You're alright in Devon, Jack.

We have the lowest productivity levels in Europe. Immigration would help boost this and keep our economy afloat. But instead people moan about having any immigration at all, and the morons in power cave in. But then to keep the economy going they have to find another route. So they promise to lower corporation tax, effectively leaving us as a tax haven for the super rich, something none of us voted for. This means less regulation for big business, such as propert developers, who therefore can build on green belt land more essily.

You can choose to blame migrants for everything, but this is the consequence. You just let those in power off the hook.

Where do you get your ideas from?

The government have been gradually reducing Corporation Tax for quite a while which is a good way of promoting further investment and I can't see any correlation between the level of taxes that companies will pay and allowing property developers to build on green belt land

It begins.

This is why the endless mass immigration is a disaster for this country.
Green Belt is about to be slowly eroded for new housing. This is the slippery slope where we say goodbye to this green and pleasant land to make room for out rapidly growing immigrant population.

Your great grand children will ask their parents what a field used to look like.

[Link]

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (02 Feb 2017 10.38pm)

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (02 Feb 2017 10.40pm)

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.