I did not intend this thread to be a monologue - come on let's have some views out there!

Having had a look at some of the recent applications the main thing I have noted is what could be seen as arrogant developers, pouring scorn on existing properties, in order to justify their 'cutting edge' ideas. Those opposing are made out to be luddites and NIMBY's when all they want to do is get on with their lives.

The planning system appears to favour developers in that they can apply until they are successful, with planning officers advising what they have to do, and at the same time the local authority risk being taken to appeal. Generally they will have funds to do this. Once a contentious design has gone through, that sets a precedent which others follow.

The objectors (Council Tax payers) have their democratically elected representatives to look after their interests, but when the system fails (and I am not having a dig at our ward councilors) what options are there? There is no right to appeal. The Ombudsman cannot overturn decisions and in any case the local authority can ignore this. High Court Action costs ?10,000 upwards, and if lost two or three times more.

And meanwhile, what were prestine examples of interesting 30s architecture in the streets around Horniman Park are getting a more and more disjointed and disharmonious look. The Thorpes are a conservation area because they are similarly an example of interesting Edwardian architecture. But unless it is Art Deco, or modernist, people still look down on 30's housing stock.

The highly organised Crystal Palace Campaign, with many members who were in the professions, articulate speakers and press officers, friends in the government, local authorities and media, and good at publicity and raising funds, lost in the High Court.

So back to the original posting (a) is there a counter argument, and (b) apart from ranting on this site, and writing letters of complaint, what should residents do?