1 MAY 1964, Page 4

Holding the Line

THis country has got itself into something of a mess over town and country planning. In recent years economic and human pressures have produced an alarming complexity of prob- lems. The rapid rise in population is making them very much worse. Yet none of the political parties has so far succeeded in putting across a clear and convincing programme for tackling them.

To the public the scene all too often looks chaotic. When a major plan for dealing with one large set of difficulties is published, such as the recent South-East Study and its accom- panying White Paper, it is immediately fallen upon by a horde of experts, each of whom faults it from his own point of view. The public are told that office buildings in London must be restricted, but they see huge glass towers arising all around the capital. They read of bold plans for improving communications, but observe that road congestion, like commuter rail travel, grows progressively more disagreeable. London's third airport, it is announced, is to be built within a brand-new town, with all the misery of noise that that entails for the inhabitants. A precious corner of Hyde Park is to be despoiled to make a car park. The charming old town of Deal is to be knocked about for a depressing bit of local authority development to the distress of

many of the people living there. And so on. These are merely random examples of widespread confusion.

The Town and Country Planning Associa- tion has this week tried to clear the air. `Fortunately,' writes Peter Self, chairman of the TCPA executive committee, 'most of these sub- jects are not the focus of strong party con- troversies.' With these words he introduces a pamphlet* which assembles the different parties' pronouncements on planning, and also contains the Association's own proposals for dealing with the mess. After reading it one is tempted to think it might be better if a little more strong party controversy did exist. At least some of the doubt about party attitudes would then dis- appear. In order to represent the parties' positions this pamphlet has had to cull frag- ments from speeches or unendorsed advisory reports. 'Authoritative party statements are not available on many subjects,' it is explained. This seems unfortunate.

A strong case is made for having a single Ministry responsible for national policies on the location of new development, land use and natural resources, and the co-ordination of re- gional and local plans. It may well be this is the only way of preventing in future the piecemeal, short-sighted specimens. of 'planning' which have so often proved disastrous. By chance, Professor Colin Buchanan has just given a warning of the dangers we must expect in a period dedicated to industrial productivity and rapid growth. He forecast that industrial development, with short- term objectives, is likely to get the green light regardless of whether or not it fits in with plans made in the interest of the country as a whole. The reduction of much of England to one vast suburb, interspersed with factories and riven by ever-expanding, ever-inadequate roads, is pain- fully near. It will certainly need determined and concerted exercise of government power—which- ever party forms the government—to hold the line.

* THE INTELLIGENT VOTER'S GUIDE TO TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING. (TCPA, 2s. 6d.) 'The statue is beautiful when it begins to be incomprehensible.'—Emerson.