BRITONS have always been renowned as free thinkers with inquiring minds. Throughout history we have questioned injustice and challenged authority to pursue our moral beliefs. We are a nation of non-conformists and a breed who don't like to be told what we can and can't do.

This week, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott announced he was going to ease rural planning rules in order to encourage the construction of modern, cutting-edge architectural designs for country houses.

Planning Policy Statement 7, as it is known, denounces historic architectural styles such as mock Georgian, Tudor and Jacobean, in favour of sharp angled, innovative, concrete and glass structures.

Mr Prescott's policy states that in countryside areas planning may not be granted if the design of the house replicates an historical architectural pastiche. The Blenheim Palaces and Chatsworth Houses of this world are not what Mr Prescott is promoting. His department is instead aiming to encourage the creation of modern structures which they hope will become the stately homes and tourist attractions of the future.

But that's surely not what our countryside is about. The reason why tourists from all around the world flock to rural Britain is because it is unspoilt, because there are traditional houses and thatched cottages and because it is an escape from the city and all that is new and modern.

I don't have a problem with innovative architecture, but I do have a problem with the Government telling us what kind of houses we can build. Isn't it a matter of taste?

As the saying goes, an Englishman's home is his castle. My interpretation of this old phrase is that English people should be able to have control of their own homes, including the way they look, and that no one is in a position to tell them otherwise.

These new planning guidelines have already been dubbed "Stalinist" and Mr Prescott criticised for his Big Brother approach. The architectural monstrosities of the 1960s are no doubt in the forefront of everyone's mind. These too were once viewed as cutting edge and progressive, but many are now white elephants which have no practical use and are certainly not aesthetically pleasing.

The irony of the scenario is that Two Jags himself lives in a turreted, mock Tudor house in Hull. I wonder how he'd feel if he wanted to move to the country, build his own home and was forced to live in an upmarket greenhouse. For Mr Prescott, it seems to be another case of do as I say not as I do.

IT WAS interesting to read this week about the York property owner's plans to raffle his latest renovation to 250 first time buyers with tickets priced at £1000 a throw.

This novel idea seems to be creating much interest. I suppose it's a bit different to the usual basket of fruit or navies' breakfast on offer at most raffles.

Mick Waddington has presented his money-making scheme as an act of benevolence to all prospective first time buyers who are struggling to get a foot on the property ladder. But with the house valued at £190,000, there is significant profit to be made.

Although the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 will not allow Mr Waddington's plans for the raffle to go ahead, the scheme is already a success. With all the publicity earned so far for the Penyghent Avenue property, I doubt Mr Waddington will have to seek an estate agent to off-load his house. That alone will save him a few bob and increase the profit he expects to earn.

I'm sceptical about the house raffle being an act of charity, but well done Mick, your entrepreneurial spirit will certainly get you the sale you seek.

Updated: 08:15 Saturday, August 07, 2004