READERS of the county councils anguished denunciation of the Governments green paper on reform of the planning system (letters, December 21 Working to protect county), can be forgiven a moment of schadenfreude.

The claim by Cllr Shakespeare and his cabinet to have protected Buckinghamshires rural environment through their Structure Plan needs to be judged against the fact that the plan is simply national (i.e. Government) policy in local guise.

It is therefore the Government against which the council cabinet now rails which provided the legislative and policy guidance in the first place to inform the council on what should be in the Structure Plan.

Setting policy is one thing; implementing it can be quite another.

The council has undoubtedly called on the Structure Plan as its authority for protecting the countys environment against inappropriate development when expedient to do so.

It is also quite prepared to tear up the Structure Plan when it is not.

One case is the maintaining in force of a proposal for new road built across green belt land in South Bucks the Wilton Park diversion.

It is by definition and by common agreement harmful to the green belt.

The council is silent when challenged to square its apparent pro-development stance on this issue with its proclaimed determination to protect Buckinghamshires environment.

A main plank in the Government case for reform of the planning system is widespread dissatisfaction in the country with present arrangements. Importantly this includes dissatisfaction by the public.

The council has stimulated disquiet by its past refusal to involve people effectively in planning and transportation, or give direct answers to direct questions.

Cllr Shakespeare and his colleagues have only themselves to blame if the Government has fastened on to, among others, complaints it has received about the councils poor past record on consultation and policy implementation and has turned that into a reason for fundamental change.

How ironic therefore that just as the council finally and laudably appears to be beginning to accept in the context of the Beaconsfield Transportation Study that open and impartially conducted dialogue brings everyone benefits and itself friends among well informed and well intentioned environmentalists, its role as part of the planning system is under serious threat.

No one is likely to dispute that the planning system has failed in many respects.

That is, however, no justification for the Governments green paper assertion that the counties are no longer the appropriate level for strategic planning and unless the case for that claim can be made convincingly, there will be wide support for the councils intention to challenge it and to oppose the abolition of structure plans.

The council should seek the views of its electorate on the issue, putting the pros and cons, possibly thereby getting communities behind it in contesting Governments aims.

It will have to come up with telling arguments, when not bankable offers, however, to counter the very attractive proposals in the green paper greatly to enhance the role of communities in deciding planning matters.

Tony Blake-Pauley

Ledborough Lane

Beaconsfield