What is required is for amenity societies to focus on what is best for the current and future inhabitants of an area and to treat every planning application on its own merits. Where there are opportunities for large new residential developments amenity societies should help identify these, but all the large sites that come to mind are outside of SE23.
The problem is that current inhabitants are likely to be more influention in amenity societies that future ones. If we model amenity societies as taking decisons with will maximise the number of their members whose property values will increase, then they would generally resist development; development will generally mean:
1. a significant increase in the wealth of the developer;
2. the relatively modest benefit future residents of such developments will experience (if they didn't think they were benefiting, they wouldn't move in); and
3. any loss neighbour of the development experience.
If it ever came to an amenity society vote, the third group would carry it every time.
Of course the FH Soc is nothing like as crude as this, but I still feel it telling that Michael cannot think of development sites in his area, but can elsewhere.
But even if an amenity society wasn't willing to see developments in their area, it wouldn't make much difference. We have planning policy set by elected councillors from across the borough and, as has been pointed out to Tim by a councillor, they are quite capable of overruling civic societies - at least when those groups are being purely NIMBYist without valid justification.
Indeed, which means amenity societies do nothing to influence future development positively. I would prefer to see more dispersed, small scale development, rather than the sorts of large developments which seem to happen.
But amenity societies continue to do a good job in providing valid objections to frightening planning application, like Miriam Lodge.
No quibble with this ..
I think that Tim is being more than a little unfair in attacking amenity societies for their role in planning policy. The point is that they try to represent local feelings, and what is right in Telegraph Hill is different to Forest Hill or Bellingham; their concerns are different and require different solutions.
I think all I said was that they were part of the problem than part of the solution, the problem being society's failure to build enough homes. I could well, and perfectly consistently, think that the good work amenity societies do in other ways, including in planning issues, outweigh this problematic aspect of their behaviour.
Search
Help
| 
