The concept of assigning special treatment to valued areas is part of the human psyche, particularly with regard to landscape matters (Gold and Burgess, 1982). Its roots in Britain can be traced back to the nineteenth century with the emergence of the Romantic Movement and writers such as Shelley and Wordsworth (Pepper, 1996). The British experience of landscape planning stems from a series of reports commissioned during the 1930s and 1940s which enabled three pieces of primary, post-war legislation-the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, the Agriculture Act 1947 and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (Cullingworth and Nadin, 1997). The outcomes of these Acts were instrumental in the creation of two separate forms of countryside planning-resource planning and development control planning (Curry, 1992). While resource planning involving agriculture and forestry was largely exempt from many planning restrictions, development control was exercised over all other activities, primarily to protect the countryside from inappropriate development. Curry and Owen (1996) have argued that this led to a 'no development' ethic for the countryside and fostered the neglect of countryside issues in planning circles. Indeed, this is evident within contemporary Planning Policy Guidance (DOE, 1992; Welsh Office, 1999).Such a narrow focus on rural planning resulted in a countryside substantially dependent on agriculture, with a growing number of protected landscape designations reinforcing policies of restraint in the open countryside (Owen, 1994). According to some commentators this approach devalued the very landscapes they were designed to protect. As Bowen-Rees (1995, 41) lamented, 'so great a proportion of Wales is protected that the coinage of designation has already been debased'.This research critically questions the use of non-statutory designations with specific reference to special landscape areas (SLAs).1 Drawing on previous work assessing landscape designations, SLAs are analysed within the Ceredigion local authority area to examine their impact and role using development control data.Methodological issues in development control studiesDuring the 1970s and 1980s a variety of studies examined the operation of statutory landscape designations in the town and country planning system. Development control data were analysed and compared with similar undesignated countryside (Gregory, 1971 [Green Belts]; Anderson, 1981 [AONBs]; Brotherton, 1982 [National Parks]). These studies revealed important findings about the value of landscape designations. Gregory's (1971) Green Belt and Brotherton's National Park studies found that decisions closely followed the restrictive policies of the designation with a larger number of planning refusals. However, the case of AONBs was far less clear cut. Researchers cited in Curry and McNab's (1986) review revealed diverging trends, with Blacksell and Gilg (1977) finding more refusals outside the AONB than within it. Conversely, Anderson's (1981) results found the reverse picture to this trend. Such studies serve to remind the reader that particular case studies have limited applicability and demand special caution in their interpretation, since planning decisions are not made in a vacuum and are derived from a unique set of circumstances (Gilg and Kelly, 1996). Moreover, evaluations of planning designations using such data are fraught with methodological issues and problems (Brotherton, 1982; Curry and McNab, 1986; Preece, 1990; Sellgren, 1990).While it is the view of some researchers that the total number of applications gives a reliable measure of development pressure, the possibility exists that developers may enter into preliminary, informal negotiations with planning authorities or other specialist advisors prior to application, or not even apply at all in areas perceived as 'no win'. Accordingly, a low refusal rate may not signify that the designation is failing (McNamara and Healey, 1984; Curry and McNab, 1986). …