Sorry. The point is that there are economic consequences of limiting how high people can build houses, and this example includes estimates of the magnitudes.

The main reason is what I would say is Michael's position as a local leader of opinion - his views and actions matter far more than other people's. I also chose not to let misrepresentations of what I think to pass without comment. Is that being personal?

I don't particularly think a local society should say where housing could go - if this is what you mean by 'direct the supply of housing', although what Michael has written on the matter is welcome. The original question was "Does FH Soc want more affordable houses?", not where. I thought it was a straight forward enough question. A simple yes or no would have done.

Economics is about how much people spend on what, so has to come into a discussion of how much people should spend on houses, or any restrictions of where people can spend money building houses. If this Forum is relevant to real life in SE23, then it's the right place to raise the economic consequences of decisions local politics. I have no privileged understanding of economics, and the economic arguments I am making are not controversial; they come from well the established 'micro-economics' of supply and demand.

Putting aside any personal issues, please remember the big picture, which is that there are hundreds of thousands of young people in London without a decent place to live, or paying excessive rents, so unable to save for their futures. Amenity societies are not particularly to blame, but they could play a part by asking their local authorities to presume in favour of conversions and upwards extensions - without specifying where.