Having lived and worked in the United Kingdom for the last 12 years, I've had a good chance to see a lot of the countryside of the UK. However, my recent rides around the English Civil War battlefields have given me a new perspective on the countryside and how much of it remains. There is still a good amount and it is beautiful.....and much against my gut, civil planning has made this the case.
I am torn over the level of civil planning required to build in the UK. The liberal in me says, if you own the land, you should be able to do what you want to with it. However, the pragmatist in me knows that the countryside would be quuickly overrun by the hordes building houses all over the place. Whilst it is understandable and even agreeable for this to be the case in place like the US, it is open to much more debate in a place the size of Oregon and a population of 60 million. Back on the other hand, why should urban dwellers be subjected to high housing prices and cramped, mid-20th century standards of living just because someone wants to see a 400 year old hedge retained instead of a string of houses. I think, in the balance, I still come down on the side of much less restrictive planning, but not as wholly as I might have at one time.

Finally, each time I head into the country, I realise how different and un-London-like Britain really is. Next time you visit Britain from abroad, or for that matter, leave London as a resident, go out into the real hinterlands and just ride down some single-track lanes in the country. Stop and look at the landscape. Buy an Ordnance Survey map, pull it out with a picnic or at a pub table and just see all of the interesting things within ten miles of where you're at. I guarantee you will be pleasantly surprised.

The rest of Britain is as different from London as most of the US is different from New York. In fact, I would argue that London has more in common with New York than it does with most of the rest of Britain.