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

[email protected]

Planning bill will let developers build on green spaces without replacing local nature (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Housing developers will be able to build on once-protected green spaces without having to replace the loss of nature in the nearby area, the Guardian understands.

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.

The planning and infrastructure bill, which is currently at committee stage, has provisions to allow developers to build on green spaces and remove nature from local areas, if they pay into a fund which will create habitats elsewhere. The aim is to streamline regulations for developers so they can speed up their projects and the Labour government can meet its target for delivering 1.5m new homes by the end of this parliament in 2029.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Probably the real answer is to level up the rest of the country so people aren't forced to live in expensive areas.

People need to live somewhere.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

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.