“"Planning", in common with a raft of other legislation in health, welfare and education, was born of idealism after the Second World War. The "idealism" related to preventing the ugliness and despoilation associated with the industrialisation of the previous centuries by the introduction of "zoning", democratic control of development and green belts. Hand in hand with housing legislation, it unashamedly tackled "slum" housing, created tower blocks, peripheral housing and industrial estates and was generally obsessed by the motor car. Whether overall it achieved its utopian objectives or whether we would be better or worse today without it, is open to debate. The question is, what utopian idea underpins current planning policy - if one exists? Clearly the WI think they know.”

“I missed out "described"

Sorry!”

“The W.I., like the National Trust and CPRE, are what could be as "comfortably conservative and middle-class".
Smug in their little world of village greens and jam-making.”

“Big business and planners are just in it for the money. If anyone thinks that they have the best interests of the general public and the homeless in mind, then you must have just fallen out of the trees..”

“Power to the WI, National Trust, CPRE, and any other organisation ready to stand up to the the proposed planning fiasco. It's not only about housing developments on green belt land instead of brown field sites. Atrocious decisions already being nodded through by Cornwall Planning Dept. Why are they not having site meetings ? A number of irresponsible, unneighbourly decisions already passed in what was a beautiful hamlet on the outskirts of Constantine, the latest planning granted for a hairdressing in a garden shed ! Access is over a private access only lane just a car width wide !!!”

“Dear Eddie PZ,
Please think about the boundaries and sizes of towns and villages in Cornwall in 1961.
Please think about the same in 2011, ask yourself where do you expect the ever increasing population to live in 2061?
Perhaps underground at Geevor ? please be realistic, and realise high rise/ Cornwall is never going to work so whilst there is an ever increasing population you will always need ever increasing housing.
There is so much mumbo jumbo talked about developers, land banks building on greenfield cliff sites in coastal paradise at present. It is never going to happen in the short or medium term, nobody has the money or is likely to get it from any bank soon. The W.I. are entitled to their opinion as we all look back to the [good old days.] Look at the planning act law 20 years ago and you will quickly discover this is where this government is trying to take us.
Good on them at least they have the guts to try and put the planning monster back into its cage. They have my vote whilst they try to sort the mess out..”

“As MP Andrew George has pointed out on many occasions, the huge level of housebuilding in Cornwall in recent years has not dented the numbers of people on housing waiting lists. Clearly, the developers want plots with good views - and Cornwall if full of them - which under the New National Planning Policy framework will automatically be nodded through. Then comes the big profit.

Common sense would say brownfield sites first, but every developer knows these are not always in desirable locations and are nearly always more costly to develop than a greenfield site.

And then we get to the heart of the matter. The government wants to stimulate the national economy with a massive housebuilding programme. When you watch any programme on TV about youngsters serving apprenticeships they are always seen bricklaying. The plan is obviously to cover the countryside with concrete and brand anyone who offers any objection a nimby.

Personally I thought the tories cared more for our countryside than their planning policies appear to indicate. They certainly won't be getting my vote ever again.

As for claims that developers aren't banking land, we have a site in Nancledra, Penzance, that was first given consent in 1974 and not a stone has yet been laid. That's what I call a land bank. And it's being repeated throughout Cornwall. If you destroy our countryside then you destroy tourism which, like it or not, is still one of the main employers in the County.

Mark Kaczmarek's comment about each village taking its share is, again, nonsense. Simply building homes without the jobs and infrastructure to support them is not sustainable. All it means is more green fields gobbled up and more cars taking their owners, assuming that they have jobs, to work places often situated miles away.

Well done the WI. With your help we will keep Britain's green and pleasant land.”

“TheodoreV, couldn't agree more re; rejecting or disproportiantely caveating small developments whilst letting through massively inappropriate large scale developments.
Many planning applications seem to get through on the nudge depending on who you are. The University for example get anything they propose passed. They have an established and successful strategy of going in with low numbers (conversely to many developers) to get the principle of development agreed and then put successive applications in to eek the numbers up little by little to an unsustainable density. Each time there is never quite enough for residents to complain about but you wake up one day and realise they've managed to double the size of the original application, there is no clarity or transparancy in the planning process in this regard. ECC totally disregard the massive impact these developments have on residents because they are totally beholden to the University.”

“Planning, and the profession that tries to implement it, like a lot of things these days, is creaking at the seams. Why? Because it is conflicted over what it is intended to do and how. On the one hand to protect the existing infrastructure and landscape, on the other to facilitate development, which often represents the antithesis of these goals. Many planning decisions appear irrational and contradictory. This, and the emphasis on the pedantic hurdles imposed on small works has brought the whole system into disrepute. There is widespread exasperation that what proves expensive and difficult for some, proves easy for others and that the planning system fails to prevent inappropriate development. There is a desperate need for the underlying rationale of planning to be revisited to clarify what it needs to do and how it should do it.”

“Instead of allowing widespread development on green sites why are they not concentrating on brown field sites? There are thousands of derelict sites that could be developed but do they get built on? Oh no they have to tear up the countryside for expensive houses that no-one in Cornwll can afford so the second home problem gets worse. And I know for a fact that land banking is a serious problem and should be stopped.”