From 'Our Heritage of Wild Nature' part of CHAPTER
1
The Destruction of Rural Beauty
The present aspect of most of our British countryside
is man- made.
This fact has been properly emphasised by several recent writers,
notably Mr H. J. Massingham, and it is true not only of the arable and
grass fields of the plains and valleys, but to a great extent also of
the western and northern hill and mountain pastures, and even of much
of the moorland too. Most of this uncultivated land has been more or
less grazed or burned for centuries, though it has not been ploughed or
manured. The vegetation that covers the northern and western hills is
'natural' in the sense that it has never been sown or planted, but it
may be different, often very different, from what it was before man
intervened. Only on the high mountain tops, in a few very remote
valleys, and on certain stretches of sea coast is nature really '
virgin'.
All vegetation which has `come by itself', but under
conditions
determined
- human agency, may be called `semi-natural', as contrasted
with that
which is entirely natural, unaffected by man, and on the other hand
with sown crops and plantations which he has deliberately created.
The British landscape owes its diverse charm partly
of course to the
variety of physical features in hill and valley, plain, plateau and
peak, river and lake, and to differences of climate and soil, but quite
essentially also to the diverse vegetation that covers it. In the
lowlands of the south the co-existence of farmland with wild or half-
wild country—heaths, downs and woodland—gives us the characteristic
rural scene. In the highland regions of the west and north the picture
is different: farmland plays a much smaller part, while grass-covered
hillside and moorland become the dominant features, passing to cliffs
and crags of bare rock at the higher levels.
This combination of cultivation with half-wild and
wild country is one
of the most precious parts of our national heritage, for nowhere within
so small a space as the area of Britain is there a greater variety of
rural beauty. And it is, with this background—gradually changing as the
centuries have passed—that our history has unfolded and our culture
developed.
How much of this unique inheritance can we preserve
in the years of
profound change that lie ahead of us? Not all of it, certainly. We
cannot arrest the progressive adaptation of the country to human needs,
nor should we try to do so if we could. The great increase of
ploughland that has been made during the
ar will probably not be wholly maintained, but a considerable
part will
rightly continue to be cultivated. The Forestry Commission will
certainly make many new plantations, whether their complete scheme is
accepted or not. Both of these activities—ploughing and tree
planting—often mean the sacrifice of fine heath and downland, and
though the newly sown and planted areas are still `rural', the
distinctive character of the country is changed.
2 THE DESTRUCTION OF RURAL BEAUTY
New building is in a different category. Progressive
urbanisation and
sub-urbanisation of the countryside inevitably destroy much beauty and
diminish the rural area, though imaginative layout and good
architecture may create new beauty of a different kind. In addition to
the rebuilding of our devastated towns and cities, fresh land will
undoubtedly be needed for the proper and worthy housing of the people.
The war has already led to a good deal of destruction
in rural areas.
Apart from the wholesale felling of woodlands (which can be replanted)
many factories have been built in the midst of the country, a great
deal of fresh quarrying and surface (outcrop) mining has been done, and
many air- fields and camps have been made. Though most of this has been
inevitable, we should none the less consider the effect on the future
of the countryside as a whole, and the influence on succeeding
generations, if progressive destruction of a similar kind is continued
unrestricted into the years of peace. Comprehensive and alert attention
to the whole problem is needed if we are not to bequeath to our
descendants a defaced and ugly land. It is true that careful and
intelligent development can avoid the worst errors of the past, such as
the creation of vast slum areas and building which is intrinsically
ugly. We look to our town planners and architects to see to that. But
no such work, however aesthetically enlightened, can replace the loss
of rural beauty, whether in the tamed landscapes of the south or in the
wilder charms of moorland and mountain and unspoiled coast.
In the past very large parts of rural Britain have
been safeguarded by
the private ownership of large tracts of beautiful country, estates of
which their proprietors were proud and which they desired to keep
intact even when they could have profited substantially by leasing or
selling their land. Heavy taxation and death duties have already
greatly weakened the position of landowners, and many large estates
have been broken up. In the future it is probable that this safeguard
will disappear altogether, and some kind of public action will then be
the only means by which rural beauty can be preserved.
If we are to save any substantial part of this precious
possession a
great deal of compromise will be necessary, and decisions between rival
claims to the use of land may often be difficult. It is widely agreed
that agriculture should take a high place (many would say the first
place) among such claims, not only for the sake of food production, but
because it is a national interest to keep a substantial and contented
part of the population on the land. Much of the existing beauty of
rural England depends on the agriculture and the accompanying villages
and small market towns built by our ancestors, and how far such beauty
can be preserved with the introduction of modern farming methods and
improved housing and transport remains to be seen. Industrial demands
are of a different kind, and they will be numerous and strong.
Decisions will have to be taken not only between different economic
uses, but between these and the preservation of the natural and man-
made beauty of the countryside, and the decisions will have to be made
by a public authority.
