UK Nature and Environment

595 readers

51 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.

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

The title is misleading, this isn't anything new. The credits system for developers requires them to acquire credits from somewhere else, and this typically isn't in the local area. Eg, a solar farm developer might have various solar farms across the country, some with more space kept natural and others that don't have the viability for it. The natural space in one area will offset the lack in another.

I'm not saying this is really the right way of doing it, nor am I arguing against maintaining natural spaces more locally, but the point is the article is making out that this is a new idea rather than an evolution of existing practices - practices that themselves are relatively new. Hell, any requirement to maintain natural spaces is better than it was 10-20 years ago. Things are moving in the right direction, even if they aren't yet where they should be.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why the fuck is this being allowed?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Money. It's pretty much always money.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day 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 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 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 15 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Labour: more competent Tories.