THE PLAN FOR PLANNING
There is no avoiding the problem. The war has settled that. It has led to large-scale destruction of public buildings, houses and business premises in the hearts of great cities, which will have to be rebuilt for better or worse. It has uprooted large sections of the population, and distributed them chaotically over the country. It has altered the siting of industry, and still further changed the location of population, which wat already changing when the Barlow Commission began its sittings. To the problems which existed before the war—those of the shapeless growth of suburbs and new towns, haphazard and unsightly building in the country, ribbon-development along the roads, the flight of popula- tion from old industrial areas, unsightly settlements around new factories, and the spoiling of the sea-coast by spreading bungalow growths—to all this it has added new problems of such urgency that to neglect them. after the war would be impossible. If a decent national plan is to emerge it is now or never. Before the war ends it must be decided upon what principles the recon- struction of cities is to be undertaken in the interest of the community, and how the development of undeveloped land outside the towns is to be controlled. The nation would not tolerate a return to the chaos of speculative land development, and would be profoundly disappointed if the opportunity were missed to give utilitarian balance and dignity to the towns.
The Uthwatt Committee approach their task by making an "assumption." Is there some tinge of irony in their use of this word? It is that national planning is intended to be a reality ; that it will be directed to ensuring the best use of the land for the community and the individual ; and that it must involve some subordination to the public good of the personal interests of land- owners. There are some who will prick up their ears when they hear these words, but if they are not of the class which is bent on getting something for nothing they have no reason to be alarmed. The recommendations fall under two heads, those relating to undeveloped land, and those relating to developed land, that is to say, in towns and cities. In the case of the former, so long as land is undeveloped the Committee do not propose to interfere_ with the owner's rights of ownership, but what they do propose is to control the power of development— to ensure that no building schemes or projects of industrialisation should be undertaken except with the concurrence of the planning authorities. To attain this end they recommend that the rights of development in all land lying outside built-up areas should be immediately vested in the State, and that landowners should have fair compensation, according to a procedure described in the Report, for the loss of these rights. In other words, the State alone has the power to authorise development ; if unauthorised, it is prohibited ; if authorised, the State will purchase the land, and lease it to a developer, who may be the original owner or another. Here are powers, drastic but not too drastic, to prevent the use of the land to the disadvantage of the community, and to ensure its use when it is needed for public purposes or approved private development.
In the case of towns, where land has already been developed, the problem is one of redevelopment and reconstruction, according to area plans. Destruction by bombing has provided the oppor- tunity for the replanning of towns as a whole. The Committee have noted that Government spokesmen have emphasised that post-war reconstruction should have as one of its aims the trans- formation of towns and cities into more worthy centres of living designed to meet the needs of modern civilisation, and, therefore, they assume the necessity of plans laid on bold lines, providing for the clearance of slums and obsolete buildings, for adequate houses and traffic facilities, and for open spaces. Doubtless those who plan for London, for example, would be required to envisae changes as bold as those outlined in the Bressey Report. The first thing, therefore, is to provide by legislation that a plan should be prepared for every developed area in the country.
Given a plan—an approved plan—the next thing is to get it carried out. There is no way by which this can be done except by the method proposed by the Committee—by giving powers of compulsory purchase to Planning Authorities for the acquisition of damaged areas or unsatisfactory areas needing reconstruction or other land necessary to the scheme of development. To prevent the old scandal of unearned increment in the value of land which in the past has gone to lucky landlords or speculators instead of to the community which has created the increased value, they recommend that a percentage of such increased value should be paid by the owner. Also, they would empower local authorities, with the sanction of the Central Planning Authority, to purchase land likely to be increased in value by public improvements.
But what about the Central Planning Authority itself, upon which the whole scheme rests? There are obvious dangers that if a great new Government department were set up at Whitehall there would tend to accumulate in it and round it the all-too- familiar habits of bureaucracy and routine, with set ways of thought and irresponsiveness to public opinion and new ideas. To obviate this danger the Committee propose to set up a Minister for National Development free from departmental cares, while the administration of planning should be in the hands of a Commission comparable to the War Damage Commission, with a permanent chairman, who would enjoy the part-time assistance of persons experienced in public affairs—presumably architects, engineers, surveyors, industrialists, persons versed in problems of local govern- ment and students of town and country planning. How the finance of the scheme is to be worked is not clear, and this is an all- important point ; nor is it shown by what means the Central Authority, which is responsible for national planning, is to ensure that the plans of local authorities are adequate, or that they will dovetail into the master-plan for the country as a whole. The Committee certainly envisages over-riding powers, but it is not sufficiently clear how in the case of backward or wilful local authorities these powers are to become effective.
There are many obvious difficulties which present themselves, and a host of technical details which will no doubt be the subject of much criticism and controversy. But the broad principles laid down in the Report can scarcely be resisted if the Government is eamestly intent upon carrying out the promises it has made. The Report will find bitter opponents in those who have an interest in the exploitation of land, and hope to reap rich profits by continuing the ruthless development of the countryside which was doing so much before the war to disfigure and ruin it. It will be opposed by those who hope to make profit out of the war by speculative purchases of damaged properties, or by owners of mean dwellings, who will get no more than a fair purchase price when the Planning Authority steps in. It will be resisted by some sentimentalists, who think that all property rights are absolute and indefeasible. To all of these it must be pointed out that no new principle is adopted, or any that has not again and again been recognised in British social legislation ; that the rights of property are nowhere challenged except when they come in direct conflict with the interests of the community ; and these must be supreme. There can be no reconstruction without a plan, no plan without some element of compulsion. The Government is committed to planned reconstruction, and the acceptance of the gist of th moderate, well-informed, admirable report that has been presento to it will be an acid test of its sincerity. Nor is there much tint to be lost if the opportunity of a century i; to be seized. Th creation of a Central Planning Authority, armed with powers, already due and overdue. Enlightened opinion throughout th country will expect the Government to insist that the claims q the less scrupulous property-owners are not to hold up an effectiv programme of reconstruction—a programme anything less thal which would be incommensurate with the nation's ttials an endurance in the war.
Previous page
