Private investment in the countryside: an assessment of the role of new houses and estates in sustaining the rural economy and environment

The British countryside has been shaped and sustained over the years by the establishment of landed estates. Some of our best known, and now most protected, landmarks derive from this tradition by which money, that was often sourced from outside the rural economy, was invested in land. Whilst there was some reversal in this trend during the last century, there is again a widespread desire among people of means to invest in new country property. Paragraph 3.21 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7: The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development was introduced in 1997 as a means of perpetuating the historic tradition of innovation in the countryside through the construction of fine individual houses in landscaped grounds. That it was considered necessary to use a special provision of this kind reflects the prevailing presumption of planning authorities against allowing private residential development in open countryside. The Government is currently reviewing rural planning policy and is focusing on higher density housing, affordable homes and the use of brownfield sites. There is an underlying conception that individual private house developments contribute nothing and are seen as the least attractive option for most development sites. The purpose of paragraph 3.21 lies outside the government’s priorities and its particular provisions may therefore be excluded in forthcoming ‘policy statements’. This paper seeks to examine the role of private investors wishing to build new houses in the countryside, and the impact that that might have on local economies. It explores the interpretation placed on PPG7 through an investigation of appeal sites, and concludes by making recommendations for the review process, including the retention of some form of exceptions policy for new build houses.

Languages Learning at Key Stage 2. A Longitudinal Study. Final report.

In 2006, The Open University, the University of Southampton and Canterbury Christ Church University were commissioned by the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES), now Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to conduct a three-year longitudinal study of languages learning at Key Stage 2 (KS2). The qualitative study was designed to explore provision, practice and developments over three school years between 2006/07 and 2008/09 in a sample of primary schools and explore children’s achievement in oracy and literacy, as well as the possible broader cross-curricular impact of languages learning.

Provider diversity in the NHS: impact on quality and innovation

The overall objective of the research project has been to assess the impact of provider diversity on quality and innovation in the NHS. The specific research aims were to identify the differences in performance between non-profit Third Sector organisations, for-profit private enterprises, and incumbent public sector institutions within the NHS as providers of health care services, as well as the factors that affect the entry and growth of new private and Third Sector providers. The study used both qualitative and quantitative methods based on case studies of four Local Health Economies (LHEs). Qualitative methods included documentary analysis and interviews with key informants and managers of both commissioning and provider organisations. To provide a focus to the study, two tracer conditions were followed: orthopaedic surgery and home health care for frail older people. In the case of hospital inpatient care, data on patient characteristics were also collected from the HES database. The analysis of this data provided preliminary estimates of the effects of provider type on quality, controlling for client characteristics and case mix. In addition, a survey of patient experience in diverse provider organisations was analysed to compare the different dimensions of quality of provision of acute services between incumbent NHS organisations and new independent sector treatment centres. The research has shown that, in respect of inpatient hospital services, diverse providers supply health services of at least as good quality as traditional NHS providers, and that there is ample opportunity to expand their scale and scope as providers of services commissioned by the NHS. The research used patient experience survey data to investigate whether hospital ownership affects the quality of services reported by NHS patients in areas other than clinical quality. The raw survey data appear to show that private hospitals provide higher quality services than the public hospitals. However, further empirical analysis leads to a more nuanced understanding of the performance differences. Firstly, the analysis shows that each sector offers greater quality in certain specialties. Secondly, the analysis shows that differences in the quality of patients’ reported experience are mainly attributable to patient characteristics, the selection of patients into each type of hospital, and the characteristics of individual hospitals, rather than to hospital ownership as such. Controlling for such differences, NHS patients are on average likely to experience a similar quality of care in a public or privately-run hospital. Nevertheless, for specific groups of patients and for specific types of treatments, especially the more straightforward ones, the private sector provides an improved patient experience compared to the public sector. Elsewhere, the NHS continues to provide a high quality service and outperforms the private sector in a range of services and for a range of clients.

Pollination ecology in the 21st century: key questions for future research

To inspire new ideas in research on pollination ecology, we list the most important unanswered questions in the field. This list was drawn up by contacting 170 scientists from different areas of pollination ecology and asking them to contribute their opinion on the greatest knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. Almost 40% of them took part in our email poll and we received more than 650 questions and comments, which we classified into different categories representing various aspects of pollination research. The original questions were merged and synthesised, and a final vote and ranking led to the resultant list. The categories cover plant sexual reproduction, pollen and stigma biology, abiotic pollination, evolution of animal-mediated pollination, interactions of pollinators and floral antagonists, pollinator behaviour, taxonomy, plant-pollinator assemblages, geographical trends in diversity, drivers of pollinator loss, ecosystem services, management of pollination, and conservation issues such as the implementation of pollinator conservation. We focused on questions that were of a broad scope rather than case-specific; thus, addressing some questions may not be feasible within single research projects but constitute a general guide for future directions. With this compilation we hope to raise awareness of pollination-related topics not only among researchers but also among non-specialists including policy makers, funding agencies and the public at large.

Patents for plants: context and current status

One of the important themes in any discussion concerning the application of genetic transformation technology in horticulture or elsewhere is the role of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). This term covers both the content of patents and the confidential expertise, usually related to methodology and referred to as “Trade Secrets”. This review will explain the concepts behind patent protection, and will discuss the wide-ranging scope of existing patents that cover novel genotypes of plants as well as all aspects of transgenic technology, from selectable markers and novel promoters to methods of gene introduction. Although few of these patents have any significant commercial value there are a small number of key patents that may restrict the “freedom to operate” of any company seeking to exploit the methods in the production of transgenic varieties. Over the last twenty years, these restrictions have forced extensive cross-licensing between ag-biotech companies and have been one of the driving forces behind the consolidation of these companies. Although such issues may have limited relevance in the horticultural sector, and are often considered to be of little interest to the academic scientist working in the public sector, they are of great importance in any debate about the role of “public-good breeding” and of the relationship between the public and private sectors.