministration. More encouraging progress has, however, been made on other projects, 3.2. ISLAY Following the emergence of land use controversy, the local plan for Islay proposed establishment o f " a n integrated framework for development and conservation.., which will aim to resolve conflicts and competing objectives in rural land use" (ABDC, 1984). This proposal resulted in the establishment of the Islay Land Use Group, chaired by the Argyll and Bute District Council and drawing in representatives of forestry, agricultural, conservation and economic agencies. Three major areas of progress have been achieved. First, the Group provides an improved forum for consultation, especially over forestry grant applications and conservation designations. Although the land budget for the island is still taut, it is now generally believed that serious controversies can be avoided by early negotiations. Second, additional surveys have been undertaken to improve understanding of the natural resource base. Thus, the celebrated dispute over Duich Moss arose partly because of ignorance over the distribution of suitable alternative pea t resources. A study of peat deposits for industrial and other fuel purposes was thus commissioned, and was funded jointly by various public and industrial concerns. (These were: Argyll and Bute District Council, Nature Conservancy Council, Strathclyde Regional Council, Highland and Islands Development Board and Scottish Malt Distillers; the survey was commissioned from the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute). Similarly, nature conservation underpins tourist revenue to a considerable but unquantified degree, and its importance to the islanders is therefore difficult to demonstrate. Partly for this reason, a further study of visitors was commissioned, again with joint funding. (The contributors were: Argyll and Bute District Council, Highland and Islands Development Board, Countryside Commission for Scotland, Nature Conservancy Council, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The study was undertaken by System 3 (Scotland)). This study sought to: (i) gather information on visitors, accommodation, transport patterns, and visitor activities and attitudes; (ii) identify that component of the visitor sector which is attracted by the wildlife of the islands, particularly out of the main tourist season; (iii) identify the specific needs and desires of differing visitor groups; (iv) investigate and assess aspects of island holidays and recreation of special interest to individual sponsors; and (iv) assess the conservation benefit to the local area of visitors to the island. Third, and perhaps most significant from the land use planning standpoint, has been the attempt by members of the Land Use Group to identify existing and potential areas of conflict on the island. In particular, land of prime, marginal and little or no importance to each party has been identified. Classification has been assisted by the NCC's investment of considerable effort into the production of an experimental geographic information system of conservation resources, which should lead to the mapping of"degrees of constraint" over future land use. The draft alteration to the local plan for the area (ABDC, 1987) refers to the possible production of a non-statutory rural land use strategy, which could reconcile conflicts and provide an integrated framework

190

Rural environment planning

for future development control in the island. In addition, it is also hoped that various practical projects and management agreements can be supported. 3.3. LOCH LOMOND

Loch Lomond provides the only example in the present case studies of a formal local plan being used as the main policy instrument. This is one of the few "subject" local plans prepared in Scotland, and focuses on the subjects of tourism, recreation and conservation. Its main aim is the "reconciliation of recreational and tourist demands with the need to conserve and enhance the environment . . . " (SRC et al., 1982). The approach has been the comparatively traditional one of land zonation into policy areas, in which different balances are struck between the competing interests. For instance, one policy area, centred on the principal settlement of Balloch, is viewed in the following terms: Policy area and characteristics: 1. Balloch Recreation and Tourism Development Area. Mainly an urban area well served by through access routes and public transport services. Conservation policy: Requires intensive programme of landscape improvement and management. Recreation and tourism policy: Appropriate for a concentration of well designed larger scale visitor facilities including accommodation. The other policy areas are: 2. Recreation and Tourism Area. 3. Countryside Area. 4. Wilderness Area. 5. Agriculture Priority Area. 6. The Loch Surface. Zonation alone, however, cannot resolve the area's problems or realise its opportunities. There are, thus, policies (1) regarding major infrastructural proposals for the area which could detract from the less intensive land uses, (2) for the conclusion of a notification system over proposed agricultural changes, and (3) for the establishment of a park authority. Following discussions with agricultural interests, a voluntary code of practice was successfully concluded, and now results in specified land use or constructional details being passed to planners for comment and modification (SRC, undated). Covered by the code are farm buildings and sizeable structures, extensive new drainage works, mineral extraction, track and bridge construction, removal or replacement of stone walls, hedgerows, small woodland and shelterbelts, and the use of land as a caravan site. A simple form of notification has been drawn up, which takes approximately three weeks for processing, during which any necessary dialogue takes place between the farmer/landowner and the park authority. Failure to notify may result in the withholding of DAFS grant; significant cost increases or proposals foregone will be compensated should the farmer conform to advice. In practice, only a small number of notifications arise as a result of the code, and most of these are uncontentious. Also, in 1988, the park authority was formally created, as a joint committee between the four local authorities under s57 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, following a public inquiry and a long period of delay. The plan area has also been accorded Regional Park status which will allow a more favourable position with regard to CCS grant aid.

A. J. Barker and P.H. Selman

191

3.4. LOCH RANNOCH AND GLEN LYON

When National Scenic Areas were introduced to Scotland in 1980, they were essentially a landscape designation which introduced some additional planning controls, as well as formal consultation system with CCS about proposed development or forestry operations. This measure was not altogether happily received, as it was seen to bring no positive benefits to compensate for its additional restrictions. The CCS therefore established a research project in the Rannoch/Lyon NSA to explore the potential for positive management. The initial study (CEMP, 1986) sought to improve the Commission's knowledge and understanding of the processes of change in landscapes subject to NSA designation, and to provide guidance for the management of these elements which were considered important to conserve or enhance. By 1986, the consultants had made contact with owners and managers of all 48 farms and estate units in the NSA, and had completed a detailed review of landscape and land use in the area. A second stage of study was then sponsored: (i) to define objectives and policies for landscape conservation and development. (ii) to develop proposals for key landscape elements. (iii) to establish a consultative framework for effective local coordination of landscape conservation and development. (iv) to ascertain the opportunities and resources available for developing landscape conservation practices and to specify the mechanisms available for turning ideas into action. (v) to devise a programme for the implementation of a strategy for landscape conservation and development. The consultants worked in close collaboration with a broadly-based Project Advisory Group, to develop more plausible proposals and to engage the goodwill of those who would be directly responsible for implementing the landscape strategy. Major topics of concern were identified as: the maintenance of traditional habitats; forestry operations; construction of livestock housing and vehicle tracks; localised visitor pressure; inappropriate building design; and the impacts of hydro-electric power generation. An approach to resolving these issues clearly does not fit neatly into the conventional mould of land use planning, and thus the landscape strategy involved two innovative techniques. First, the NSA was divided into "landscape character zones", enabling attention to be focused on critical elements within each of these. Second, the various implementational mechanisms available were identified and a parallel classification of landscape elements was undertaken, together with a listing of tasks necessary to maintain or enhance each element (LUC, 1987). Thus, tasks could be matched to potential mechanisms, giving a clearer idea of how the strategy could be put into action (Figure 2). Further studies are now taking place into ways in which the approach might be extended to other NSAs.

3.5.

SOMERSET LEVELS AND MOORS

In an attempt to resolve the complex land use issues of the Levels and Moors, Somerset County Council sought, after taking advice from central government, to prepare a strategic framework for the area. Although initially conceived as a formal plan, the focus on agricultural issues made such a plan increasingly inappropriate, and it was eventually progressed as a non-statutory document. Production of the strategy has been guided by a steering panel of elected members and officials of the County and four District

192

Rural environment planning Implementational mechanisms

Landscape elements

identified in

identified in

Rannech / Lyon NSA

Rannoch / Lyon NSA

Statutory controls

Naturalfeatures

Improved liaison

Example of matching implementation mechanisms, landscape elements and tasks

Semi-natural vegetation

Publicity for aims Subsidies and grant aid

Trees & woodland

Information~advice/training improved agricultural land Experimentation Direct implementation

Buildings & structures

ID

Natural

Feature!

ontrot o~ in~lpp_ [op..date deve~opn Improved design/improvement of Protection of sensitive landforn Conservation of Ioch shores Improvement of rivers affected by e c ~ tree ptanting along

Figure 2. Elementsof the Rannoch Lyonstrategy(adapted from LUC, 1987). Councils. Its implementation has been assisted by a Countryside Forum comprising representatives of the major land use and planning interests under the chairmanship of the County Council. The Forum is non-executive, and members make recommendations arising from it to their parent bodies. Following consultative reports and drafts, the Framework for Implementation was published (SCC, 1984) and incorporates schematic plans and a proposals map. Topical coverage focuses on landscape, nature conservation, archaeology, peat extraction, agriculture and land drainage, and recreation and tourism. In addition, a variety of management guidelines, covering drainage ditches, otters, small woods and meadows, have been published by the County Council on behalf of the Forum. An advisory guideline and notification code has also been published on the protection of remains in delineated "areas of high archaeological potential". Implementation of the strategy is recognised as being largely dependent upon the degree of acceptance by those with interests in the Levels and Moors. Reconciliation of the issues affecting the area is seen to depend fundamentally upon the willingness and enthusiasm of several agencies and numerous individuals to cooperate over the strategy's objectives. Agencies are also reminded of their broader countryside responsibilities under various pieces of legislation. For instance, the County Council is now grant-aiding the pollarding of trees and discontinuing its policy of flailing hedgerows along highways. 4. Production of the strategies

The process of local plan production and adoption is now well established and follows a number of reasonably consistent steps. This process is demonstrated in Figure 3, which illustrates the stages of the Loch Lomond (Subject) Plan. In addition, the public were allowed three major opportunities for involvement. The first phase was a distribution of an information leaflet in 1976, and the various responses arising from this leaflet were incorporated in the 1977 Survey and Issues Report. This Report then signalled a further phase, with widespread consultation of official interests and the general public, as well as radio broadcasts and press releases. The final phase of consultation began with the release of the Consultative Draft Plan in 1980, accompanied by exhibitions in the principal settlements surrounding the Loch. A major public meeting took place, whilst a

193

A. J. Barker and P.H. Selman

number of bodies also requested detailed discussions. By contrast, there is far less experience in the production of a non-statutory strategy, and the approach is inevitably more heuristic. The issues addressed and the composition of steering groups will be more variable, and thus there must be a greater degree of inbuilt flexibility. Stages in the preparation of the Rannoch/Lyon study are summarized in Figure 4. The elements comprising a non-statutory approach are also varied and largely experimental. However, it was possible to gauge the perceived utility of different devices and the views of respondents on these devices are summarized in Table 1. The numbers in each row do not tally, as not all elements were represented in all studies, and many respondents thus had no opinion on, or involvement in, particular approaches. Also, this summary conceals areas of disagreement: for instance, most planners considered public meetings to be essential, whereas these were "abhorred" by one conservationist as a counter-productive measure, contributing to ill-feeling. Nevertheless, a broad balance of preference can be observed. In addition to these major elements, certain others were also singled out by respondents, falling broadly into two categories. First were those attributable to collaborative working, such as local liaison and monitoring, the ability to draw in further expertise, and the potential (often not realiged) for maintaining momentum by reaching decisions. Second, were broader political considerations, such as

September 1976

]Informationleaflet

1 July 1977

I Survey and Issues Report

l 1

1980

I Consulfat,veDraflp,an|

Summer 1982

l F~nalDraft Plan

tObjections ~

i I AdoptedPlan Figure 3. Stages in preparation--Loch Lomond local (subject) plan.

194

Rural environment planning

Review Policy Context Agree Aims I

Seek cooperationand support I of local communities, I I landownersand agencies fl

/

f

Establish Policy Objectives %

[D.... ibe vul.... bility of I

I

I

I Define "landscape I

Define Priorities for Action

]

Publicity, Controls

I

Liaison, Funding, Direct Action

I | ~1

I Advice/ Training! I E• ill

Devise Action Programme Figure 4. Stages in preparation--Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon land use strategy.

TABLE 1. Perceived importance of elements of collaborative exercises

Public meetings Steering groups Working with different agencies Land use strategy Codes of practice Publicity/informative material Integrated budget Heightened awareness One-door service Statutory policies

Unimportant

Important

Very important

6 2 0 3 6 5 4 1 4 2

9 20 18 15 8 22 4 23 8 8

20 26 29 22 l0 9 6 20 2 9

shifts in national agricultural policy, and the need for strong commitment to the exercise by local councillors. This study has also indicated a number of ingredients conducive to success in collaborative exercises, although none can really be considered absolute prerequisites.

A. J. Barker and P.H. Selman

195

These include:

(i) a map based strategy, with policy areas indicating or encouraging various types of compatible use; (ii) a consultative forum, comprising representatives of all major affected interests (representatives should be sufficiently senior to take personal initiatives, other than where significant issues of policy, precedent or finance arise); (iii) an agreed budget for a significant range of capital and revenue items; ideally, this budget should receive contributions from several of the participating agencies; (iv) delegation of specific tasks to sub-groups, provided these are not allowed to proliferate; (v) readily accessible publicity and explanatory material; (vi) a focus on topics which can be achieved realistically; (vii) sufficiently regular meetings for a "team approach" to be fostered; (viii) allocation of adequate amounts of staff time; (ix) ability to take a fleXible approach towards stated policy; (x) a strong commitment from elected members; (xi) a clear vision about what the strategy is intended to achieve. 5. Discussion

There has been a conventional wisdom that a state of constructive tension between land resource agencies is an effective spur to resolving competing interests. This approach, however, has increasingly lost credibility in the face of countryside conflicts: it can only operate reactively, and, where it tries to achieve more than marginal adjustments, it is likely to result in bitter and damaging confrontation. Instead, there has been a growing recognition of the need to base the resolution of conflicting interests on an agreed framework, preferably one which accommodates national strategic interests to the satisfaction of the local community. The instigation of collaborative arrangements has been identified as a promising and feasible means of defusing conservation-development conflicts at the local level. Several of the cases examined here have been in singularly problematic situations, and it may be wrong to extrapolate about the many less ambitious strategies successfully being operated around the country, largely within local authority budgets. Equally, the fact that the focus has been mainly on Scottish examples has affected the ability to generalize about areas where intensive farming rather than forestry is the central interest. The experience in Somerset indicated a very discernible move by the agricultural interests towards acceptance of a multiple use framework for the countryside. In general terms, it could be argued that planners have been performing two kinds of mediatory function. One concerns environmentally extrinsic factors, that is, at the personal and bureaucratic level where disputes arise between state, private and community interests. The other is with respect to environmentally intrinsic factors, namely the exploration of land use options for sustainable development. To an extent, the assumption that local authorities can act as "honest broker" is flawed, as they often cannot behave impartially or openly, and cannot offer a brokerage service with respect to land resources. Moreover, it is clear that the present government attaches little priority to strategic rural land use, and prefers to rely on "good estate management" and public-spirited landowners as a means of tidying up the ragged edges

196

Rural environment planning

of countryside policy. There is thus a danger that, unless central government issues clear statements about rural land use practices, locally-based plans will essentially be landscape strategies leading to compromise on superficial and cosmetic factors whilst remaining impotent with regard to the major determinants of change. In practice, these considerations are often less important than might be expected. Many instances of land use competition, on close examination, turn out not to be deeply intractable and, if there is a well-informed conciliatory forum, an acceptable solution may be proposed before defensive stances are adopted and strategic issues raised. It may justifiably be argued that many barriers to land use integration stem not so much from intrinsic incompatibilities as from "environmentally extrinsic" factors--in particular, a system of administration which isolates the community from the decision-making process and thus accentuates division. Furthermore, the real strength of local government as a focus for collaborative resource management lies in its political accountability to elected members: it thus countervails the centripetal trend in countryside administration which often results in key decisions being imposed by distant and virtually autonomous agencies. Overall, this study encountered widespread support for collaborative structures and land use frameworks. Although most parties had some misgivings, it was evident that suspicious and confrontational attitudes were waning, and that clear areas of progress and joint working could be identified. In some respects, the level of mutual awareness and informal contact which was fostered in the exercises was more important than the land use plans themselves. Provided that sufficient staff and other resources can be released, and that there is a clear and practical vision about what the exercises are intended to achieve, collaborative approaches to rural land use planning can be embarked upon with an air of cautious optimism.

This article is based on research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) reference number: D 00 23 2338. References Argyll and Bute District Council (1984) Islay, Jura and Colonsay Local Plan. Lochgilphead. Argyll and Bute District Council (1987) Islay, Jura and Colonsay Local Plan: First Review and Alteration. Lochgilphead. Centre for Environmental Management and Planning (1986) Review of the Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon National Scenic Area. Aberdeen. Daw, M.E. (1985) Fetlar LD.P.--Agricultural Aspects. Mimeo. Aberdeen: North of Scotland School of Agriculture. Land Use Consultants (1987) A Landscape Strategy for Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon National Scenic Area. Glasgow. Loch Lomond Planning Group (1987) Loch Lomond--Agricultural Developments and Works: a code of practice. Glasgow. Selman, P. H. and Barker, A. J. (1989) Rural land use policy at the local level: mechanisms for collaboration. Land Use Policy 6, 281-294. Somerset County Council (1984) Somerset Levels and Moors: Framework for Implementation. Taunton. Strathclyde Regional Council (and Central Regional Council, Dumbarton District Council and Stirling District Council) (1982) The Loch Lomond Local (Subject) Plan for Tourism, Recreation and Conservation. Glasgow.