Sir, That the South East Plan could be presented as a bottom-up exercise (letter, March 29; see also letters, April 2) merits a simple refutation — my foot!

The plan is predicated on the continuing economic growth of London as a commercial centre, relying on tradition and the self-interest of participants. However, technology is changing these patterns with new freedoms of location and interaction.

London’s problems of living and travelling are addressed by ever-higher rates of investment and by transferring most of the problems beyond its boundaries. The larger towns of the South East survive by the rebuilding of those whose character is already lost, and by rigorous restraint by those which retain their self-respect. The latter export their problems and costs but the countryside and its villages cannot deflect the problems of others as their local plans provide no protection. The external pressures which degrade and destroy the fragile fabric of community are beyond control.

A viable plan must be for the perceived benefit of those in the South East. For instance, cost is of little concern to the well-paid for whom second homes can compensate for a loss of quality in the inner city. What about the remainder? How is the cost of their reasonable expectations taken into account against the wider objectives?

In the longer term, such a top-down diktat as the South East Plan entails unspecified cost and a reduction in quality of living. Short-term measures, such as the import of cheap labour to live in sub-standard conditions in areas of high cost, only add to the problems of the next generation.

Beware of any policy to which the originally respectable but now grossly insulted and put-upon term of sustainability is applied.

Yours faithfully,
ALAN MUIR WOOD,
Franklands, Bere Court Road,
Pangbourne, Berkshire RG8 8JY.
April 4.

Explore Letters

• Feedback