Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Box 25.4
Counterurbanisation and rural change in the UK
Counterurbanisation in Britain dates back to the 1960s,
when for the first time the areas situated well away from
metropolitan influence began to grow faster than the
main conurbations and their dependent regions.
Population growth in rural Britain was particularly strong
in the late 1960s and early 1970s but has continued
over the past two decades, with net out-migration from
the main metropolitan areas to the rest of the UK
averaging about 90,000 people a year, a rate of 0.5 per
cent. The main contributor to this urban exodus in both
absolute and relative terms is Inner London, while the
main beneficiary is the most remote rural category of
local authority districts (Figure 25.1). Indeed, the growth
of the latter is powered entirely by migration, as these
areas are now experiencing a surplus of deaths over
births— a product of the above-average age of the in-
migrants combined with the continuing 'urbanisation' of
school leavers. What these statistics fail to show is the
growth of temporary residents and visitors, as it is not
easy to monitor the occupancy of second homes and
holiday lets or to gauge the volume of day trips and
overnight stays.
they place extra demands on already stretched public
transport, social support and health-care facilities (Gant
and Smith 1991).
Solutions to these challenges have tended to be limited
in both variety and effectiveness, not helped by a general
reluctance to engage in social engineering and impose
limits on personal freedom. In the Lake District, an attempt
to restrict the sale of new housing to local people only
initially caused rapid inflation in prices of existing houses
and was eventually declared illegal by central government
(Shucksmith 1991). Efforts have been made to curb the
inflow of elderly people to the 'costa geriatrica' of southwest
England by refusing applications for permission to build new
bungalows and convert seaside hotels into nursing homes,
but this approach has often proved controversial locally
(Phillips and Vincent 1987). Perhaps the most effective
solutions lie outside the rural areas themselves, namely in
improving the attractiveness of the main source areas and
persuading more older people to stay put there, closer to
urban amenities and to the support of family and friends.
While this 'rural renaissance' is encouraging in
economic terms after decades of depopulation, the
benefits are not as great as the pure population statistics
might suggest and also need to be set against some
important negative impacts. As a significant proportion
of the people moving into the more remote areas are of
older working age or are already retired, their arrival does
little to boost the demand for places in local schools
threatened by closure because of the departure of young
people. Their strong purchasing power, helped by selling
a family-size home in metropolitan Britain, raises
property prices, thereby making it more difficult for local
children to remain in the area when they want to set up
home. Moreover, these post-family-age newcomers are
not big consumers of everyday goods and, anyway, tend
to do most of their buying by car on outings to
supermarkets in nearby towns rather than patronise the
more expensive local stores. To the extent that they are
still gainfully occupied, a significant proportion are self-
employed in freelance work, with little local multiplier
effect, or in tourist-related shop and accommodation
ventures, which often are of limited success and duration.
Later, as the newcomers age and become less mobile,
Sour.ces:
Champion 1994; Gant and Smith 1991;
Shucksmith 1991; Phillips and Vincent 1987.
