Farming at the rural-urban fringe: new opportunity spaces for UK agriculture?

Professor Alister Scott and David Collier

Alister Scott BA PhD MRTPI Professor of Spatial Planning and Governance Birmingham School of the Built EnvironmentBirmingham City UniversityCity Centre Campus, Millennium Point, Curzon Street, Birmingham B4 7XG United Kingdom +44 (0)121 331 7551Alister.Scott@bcu.ac.uk

David Collier MA Dip TP MRTPIChief Rural Affairs AdviserNational Farmers’ UnionAgriculture House, Stoneleigh Park, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire, CV8 2TZUnited Kingdom +44 (0)2476 858694 David.collier@nfu.org.uk

Abstract

This paper assesses the scope and potential of the rural urban fringe as a new opportunity space for agriculture. Traditionally the rural-urban fringe, that messy space where town meets countryside, has been viewed from an urban-centric perspective fulfilling the needs of an increasingly-urbanised society. However, this paper takes a rural-centric perspective looking at the fringe as an opportunity space to consider how agriculture can take advantage of the unique and dynamic aspects of a fringe location set within a multifunctional agenda. At the heart of this lies the idea of what agriculture means within contemporary needs for diversification and sustainability. Using results from an interdisciplinary RELU-funded project ‘Managing Environmental Change at the Rural-Urban Fringe, we critically explore how spatial planning and the ecosystem services approach might unite to create a new lens through which we can better identify, plan and evaluate the needs in the RUF. Three strategic themes emerged: long-term perspectives, connectivity and values. Using workshops and case studies we have identified the importance of agriculture in the rural-urban fringe but that it has been hampered by rigid zoning of uses and restrictions of the green belt. Set within impending changes to European agricultural support and continuing changes in the structure of the agricultural industry in England we consider how farming can reposition itself set within changes to the English

1

planning system and the application of localism. We conclude that more focus in needed on the rural part of the rural-urban fringe and on finding solutions that meet multiple objectives.

Introduction

This paper assesses the scope and potential of the rural-urban fringe (RUF) as a new opportunity space for agriculture set within post-productivist interpretations and visions. In many ways this represents a conceptual and behavioural challenge as traditionally the RUF has been viewed as a space to meet the needs of an ever increasing urbanised society rather than as a place for more innovative and community-centred forms of rural activities associated with agriculture and forestry. Consequently, this paper adopts and champions a rural-centric perspective assessing the potential of the RUF from the standpoint of how rural uses and ideas can improve its potential. So, in going beyond convention in all senses of that word, this paper focusses on how we might reimagine agriculture within contemporary policy needs for diversification and sustainability. Our ideas are presented drawing on our collective contributions rooted within an interdisciplinary RELU-funded project ‘Managing Environmental Change at the Rural-Urban Fringe’. Here a transdisciplinary team of academics and policy players crossing disciplines, sciences, sectors and scales, critically explored the unison of spatial planning and the ecosystem approaches in order to co-produce a new lens within which we can reposition the way we think, plan and make decisions about the RUF.

This paper recognises the pivotal and positive role of agriculture and food production in the ‘messy’ jigsaw of land-use, development, environment and community. However, in order to maximise rural-centric visions we need to look critically at contemporary governance arrangements which provide barriers set within a market-led mentality shaped by economic land values and then a concomitant desire by planners to order and zone the ensuing landscape (Qvistrom, 2007). This approach fails to properly account for and understanding the ecosystem services and benefits secured through alternative and different uses of land. Set within impending changes to European agricultural support and structural reform of agriculture in England there is also fundamental change to the English planning system within the application and operationalisation of localism. Such change provides an interesting opportunity space to float our ideas.

Rediscovering the Rural Urban Fringe.

The zone where a city or town meets the countryside is ubiquitous, dynamic and highly diverse across the UK. Welcome to the rural-urban fringe! Gallent et al. (2004:223) suggest that the key attributes of the rural-urban fringe are as follows:

• a multi-functional environment, but often characterised by essential service functions;

• a dynamic environment, characterised by adaptation and conversion between uses;

• a low-density economic activity including retail, industry, distribution and warehousing;

• an untidy landscape, potentially rich in wildlife.

Rather than containing any clear lines of demarcation, the RUF is characterised by ‘fuzzy’, ‘messy’ and transitory spaces, each subject to differential rates of change and transformation through

2

essentially ad-hoc, iterative and haphazard processes where plans operate at a variety of spatial and temporal scales (Sullivan and Lovell, 2006; Rauws and De Roo, 2011). Indeed, it is these extremes of change and continuity that differentiate this space from other rural and urban domains and, given the range of interests affected, can engender significant local contestation (Weaver and Lawton, 2001: Friedland, 2002). According to Ravetz (2010), this complexity and diversity reflects its multi-level, multi-sectoral, multi-functional and multi-scalar attributes. Thus, generalities of the RUF are liable to hide more than they reveal (Scott and Carter, 2011).

Deconstructing the RUF, however, is a complex undertaking and, indeed, can become a self-defeating exercise. Ravetz (2010:3) observes:

“It has many definitions: e.g. urban fringe: urban hinterland: functional territory: urban-rural interface: rural-urban-region, etc. It is subject to many layers of influence from local to regional, national and global: it involves a wide variety of stakeholders, actors and institutions: and it shows levels of complexity, innovation, transition and emergence. It is shaped as much by socio-cultural discourses as direct functional relationships: and the peri-urban is often difficult to define with geographical boundaries”.

Significantly, many definitions seek to define the fringe character by its land use characteristics alone, but there is emerging work that looks more critically at the role of interrelationships and perceptions that equally define and shape a given place (Hodge and Monk, 2004; Phillips, 2010; Scott and Carter, 2011). This transforms and expands the RUF influence into areas that might have been defined previously as rural, but where rural and urban interests now coincide through the changing social structure and dynamic of the countryside. Yet the RUF is predominantly seen through an urban-centric lens: widely viewed as a repository for an ever increasing set of urban infrastructure demands for housing, retail development, tourism, recreation and transport.

“It has long been the fate of the rural landscape at the edge of the city to be the raw material for housing subdivisions, industrial estates, and mobile-home parks. The notion that urban development is the highest and best use for non-urban land is written into the lexicon of every urban planner. The changing scene at the edge and the placelessness that goes along with it has become a battleground between efforts to preserve rural land and the relentless forces of urbanization”. Hough 1991:88

However, development processes increasingly reflect the changing nature of rural-urban relationships with rural policy drivers potentially able to play increasingly important roles in explanatory narratives of the RUF (Rauws and De Roo, 2011). Significantly, a more rural-centric perspective in policy is lacking, thereby restricting the full potential of the RUF compounding the fragmented institutional interfaces and power relations shaping the resultant landscape (Bryant, 1995: Figure 1).

3

Figure 1 : Differing perceptions of the RUF opportunity spaces

At its simplest level, the RUF comprises two contrasting personalities. First, within the hinterland of key cities in England, a significant proportion is zoned as green belt with its attendant reactive and protectionist policies (Elson, 1986; Bovill, 2002). Second there is the wider landscape which is not subject to zoning or designation protocols and is therefore subject to significant change. This dualism has shaped an increasingly critical literature arguing for a more enlightened, holistic and relevant approach that deals with the RUF as a multi-functional entity (Gant et al, 2010; Whitehand and Morton, 2004). Indeed, the operation of green belt policy poorly addresses wider environmental, economic and social opportunities within the RUF itself and actually exacerbates development pressures elsewhere in the more ubiquitous non-green belt areas (Sullivan and Lovell 2006). Furthermore, land-use planning in the green belt remains essentially reactive to development pressure, largely unconcerned with forward thinking and positive management.

The planning system itself imposes spatial order through the practice of zoning in development plans reflecting the predominant and prevailing values at the time. Here the primacy of preserving green belt, ‘best and most versatile ‘ (grades 1, 2 and 3a) agricultural land and other EU and national nature/ landscape designations remain core ingredients with presumptions against development. However, some potential uses of the RUF can readily escape simple categorisation, being something in-between: a wasteland, where its character and qualities do not readily conform to simple land use classifications and use class orders (Scott et al 2012). The example of local food production, set within new discourses of urban agriculture provides an interesting case in point, particularly given that agriculture is still defined and operationalised by the 1947 Agriculture Act. Therefore,

4

innovative acts such as community food production are overlooked as they do not fit existing use class orders (Scott et al, 2012).

This lack of research and focus on the RUF has hindered successful policy approaches with many responses being largely accidental and reactionary: being affected by strategies to spatial planning problems outside the RUF rather than being part of any carefully conceived plan or issues for the RUF itself. As Ilberry (1991) observed, such situations can lead to perverse policy contradictions. Drawing on research on diversification in the Birmingham RUF, agricultural change and diversification was both encouraged and resisted through a marked failure of policy co-ordination. Essentially, developments were considered on a case by case basis without wider reference to either the wider countryside or city setting in which they occur. This unsatisfactory state of affairs has led to calls for more proactive management of the environmental challenges facing the RUF as its own space and for the development of its own particular character (Carter and Scott, 2011).

It is hardly surprising that the RUF is often portrayed as a negative space reflecting the failure of co-ordinated planning, rather than as a positive opportunity space within which more creative and innovative things might happen. Qvistrom (2010:220) argues that

“….reinterpretations of the landscape discourse can reveal changing or competing ways of viewing the urban fringe. An investigation into the dichotomous ideals of Urban/ Rural and Nature/Culture offers a point of departure for an understanding of this discourse”.

There is, however, important research on the RUF within the context of public perceptions (e.g. Friedland, 2002; Sullivan and Lovell, 2006, Scott, 2002; Scott et al, 2009), which has highlighted strong attachment and sense of place to these ‘ordinary landscapes’, challenging the conventional planning focus on designated spaces which arguably is elitist and unfair (Sullivan, 1994; Scott et al; 2004; Scott et al 2008). In particular, concerns were centred around the pace, scale and quality of landscape change in the RUF reflecting the perceived ‘placelessness’ and homogenisation of new developments which failed to respect local landscape character. Furthermore, agricultural interests were seemingly bypassed in policy terms (Ilbery, 1991: Countryside Agency, 2006). Issues such as trespass, vandalism and crime inhibited certain types of farming activity which merely exacerbated the loss of farmland to development interests or even its abandonment from any form of productive agricultural activity (Sullivan and Lovell, 2006). However, it is clear through recent initiatives such as Todmorden (incredible edible) that the concept of urban agriculture may have strong currency and resilience in the fringe serving as an exemplar for integrated rural development (Piorr et al 2011; Scott et al., 2012).

What agriculture means in a context of contemporary needs for diversification and sustainability

British agriculture has a critical role to play in producing food set within a high quality multifunctional countryside securing key food supplies and is therefore a key part of the jigsaw for sustainable rural land use in the RUF. However, it will only succeed if Government formalises its own commitment to increasing food production, recognising the value of domestic production set within a changing policy framework that both enabling Britain’s producers to optimise productivity while protecting the environment.

5

The Foresight Report (2011) provides compelling evidence for global governments to act sooner rather than later in order to feed an estimated world population of 9 billion by 2050. The report contains important messages for government, industry and others about British food and farming, and about the considerable challenges in developing countries. In uncertain times the UK has a responsibility to increase its productivity and to make best use of our resources. There are high expectations placed on English farmers so we need forward-thinking policies, effective supply chains and R&D investment to produce more while impacting less on the environment (NFU, 2012). UK and European institutions need to act according to the clear need for sustainable intensification of farming, reducing waste in all parts of the chain and implementing policies based on robust evidence. New technologies and farm management practices, and the promotion of existing knowledge and best practice, are critical.

However, focusing on global food security, though undeniably important, could mean losing sight of the needs of individual farm businesses to diversify into non-agricultural enterprises in order to meet a local market- or community requirements. The government is eager to use grant schemes funded by the Rural Development Programme for England to improve farm competitiveness – and the Farming and Forestry Improvement Scheme announced in late 2011 offers no support for diversification. This is left to a more limited funded axis 4 of EAFRD: the Leader programme (Figure 2). However, the map of Leader Action Groups (LAGs) [below] shows that large parts of England are excluded: currently only 5.3% of the rural population is covered by LAGs, which extend to 200,000 km2 – and Defra’s use of its definition of ‘rural’ excludes peri-urban areas.

Figure 2: Defra 2009 Map of LEADER Areas 2007-2013

6

Hyder/ADAS (2010) found evidence of common problems in the early part of the Axis 4 delivery including communications between institutions and clarity of rules. The lack of central support and management resulted in considerable variability in effectiveness and, in some Leader areas, a reluctance to support farm diversification. LAGs need an awareness of the problems and opportunities in their area through a better evidence base; they need to engage with local industries including agriculture to improve their understanding and help to target support. These findings also accord with work by Bruckmeier (2000) and Dargan and Shucksmith (2008), who found that the concept, operationalisation and evaluation of innovation (central to the LEADER philosophy and funding stream) was largely imposed on local actors by the EU itself. This led them to conclude that the partnerships were more an expression of EU logic and intent than any concerted, meaningful local action or governance. The situation was also compounded by the imposition of very short time scales which disadvantaged local groups lacking social and cultural capital from securing funds; though these were the very groups arguably in most need from these. Furthermore, Dwyer et al (2007:885) reveal the unnecessary complications and bureaucracy in funding arrangements that further hinder local accountability and governance within the Rural Development Programme.

“There is a need to move away from the detailed design of measures and delivery systems in order that these tasks can be undertaken at more local levels, and instead focus more clearly upon the overall purpose, balance and desired outcomes of funding”.

Hyder/ADAS (2010) also advised in their Mid Term Evaluation report that Defra should ensure common access to the programme in meeting needs in the agriculture, forestry and food sectors e.g. by moving to national delivery Axis 3 Measure 311 (farm diversification). This could benefit peri-urban areas. If the Commission’s proposals are accepted we should see an improvement post-2013. Farm diversification will be covered by the Union Priority (6) on promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas and Article 20 on farm and business development. The Commission’s proposals under Article 50 state that the Managing Authority shall define “rural areas” at programme level. Hence the need for an appropriate application of the “rural areas” definition at English programme level will be just as important as before.

Disintegrated development in the built and natural environment of England.

In order to maximise the opportunity space for agriculture in the RUF we must first understand and unpack how built and natural environment policy has been operationalised in England. Going back to the roots of planning we can identify a clear environment and planning divide separating the built and natural environment through post WW2 planning legislation (Town and Country Planning Act 1947). This resulted in the establishment of two planning systems: town and country planning (now termed spatial planning; Curry 2010) and resource planning (now embedded in the ecosystem approach; Reed et al, 2010). Here, the imperative to control urban development was vested in town and country planning procedures motivated by the rapid pace of suburbanisation in the inter-war period, whilst incentivising agricultural and forestry production and expansion was achieved through

7

resource planning functions in the countryside (Scott and Shannon, 2007; Curry and Owen, 2010), motivated by the desire to maximise food and forestry production due to economic blockades during WW2. These differing philosophies of control and incentive have manufactured an artificial divide which created significant tensions and incompatibilities in planning theory and practice across the urban-rural divide (Illbery, 1991); a divide that still persists today. Indeed, the institutional architecture of this urban-rural divide has shaped much of the spatial complexity and challenge within the RUF itself where these two systems converge and conflict in daily planning practice (Scott et al, 2008).

This long and continuing history of separation means that the connections between Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem Approach are relatively undeveloped, which has hindered the effective communication, management and resolution of environment conflicts and opportunities with a polarisation between development and conservation viewpoints and goals (Cowell, 2003). This ‘disintegration’ of policy has obfuscated any clear vision of what kind of society we ultimately desire and how we might facilitate this in practice.

Methodology

Our methodological approach therefore confronted this divide head on in a series of iterative stages set within a transdisciplinary approach. A team of academics and policy stakeholders were selected across this divide. The team of 14 people comprised academics and policy representatives, social and natural sciences, economists, ecologists, planners, farmers, community champions, environmentalists, geographers, urban and rural specialists and consultants all operating at a variety of scales from international to local. A key criterion for selection was participant predisposition to work on complex problems outside their usual comfort zone using interdisciplinary perspectives. Recruitment was achieved by letter and telephone conversation.

Participant deliberation was built into the research process and the project developed organically in response to debate and discussion amongst the team rather than through pre-determined stages/pathways. Deliberation via meetings, conference calls and Microsoft Sharepoint provided the platforms for building mutual understanding and debate, allowing the co-development and production of outputs and action strategies, albeit with important lessons learnt about the limited efficacy of web-based communication. These mechanisms enable social learning and allow a step to be taken beyond interaction between groups to facilitate learning within groups (McCrum et al. 2009).

In this respect policy and academic credibility were embedded from the outset; something that is rare in research approaches. In essence the research process started fuzzy with the journey being to collectively unpack and decide the trajectory through collaboration and deliberation, in an interactive manner (Astleithner and Hamedinger , 2003). Our goal was to unite Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem approach into one improved lens to join up management and decision making in the RUF. There were no preordained research milestones; rather the process was organic using co-production and collective decision making to shape the journey.

8

The project was split within several iterative phases. First, members of the team produced separate reflective papers based on their expertise and experiences on the RUF, and/or spatial planning and/or the ecosystem approach. These were then integrated within conventional literature reviews and state of knowledge assessments as internal working papers1. From these and subsequent discussions, the convergence of Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem Approach was addressed through the team identification and prioritisation of three key bridging concepts; improving connectivity, long termism and values. Crucially, these were seen as helping to translate the abstract ideas of spatial planning and the ecosystem approach into more accessible and intelligible concepts to aid both decision makers and the public (Figure 3)

Figure 3: The conceptual framework for the RUF Research

Having agreed these concepts, we then sought to develop them within the RUF arena through

primary research activities. This involved two different evidence bases that form the key ingredients for the final research outputs: the policy brief videos2:

Visioning exercises in two rural-urban fringes involving policy and community participants;

Themed workshops identified by members of our research team.

1 All working papers are on the relu sharepoint system which provides capture of all data in this research. Papers are available on request although they were written as internal documents only . 2 The series of 5 policy brief videos can be found here http://www.bcu.ac.uk/research/-centres-of-excellence/centre-for-environment-and-society/projects/relu/policy-briefs

9

Two areas were chosen for the visioning reflecting different scales and rural urban focus (Figures 4a; 4b)

1. North Worcestershire – landscape scale from Redditch to Birmingham

2. Hampton – city scale: urban expansion of Peterborough

Figure 4a : The Visioning view points in in Hampton (Peterborough)

Participants were selected across business, community and environment sectors with 9 from Hampton and 15 from Worcester. The process involved visiting three selected viewpoints along a RUF transect capturing different faces of the fringe. At each point the identity and personality of the RUF was identified and discussed set within the ideas of the RUF as an opportunity space. Participants were split into groups to maximise participation and debate. The process was recorded. Additionally, participants were given a note book to record issues (one per page). On return they placed all notebook entries on a table for a group debrief. A report was produced of the deliberations, which was circulated for final reflective comments.

10

Figure 4b The Visioning areas in North Worcestershire

Eight workshops were held using team member networks to discuss key aspects of the RUF in an inclusive and interactive manner. There was no ‘one size fits all’ approach; rather workshops were identified from perceived opportunities. This created an exciting blend of different contexts, audiences, expertise and foci. In all we engaged with over 250 participants. Each workshop produced a report of discussions which also allowed one set of reflective feedback.

1. West Midlands Rural Affairs Forum Improving decision making for the management of the rural-urban fringe

2. Green Economics Institute Long-termism/ Values in the built environment: rural urban fringe & land use

3. Birmingham Environmental Partnership Bridging the rural urban divide through green economic opportunities

4. Localise West Midlands Meeting Local needs with local resources in the rural urban fringe

5. West Midland Regional Assembly Learning the lessons from strategic planning: resurrecting institutional memories

6. Forest Research Values and decision making

11

7. BCU Scenarios in the sustainable urban environment Birmingham Environment Partnership The 9-piece jigsaw

These two evidence bases provided the key sources of evidence from which the rest of the paper proceeds.

Results: The importance of agriculture in the RUF

Agriculture was a core component of discussions and a number of themes and viewpoints emerged from both workshops and the visioning. Agriculture was perceived variously as:

a) Having an important role in feeding the nation;

b) Having that role but specifically being important to the local food supply chain;

c) The activity that takes care of the local countryside and makes it suitable for informal recreation and leisure generally;

d) A benign alternative to rendering plants, housing development and canal marinas that damage the visual amenity of the countryside;

e) Amounting to a threat to the countryside, because its scale would be inimical to wildlife, farmed species and the ‘green infrastructure’ such as hedgerows;

f) Having the potential to meet not only food and recreational needs but to contribute to our seemingly inexhaustible demand for energy; and

g) Hampered by restrictive planning policies in particular the green belt.

The visioning case studies revealed different narratives about agriculture. The Hampton case study was more urban-focussed but the final phase of the development (now greenfield) was on agricultural land within a high-quality landscape environment. The wider countryside was also seen as a multifunctional resource to link in with recreation potential. Farming seemed to be little more than part of the backdrop to efforts to ‘humanise’ the landscape and introduce features that would benefit community cohesion and a sense of place. However, the importance of allotments and community or local food production did clearly emerge.

Within the North Worcestershire example more sophisticated narratives emerged. Those with a farming background were understandably focussed on the Agricultural Land Classification grade of the land and hence whether it would support arable and even horticultural production rather than being devoted mainly to livestock rearing. Non-farming stakeholders focused more on the consequences of farming types – such as the greater need for hedgerows and environmental features where livestock production predominated.

Residents who worried about the negative effects of a departure from the status quo seemed moderately supportive of continuation of unchanging farming practices though their support did not extend to backing, or even ignoring, contentious proposals for development that might enable local agriculture to continue profitably. Hence an application for a rendering plant that would serve the

12

local pig industry was strongly opposed because a chimney would be ‘an eyesore’ with risk of smell affecting quality of life within what was seen as a rural idyll.

Others approached the issue from a localisation perspective again, with an enthusiasm for small-scale organic farming and antipathy toward large-scale ‘agri-businesses’ in which animals might be regarded as little more than inputs to the economic machine. They preferred to see wild and farmed species as part of the local community.

The more mainstream farming representatives found that they had more in common with the views of environmentalists and those concerned with promoting local food supply chains, who extolled multi-functionality and the opportunities for farm diversification: community wind turbines to meet local needs and provide another income for the landowner; small-scale biomass from the woods or energy crops; a community anaerobic digester to manage animal and local food waste to produce energy and provide inputs to enhance the soil.

The workshops and visioning exercises were also critical of green belt policy with the following points emerging.

a) Green Belt is subject to reactive and protectionist policies;

b) the operation of Green Belt policy rarely addresses wider environmental, economic and social opportunities within the fringe itself and actually exacerbates development pressures elsewhere in non-Green Belt areas;

c) land-use planning in the Green Belt remains essentially reactive to development pressure, largely unconcerned with forward thinking and positive management;

d) the primacy of preserving Green Belt, grades 1 and 2 agricultural land and other EU and national designation remain core ingredients with presumptions against development; and

e) agricultural change and diversification can be both encouraged and resisted through a marked failure of policy co-ordination.

This creates a planning environment stifling new ways of diversification but also leads to landscapes suffering from poor management close to the urban fringe. This supports the views of Bovil (2002) and Elson (1986). Many farmers are reluctant to apply for planning permission, let alone appeal against refusal, because they regard the Green Belt as a tool for fossilising the countryside around large towns and cities. Hence appeals data underplay the effect that designation has on farmers’ behaviour.

How agriculture needs to reposition itself

The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is key to how agriculture policy will evolve in England. Here, one cannot ignore the changes to the decision-making process stemming from the Lisbon Treaty: decisions on reform are made jointly by the European Parliament and the Council of (Agriculture) Ministers. Hence the Commission can propose but matters are decided by co-decision. The Commission published its proposals in October 2011 but political negotiations are not expected

13

to begin in earnest until after the Cypriot Presidency commences in July 2012. Thus there remains considerable uncertainty about the form of the final package and even whether it will be ready in time; already there is discussion about transitional funding in case the new regime is not in place until 2015.

If the Commission succeeds in introducing capping of payments to individual farm businesses UK farmers will be affected more than most, because the average holding size of 57 hectares (ha) is larger than elsewhere in the EU. The EU average is 22ha. However, within the UK farm size varies considerably: Scotland swells the average because the average there exceeds 100ha, whereas in Wales and Northern Ireland the average is 40ha and in England it is 50ha. The largest businesses may find it worthwhile sub-dividing their holdings, with implications for the landscape, though the Commission proposes measures to guard against circumvention; unfortunately these could penalise farm restructuring for genuine business reasons.

The NFU is opposed in principle to capping, because a cap would act as a disincentive to achieving economies of scale, and fears that the Commission proposals taken as a whole may result in increased bureaucracy and reduced market orientation and therefore an increase in farmers’ reliance on CAP support. With UK farm incomes higher now than the recent low of 2000, farmers have less cause to diversify into non-agricultural activities, though the EU Farm Structure Survey 2007 revealed that in the UK 27% of holdings have other gainful activities. If enterprises other than tourism, accommodation and leisure are excluded, the figure is 11% (Martins, 2009). It is difficult to make comparisons between surveys of farm diversification as the definitions used varies and there are definitional difficulties. As Winter & Turner et al (2003) found, most commentators would now agree that diversification encompasses business activities that are run on the farm or are dependent on farm based land and capital assets. We have defined it loosely, consistent with this approach.

But the need to diversify varies according to farm type and size: a large arable farmer has little incentive to diversify so long as cereal prices remain high. Many part-time farmers (of whom there are almost 200,000 in the UK compared with 150,000 full-time ones) have another source of income on or off the holding (Huffman, 1991; Lass et al. 1991).

Having observed a similar relationship between farm size and diversification, the first Exeter baseline study hypothesised about its nature thus:

‘In one sense the smaller farms may seem more in need of finding alternative sources of income, since large farms can better capture the economies that make for cost-efficient agricultural production. On the other hand, many small farms may be effectively part-time anyway because the operator requires another job to sustain the household income; in such circumstances where the labour resources have not been fully committed to farming, there may be insufficient time (or farm resources) to divert into the establishment of additional on-farm enterprises.’ (McInerney et al, 1989)

Smaller farms closer to urban areas have an incentive and often the opportunity to diversify. Ilbery (1992) and Bowler et al (1996) looked at spatial factors influencing diversification, finding that tourism predominates in upland areas but on-farm retailing is more common in the RUF.

14

Impending changes to the English planning system may make it easier for farmers to gain permission for non-agricultural enterprises outside designated areas. The National Planning Policy Framework expected to be published on 27 March 2012 and, if it is substantively the same as the draft, introduce a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Protectionist organisations fear that there will be much more development in rural areas, with local planning authorities powerless to prevent it. The reality is likely to be different, with a modest increase in the amount of development permitted. At the very local level, Neighbourhood Development Plans, part of the Government’s Localism agenda, could engage sections of the local community in the forward planning of their area, but whether this will provide opportunities for on-farm development remains to be seen (Gallent 2011).

Farming in the Fringe an alternative model

Farming in the rural-urban fringe is characterised by challenges (such as bisected farmland with urban development and roads; trespass, vandalism and fly tipping). But there are also opportunities. These stem largely from improving the connections of agriculture with nearby urban populations through more community involvement.

One example is community-based food production if there is sufficient demand and motivated individuals. From our research in North Worcestershire this seemed apparent. Whilst never being able to replace modern agriculture, the careful selection of areas within the rural-urban fringe might allow farmers the chance to lease land back to communities as part of a wider interpretation of access agreements within existing agri-environment schemes.

However, the rigid definition of agriculture currently precludes community-based agriculture or permaculture-type activity under permitted development and hence leaves such land uses labelled as unconventional with limited chance of planning approval. This is manifest in ‘illegal’ guerrilla gardening activity.

Figure 5 Guerilla gardening in the West Midlands

15

Indeed, one celebrated example at Todmorden started this way for these very reasons. However, with a rethink of the scope of agriculture to allow for more localised food production in the rural-urban fringe we can start to reconnect people with their local environment and in so doing deliver key ecosystem services. Here we need to connect agri-environmental schemes, landowners and local communities within new definition of agriculture to allow a virtuous circle such as that obtained in Todmorden.

Conclusion

Viewing the rural-urban fringe as an opportunity space for rural- driven change rather than protectionism on the one hand or economic growth via housing on the other, it is possible to identify new opportunities for enterprise that would benefit nearby residents and businesses as well as the host business. The multifunctional strategy is key to this: maximising ecosystem and local economic benefits set within enhanced community assets within connected solutions. The act of testing a proposal against the needs of the wider community, the needs of the environment, as well as the needs of the economy set within a core evidence base that identifies limits of change, whether perceived or real, goes to the heart of spatial planning. So within this improved way of thinking we need to challenge one size fits all solutions. Within agricultural opportunity the green belt has proved to be something of a sticking point. Its spatiality and negative policy slant precludes possible developments. Furthermore, most towns and cities do not have green belt which creates its own spatial biases and knock-on effects; diversionary pressures, exclusion and leapfrogging which surely demand its own government review. Our preliminary thinking is not for abolition as some may want, but rather for the more widespread use of the Green Infrastructure approach linking town and countryside.Hence a more enlightened debate is needed, and that will only come about if the UK Government can be persuaded to undertake a fundamental review of green belt policy and challenge blinkered protectionism.

It is important that grant-aid is seen as a policy instrument, which is used to steer or accelerate investment, rather than a component of a state welfare system. Hence calls for grants to help businesses out of hardship are likely to fall on deaf ears; it has to be recognised that a state is likely to invest in a facility providing at least some public benefit rather than simply handing over money to a business that wishes to become more profitable. Conversely, offering grants to individual businesses to part-fund investments solely of interest to the public is likely to be fruitless. Hence policy-makers need to understand the need for balance between individual and community benefits, and in that sense there is a parallel with the spatial planning system.

Relying on Leader Local Action Groups to espouse such a rounded view is not always successful, and this reinforces the argument in favour of bringing farm diversification into national delivery when the next generation of rural development funding is introduced post-2013. Enabling farmers to diversify into enterprises reliant on attractiveness to the end-user provides the farmer with an additional incentive to manage his or her land in a way that will appeal to visitors. Many farmers are already participating in ‘agri-environment’ schemes. Additional incentives stand to benefit RUF areas and their eco-systems.

16

The Todmorden approach also offers a model benefitting both local businesses and the wider community, though it goes a step further in that it has the aim of raising awareness of where food comes from, and of the advantages of consuming fresh, local food rather than less healthy alternatives. And it seeks to harness the resources of public sector bodies in very practical ways – such as growing edible plants in the curtilage of health and educational facilities – taking their role beyond conventional service provision.

The spatial planning system will continue to have a role in managing conflict, and it will not always be possible to find a consensus, but an increased emphasis on finding solutions beneficial both to businesses and the communities they serve set within a wider assessment of the total spectrum of benefits will be particularly advantageous in the RUF where conflicting land uses lie behind much of the landscape neglect and impoverished habitat that too frequently confront us.

Acknowledgements The paper stems from research funded under the UK Research Councils' RuralEconomy and Land Use Programme ‘Managing Environmental Change at the Rural-UrbanFringe’; a collaboration between the Economic and Social Research Council, the NaturalEnvironment Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences ResearchCouncil, with additional funding from Defra and the Scottish Government. RELU grant award for ‘Managing Environmental Change at the Fringe’ – ES/H037217/1

References

Astleithner, F. and Hamedinger, A. (2003) Urban Sustainability as a New Form of Governance: Obstacles and Potentials in the Case of Vienna. Innovation, Vol. 16, No.1: 51-75.

Bovill, P. (2002) Loosening the green belt Regeneration and Renewal p12

Bowler, I., Clark,G. Crockett, A. Ilbery, B. and Shaw, A. (1996). ‘The development of alternative farm enterprises: a study of family labour farms in the northern Pennines of England,’ Journal of Rural Studies,12, 285-295.

Bruckmeier K. (2000) LEADER in Germany and the discourse of autonomous regional development. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2) 219–227

Bryant, CR (1995) The role of local actors in transforming the urban fringe. Journal of Rural Studies, 11 (3) 255-267

Countryside Agency and Groundwork Trust (2005) ‘The Countryside In and Around Towns: A vision for connecting town and country in the pursuit of sustainable development’ CA 207

Cowell, R (2003) Substitution and scalar politics: negotiating environmental compensation in Cardiff Bay Geoforum, 34, 343-358

Curry, N. R. (2010) The incompatibility of economic development policies for rural areas in England. Local Economy, 25(2), 108 – 119, March.

17

Curry, N. R. and Owen, S. (2009) Rural Planning In England: A Critique Of Current Policy Town Planning Review, 80 (6), 575 – 596.

Dargan, L. and Shucksmith, M. (2008) LEADER and innovation, Sociologia Ruralis, 48 (3) 274-291

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2012) Government Response to the Farming Regulation Task Force

Elson, M. (1986) Green Belts: Conflict Mediation in the Urban Fringe; Heinemann, London

Friedland, W. H. (2002) Agriculture and Rurality: Beginning the ‘Final Separation’? Rural Sociology 67(3), 350–371

Gallent N Andersson J and Bianconi M (2004) Planning on the Edge: The Context for Planning at the Rural–Urban Fringe. Routledge, Abingdon

Gant, R,L, Robinson, R.M. and Fazal G (2011) Land-use change in the ‘edgelands’: Policies and pressures in London's rural–urban fringe, Land Use Policy 28 (1) 266-279

Government Office for Science Foresight study (2011) The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability www.bis.gov.uk/Foresight

Hodge, I. and Monk, S. (2004) The economic diversity of rural England: stylised fallacies and uncertain evidence. Journal of Rural Studies 20 (3) 263-272.

Hough (1990) Out of Place: Restoring Identity to the Regional Landscape. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Huffman, W. E. (1991), Agricultural Household Models: Survey and Critique, in A. O.Lass,L. J.Findeis and M. C.Halberg, eds., Multiple Job Holding among Farm Families (pp. 239–262). Ames IA: Iowa State University Press.

Hyder/ADAS (2010) Rural Development Plan England Mid-Term Evaluation Report for Defra

Ilberry, B.W. (1991) Farm Diversification as an Adjustment Strategy on the Urban Fringe of the West Midlands, Journal of Rural Studies, 7 (3), 207-218

Ilbery, B. (1992) State-assisted farm diversification in the United Kingdom. In Bowler, I.,Bryant, C. and Nellis, M. (eds) Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition. CAB,Wallingford, pp100-116

Lass, D. A., Findeis, J. L. and Hallberg, M. C. (1991), Factors Affecting the Supply of Off-Farm Labor: A Review of Empirical Evidence, in M. C.Halberg, J. L.Findeis andD. A.Lass, eds., Multiple Job-Holding Among Farm Families. Ames IA: Iowa StateUniversity Press.

Martins, C (2009) Farm Structure Survey in the United Kingdom – 2007. Eurostat, European Communities, Luxembourg

18

McCrum, G., Blackstock, K., Mathhews, K., Rivington ,M. Miller, D and Buchan, K. (2009) Adapting to climate change in land management: the role of deliberative workshops in enhancing social learning Environmental Policy and Governance 19 (6) 413-426

McInerney, J., Turner, M and Hollingham, M. (1989) Diversification in the Use of FarmResources. University of Exeter, Agricultural Economics Unit Report No 232.

National Farmers’ Union of England & Wales [NFU] (2012) Annual Review 2011

Phillips, M. 2010 Rural gentrification & the built environment: exploring the connections, in Geller,P. (ed) Built environment: design, management & applications (Hauppauge, NewYork)

Piorr, A. Ravetz, J. and Tosics, (2011) Peri Urbanisation in Europe: Towards European Policies to Sustain Urban Rural Futures PLUREL

Qvistrom, M. (2007) Landscapes Out of Order: Studying the Inner Urban Fringe Beyond the Rural – Urban Divide, Geografiska Annaler, 89 B (3): 269 – 282

Qvistrom, M. (2010) Shadows of planning: on landscape/planning history and inherited landscape ambiguities at the urban fringe, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 92 (3):219–235.

Rauws WS de Roo G (2011): Exploring Transitions in the Peri-Urban Area, Planning Theory & Practice, 12:2, 269-284

Ravetz, J. (2010) Living Reviews in Landscape Research: Integrated governance in the peri-urban: experiences from an EU integrated project submitted paper.

Reed MS, Bonn A, Slee W, Beharry-Borg N, Birch J, Brown I, Burt TP, Chapman D, Chapman PJ, Clay G, Cornell SJ, Fraser EDG, Holden J, Hodgson JA, Hubacek K, Irvine B, Jin N, Kirkby MJ, Kunin WE, Moore O, Moseley D, Prell C, Quinn C, Redpath S, Reid C, Stagl S, Stringer LC, Termansen M, Thorp S, Towers W, Worrall F (2010) The future of the uplands. Land Use Policy 26S: S204–S216

Scott AJ (2011) Beyond the conventional: meeting the challenges of landscape governance within the European Landscape Convention; Journal of Environmental Management doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.017

Scott A.J (2002) Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience, Landscape Research, 27 (3) 271-295

Scott AJ, Hardman M and Adams D (2012) Guerrilla Warfare in the Planning System: Revolution or Convergence in Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development Discourses? Geografriska Annaler.

Scott AJ and Carter (2011) The Rural Urban Fringe Forgotten Opportunity Space? Town and Country Planning May/June 2011 231-234

Scott AJ, Carter C, White V., and Brown K (2009) Seeing is not everything: exploring the landscape experiences of different publics Landscape Research 34 (4) 397-424

Scott, A.J. and Shannon P. (2007) Local Landscape Designations in Scotland: Opportunity or Barrier to Effective Landscape Management? Landscape and Urban Planning. 81, 257-269

19

Scott A.J. and Shorten J. (2004) What Kind of Countryside do we Want, Report to the Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff

Sullivan, W.C (1994) Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: citizen preferences for natural and developed settings, Landscape and Urban Planning, 28 85-101

Sullivan W.C and Lovell, S.T. (2006) Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural–urban fringe, Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 152-166

The report of the independent Farming Regulation Task Force (May 2011) Striking a balance: reducing burdens; increasing responsibility; earning recognition. A report on better regulation in farming and food businesses. HMSO

Weaver, D.B. and Lawton, L.J. (2001) Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe, Annals of Tourism Research 28 (2) 439-458

Whitehand, J.W.R. and Morton, N. (2004) Urban morphology and planning: the case of fringe belts, Cities, 21 (4), 275-289

20