Planning for the future
I disagreed with the thrust of your criticism of Britain’s planning system (“Free the bulldozers”, September 3rd). The system seeks to strike a balance between competing interests, most glaringly between private and public and local and national, and it does this well. The picture you painted is one that has delivered nothing but stagnation. This is far from the case. London’s skyline has been radically transformed and towns and cities regenerated, admittedly sometimes with mixed results. At the same time, it has preserved much of our historic heritage and protected our green spaces and biodiversity.
Planning needs a degree of consensus to work effectively. This has been in short supply of late and not helped by the muddled thinking of the government. The Oxford to Cambridge arc, once trumpeted as globally significant, was shelved in favour of “levellingup”, whatever that means. Strategic regional planning and the Infrastructure Planning Commission were dropped in favour of “localism”, with predictable results. Aiming for net-zero carbon emissions while at the same time banning new onshore wind development is quite frankly daft. And goodness knows what the current plans are for Heathrow airport.
There is certainly scope for planning reform but politicians of all stripes need to be clear-eyed that reform in itself cannot dodge the issues. Planning decisions of any scale involve trade-offs and hard choices.
DAVID EVANS
Colchester, Essex
The economic purpose of the British planning system is to restrict the supply of new housing. All other planning constraints are collateral damage to this goal. For most Britons, their home is their primary asset. The result is intense political pressure to drive up house prices. The state does this by manufacturing structural shortages; divesting from social housing and restricting new planning permissions. As long as private-home ownership dominates British tenure it will not be possible to solve the housing crisis or reform the planning system.
JACK SELF
Architect London
So Britain’s woes are all the fault of nimbys (Not in My Back Yard)? Well I am a gommby (paid Good Money for My Back Yard). What do I do when I encounter a grospy (Getting Rich On Spoiling People’s Yards) with a grab (the Goal of Raising Awful Buildings)? There’s no hint of a crilby (Compensation for Real and Intangible Loss on Back Yards). So of course I am ANGRY.
GEOFFREY PLANER Winchester, Hampshire
Your despair of British planning delays brings to mind an exchange at a planning convention. A French practitioner had been invited and was asked why projects in France completed more quickly. Her reply was, “In France, when we decide to drain a swamp we do not consult the frogs.”
ROD TIPPLE Cambridge