Protected landscapes in England did not emerge simply as acts of environmental preservation, but as governance responses to specific historical failures of land-use control. Nowhere is this clearer than in Cornwall, where dramatic coastal scenery, dispersed settlement, and a tourism-dependent political economy combined to expose the limits of early planning while simultaneously intensifying pressure for protection. This paper examines how Cornwall came to be designated not as a National Park, but as a fragmented Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), arguing that this outcome represents a pragmatic governance compromise shaped by post-1918 planning reform, interwar development pressures, wartime reconstruction politics, and local resistance to centralised control.
An exploration of archival material, parliamentary debate, planning history, and landscape policy literature, traces the national origins of landscape protection, the emergence of differentiated designations after 1945, and Cornwall’s distinctive trajectory from proposed National Park to “mosaic” AONB. It shows that Cornwall’s protected-landscape status was designed to preserve wilderness but on a more political note, to correct the cumulative effects of unfettered coastal development, while remaining administratively and politically workable within a lived-in, economically active landscape.
1.1. National Origins of Landscape Protection (1918-1945)
1.1.1. National scene-setting since 1918: why “unfettered” development became a policy problem
Post-1918 planning reform normalised the idea that land use could be regulated in the public interest, but it did not immediately produce robust, spatially comprehensive control across Rural and coastal England. The post-war reconstruction imperative, codified through expanded town and country planning powers, created a governance apparatus that aimed to restrain development but, in practice, left many rural and coastal landscapes exposed to incremental and speculative change for decades (Cullingworth, 1979; Cherry, 1988). By the interwar period, the “countryside problem” crystallised around ribbon development, resort expansion, and dispersed low-density building forms that were individually modest but collectively transformative, and often difficult to reverse once established (Short, 1991). This is the context in which amenity politics (notably CPRE) reframed the countryside as a finite national asset requiring planning restraint, helping to shift preservation from sentiment to policy instrument (Matless, 1998).
1.1.2. Post-1918 planning reform and the limits of early control
The expansion of planning powers after the First World War marked a fundamental reorientation in English land policy, establishing land use as a legitimate object of state intervention. The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 institutionalised planning as a tool of social reconstruction, yet its application remained uneven, with rural and coastal areas subject to significantly weaker controls than towns and cities (Cullingworth, 1979; Cherry,1988). This unevenness created conditions in which development pressures intensified precisely in those landscapes that lacked robust regulatory protection. In Cornwall, early county planning files reveal a growing awareness that the post-1918 planning settlement was ill-equipped to manage coastal change. Cornwall County Council correspondence from the early 1920s notes that improved rail connectivity and rising motor traffic were already generating speculative interest in cliff-top and estuarine land, particularly along the north coast (Cornwall Record Office (CRO), CC/CL/PL/1, 1922-24). However, the absence of comprehensive rural planning powers meant that intervention was often reactive and limited.
1.1.3. Unfettered coastal development in interwar Cornwall
By the late 1920s and 1930s, Cornwall had become emblematic of the interwar countryside crisis. County Planning Committee minutes record repeated concern over what were described as “bungalow encroachments” along the north coast between Newquay and Padstow, where small speculative developments accumulated incrementally but produced significant visual and landscape impact (CRO, County Planning Committee Minutes,
1931-1935).
Specific cases illustrate the problem. At Porthtowan, proposals for cliff-edge holiday bungalows prompted objections from St Agnes Parish Council, which warned that continued development would “permanently destroy the character of the coastline upon which the district depends” (CRO, Parish Council Correspondence, St Agnes, 1934). Similar objections were recorded at Crantock, where parish minutes note resistance to ribbon development
along the coast road, citing both landscape damage and pressure on agricultural land (CRO, Crantock Parish Minutes, 1936).
These objections demonstrate that concern about unfettered development was not confined to amenity elites but was articulated locally, often in explicitly economic terms. Landscape degradation was understood as a threat to long-term tourism value, even as short-term development was tolerated as a source of income.
1.1.4. Amenity advocacy and Cornwall’s coast
The Council for the Preservation of Rural England (CPRE) was actively involved in Cornwall during this period, with its county branch focusing heavily on coastal protection. CPRE correspondence from the 1930s repeatedly references “bungalow sprawl” at Holywell Bay, Mawgan Porth, and Whitsand Bay, identifying Cornwall’s coast as particularly vulnerable due to fragmented ownership and weak planning enforcement (CPRE Archive, CPRE/CORN/2, 1933-1938).
Notably, CPRE’s Cornish advocacy emphasised planning restraint rather than outright prohibition. Letters to Cornwall County Council urged the adoption of coastal planning policies to regulate siting and density, rather than opposing tourism development entirely (CPRE Archive, Cornwall Branch Correspondence, 1937). This pragmatic stance reflects an understanding of Cornwall’s political economy, where tourism and development were inseparable from local livelihoods.
1.2. The Emergence of Protected Landscapes in Britain (1945-1949)
1.2.1. The Dower Report and the Birth of the National Park Ideal
The modern concept of protected landscapes emerged during the Second World War, when national identity, welfare, and land use were being fundamentally reimagined. In 1941, the Standing Committee on National Parks commissioned a report from John Dower, a barrister and passionate advocate for landscape preservation. Dower’s report, published in 1945, laid out a comprehensive vision for National Parks in England and Wales.
The Dower Report (1945) defined National Parks as “extensive areas of beautiful and relatively wild country” that should be “preserved in perpetuity for the nation’s enjoyment and inspiration.” Dower argued that these landscapes were national assets, essential to public wellbeing and the spiritual renewal of a war-weary society. His proposals emphasised access, recreation, and conservation in equal measure, recommending that the state assume responsibility for protecting certain landscapes from inappropriate development while ensuring that ordinary citizens could experience them.
Dower’s conceptualisation was profoundly moral and democratic: beauty was to be preserved not as a luxury, but as a right. He envisioned administrative bodies that could balance private landownership with the public interest, foreshadowing the participatory governance models that would later characterise landscape policy. Importantly, Dower also listed potential areas suitable for National Park designation including parts of the Lake District, Peak District, Dartmoor, and notably, Cornwall.
1.2.2. The Hobhouse Report and Institutional Design
While Dower established the philosophical case for National Parks, the Hobhouse Report (1947) formally the Report of the National Parks Committee (England and Wales) chaired by Sir Arthur Hobhouse provided the practical framework for their establishment. Hobhouse’s committee built on Dower’s principles but introduced more rigorous criteria for selection and governance. It identified twelve areas for immediate designation as National Parks, alongside fifty-two proposed Conservation Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty for a lower level of protection.
The Hobhouse Report distinguished National Parks as large, contiguous areas with coherent landscapes capable of sustaining a national identity, recreation, and ecological protection. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) were conceived as regions of equal scenic value but with higher population densities, fragmented landownership, or intensive agricultural use that made full park status impractical.
This two-tiered model was codified in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (Hansard), which created the statutory foundation for both National Parks and AONBs. The Act enshrined the principle that these designations were of national importance, mandating the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and promoting opportunities for public understanding and enjoyment.
1.3. War, Reconstruction, and the Post-War Settlement
1.3.1. War, reconstruction, and the correction of interwar excess
The Second World War altered both the capacity and the legitimacy of state intervention in land use. Wartime agricultural direction and development controls demonstrated that land could be regulated comprehensively, while post-war reconstruction planning created political momentum to address the failures of interwar governance (Sheail, 1975). The Dower Report emerged within this context, proposing National Parks as a mechanism to prevent further landscape degradation and to secure public enjoyment. However, internal Ministry of Town and Country Planning files explicitly identify coastal counties such as Cornwall as problematic candidates for National Park status, citing dense settlement, productive land use, and the risk of exacerbating visitor pressure (The National Archives (TNA), HLG 79/55).
Parliamentary debate reinforces this distinction. Hansard records from discussions preceding the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 refer repeatedly to the need to protect landscapes without “paralysing” coastal economies dependent on tourism and agriculture (Hansard, 1949).
1.3.2. Parish resistance and the shaping of AONB logic
Post-war county files reveal continued local sensitivity to external designation. Parish-level objections to early National Park proposals frequently emphasised fears of loss of local control. At Zennor and St Just, parish councils expressed concern that a stronger designation would prioritise visitors over residents and impose restrictions unsuited to a working landscape (CRO, Parish Council Correspondence, West Penwith, 1946-47).
These concerns fed directly into the logic of AONB designation. Ministry correspondence notes that AONBs would allow Cornwall’s landscape to be protected “through the normal machinery of planning”, avoiding the political resistance likely to accompany a National Park authority (TNA, HLG 79/55).
1.4. Cornwall’s Journey: From Proposed National Park to Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
1.4.1. Dower’s Proposal and the Post-War Vision
In Dower’s original recommendations (1945), Cornwall featured prominently as a candidate for National Park designation. Its “rugged coastline, ancient moors, and deeply incised river valleys” were described as embodying a “distinctive and unspoiled character of England’s far west” (Dower 1945). Dower saw Cornwall as an integrated landscape culturally and ecologically coherent, with a strong sense of place rooted in its mining heritage, Celtic traditions, and maritime identity. However the area outlined was separated into 12 separate areas which were not contiguous and had a Council challenge of three tier councils which involved 5 District Councils and a County Council.
However, the implementation phase following the Hobhouse Report introduced significant challenges. The Hobhouse Committee ultimately decided not to designate Cornwall as a National Park, instead recommending it for AONB status. Several factors underpinned this decision.
1.4.2. Reasons for Downgrading Cornwall’s Status
Firstly, Cornwall’s dispersed settlement pattern and mixed land use were considered inconsistent with the “large, open tracts” ideal of National Parks (Hobhouse 1947). Unlike upland areas such as the Lake District or Snowdonia, Cornwall lacked extensive contiguous wilderness; its landscape was instead a complex mosaic of farms, villages, and coastal industries plus a complex local government mix.
Secondly, economic considerations played a role. Post-war Cornwall was an area of relative poverty, heavily dependent on agriculture, fishing, and a declining mining industry. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning feared that National Park status might impose constraints on industrial development and housing that were seen as essential for regional regeneration (The National Archives [TNA], HLG 79/55).
Thirdly, administrative practicality influenced the outcome. Cornwall’s peripheral geography and its extensive coastline made management coordination more complex and expensive. The Hobhouse Committee therefore recommended a series of AONBs that could provide flexible, locally administered protection without the financial burden of a full National Park Authority (Hobhouse 1947).
1.4.3. Formation of the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
The Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was formally designated in 1959 under the powers of the 1949 Act. It became one of the largest AONBs in England, covering approximately 958 km² around 27% of Cornwall’s land area and comprising twelve separate sections from the north coast cliffs of Tintagel to the tidal estuaries of the south.
Figure 1 Map of the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty showing its twelve separate sections and total designated area (96,603 ha). Source: Cornwall National Landscape Management Plan 2023-2028 (Cornwall Council, 2023, p. 125).
The 1959 designation reflected a pragmatic compromise: it recognised the national importance of Cornwall’s scenery while accommodating the realities of local land use and economic need. For decades, the Cornwall AONB functioned primarily as a planning designation, with limited statutory powers and minimal funding. Its role was largely advisory, focusing on influencing local planning decisions and coordinating conservation projects among a dispersed network of agencies and community organisations.
Nevertheless, the Cornwall AONB evolved into a key instrument of landscape stewardship, supporting biodiversity initiatives, cultural heritage preservation, and community engagement. It was rebranded in 2023 as the Cornwall National Landscape (CNL), aligning with the national policy shift that elevated all AONBs to the new National Landscapes framework. Cornwall, however, has developed an especially prominent stewardship function compared to other areas. This is partly due to its fragmented geography (twelve separated sections), its large proportion of designated land (27% of the county), and the longstanding reliance on community networks, volunteer organisations, and heritage bodies to deliver conservation outcomes.
Cornwall’s cultural distinctiveness, strong tradition of local environmental activism, and its combination of intense visitor pressure and ecological sensitivity have also driven the AONB to take on broader responsibilities in biodiversity restoration, cultural heritage management, and community engagement. In this sense, while national policy set the direction, Cornwall’s local conditions accelerated and deepened the evolution of the AONB into a central steward of landscape governance.
1.4.4. Cornwall AONB as a “mosaic” designation: boundary choices as a governance strategy
Cornwall is unusual because the designation comprises 12 separate sections within a single AONB: 11 coastal stretches and Bodmin Moor, with the Camel Estuary added later (Cornwall AONB Management Plan: Local Sections, 2016-2021; Cornwall National Landscape, 2023/2024). Interpreted through a governance lens, this “mosaic” is not merely cartographic: it expresses a policy choice to protect specific high-value landscape units while avoiding the administrative and political costs of designating large, socially complex coastal settlements wholesale. In practice, Cornwall’s AONB boundaries repeatedly do three things: (i) track clear physical/administrative features (major roads, headlands, parish edges), (ii) prioritise relatively undeveloped coastal character and distinctive geology/heritage, and (iii) manage “setting” pressures by drawing lines that include the visually critical strip while often excluding the most intensively developed nodes (Cornwall AONB Management Plan: Local Sections, 2016-2021).
A concrete example is the Hartland section (Morwenstow-Kilkhampton), where the boundary is described as broadly following the A39 (Atlantic Highway) and including the coastal strip from Marsland to Menachurch Point (Cornwall AONB Management Plan: Local Sections, 2016-2021). This is a classic AONB boundary move: the A39 provides an administratively legible inland edge, while the protected area focuses on the cliffed coast/valleys that deliver the “natural beauty” rationale. Here, the boundary decision appears to be an attempt to preserve a comparatively remote coastal landscape while keeping the designation operationally manageable within standard planning control.
Interpreted critically, this indicates that the boundary serves a dual function: it not only protects what lies within the line but also provides a policy lever to influence decisions adjacent to the line by strengthening landscape-harm arguments in development Management. The Camel Estuary provides a clear illustration of boundary evolution as policy response. It is recorded as an addition later than the 1959 designations (commonly cited as 1981), reflecting a recognition that estuarine landscapes, susceptible to recreation, second homes, and marina/harbour development pressures, required the same “natural beauty” governance frame as cliff coasts (Cornwall National Landscape, 2023/2024). In the same vein as post-1918 “unfettered development” pressures, leisure economies intensified, estuaries became development frontiers (rather than purely working waters), necessitating boundary rethinking.
Across the remaining coastal sections (e.g., St Agnes, Godrevy to Portreath, West Penwith, and the segmented South Coast), the management plan repeatedly treats each section as a distinctive landscape unit with its own “statement of significance” and management condition pressures (Cornwall AONB Management Plan: Local Sections, 2016-2021). The governance implication is that Cornwall’s AONB boundary decisions are as much about making protection implementable, through targeted, legible units, as they are about asserting scenic value. This is precisely what makes the AONB designation a rational compromise for Cornwall: it delivers protection where landscape sensitivity is highest while avoiding a single significant designation that would have absorbed multiple heavily developed settlements and intensified governance conflict.
1.4.5. Cornwall’s “perfect compromise”: why AONB (not National Park) fit the county’s political economy
Cornwall’s coastal landscapes are simultaneously nationally valued and economically instrumental. The county’s long-standing reliance on tourism, combined with dispersed settlements and mixed land uses, creates a political economy in which development restraint must be credible but not socially destabilising (Short, 1991). Within that context, an AONB provides a form of embedded regulation: it strengthens conservation weight in planning
decisions without creating a separate Park authority, which could have a more visible redistributive impact on local control, housing pressures, and visitor management. The AONB logic is captured in later parliamentary characterisations of AONBs as intended to conserve and enhance natural beauty, “taking into account” agriculture and the economic and social needs of communities (Hansard, 1999). Although this is a retrospective statement, it accurately reflects the design intent that made AONB status workable in places such as Cornwall: protection through planning weighting rather than through comprehensive territorial governance.
Cornwall’s case is also explicitly recognised in parliamentary discussion about AONB protection and the reality that such areas contain “much developed land”, implying that the policy tool is designed to operate in inhabited and economically active settings rather than pristine reserves (Hansard, 1984). Cornwall’s designation is not an attempt to freeze a “wilderness”, but to manage a lived-in coast where post-1918 development pressures had
already accumulated and where continued change was politically inevitable. AONB designation therefore operates as a structured corrective to unfettered development: it does not end development, but it raises the evidential and design burden for proposals that would erode valued character.
Conclusion
Cornwall’s protected landscape status did not emerge as a neutral or purely environmental designation, but as the outcome of successive policy choices shaped by post-war reconstruction, planning reform, amenity advocacy, and local political economy. The decision to designate Cornwall as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty rather than a National Park reflects a long-standing preference for partnership-based governance, planning-led control, and economic flexibility alongside conservation. This historical trajectory has produced a landscape governance model that relies heavily on collaboration, negotiation, and local legitimacy rather than strong statutory authority. Understanding this policy inheritance is essential for analysing how contemporary initiatives within the Cornwall National Landscape operate in practice, and why social capital plays a critical role in mediating tensions between environmental stewardship and sustainable economic development.
