Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these calculations into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths. As someone who is currently renting and who wants to buy - we need houses and we need them to be affordable. We have waited too long for action so now is the time.

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

It will bring the community together and keep children off the streets. Also for people who don't feel confident may even give them a chance to get out and meet new people. There is not much to do in mynydd isa and I think a skatepark would bring a lot of different people together to all enjoy it as one.

Network Rail has a programme of closing non-vehicular Rail Level Crossings, ostensibly to improve safety, although many have no safety issues and the resultant closure or diversion of Public Rights of Way (Footpaths and Bridleways) will severely damage the public's ability to enjoy our wonderful countryside. The process is currently being pushed through in the Anglia region, with 63 crossing closures proposed for Essex alone, but eventually every part of the country will be affected. This scale of closures would have a devastating and unprecedented effect on our Public Rights of Way, destroying or degrading many established routes. Often these are historic paths and most are older than the Railways themselves. Mott Macdonald, the consultants being used by NR, are employing a legal device called a Transport and Works order and involves:- Closure of a large swathe of crossings at a time. No opportunity for the case for each crossing to be tested at a public enquiry. Only a limited programme of consultation in which many local people and the public at large have no knowledge of the plans and their implications. Only limited options being presented and no opportunity for consultees to argue for alternative approaches. Some of NR's solutions destroy the pleasure in using the path, such as diverting it long distances beside the railway, but some are dangerous in themselves where pedestrians are to be directed along roads without verges. Where statistics show a genuine safety issue then action may be necessary but in many cases this is not the case. And if NR were genuinely concerned with safety and not just the convenience of banishing the public from its estate it would be proposing bridges, tunnels, and other safety devices at points of concern, rather than their draconian and undemocratic approach.

There is no crossing facilities at all other than several speed bump crossing zones on earlsgate, with several in place on the same road. The lower end of the village has no crossing provision at all. All children utilise the church on a daily basis, plus there are vulnerable adults in the village that would gain some independence if they could cross the road safely to get to the shops.

Displacement caused by gentrification is exacerbated by developers greed for increased in land values. Gentrified areas cover 1/16th of London's area (Akinson, 2008).In a number of instances (Heygate Estate, Aylesbury Estate and Carpenter Estate) whole communities have been displaced in the process of physical renewal. Many areas of London have been occupied by the middle classes causing the original working class residents to be displaced (Glass, 1994). Developers magnify the problem by creating indirect and direct causes of displacement. Developers are directly avoiding the social housing needs of the city (Booth, 2016). Their new buildings put pressure on the housing market leading to the indirect pricing out of low income individuals (Atkinson, 2000).Developers are even willing to pay fines implemented due to the lack of social housing as they see the beneficiaries in avoiding their implementation (Wainwright, 2015; Booth, 2016). Private developers benefit, from gentrification, at the expense of communities in London. The City Claim back campaign is worried everyday Londoners will be displaced, by the greed of developers, through gentrification.

Public consultation on the Asda site is a sham. RER, the company promoting this, haven't listened to a word said to them. They want to maximise profits by squeezing even more expensive high-rise apartments on the site; more than double the existing consent. They try to sweeten this by offering a new school in the wrong place, next to Cubitt Town, and a theatre we don't need and didn't ask for. Of course the petrol station people want isn't included!