#Planoraks Summer Quiz 2025: the worst planning article… *ever*?
And so finally, finally… we’ve made it to August. Schools: shut. Planning Court: shut. Parliament: shut. But at least one thing is open: #planorak studios, where under the bright lights and the rolling cameras, we strike up the house band, because it’s time for the maybe-now-to-become-annual [drumroll purrrlease…] #planoraks Summer Quiz.
[Hold for applause].
Thank you. Good evening.
Only one round, this year. And in the hot-seat is… you. So, come on down, friends. Fingers on buzzers. No cheating. Promise? Here we go.
[Lights drop. Tense background music…]
Question 1. I will say this only once. What do these 4 things have in common:
Coal
Sleeping gas.
Walls.
Cake.
Any joy? No? Need a bit more… ok. Here’s another 4 (same connection as the first 4):
Confederate statues.
Football tackles.
Military weapons.
Police raids.
Getting warm? Not quite? OK… try these:
Rooms.
Phones.
World war.
Missile strikes.
Still nothing? This is disappointing. Well, how about:
Tariffs.
Soil.
Farming.
The colour red.
Time’s up… did you get there?
All of those things, yes all of them, every single one: they are all things that current US President Donald Trump has described as “beautiful”. No, really.
So I hope we can agree on something - putting politics and any red caps to one side - just as, you know, users of the English language. I hope we can see eye to eye on one plain truth: the current US President is a man who has not the faintest clue what “beautiful” means. Not. A. Clue. Missile strikes?!?!
To be fair to him, he isn’t the only one who doesn’t know what it means:
As I explained here back in 2021, the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission didn’t know what “beauty” meant either.
Nor did the then-Government (albeit that didn’t stop them scattering it into national planning polcicy).
Someone else who doesn’t appear to know what it means: multiple #planorak-award-winner Simon Jenkins.
How else to explain this headline-for-the-ages:
First thing’s first: could it be a hoax? [It isn’t, Ed.] Because surely, surely, even a moment’s research would alert you to our one plain truth above: the one thing Donald Trump absolutely does not have - not even close - is an “eye for beauty”. Police raids?!? Sleeping gas?!?
But that doesn’t stop Simon Jenkins: the doyenne of bad writing about UK urban planning. Simon is to the #planoraks “worst article of the year” award what Tom Hanks is to the best actor Oscar, what Jimi Hendrix is to the Fender Stratocaster, what Serena Williams is to grand slams. He is undeniable. The Spectator’s “worst columnist in Britain”. Someone who thinks, as an older causcasian man, that he is discriminated against 'like a black person 30 years ago'. The reviews go on: Simon is “wrong about everything”. We get this from a piece on Simon’s polemical book about the Celts:
“While some researchers go to great lengths to painstakingly reference their work, and still struggle in vain to find a publisher, Jenkins, whose work is entirely devoid of references, seems to have faced no such hurdle.”
Another admirer says:
“His reasoning is consistently circular. He never lifts the bonnet on any of the arguments (very likely because is unable to do so), so that the uninformed reader cannot tell why he favours one idea over another.”
This is just the kind of approach Simon has blessed us with in the #plan-o-sphere for many years now. But is it possible… is it just possible… that’s Simon J has now outdone even his own award-smashing standards? And has written… whisper it quietly… the worst article about planning… ever?
Let’s get into it:
The headline we’ve discussed already. It’s bananas. And, sure, columnists don’t always write their own headlines, so maybe we have a hapless Guardian sub-editor to blame for coining the silly idea that Trump “has an eye for beauty”. But what about the rest of it. Let’s take some of the highlights. In order of appearance:
“Trigger warning. Some readers may find this disturbing. Not everything Donald Trump says is mad and a lie.”
We can give him this much: not everything Trump says is a lie. Fair enough, Simon. On the other hand, it might just be worth noting that Trump’s first 4-year term included around 30,573 lies. So although not literally everything he says is a lie, you know… statistically speaking… there’s a fair few. But really - I promise - this isn’t a blog post about US politics. It really isn’t. Well, ok. It might be just a little bit. But for now, let’s get back to planning. Simon goes on…
“This week it was announced that [the White House] is to get what it has always lacked, a sumptuous new ballroom in which to receive and entertain foreign dignitaries. It is to be classical, with no nonsense about trying to make it look modern. That a president should seek to revive both regional and European style in the face of America’s relentless modernism is a breath of fresh air.”
Just for the record, this “sumptious” ballroom is not (as Simon says) an example of restrained “American Classicism”.
No. This is a gold-leaf, Versailles-esque, Mar-a-Lago knock-off in the full-on baroque, grandiose Louis XIV-style, flush with gold lighting pendants and chandeliers. Not, as Simon says, a design “born of an admiration for France’s republicans”. Let’s call it like it is: there’s nothing republican about it. Love it or hate it, but - architecture-wise - this building is born out of an obsession with the monumental scale, gilt-edged opulence of the palaces of French kings. What does that say about the psyche of the orange gentleman who commissioned it? Well. Who could possibly say. Simon continues…
“Whatever Trump says about wind power killing birds and driving whales mad – most of it rubbish – there is no denying that about 4,000 giant turbines are now desecrating Scotland’s in-shore waters.”
Just for the record. Not the main point. But in case you don’t know what you’re dealing with here: Trump says that wind turbines drive whales “loco”, “batty” and end up killing them. Any evidence to support it? Nope. Obviously.
Do turbines kill birds? Yes they do. In the hundreds of thousands total every year. But if we were really worried about birds, you know what we’d get rid of? Domestic cats. Which kill billions (yes, billions) of birds every year. You know what else kills lots of birds? Climate change. Which is caused by, of course, fossil fuels. Overall, if you ask - you know - experts, the diagnosis is that “wind energy is an electricity generation technology that significantly reduces environmental and health impacts”, including on birds. But let’s not allow the facts to get in the way of… you know…
To move beyond the red herrings: Simon J’s key thesis is that turbines “desecrate” the landscape, and that only Trump (unlike our own grovelling excuses for ministers) is brave enough to care about it:
“The reality is that I cannot recall a single British minister who would these days mention scenic beauty as a consideration in any area of policy, be it energy or planning or transportation. A generation ago, few in Britain would likewise have dared to complain about the building of ugly petrol stations in open country, where most now lie empty and derelict. So now no one – other than Trump – dares complain about turbines.”
I mean… 🤯. You need 2 things to get yourself to a statement as wrong as that one: (i) ignorance, and (ii) no impulse to actually check. Simple. Simon has form for not checking. So can we do a counter-point with just a few basic facts - any of which would’ve taken about 10 seconds to Google:
Who writes national planning policy in the UK? National energy policy? Ministers - that’s who. And does national policy “mention scenic beauty as a consideration”? Ummmmm…. let me think…. oh yes it does. Once or twice. I remember something in there about National Parks. National Landscapes (previously AONBs). “Valued” landscapes - more of which here.
And do our weakling minsters have the cojones to stand up for beauty, and to dare to complain a-la-Trump about major new development? YES. OBVIOUSLY. Just a few weeks ago, Matthew Pennycook turned down a big new film studio outside Maidenhead because - among other things - he thought that “there would be very substantial harm to landscape character and this carries substantial weight”. A few months before that, he turned down a huge employment scheme in Warrington because, among things, there would be “significant harm to the character and appearance of the area” which got “significant weight”.
But hang on. I thought Simon said scenic beauty never even got a look in? I wonder what research he did before writing that? I wonder who at the Guardian even asked him to corroborate it before publication? 🤔
The truth is - as you know - that even in the many schemes that have been approved by this Government, landscape impacts regularly feature in detail and are weighed carefully. That they can sometimes be outweighed by other things, e.g. the vast national need for more renewable energy, is not evidence of ministers lacking the “daring” to stand up for nature. It’s (obviously) the opposite. We need solar and wind and hydro and wave and bioenergy precisely to preserve the nature Simon says nobody (except him and Trump) cares about. We need it all, and - as the Government has explained - we need it urgently. Onshore, offshore. You name it. Whether or not those needs outweigh impacts on the landscape is a question of judgment every time. That’s what the planning system is for.
Does all of that mean that landscape and scenic beauty is irrelevant to where renewable infrastructure goes? NOOOOO. Obviously not. You already know this. The Government literally tells us - in black and white - to factor in landscape designations when deciding where to put renewable energy infrastructure. And requires schemes to “minimise adverse effects on the landscape character, visual amenity and quality”. And to refuse permission in National Parks and Landscapes absent “exceptional circumstances”. And on, and on, and on.
So this is my point: Simon’s basic thesis about Trump being the only one prepared to speak up for scenic beauty, while UK ministers cower in the corner. It is (genuinely) nonsensical. But the only way to find out any of that would be to read what our minsters actually say about any of this. And to be fair, who has the time. Simon continues…
“Clearly there is a limit to what Trump can change in just four years in office. Much of what he does is psychodrama and playacting. The president with whom he is becoming comparable is Teddy Roosevelt after 1900. He too tested the limits of presidential power. He too was frantic to lead the daily news agenda. But he too seemed to care about America’s natural environment, its forests and deserts, and a role for Washington in their custodianship.”
So, to put it in a nutshell: sure, Trump may be decimating constitutional norms and expanding the scope of executive power, but never you mind because Simon thinks he “seems” to care about the environment.
Evidence for that seeming to care? Well, of course: it’s Trump’s moaning about being able to see off-shore wind turbines in the distance as he is carted around his private Scottish golf course. I mean. As Justin Timberlake used to say: cry me a river. We’re hardly in David Attenborough territory here. After which, Simon brings it home…
“Where Trump ends up leading his country and the western world may well prove alarming. It is certainly impossible to predict. But I find it refreshing to have a leader unashamed to talk of beauty and ugliness. I like him being ready to debate style.”
There you have it. The nub of the article: sure, Trump may be an “alarming”, “frantic” man who “tests the limit of presidential power”, but isn’t it “refreshing” that he hates the very sight of wind turbines when he’s trying to play golf in peace. I mean. I give up.
And in the end, it’s that epic mix of ignorance, lack of research or any analytic rigour, disdain for facts, and a loving embrace of reactionary self-interest over and above, as Simon puts it, the future of “the western world” which puts this piece into the elite category of, for my money, one of the very worst things ever written about the UK planning system. Congratulations to everyone involved. It’s a good thing it’s not disseminated by any national media orginisa…. oh dear.
Have a wonderful summer, #planoraks. I hope you scored well on the quiz. Your prize? It’s a goodie: not hearing again from me until the Autumn. That, and a cuddly toy. Stay well. Remember the sun-screen. And, whatever else you do, through all the nonsense, try your level best to #keeponplanning.
