Urban influences on farming in Essex

Geoforum, Vol. 11, pp. 371--384, 1980. Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in Great Britain.

Urban Influences on Farming in Essex

A.M. BLAIR*, London, U.K.

Abstract: The urban fringe is usually portrayed as a location of unrelieved adversity for farmers. It is rare for the costs of the urban fringe to be counterbalanced by an assessment of the opportunities that are also found there. This paper presents the results of a large scale farm survey in Essex which sought to examine the effects of urban proximity on farm management practices.

The paper examines the nature and spatial extent of the following: conversion of farm land to urban uses (with special emphasis on the role of compulsory purchase orders); changes in farm labour; part time farming and the location of part time farmers jobs; vandalism and trespass damage and farmers response to this hazard; farm-based recreation and the sale of produce direct to the public. In general it is shown that the disadvantages of farming in the urban fringe have been overrated while the advantages have been underrated.

Concern about the effects of urban influences on farming is widespread in the developed world (OECD, 1976). Demands made by urban society for the resources of the countryside are felt most strongly by farmers adjacent to major cities. The predominant tone of most writers on the subject is one of deep pessimism. Farmers close to towns are frequently portrayed as being virtually under siege by property speculators, vandals, ignorant and uncaring townsdwellers and planners. Both academic and official analyses assume implicitly that urban impacts on farming will be adverse (see for example DAVIES, 1953; LOW, 1973; WlBBERLEY, 1976). The emphasis placed on the urban fringe as a place of constraint has rarely been counterbalanced by an assessment of the opportunities that

* Geography Unit, School of Social Sciences, Poly- technic of Central London, 32--38 Wells Street, London W1P 3FG.

occur there (MUNTON, 1974). Evidence from a farm survey in Essex is presented here in an attempt to examine some of the influences which have been alleged to affect farmers on the urban fringe for good and ill.

Farming on the Urban Fringe

The term 'urban fringe' usually evokes an image of a vaguely defined zone of variable width around towns which is somehow not quite 'real' countryside (THOMAS, 1974). It is contaminated by its proximity to built- up areas and the farmers there are seen as labouring under pressures absent from more 'rural' locations. Amongst the farming community there is certainly a strong feeling that farmers in the urban fringe do experience unwarranted hardship and that some form of government intervention (an Urban Fringe

371

372 Geoforum/Volume 11/Number 4/1980

Grant?) would be welcome. Justification for measures of this kind and their practical implementation, must clearly rest on whether or not the problems are really significant, to what extent they are counterbalanced by other urban fringe characteristics and how far they extend spatially. Four major classes of urban influence on farming have been identified for the purposes of this study.

Firstly, there is the influence of towns as markets for agricultural produce. This is a fundamental and clearly beneficial influence. It forms the basis of yon Thiinen types of analysis and has been a popular focus of geo- graphical research. Since this aspect has been dealt with so exhaustively, while others have not, this line of approach is not pursued in this paper (see numerous reviews in CHIS- HOLM, 1968; TARRANT, 1974).

Secondly, there is the influence of towns as consumers of agricultural resources. Although food is one of the most important resources that urban areas consume, many others are provided to sustain the growth of cities and suburbs. Land and labour are the resources most frequently converted from agricultural to urban use and the notion of competition between town and country has stimulated much research into the effects of urbanization on farming (CENTRE FOR AGRI- CULTURAL STRATEGY, 1976; ROGERS, 1978).

Thirdly, there are influences which result from the interaction of farmers with urban dwellers and urban ways of life. Although these represent a wide ranging set of elements influencing diverse aspects of behaviour and values from consumption of consumer goods to entertainment preferences, the concern here is with those influences which directly affect the management of the farm business. These are often difficult to determine and have been far less widely studied than resource conversion. Four relatively neglected aspects arizing from increased urban influence were isolated for study: part time farming, interference through trespass, farm-based recreation and farm-gate sales of produce direct to the public.

Lastly there is the effect of planning by local and national government. Planning can affect farming directly through specific policies such as the conservation of good quality land and indirectly by guiding the extent and timing of urban growth. Around the fringes of most large metropolitan cities in the developed world, planning policies have been enacted to regulate changes in land use. Sometimes, as in the case of California, protection of farm land is an explicit aim of policy (SCHWARTZ et aL, 1976). In others, including the London Green Belt, legislation is not designed specific- ally to protect agricultural land from being developed, but in practice it has that effect (THOMAS, 1970).

Regarded by many as an area of conflict, the urban fringe contains valuable agricultural and environmental resources which require co- ordinated policies for their conservation and development. However the view is often expressed that the urban fringe represents an area of wasted opportunity where planners could do more to assist farmers (DAVIDSON and WIBBERLEY, 1977).

Essex - an Urban Fringe County?

Essex is a useful study area both from the urban and agricultural point of view. The county is very close to the national average in terms of urbanization. Just over threequarters of the 1971 population of 1,358,000 lived in urban administrative areas (cf. 79% for England as a whole). Twenty five percent of the county is under urban land uses compared to 26% for the average English county. During the period 1961-1971, Essex was losing farmland to other uses at a rate of 0.20% per annum, compared with 0.18% for England as a whole (OPCS, 1971; MAFF, 1973). Settle- ment in Essex varies considerably in density (Figure 1). The heavily urbanized and sub- urbanized south from Waltham Abbey to Southend and the holiday resorts from Maldon to Harwich contrast strongly with northern rural Essex from Saffron Walden to Colchester. One might expect to find substantial contrasts in urban influence with such a varied urban spatial structure.

Geoforum/Volume 11/Number 4/1980 373

I Ca I ~ Saffron

Waldon

[]

31•1 e'.'.~

[]

Horlow

[]

l~raintre e

Witham ~ [] [] []

[] ~ ~abury

[ ]

C h e l m s ~

~ O n g o r E~ I~1 --

Billericay

%

Maldon

&

[]

[] _

West Memeo

i • lO0°/, non agricultural 75-10(7/. non agricultural

~] 50 - 75"/. non agricu Itural

S~t~nd 0 IO 20

km

Figure 1. Urban and non-agricultural land in Essex

Agriculturally, Essex is of great significance. Studies made for the Strategic Plan for the South East (SEJPT, 1970) showed that the county contains a high proportion of areas of special significance for agriculture. These areas were based on farm structure, economic viability, land quality and the degree of specialization and potential for production (Figure 2). Over 50% of Essex is in Grade I or II of the Ministry of Agriculture's land classification scheme compared with only 14% for England and Wales as a whole (ADAS, 1972). An ADAS survey in 1973 showed that at an average of £21.90 per hectare, Essex farmland was the most ex- pensive to rent in South East England, being about £2.50 a hectare higher than the next most expnsive and nearly.£5 more than the average for England (ADAS, 1976). This reflects the high potential value of Essex farmland for production. Arable, horti-

cultural and pig and poultry farms dominate the farming types with well over twice the national average represented for each type.

Data Collection

Geographers have long been interested in the patterns of land use around towns, but land use and landscape appearance are simply the visible results of less obvious economic and social factors such as the system of production, farm structure, land values, the social composition of the farming community and local and national government policies. Individual farmers make their decisions subject to many variable constraints and opportunities. It is farmers responses to these constraints and opportunities within the urban fringe that needs to be examined rather than a catalogue of land use. Since official


• ".,? ~ _ ~ Arees of Speciol rx: ,~-..~--¢-¢-¢'~f7.¢"~-~ "~ - ~ S ign i f i conce

o 5,0, ,oo

km

Figure 2. Areas of special significance for agriculture in the South East region.

statistics like the Ministry of Agriculture's June Census simply do not deal with the kinds of problem discussed here, a farm survey is necessary.

Evidence on farmers' response to urban impacts was collected by postal questionnaire survey undertaken amongst members of the Essex branch of the National Farmers' Union in the autumn of 1973 (BLAIR, 1978). Use- able replies relating to 1129 farm businesses in Essex were obtained. Tests on this large sample (approximately 43% of farm businesses in the county) comparing it to the known characteristics of the whole farming population as ennumerated by MAFF indicate that it is wholly representative.

The replies from the survey were organized into 33 districts shown on Figure 3. These districts, based on grid squares, were designed to overcome the problems of using the exist- ing irregular and inconvenient local government areas. Each area has between twenty and fifty respondents and contains approximately 10 km 2 of farm land. These districts are used in subsequent maps as the basic data unit. The extreme north west portion of

Essex was excluded from the survey because it was not within the Essex NFU branch area.

Urban Impacts on Farming in Essex

Inevitably surveys have to be selective and from the influences reviewed above, data on the following items was collected: (a) land transfers out of agriculture; (b) changes in labour employed on farms; (c) part time farming; (d) interference to farming caused by trespass; (e) farm based recreation; (f) farm- gate sales.

Additionally farm profile data on size of farms, type of farming and tenure were collected. The results of the survey for each item will be examined and considered in the light of the generally accepted image of farming in the urban fringe.

Land Transfers our of Agriculture

While regarded as a major impact on agriculture, information is largely confined to generalized statements on a country scale. Variations within counties are virtually un-


Figure 3. Essex - survey districts.

charted. According to the STANDING CONFERENCE ON LONDON AND SOUTH EAST REGIONAL PLANNING (1976), official statistics generally fail to monitor land transfers of under 2 ha., but it is believed that these small transfers may be very important in aggregate. Farmers were asked to record how much land they had lost, when it was trans- ferred, to what use it had been converted and whether or not a compulsory purchase order had been served.

During the study period, 1960-1973, farmers in Essex recorded losing 2740 ha. or 2.3% of the sample farm area. This is a relatively small amount, approximately 0.16% of the area per annum. There may be a slight understatement as those farms which had a change in occupier since 1960 may not record all transfers. Addi- tionally any farms disappearing entirely would escape ennumeration. Nevertheless the finding approximates quite closely to the analysis of official figures undertaken by BEST and CHAMPION (1970).

Despite this relatively modest rate of transfer, experience of land-loss was common. Twenty- seven percent of farmers in the survey had

some personal experience of at least one land conversion. Few of these farmers however had substantial alterations to their land area through land loss. Half of the farms losing land lost less than 2 ha. Nevertheless, some much larger losses were reported (Table 1). A striking feature of land transfer out of farming which official statistics do not reveal is its spatial concentration in a few areas (Figure 4). As might be expected, areas in the shadow of major urban centres like Harlow, Chelmsford or Colchester have lost more than twice the county average. It is partly this spatial concentration which gives farmers the impression that land is being lost at an alarming rate. A typical reaction to land loss from the agricultural community is shown by the comments of an NFU branch secretary on a proposed urban development scheme:

"In our opinion far too much good agricultural land has been taken out of production and covered with bricks and mortar during the years since the war. It is high time that a stand was taken against the filching of more and more of our greatest natural asset" (FARMERS' WEEKLY, 1977).

The idea that farmland is being 'filched' is an emotive one but the present study at least


Table 1. Size of land parcels lost to urban uses in Essex 1960-73

> 2

Parcel size (ha.)

2.1-4 4 .1-8 8.1-16 < 16

% Farmers

losing land 53 12.4 14.3 9.2 13.3

(N) (158) (39) (45) (29) (42)

% Of land

conversions by CPOs 33.5 48 40 38.9 45.2

(N) (53) (19) (18) (11) (19)

0 I

km

~ / / / /

1

i

I I<1

Figure 4. Land conversion as a percentage of total sample acreage 1960-73.

indicates that the erosion of the resource is slow. A second cause for concern amongst farmers is the use of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs). In Essex 25% of the cases and 35% of the area converted to other uses was accomplished through CPOs. Land bought in this way tends to be in bigger blocks, 7.8 ha. on average compared to 4.9 ha. for land sold voluntarily. Nearly two-thirds of the com- pulsorily acquired land was for road building and almost a quarter for housing. Spatially CPOs were concentrated in the areas of higher than average rates of conversion, particularly around Harlow.

Compulsory purchase is unpopular amongst farmers. By definition the vendor is unwilling

to sell and he loses the important choice of deciding when and where to sell, how much and to whom and for what price. In the case of a motorway, severance of fields can prove a costly irritation, necessitating reorganizing farming operations. A sense of grievance is engendered by what farmers see as unreason- ably long delays in the assessment and payment of compensation or the implementing of agreed works (e.g. footbridges) to mitigate the effects of development.

The case history of a 344 ha. cereal farm near Harlow illustrates why farmers feel unhappy about CPOs. During 1972--73 the farmer lost 13 ha. to the M11 motorway. He complained of litter dumping, trespass damage and pollution arising from the actual construction, but more serious in the long run was the fact that over a year had elapsed without any payment, either for the land, or in compensation for the nuisance. The farmer felt that he was the victim of 'inadequate planning'. He stated that he had had "continuous but ineffective correspondence with the Department of the Environment and their contractors. We are still in the midst of trying to farm arable fields without proper access due to motorway construction which has necessitated cropping replanning". He had been promised a bridge to cross the motorway but 2½ yr later it had still not been started. Distressing as such events are to the individual farmer it is important to bear in mind that land transfer


Table 2. Correlation co-efficients of labour change (1960-1973) vs agricultural and non-agricultural variables

Dependent variable vs Independent variables (r) (district values)

% Farm labour change 1961-73 in each district

(a) Positively correlated population density

% Non-agricultural land

% Horticultural farms % Mixed farms

% Intensive livestock farms % Dairy farms

% Tenant farms % Mixed tenure farms

(b) Negatively correlated % Arable farms

% Owner occupied farms % Grazing livestock farms % Part time farms

m

0.5373

0.4699

0.4628 0.3500

0.3183

0.3094 0.2132 0.2169

0.5846

0.3508 0.2658 0.1627

For Districts used see Figure 3. Correlation coefficients significant at 0.05 level.

out of agriculture is at a modest rate overall and that the majority of farmers in fact sell voluntarily.

Changes in Labour Employed on Farms

Clearly urbanization has been a powerful agent in the 'drift from the land'. J ob opportunities are greater in towns than the contry- side and it would be reasonable to expect urban centres to exert a pull on agricultural workers leaving the industry. Between 1960 and 1973 there was a net reduction in the total national agricultural workforce from 693,000 to 409,000. Full time workers declined by 51.2% at an annual rate of 3.6%. In Essex, the sample farms recorded a drop of 17.3% over the period or 1.4% per annum.

If it is hypothesized that urban centres act as attractions to farm workers, might we expect a spatial pattern around towns with higher losses of labour close to towns and a distance decay effect further away? A correlation

analysis with labour change as the dependent variable is shown in Table 2. Two independent variables, population density and percentage of district in non-agricultural land use are surrogates for urban 'pull'. Both show moderate positive correlations with labour loss rates, that is to say in general the more highly urbanized districts have experienced higher rates of labour loss. Mobility of labour partly accounts for there not being a perfect correlation, but there is some influence attributable to the local urban centres. The other independent variables are associated with 'push' factors. Certain types of farm are more associated with higher rates of loss than others, but there is no simple relationship evident. Nevertheless it does indicate that we should be aware of many other factors than simple proximity to urban areas in trying to explain farm labour losses.

Part Time Farming

Many researchers have isolated part time


N

t

Legend

Location of other lob

• Part-time former, local employment

-o Part-time former, direction of employment

Scale m( ~o I

I i 10 2o

km

Figure 5. Location of other employment of farmers with another job.

2O I

~0

farmers as characteristic inhabitants of the urban fringe (FULLER and MAGE, 1975). Some are farming for a living, others for recreation, but the chief distinguishing feature of a part time farmer is that farming is not his only source of income. Twenty percent of the sample were defined as part time farmers on this basis. Although part time farmers are to be found almost anywhere in Essex, certain localities seem to have particularly high concentrations (Figure 5). Farmers were asked where their other occupations were located. The most striking feature was the large proportion (59%) who had local occupations working in the same or adjoining parish as their farms and many based their activities on the farm. A further 22% commuted to local urban centres in Essex and only 9.5% (1.9% of the sample) commuted to London. However, the pattern of Metropolitan com- muting is particularly interesting. Most part time farmers with another occupation in London, live in areas of Essex furthest from the city. Areas close to London do not have very many farming commuters.

How can we explain this pattern? Part-time farmers are not a single homogeneous class. Over a third of part-time farmers are engaged in agricultural anciliary work such as livestock transport, drainage contracting and hedge cutting. A further 10% of part timers are retired people. Neither of these groups have any pressing need to be close to towns. Virtu- ally all of the long distance commuters were in professional or managerial occupations such as banking, property development, law, stockbroking or accountancy. Nearly all of this group obtained more than 50% of their gross income from non-farming sources. In a county the size of Essex, well served with road and rail connections to London, distance from a City office is probably of relatively little significance to the wealthier part-time farmers. Pleasant surroundings may weigh more heavily for these people than commut- ing distance, particularly since their predominant location is in the scenically attractive 'Constable country' of north east Essex. The popular belief that part time farmers are somehow different in the management of


their farms is not borne out in Essex. There was no significant difference in farm types, tenure or farm size between full and part-time farmers.

Interference with Farming - the Hazards o f the Urban Fringe

The impact that has the most negative effects on farming is that of deliberate or uninten- tional interference by the public. Amongst such nuisances from the farmers point of view are trespassers, vandals, dogs, litter, traffic and pollution. Some farmers would also include amenity societies and statutory authorities as sources of interference! Unlike competition for resources where enforced substitution may eventually benefit farming or the nation, interference has no discernible advantage and it has been said that farmland in the urban fringe subjected to these hazards suffere from reduced productivity and even from enforced changes in land use (TARRANT, 1974, p. 243).

Farmers were given a list of nuisances or 'hazards' and asked if they had ever been troubled by them or any others. This is an emotive issue often more significant in psychological terms than financial ones, and may play a part in hindering the efforts of planners to promote harmony between town and country. The incidence of farmers com- plaining of being troubled by one or more hazards was high at 70%. The proportion of farmers in each district affected by each of the main hazards is shown in Figure 6. It is apparent that the experience is widespread but particularly prevalent in highly urbanized south Essex.

However this image needs putting into per- spective by examining what actual effect these hazards had on farm management. Seventy-eight percent of farmers experiencing hazards took no action because the problems were so slight. Of the remainder only 15% actually changed their farming systems or methods (Table 3). The rest took minor action like signposting warnings or reporting incidents to the police. Nevertheless even

(O) Vandalism

(c) Lifter

N

( b ) Trespass

(d) Traffic hazard

%

:o °

(e) Pollution o 50 I j km

Figure 6. Proportion of farmers experiencing urban hazards.

small scale measures add unnecessarily to the farmer's workload and are an unwelcome drain on his time and resources. Incidents may be fewer than at first appears and their significance as measured by active response relatively small, but they do create a feeling of hostility between the farmer and the public.

Farm Based Recreation

There is little doubt that farm based recreation is a rapidly exp~nding feature of the British countryside. DARLINGTON AMENITY RESEARCH TRUST (1974) estimated that between 4 and 6% of farms in England and Wales operated a recreational enterprize and that it was worth an estimated £50 million a year. It has frequently been suggested that farmers in the urban fringe might profitably adopt such enterprizes as a means of offsetting the disadvantages of


Table 3. Changes in farm management due to urban hazards

Change % Of farmers % Of all n making changes farmers

Change in methods 27.7 4.2 48 Ceased stockraising 19.7 3.0 34 Crop re-location 19.1 2.9 27 Stock re-location 11.6 1.8 20 Ceased farming 8.7 1.3 15 Changed crop type 4.6 0.7 8 Ceased crops 4.0 0.6 7 Change in stock type 2.3 0.4 4 Other change 2.3 0.4 4

Total 100 15.3 167

urban proximity. Although it is generally accepted that farm based recreation is increas- ing and that the urban fringe may prove a more popular location for recreation if periodic petrol crises become more perm- anent, very little is known about the associ- ation between urban proximity and farm based recreation.

Recreational and educational activities on farms include provision of campsites, horse- riding, farmhouse holidays, farm trails, shooting and fishing. In Essex, 9.7% of the farmers in the sample reported taking part in one or more of these activities. However, few of them regard recreation as being very significant to their overall businesses. Only a quarter of those involved in recreation claimed to receive any income worth considering from it. This contrasts quite strongly with many farmers in Wales and the West Country for whom farm tourism is an important enterprize.

The urban fringe does appear to be a favoured location for many kinds of farm recreation in Essex (Figure 6). Horse riding in particular is associated with the edge of towns: Harlow, Epping, Chigwell, Chelmsford, Colchester, Clacton, Brentwood, Basildon and Southend all have at least one such enterprize on their

outskirts. Most other activities are less associated with urban proximity. Fishing and shooting for example depend more on the location of the resource rather than the location of the consumers. Educational visits are fairly common but closeness to pre- dominantly urban located schools is an important factor. In general, farmers prefer the kinds of activity which require little investment, make use of otherwise under- used patches of land and most significantly can be converted back to farming use without much trouble if necessary.

Farm-gate Sales

Another way in which farmers can take advantage of large numbers of consumers is through the medium of farm-gate sales. The farmers sell directly to the public either at the farm gate, on a stall, a purpose-built farm shop, or converted barn, by deliveries direct to the customers home, or increasingly through 'pick-your-own' type sales where the consumers harvest their own purchases direct from the field. Farm-gate sales are surprisingly widespread throughout Essex, 29% of farmers in the sample selling produce by one or more of these methods. Of these farmers 87% sold direct at the farm-gate, 37% undertook deliveries and 16% had 'pick-your-own'


V ~ j ) " ~ ( ~ • Horse riding • ~ [] Other sport

_ f - T or tro, "x-,/x_.b-.J S School visits

R Reseorch/higher education o 20 t J 0 Other

km

Figure 7. Farm based recreation and education, Essex 1973.

enterprizes. The average contribution to income was 19% with some operators deriving much larger proportions from direct sales - 12% obtained over 40%. It is interesting to note that nearly ten times as many farmers gained an income from this type of activity as compared with recreation. Yet the litera- ture has until now almost ignored the role of farm gate sales.

Farm-gate sales are found throughout the county (Figure 7) but some areas have concentrations of particular types. 'Pick-your- own' sales are especially concentrated in the soft fruit growing areas of Witham and Tiptree. While it has been suggested that the urban fringe farmer might consciously adopt farm gate sale to offset other pressures, these sales are found almost everywhere, in remote rural areas as well as the urban fringe. In fact a comparison of the locational characteristics of farms with farm gate sales and the sample as a whole reveals that there is very little difference between them (Table 4). While not confined to the urban fringe farm gate sales are nevertheless an important adjunct to businesses there.

Conclusions: Opportunity or Constraint?

Most farming opinion and the agricultural establishment in general still regards the urban fringe as an unfortunate location for a farm. Less frequently it is suggested that it may also be a place where farmers can do well out of the particular demands exerted there. There is clearly controversy over the extent to which the urban fringe farmer suffers or benefits from his location. Pessimism arises from overestimating the constraints and underestimating the opportunities. This paper has examined some of the impacts on urban fringe farmers and has shown that there are substantial benefits from recreation and farm gate sales as well as losses from trespass and land losses. On balance do farmers suffer from being close to towns? Conventional wisdom is that they do, but the evidence from Essex suggests that not all farmers are adverse- ly affected and s o m e have their opportunities enhanced by an urban fringe location. More- over some of the generally accepted hazards of the urban fringe, such as land loss are seen to be fairly minor in extent.


"• El A"

I I I I •• • • • []

/ • . . ' . : , ' . 0 " . . .

~ - ° [ ] " • • • n i J ' . • • . • = ~ =

4 LXE #

"• • 0 • '.

• • • • • 0 I o . . • .. B. • • °

,• •o • • • • • • •

$ o Q g $

• • " . "A • [:]o o*

. . . . -

•o

A

A

[3

• • • • ,

q,

o l • • • • •

" 0 " . •

A

• . A Z k

%• ~ •

Fa rmga?e sales D e l i v e r i e s •

Pick-your-own E] Farmgate sa les a n d de l i ve r ies

D e l i v e r i e s and 0 pick - y o u r - o w n

Farmgate s a l e s a n d • pick - y o u r -own F a r m g a t e so les • d e l i v e r i e s and p i c k - y o u r - o w n

k m

2 0 f

F i g u r e 8 . F a r m - g a t e s a l e s in Essex.

Pervading the whole question of benefit and cost is the difficulty of equating the various factors. While it is relatively easy to assess the value of farm-gate sales it is almost impossible to establish accurately the costs of trespass or planning blight. No attempt has been made in this paper to examine the variations in response to impacts between different types

of farm since the emphasis here has been to demonstrate the spatial extent and nature of selected impacts, particularly those like farm- gate sales which have been neglected in the past. Farming on the urban fringe is more complicated and more variable than the usual stereotype allows.


Table 4. Locational characteristics of farm-gate sales in Essex

Farms with All farms farm-gate sales

Average distance to

nearest urban area 4.00 km 4.05 km

Average distance to

nearest competitor 1.51 km 1.98 km

Type of road located: % %

'A' 12 14

'B' 16 26

'C' 44 35

unclassified 28 25

Type of planning zone farms located within: % %

Green Belt 34 31

Other designated* 17 17

Rural white land 41 46

Urban administrative t 8 6

* E.g. As ONB; Areas of Great Landscape Value etc.

¢ Pre-1974 local government boundaries.

References

ADAS (1972) Agricultural land classification of England and Wales, Explanatory note, MAFF.

ADAS (1976) Farm rents in England and Wales, Technical Report 19/5, MAFF.

BEST R. H. and CHAMPION A.G. (1970) Regional conversions of agricultural land to urban uses in England and Wales 1945-1967, Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 49, 15--32.

BLAIR A.M. (1978) Spatial effects of urban influence on agriculture in Essex, 1960-73, unpub- lished Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.

CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL STRATEGY (1976) Land for Agriculture, University of Reading.

CHISHOLM M. (1968) Rural Settlement and Land Use, Hutchinson.

DARLINGTON AMENITY RESEARCH TRUST/ RURAL PLANNING SERVICES (1974) Farm Recreation and Tourism in England and Wales, CCP 83/DART 14. Countryside Commission, Cheltenham.

DAVIES I. (1953) Urban farming - a study of agriculture in the city of Birmingham, Geography 30, 296--303.

DAVIDSON J. and WIBBERLEY G.P. (1977) Plan- ning and the Rural Environment. Pergamon, Oxford.

FARMERS' WEEKLY (1977) NFU raps waste of good farming land, Farmers' Weekly March 18, 1977.

FULLER A. and MAGE J. (1975) Part time Farming: Problem or Resource in Rural Development. Uni- versity of Guelph/Geo Abstracts.

LOW N. (1973) Farming and the inner green belt, Tn Plann. Rev. 44, 103--16.

MAFF (1973) Agricultural Census 1971, Guildford. MUNTON R.J.C. (1974) Farming on the urban

fringe, In: Suburban Growth Ch 10. Johnson J.H. (Ed.). Wiley, London.

OPCS (1971) Census 1971 - Essex, Parts I, H and IlL HMSO.

ROGERS A. (ed.) (1978) Urban Growth, Farmland Losses and Planning, IBG Rural Geography Study Group, Wye College.

STANDING CONFERENCE ON LONDON AND SOUTH EAST REGIONAL PLANNING (1976) The improvement of London's green belt, SC620, London.

SOUTH EAST JOINT PLANNING TEAM (1970) Strategic Plan for the Soutb East - a Framework. HMSO.


SCHWARTZ S.I., HANSEN D.E. and FOIN T.C. (1976) Landowner benefits from use value assessment and the California Land Conservation Act (1965), Am. J. Agric. Econ. 57, 170--178.

TARRANT J. (1974) Agricultural Geograpby. David • and Charles.

THOMAS D. (1970) London's Green Belt. Faber, London.

THOMAS D. (1974) The urban fringe: approaches and attitudes, In: Suburban Grovatb Chapt. 2, Johnson J.H. (Ed.). Wiley.

WIBBERLEY G.P. (1976) Rural planning and environmental concern in Britain, J. Agric. Econ. 26, 1-16 .

Documents

Urban influences on farming in Essex