¹ See, among others, Morgenthau, H., Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (Chicago, 1946)Google Scholar, Ch. 5; or Simons, H., Economic Policy for a Free Society (Chicago, 1946)Google Scholar.

² Perhaps this statement is unfair. “Individual freedom” remains a matter of definition. For socialists, political or civil freedom without economic freedom (security) remains vague conceptualism. Few socialists, moreover, would agree that “individual freedom” had in fact a lesser priority in Britain today. Indeed the opposite would be maintained, with considerable justice: one thinks immediately of frequent strikes in nationalized industry, of unrestricted and unrestrained criticism of the Government by the opposition press, etc. Nevertheless, the Labour Government, with Jeremy Bentham, appears to regard majority welfare as an overriding moral imperative.

³ Presthus, R. Vance, “Financial Aspects of Britain's National Coal Board”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 12, pp. 348–370 (June, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Kennedy, R. T., “A Ministry for All Town and Country Planning in England and Wales”, Traffic Quarterly, Vol. 3, p. 148 (April, 1949)Google Scholar.

⁵ Ministry of Works and Planning, Expert Committee on Compensation and Betterment, Final Report (Cmd. 6386, London, H.M.S.O., 1942), p. 27Google Scholar.

⁶ “It was during the war, after the bombing of our main towns, that the public took a remarkable interest in planning. Before the war few people had realised what could be done to improve our towns and even those who did lived in despair. But the bombing tore gaps in many congested areas and it was obvious that we should have to rebuild on a large scale as well as add new suburbs. The question was how? At that time we were thinking hard about the future, though all our energies were devoted to war. They were difficult days and we had to believe we could put many things right when we got out of the immediate mess. We were going to be forced to rebuild whole districts in our towns and there was a natural and universal agreement that we could improve on the hit-and-miss methods of our fathers. We could do it through planning” (ProfessorStephenson, Gordon, “New Towns Policy in Great Britain”, paper read at the National Conference, American Institute of Planners, Long Beach, California, September 16, 1948)Google Scholar.

⁷ For an excellent interpretative work on the Act, see Kekwick, J., Town and Country Planning Law (London, 1947)Google Scholar; also Harvard Law Review, Vol. 60, pp. 800–811 (May, 1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Presthus, R. Vance, “British Public Administration: The National Coal Board”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 9, pp. 200–210 (Summer, 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ 10 and 11 Geo. 6, c. 51., Sec. 3(1).

¹⁰ Ibid., Sec. 43(2).

¹¹ This is an idealized statement of an infinitely complicated process, the ramifications of which cannot be considered here.

¹² Ministry of Works and Planning, Expert Committee on Compensation and Betterment, op. cit., p. 11.

¹³ “Development” is defined in the Act as “the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or land.”

¹⁴ The Act merely adumbrated, in a single subsection, 70 (2), the method of determination of this charge. Administrative regulations have since outlined a formula and an attempt has recently been made to set down generalizations. See Leach, W. A., “Principles of Development Charge Valuations”, Journal of Planning Law, pp. 145–154 (March, 1949)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ “Local participation” here is meant to include not only the activity of the local planning authority and subordinate units of government (non-county boroughs, urban and rural districts), but also the measure of influence enjoyed by local interest groups and the individual.

¹⁶ For a critical analysis of American practice to the contrary, see Walker, Robert A., The Planning Function in Urban Government (Chicago, 1950)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ In Lancashire County, between July 1, 1948, and December 31, 1949, the system of delegation functioned as follows: 20,960 applications for planning permission were received. The local district councils dealt with 66.5 per cent of these, mostly of a minor character. The Divisional Planning Committee handled 16.5 per cent, including those matters which (a) were likely to affect the development plan or (b) concerned questions of regional or national policy. The County Committee (after obtaining the observations of the subordinate committees) considered 7.7 per cent of the total applications, including those submitted by a local authority for development requiring authorization by a government department; those involving mining or advertizing displays; those involving cases where compensation claims are likely to arise; and those involving matters which affect the development plan or require extensive consultation with government departments, as in the case of industrial siting, the location of trunk roads, and the like (9.3 per cent of the applications were in process at the time of this review). Of 18,980 decisions made on these applications by March, 1950, 6,430 were approved unconditionally; 11,298 were approved subject to modification of the proposed development to meet objections by the committee concerned; and 1,252 were rejected.

¹⁸ Cities in Evolution (London, 1949)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ For an analysis of the conditions under which appeal has been accepted, see Brown, H. J., “Planning Appeal Decisions”, Journal of Planning Law, pp. 188–197 (Feb. 1950)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Ibid.,; also “Procedure and Evidence at Public Local Inquiry”, Journal of Planning Law, pp. 30–40 (Jan., 1951)Google Scholar.

²¹ An aggrieved developer may challenge the Minister's decision by application to the High Court seeking negation through orders of cerliorari or mandamus. R. V. East Kesteven Rural District Council, Exp. Sleaford and District White City Sports Stadium Co. 63 T.L.R. 112: 1947, All E.R. 310. Similarly, an intrepid applicant believing that his proposal does not in fact constitute “development” and is therefore exempt from planning control, may proceed with the venture, bringing into operation an enforcement order against which he can appeal to a court of summary justice which will consider his plea de novo. If unsuccessful, however, he is liable to removal of the offending development without compensation.

²² “Fundamentally, the inquiry serves to combat any public impression that the planning mechanism is a ruthless use or misuse of power” (Haar, Charles, “Appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947”, Public Administration, p. 43 [Spring, 1949]Google Scholar).

²³ In Lancashire County, for example, of 164 appeals submitted between July 1, 1948, and December 31, 1949, 82 were rejected, 43 sustained, and 26 withdrawn (either the applicant withdrew his appeal or the planning authority modified its original decision). Thirteen cases were pending as of March, 1950, the time of this summation.

²⁴ Thus the recent comment of the Central Land Board: “[Whereas] one of the principles underlying the Town and Country Planning Acts is that land should be sold for development at existing use value … evidence available to the Board of prices paid for land for development suggests that sales at or near existing use value are more the exception than the rule” (Annual Report, 1949–50, p. 10 [London: H.M.S.O., 1950]Google Scholar).

²⁵ Felton, M., “Democracy in Town and Country Planning”, Political Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 79–82 (Jan.–March, 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ McCulloch, F. J., “Physical Planning and Industry”, Town Planning Review, Vol. 20, pp. 64–80 (April, 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ In America the unfortunate effect of uncoordinated physical and economic planning is illustrated by the “Greenbelt Towns” which, contrary to Howard's garden city concept which inspired them, have remained suburban, expensively far from employment.

²⁸ The (London) Times, July 1, 1948, p. 5, for example, could say: “The authorities have so far failed to convey to the public even the most elementary facts about the new procedure … few yet understand the methods of community planning or the discipline which planning asks for. While this lack of understanding persists there will be fresh outbursts of anger over every proposed ‘new town’ and at every official attempt to pull down a ‘Briar Patch’ unlawfully erected by some sturdy individualist.”

²⁹ Central Land Board, op. cit., p. 4.

³⁰ “Memorandum on the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947”, Journal of Planning Law, pp. 528–548 (July, 1950)Google Scholar.

³¹ Town and Country Planning Association, “Bracknell New Town”, Town and Country Planning, p. 97 (Summer, 1949)Google Scholar; also Felton, M., “Britain's Model Town: Peterlee”, Journal American Institute of Planners, Vol. 15, pp. 40–43 (Spring, 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² The (London) Times, July 1, 1948, p. 5Google Scholar.