Today's Observer moves me to revisit this one



First you have the former Poet Laureate throwing up his hands in horror at the idea of more homes in the countryside, and then you have an architectural critic - Wikipedia doesn't reveal if an Old Etonian like his brother, ex Telegraph editor - rather distressed about more housing in the centre of London.

Such are the opinion formers in our wider society, who chose not to think about where people should live, or how much they should have to pay for it.

To answer your various points, lacb, I have no disagreement on what the FH Society does on specific planning applications. The problem is how it impacts on what we agree is the 'strategic, London-wide issue, best left to professionals'. Earlier in this thread I developed an argument as to why any democratic local society is likely to be biased against development in its area, to the detriment of outsiders and future generations. In the Rowan Moore article in the Observer, he identifies weak local groups as one of the reasons developers can get away with these skyscrapers in Central London, which suggests that the relative strength of local groups is biasing development towards the centre.

The FH Society is also involved with plans to set up a Neighbourhood Plan, under the terms of the Localism Act, in which there is the clear intent that Forums putting forward such plans should consider higher housing densities. It seems clear to me that, for all its strengths, FH Soc and similar amenity societies, are evading the wider social responsibilities which their effectiveness should entail.