(ok I'll bite, with apologies for a long post to come...)

Planning law + policy stifles uncontrolled development, but it does not stifle progress. In fact, it forces developers (and this includes councils) to conform to a wide range of laws and design guidance pertinent to the locale. The planning process also keeps relatively up to date with issues such as sustainability and public art, and can condition a permission to make sure they happen.

In most larger developments the planning process will ask for a section 106 agreement which extracts money from the developer to be used for publicly beneficial schemes - road improvements, public art etc. I don't think the process favours developers, but rightly sits somewhere between developer and public.

But what you have to remember when you talk about a 'hotch potch' of developments is that the built environment is never static, almost never one style or another. Even in Georgian or Victorian architecture there are many styles and sub-styles - that were debated vehemently at the time, some buildings being seen as too modern!

There is also the point that although many SE23'ers see (or wish to see) Forest Hill as a verdant suburban village, this is not the case any more. The Green Belt still effectively acts as a barrier to London's general spread, and London is projected to grow again to its pre-1970's population of 10 million. Where are all these people going to live? More homes are being planned in the Lower Lea Valley as part of the Olympic Legacy, and to a greater extent in the Thames Gateway but, like it or not, Forest Hill and other areas like it will have to cope with greater densification.

That means that the extremely lucky people who have been able to buy a house in Forest Hill will, in the next few years (and despite the credit crunch), see a) large developments like Forest Hill Central b) a lot of extensions, loft conversions and house-splitting and c) large-house-sized plots being developed with small blocks of 10+ flats.

In my opinion this is both necessary and morally right, within a context of a democratic planning control process. Remember, planning decisions (if anyone objects) are made by your elected peers, not the planning officers. And yes, I do feel that some objections to applications are examples of nimbyism.