Key Settlement Policy divides rural settlements into two types?those in which expansion is allowed and those in which it is not. Although suitability for residential expansion is not completely synonymous with suitability for infrastructure investment (nor vice versa) the designation of Key Settlement or non-Key Settlement status does not have a significant impact on infrastructure and service provision. In the light of central and local public expenditure economies and of the 1985 Transport Act, therefore, key Settlement Policy takes on a renewed political importance. In 1982 the Warwickshire policy was changed, involving some changes in designation, and also a beginning of decentralization of designation decisions away from the county to the constituent districts. The change was justified by the argument that the policy had previously been ineffective. However, analysis of the 17 key settlements and 17 control non-key settlements from 1966 to 1981, with respect to population change, refusal rates, Planning Inspectors' decision letters, and appeal decisions, shows that the policy was effective. It is argued that the reason for the policy change in 1982 stems from central government and County Council political objectives, and that decentralization of designation powers to districts constitutes a loss of accountability for rural policy in Warwickshire. PRESENT GOVERNMENT POLICIES toward rural areas emphasize efficiency, rationalization, and cost-cutting of rural services. Many village schools are closing as school rolls fall nationally, and as local authorities search for economies. The national bill for subsidizing the bus companies is threatening to reach ?1 billion annually, and legislation now before Parliament seeks radically to reduce this vast sum by means of privatization, a measure which will cut unprofitable bus routes considerably, mainly in rural areas. Also, as the Post Office looks for greater efficiency, an acceleration of closures of rural post offices may occur. It is in this context that we investigate Warwickshire County Council's rural settlement policy. Rural settlement policies, because of the trend towards cutbacks in services, are increasingly coming to the forefront of politics in rural areas. Such policies are, and will increasingly become, the main instrument for deciding which settlements should suffer from loss of rural services, since they indicate settlement hierarchies, and therefore serve as a means of discriminating between those settlements which should be favoured ('key settlements') and those which should suffer from cutbacks. Although many of the threatened services are being privatized and thus are moving ostensibly out of the local political arena, any decision on specific cutbacks in specific areas will necessarily implicate local government. Local politicians will be unable to avoid the political storms and subsequent unpopularity thus created. The government has repeatedly made clear that any loss of services resulting from privatization should occur only after consultation with the relevant local authority. Other services, such as education and social services, obviously implicate local politicians more directly, in their continuing search for economies. Moreover, changes in government thinking on the financing of local government continually emphasize the need to make local politicians more accountable for the costs of local services to the local voters. The present Conservative Government has, since 1979, carried an election pledge to implement this change?by reforming the rating system. Furthermore, suggestions currently being considered emphasize a
Read full abstract
Dec 23, 2024
M V Gligich-Zolotareva + 1
Open Access