Ok, no worries Tim. Thanks for the clarification.
My main interest is in the general policy of housing density, and allowing modestly higher development, which should be clear, and I would hope an Amenity society could support this.
Though I am not speaking for them, I suspect that the FHS probably do support that in principle. I do not see why they should state it as a blanket objective however. This is much too strategic and wide-ranging an issue for them to take such a stance and in any case, I suspect they would lose members if they did so. Local government are much better placed for this sort of work and are much more accountable in that regard.
When it comes to where, the confusion arises from whether this is thought to mean specific locations - which is where I think an Amenity society will inevitably find it difficult; it would risk exposing itself to endless criticism and get bogged down in unnecessary detail. That would be best left to the Council, developers and associated professionals. The sort of 'where' I had in mind was more general, such as 'large higher rise developments on what available brownfield sites there are' or my preferred options 'conversions and upwards extensions'. I think these should be seen more favourable because otherwise the 'where' we get will be more obtrusive high rise or 'garden grabbing'.
This seems topsy-turvy to me. I for one, value the fact that we have a local society capable of getting involved in the detail of individual applications where it may have positive or negative wider implications. If you are not Council, a developer or planning professional but are affected by a planning proposal then the whole process is daunting so say the least.
The need for more housing is a strategic, London-wide issue, best left to professionals. Local issues are best dealt with by local people and their representatives, which can often include local societies.
Your stated preference for "conversions and upwards extensions" is probably a part of the mix required but is surely not a silver bullet. There are also historic and geological reasons why the local townscape isn't generally more than a few stories - this is South London not Kensington.
I happen to agree with you when it comes to garden-grabbing. I wish that this wasn't so easy to do. However, the planning rules allow this, or at least the interpretation of them, and there seems to be little that can be done locally to mitigate this - once again this is more strategic and driven by London/National agenda.
In summary, I believe that this all resolves to a disagreement about what the pupose of a (local) society is. As michael said, the issues you raise are far from simple. If however, you can put your ideas across in a more accessible form, why not start your own society and see how you get on?
Search
Help
| 
