45
SPRING 2016
various activities. As a result, matters like subdivision
can go from being Discretionary to Restricted Discretionary Activities, or vice versa, without a great deal of
appreciation as to why this should be the case. There
really is a need for more explanation of the characteristics and values / qualities that are associated with
Amenity Landscapes, and that make them special.
4. What is the role of rural character in an assessment and evaluation of natural character values – is
it relevant and if so, to what extent?
The assessment of natural character is quite
different from that of rural character.
The latter has a very strong perceptual, sensory,
bias that includes appreciation of sense of place and
identity, whereas natural character addresses gradations of naturalness in a more linear fashion, employing a mixture of biophysical, perceptual and – occasionally – associative, factors.
The concept of naturalness alone underpins natural
character assessment, and is increasingly addressed
via a very ordered and consistent methodology,
whereas the assessment of amenity values can be
much more discursive – identifying values that vary
from locale to locale, often in a quite idiosyncratic
fashion.
5. If rural character is determined to be relevant to
natural character values assessment and evaluation, how does it ‘stack up’ against other aspects of
natural character values such as biophysical (natural
science) values – is there a priority?
I don’t believe the two correlate; as explained previously, they require quite different types of assessment.
6. Why do you think the term rural character has
gained s