Country matters

IT should not have required David Cameron’s intervention to persuade rural bodies, like the National Trust, that his government will safeguard the countryside.

Better planning by Ministers would have prevented streamlined laws on future development becoming an embarrassment to rival last year’s shambolic plans to sell off the country’s forests.

This is another example where the Government has failed to think through the consequences, and how the public will interpret the changes.

In many respects, the Government’s instincts are correct. Existing rules, running to 1,000 pages, are convoluted and hinder attempts to bring about infrastructure improvements.

Priority does need to be given to injecting new life into many urban areas, but cutting national guidance to just 52 pages was always going to lead to omissions and ambiguities.

This explains the telling assertion by television presenter Jonathan Dimbleby, a former president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. He pointed out that the word “business” appears in the document around 300 times while the “countryside” is limited to just four references. Is it any wonder that Mr Cameron had to declare that “our beautiful British landscape is a national treasure” to reassure his critics?

That the National Trust has stated that it is prepared to resume talks with Ministers following the PM’s intervention is indicative of the maturity that will be required to reconcile conflicting agendas.

It is now up to politicians like Eric Pickles, the Local Government Secretary, to do likewise and admit that his poor handling of this issue has caused unnecessary alarm to those who value the iconic national parks, green belt land and the importance of community playing fields.