Croziervision

10 September 2005

Against Planning

The Independent says: “Creeping urbanisation ‘could destroy rural England in 30 years’ “

To which Stephen Pollard replies: “At least there’s some good news around.”

Now, I suspect that Stephen doesn’t really mean this. I think what he actually means to say is that he doesn’t like planning. I don’t either. I also suspect he has doubts about the “concreting over” propaganda (me too) but just finds it easier to be offensive than to list out the whole counter-argument in all its complexity.

Permalink • Feedback (4) • Planning

Feedback

We just need to get rid of the fucking Green Belts. (Well, that would be a good start, anyway).

Posted by Michael Jennings on 12 September 2005
“Easier to be offensive”? Nah, just couldn’t resist a feed line.

Posted by Natalie Solent on 14 September 2005
Look at “The Containment of Urban England” by Sir Peter Hall et al for a pretty definitive assessment of both how it happened and the consequences in terms of social exclusion and land costs.

“It is an analysis of the British town and country planning system, based on a formidable amount of statistical research. It focuses on the processes of urban growth in England and Wales since World War II and describes how the planning movement tried to contain and guide it”. (from the wikipedia entry on Peter Hall.)

It is out of print now but from memory although he accepts - indeed demonstrates - that Planning has driven up land values in the SE especially, he still seems to believe that some sort of planning system is needed.

Peter Hall also wrote - along with Rayner Banham and others - a very influential article in 1969 in New Society called “Non-Plan: an experiment in freedom”, (more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Barker_(writer) )

Another, much less satisfactory article on planning without the state is in the book The Voluntary City. It is less satisfactory because it contains many inaccuracies that detract from the author’s case.

As for Hyde Park etc they remained open because the Royal owners wanted them to be so. Perhaps the Commons were just that and managed to avoid the sort of theft inherent in the enclosure movement.

Posted by ian on 08 November 2007
It amazes me that this fight still goes on and on. Inova needs to “man up” and accept that fact that like every other business, there is going to be competition.

Posted by carpet cleaning companies on 20 February 2009