Rural matters
Sir: Alexander Waugh’s reference to planning officers asking impertinent questions about sexuality (‘The countryside under attack’, 20 March) reveals but a glimpse of the crackpot behaviour considered normal by these people. Last autumn, I went to an event sponsored by CABE, the government architecture quango, in which someone was brought in to lecture the audience, mainly council planners or diversity officers, on the importance of ‘inclusive planning’. This apparently requires councils to analyse the supposed different needs of people according to their race, religion or sexual identity, and to ensure that plans for public spaces are designed accordingly. The speaker’s argument rested on a series of astonishing non-sequiturs and ended with her excited announcement that she was conducting what she called ‘research’ into the different ways that LGBT — lesbians, gays, bisexuals, the transgendered — experience their environment, so that this could be translated into planning bylaws.
I was particularly struck by the fact that any dissent from this attitude was treated by the assembled diversity officers as high treason.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in