Bit of a contradiction as Sadiq Khan just blocked the new Cray Wanderers ground and flats being built on Flamingo Park. London is getting overcrowded and these sort of locations are the best place to build and take the strain while there are plenty of parks in London which fortunately aren't being touched.

I've seen some fine examples of this out here in the countryside, where local authorities are forced to meet Government quotas for new builds, whether or not we need them. Usually, in these cases, using former agricultural land - so still fields going under.

At the planning stage, when the number of properties in the development have been reduced to a 'reasonable' level (they always start with an unsustainable number) there will be provision for say 20% affordable housing, which often takes the form of the local social housing group providing building materials (double glazing, wood flooring) etc. as the subsidy.

The reality was that suddenly the builder couldn't afford 20% social so applied to vary the planning permission to 12%, with the threat of pulling out unless this was granted. It was! In one case the Parish council refused and the developer went into admin. When the site was finally sold on, partially built, the new developer demanded a further reduction, and got it - the alternative was more years of a half-built eyesore in the middle of a lovely village. So, in the end, 28 affordable homes became 12 affordable homes of which 6 have actually materialised (allegedly)

I understand from my local District Councillor that this is being repeated on every site all over South Somerset.

So, promises of affordable don't always materialise and since there is no restriction on re-sale, as soon as they are sold they are lost to the 'affordable' housing supply and become just another home to be profiteered from.

It would make far more sense to build to rent, with no right to buy option on social housing, at a controlled rent so that tenants have the possibility to save for their own place in their own time - or not as they choose or are able.

.....and use all the possible brownfield sites before you start on greenbelt cos' once it's gone it will never come back.

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Friends of ours had extention planning declined because their house is on Greenbelt land but within view of their house and on the same land 12 flats are being built.
Either let the land go or protect it. Personally feel that if we send a lot of the people living here illegally then this will reduce the housing shortgage so we might not have the need to build on Green belt land.

I agree with Hrolf. Our natural environment is a treasure and we have a duty to pass it on to later generations; not concrete over it for the sake of some temporary shortage. It's particularly annoying that the population growth is mostly fueled by immigration and that is fuelled by Mr. and Mrs Big Business wanting an endless flow of cheap labour. It's good for them, they get richer and the immigrants benefit too, at least temporarily.
what do most of us get out of it? Nothing but a trashed environment and a lower quality of life.

You can use buy to let landlords as a reason for rising house prices but housing supply? Their property might be empty for a week or so but ultimately the property is being lived in.

There a lot of unfit to live in properties in England. About a million was the last I heard, a lot of them owned by the local council.

COYP

Nicola Sturgeon loves immigration and wants to continue in the EU with all of it's freedom of movement of labour.

As there is more spare land available in Scotland than anywhere else in Britain why not build a few new towns in Scotland to spare what little remains of our green belt