Bureaucracy leads to disfigurement

Dear Sir, — I have exhausted all attempts at challenging a planning grant made on a neighbouring property. There are too many forces ranged against the individual and the system is heavily proceduralised. From my striving I have uncovered a rather eerie and disquieting fact: the proposal that there is local government is a falsehood. Yes, we may elect our councils and they may profess to be of a particular political leaning, but inevitably they are but a buffer zone for the bureaucratic heart of county management (which itself is a slave of central Government, parasitic on local doings).
I recently read an article that referred to an aspect of our self-conception. The theory was that there are two predominant sorts of people: the somewheres and the anywheres. 
The somewheres have an attachment to locality and see their surroundings as being individualistic, having an essence of themselves often stimulating pride, a protective urge.
The anywheres believe that place is unimportant and that they can thrive in any surroundings. 
Inevitably, the latter sort will be made mobile through qualification or skill: a group that has a transportable society in the commonality of their professional language. They are sorts who will probably pride themselves on their lack of attachment, viewing society as work and not inter-reliance or mutual accord. This is self-evident in the realm of planning.
In the case of East Cheshire, the conduct of the place has little observance of local elections or architectural themes or sanctity of scene or view, because the bureaucrats crafting it are absolved from the emotional reaction. They are unknowable creatures relying on those whom we do elect to keep the public at bay. In this way planning decisions are easy to make because, robbed of any kind of emotional restraint, unfeeling, unrestrained disfigurement can take place. 
When you can fall back on “the law says”, you immediately become a member of the anywheres and an enemy of parochialism, that thing called little England.
In the UK there will never be a revolt, no obduracy, no reckoning, because we believe that when politicians stand for seats on the council, matters that go on about us are a product of the general will, common commitment. Yet the political council is but a coating to the unreachable and unelected council: the bureaucrats. 
Coun Sam Corcoran, the council chair, will be found to be nonplussed by the activities of the non-political council over which he has evidently no control. This in itself is a negation of that process of election and attribution to a sympathetic dogma. The anywheres are slowly homogenising Great Britain as a one-size-fits-all, totally at their disposal, fiefdom that regards somewheres as impediments whom they are constantly having to push aside to impose their will. The somewheres, who think in terms of time and place, history and association, have no chance.
Democracy becomes a sham. — Yours faithfully,