The post you are reporting:
That does bring our views closer, Howard, because my point is, we need more local production, more local employment, so people can actually afford a house. I'm thinking of the large number of young people living in East Kent who are unlikely to buy a house if they are unemployed or on a minimum wage. Hence, growth point status does not bring all this, but enhanced local employment would.
My other point is, I DO agree we could need more housing in the future, but perhaps not to the extent as envisaged in the core strategy.
It's not a 100% opposing view here, just more cautious and more intent on not forgetting the need to offer more employment opportunities to the many people here in search of work. It's not just houses and houses, but also factories and agriculture and other productive enterprises, as well as a measured number of houses.
