Read on Twitter
GMSF was ambitious but problematic. We were going to vote against.
GM working together would have meant a net saving of greenbelt.
But it prioritised short-term economic growth over meeting our climate responsibilities. (1/3)
GM working together would have meant a net saving of greenbelt. But it prioritised short-term economic growth over meeting our climate responsibilities. (1/3)
If it really is dead, we risk 1,000s more units on greenbelt in south of GM while brownfield unused in the north. 
Why?Messy, partial GM devolution -> massive tensions between govt, mayor, and 10 boroughs. (2/3)
Next stepsmust now focus on the climate crisis.
We have just a few years to make a difference and we can’t do that while concreting over precious green space, like Carrington Moss and Timperley Wedge." (3/3)
