Honestly, the rot that wafts out of the countryside from time to time . . . from Somerset to Suffolk, Cornwall to Cumbria, the whine of special pleading wends its way up into town. Yesterday we were treated to the latest bleating from the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC), a body established two years ago to quieten the Countryside Agency – remember how troublesome they used to be? – by giving it a ministerial advisory role. The commission’s remit is “to provide well-informed, independent advice to government” on the needs of rural England, with a particular focus on tackling disadvantage.

Set up a commission and it commissions things: the CRC first of all commissioned a piece of market research which found that 93 per cent of people in rural areas were very or fairly satisifed with the local area; just 4 per cent were dissatisfied. Imagine what the results would be if you asked people that question in urban areas. You could probably switch the numbers.

Instead of admitting that people in the countryside are fine and shutting up shop on the spot, the CRC niggled away further until it came up with a report complaining that . . . drumroll . . . services such as doctors and banks are farther away in rural areas! Which doesn’t seem to bother people much (see 93 per cent, above) because being farther away doesn’t necessarily mean less accessible. And once you do get there, hey, a friendly human treats you, fairly fast, usually with a smile, and sometimes they even know your name, which makes up for the five-minute drive (ooh, the inconvenience, huff puff) to get there. And you can always park practically right outside wherever it is you have arrived at after your arduous journey.

Which brings me to the latest report from the CRC yesterday, its State of the Countryside 2007, a grand-sounding report that posed the question: is rural England facing a future without young people? Not really, it seems. “There are now nearly 400,000 fewer young people aged 15-29 in rural areas than just 20 years ago,” the CRC trumpeted, “contributing significantly to a rural demographic which is both older and ageing faster than urban areas.”

Villages losing lifeblood as young head for towns

An exodus of the young to towns is one of the biggest threats to the viability of villages in England, a report suggests

• Bucolic boltholes: where to find peace and quiet

BACKGROUND

• Too much pressure

• What now for the property market?

• The property market shifts in favour of buyers

• London house prices break the £300,000 barrier

Related Internet Links

• Listen to the house price debate with Anne Ashworth

BACKGROUND

• Is the property boom finally over?

• Difficulty selling in Derbyshire

• Struggling first-time buyer in Cornwall

• The property shortage in the South

BACKGROUND

• The property market in Scotland

• The property market in Northern Ireland

BACKGROUND

• The property market in the East Midlands

• The property market in Wales

• The property market in the North West

• The property market in Yorkshire and the Humber

• The property market in the Northeast

BACKGROUND

• The property market in the West Midlands

• The property market in the Southwest

• The property market in the East

• The property market in the South East

• The London property market

But not ageing much faster: between 2001 and 2004 the average age in rural areas increased from 42.2 to 43.6; in urban areas it rose from 36.9 to 38.0. We are getting older as a nation. Young people need or want to live and work in cities. End of story.

And when “young people” do flock to the countryside they are not welcomed with a smile but interpreted as a threat. “Rural areas experienced over 200 per cent growth in the number of migrant workers in the last three years,” reported the CRC. From 21,000, that is, to 65,000 – it’s not exactly a flood, is it? In my village we’ve had a statistic-busting increase from no migrant workers at all, to three or five Poles – no one is quite sure how many they are – crammed into a tiny house. Perhaps the CRC would like to come and see how we are coping.

The truth is, no matter which way you look at it, that people in the countryside are far happier and better off than those in cities. Even the fact that we are richer was turned yesterday into a tale of woe, with reports that it costs £60 a week more to live in the countryside.

But that’s because people are richer and can afford to spend more, with average weekly disposable income of £522 compared with £476 in urban areas. We spend a little more on food, a lot more on transport and on household goods and services (well the houses are bigger), quite a bit more on recreation and culture (poor us), and a bit more on unidentified “miscellaneous” goods and “other expenditure”. In other words, we in the country seem to treat ourselves more. In the meantime, our exam results are far better, as is mental health, many more teenagers go on to higher education, and otters are making a comeback. It doesn’t sound all bad, does it? Oh, and you can breathe.

Even the huge increase in transport costs is avoidable – people in the countryside are exceptionally lazy about using buses. Nearly nine out of ten low-income households run one car, 30 per cent run two; compared with 46 and 8 per cent in urban areas. Yes, public transport is scarcer than in the cities, of course it is, but it does exist and it arrives on time. Most people do not use it because they choose the convenience of cars instead. They choose to spend some of their extra money on petrol, and more of it on commuting to work in urban areas by train – because they want to live in the countryside.

I do not think that hyping up nonexistent problems – the CRC defines being 1.25 miles from a Post Office and 2.5 miles from a bank as a “financial services desert” – helps the countryside. There are real problems with affordable housing, particularly in smaller and cuter villages whose residents consistently vote not to allow any more building into the parish plan. And some elderly people struggle to get to the bus or into town, just as they do in London or Liverpool, and people have to help them, just as they do in London or Liverpool.

I suppose the CRC has to justify its existence, and its £7.6 million budget. With an 11-strong board of commissioners and six directors – a director of advocacy, of organisation and development, of practice – that’s a lot of people to keep busy. And it’s growing: earlier this month it advertised for “energetic and creative people for a range of roles”, from Programme Development Officers to Research Analysts.

Energetic and creative? With a particular emphasis on creative, I should think.

Times Recommends

• Fantasy world fuelled by sex, drink and drugs
• In short, the story is growing on us again
• A literary feast that I can’t wolf down