42
Planning bill will let developers build on green spaces without replacing local nature
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
42 points (100.0% liked)
UK Nature and Environment
595 readers
208 users here now
General Instance Rules:
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
- No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
- No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
- Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
- Do not spam or abuse network features.
Community Specific Rules:
- Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
- Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.
Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.
Our spring banner is a shot of Walberswick marshes, Suffolk by GreyShuck.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why the fuck is this being allowed?
Money. It's pretty much always money.
I'd link to a post on rent and house prices being paid too high for people to buy.
Probably the real answer is to level up the rest of the country so people aren't forced to live in expensive areas.
so the solution is to just turn the entire country into a concrete desert?
"New nature areas, parks and community gardens created to offset the removal of green spaces to make way for housing developments may not even have to be in the same county, under the new planning and infrastructure bill, sources at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said on Thursday."
I'm not sure who's comment you're reading or replying to. I've not suggested this is the answer I've simply stated that in the UK at least there's real difficulty for some young people to buy a home and start a family.
you very clearly imply that more housing construction is going to help alleviate the issue, which in this context is being accomplished by simply ignoring greenspace requirements.
if you literally just wanted to drop that statement, what was the point of doing so? you generally state things to make a point..
People need to live somewhere.
And lots of housing can be built in a small amount of space, it's called "apartments".
Instead of sprawling across the countryside, dense housing can be built in already urban areas, replacing existing inefficient landuse like parking lots and single family homes.
Not only is this just a better way of using the land, it brings many other benefits like shorter travels and less money spent on infrastructure, and of course making sure that green space is preserved means people don't get fucking turbodepressed.