Ministers have drawn up plans to force through the most ambitious national building project since the 1960s despite widespread opposition.

 

Ten "eco-towns", which will be obliged to have zero carbon emissions, are to be built across Britain by 2020 on sites which are expected to include locations in Cornwall, Warwickshire and Hampshire.

 

Local groups fear that many unsuitable schemes may be approved because the Government intends to rush eco-towns through the planning system by blocking formal opposition to the schemes. A Warwickshire councillor said a proposed development near Stratford-upon-Avon would "put a stranglehold on the historic town".

 

However, the Government says the plan will deliver affordable housing - up to half the new properties will be "affordable homes" - while also tackling climate change.

 

Does the current shortage of affordable homes justify the Government's plans? Or should the Government focus on regenerating existing towns rather than building new ones from scratch?

 

Do you welcome these plans as a positive step in the battle with climate change? Or does concreting over more of the countryside represent a greater risk to the environment?

 

Source : Sunday Telegraph

The countryside and green belt is an integral part of Britain and it is obscene to see huge swathes of green belt being demolished in order to build houses to cope with the population explosion particularly of immigrants

 

it goes back to what I was saying in a thread the other day that Britain is full and the infrastructure can't cope with the flood of immigrants coming to this country particularly from Eastern Europe

 

population is the problem, immigrants or chavs breeding for benefits.

 

both need urgent curtailing.

 

we cant go on building houses without encroaching on green belt, but this is even more ludicrous when the world is having a grain shortage. we need to grow more wheat. theres no set aside now, all land is needed for food production.