Postby papinian » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:30 pm
GuyD73: Thanks for the reply.
I repeat what I said about "buy-to-leave" being a trope that appears a lot in the media but is a virtually non-existent phenomenon in practice for properties worth less than £2m. I trust evidence not empty political rhetoric. Indeed, if in fact so many of the apartments are going to be empty it undercuts many of the issues raised re pressure on trains, services, etc.
I don't see the point of this claim you make: " It’s also quite well documented in the case of London property that due to the ability to use shell companies to purchase these assets, it’s easy both to hide the true ownership of those assets and potentially to use proceeds of crime and money laundering to buy them. " It's not relevant from a planning perspective. It's also not clear how the use of companies to own London property is any different from the use of companies to own property elsewhere in the U.K. or indeed in other countries. I note that the U.K. (unlike most other countries) has higher taxes on properties owned through companies than by individuals.
I repeat what I said about it being a mistake to have your campaign fronted by an independent school-educated £320k a year earning rugby player.