Home Forums Chat Forum Is the Labour Government about to wreck the environment ?

  • This topic has 128 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 1 day ago by dakuan.
Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 129 total)
  • Is the Labour Government about to wreck the environment ?
  • Bruce
    Full Member

    We live in one of the most nature depleted countries on earth have a quick read of this paper which seems to be alarming some ecologists.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675db3f7cfbf84c3b2bcf9f3/Planning_Reform_Working_Paper_-_Development_and_Nature_Recovery.pdf

    4
    cookeaa
    Full Member

    TLDR, What little nugget have you spotted that the rest of the country hadn’t had the time to?

    24
    tjagain
    Full Member

    NO in a word.

    The reason we are nature depleted is far more to do with agricultural practices and “sporting” estates than house building.  6% of land in the UK is built on

    A small increase in the amount of built on land is insignificant and can be mediated as the paper suggests

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901294

    4
    chakaping
    Full Member

    Is this like one of those newspaper headlines where you already know the answer is going to be “no”?

    I’m not reading your link if you can’t be arsed to type more than a line yourself, but increased building on green belt will obviously have a negative impact on some local environments – and the “grey belt” land Labour talk about is just spin IMO – but the supply of homes is an issue that needs dealing with.

    The main thing is to ensure enough are affordable.

    3
    cookeaa
    Full Member

    TBH I’m struggling OP, the paper appears to be focussed on addressing environmental protections while acknowledging the government policy of accelerating housing development.

    I skipped to the end and skimmed the worked examples which seem to be suggesting that they specifically don’t want planning applications to steamroll or shortcut environmental impact assessment or take away the need for developers to propose and implement mitigations.

    Like I said I haven’t read the whole thing, but it doesn’t initially read like the terrifying warrant to murder the environment that your thread title suggests, just a civil service (DEFRA) prepared reference for policy development and feedback… Why don’t you write to your MP if you’re concerned?

    Bruce
    Full Member

    The reason I posted this is there is a suggestion that the plan is to make it easier to have changes around how protected species are treated hence Angela Rainers talk about newts.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/08/prioritise-peoples-needs-over-newts-in-housing-policy-says-angela-rayner
    A lot of these planning reforms seem to be under the radar and not discussed.
    Our local labour councilors go very quiet when asked about housing development.
    We need more houses but there is lots of nature depleted land around cities.

    1
    sirromj
    Full Member

    6% of land in the UK is built on

    Is that a useful statistic?

    There’s some large areas where that statistic will be much higher for that area, and some where it’ll be much lower. I live somewhere were development is going on all around us, but it’s okay, as it’s just fields. People don’t seem to care that much and these places is where development is like bacteria in a petri-dish.

    4
    spawnofyorkshire
    Full Member

    There’s a few things at play here

    1. Building on green belt land that has no environmental or social benefit. There’s a lot of green belt land that is wasteland in many definitions but can’t be built on because of an arbitrary line that was drawn years ago

    2. Protected species – they’re quite often used by nimbys or other developers to prevent developments, even when they’re not affected by a development. I’ve only skim read, but the gist is that if a protected species is not going to be affected they can crack on with the building project. You get examples where a newt might be in a body of water 100m+ away, beyond a natural boundary to their habitat but it would fall in the planning guidelines. This is saying use common sense

    Tldr – no they’re not trying to destroy the environment, they’re actually being more logical about where to build.

    5
    binners
    Full Member

    I once saw Angela Rayner taking a disposable barbecue and a bottle of Lambrini onto the moorland above Rivington in the middle of summer

    spawnofyorkshire
    Full Member

    A lot of these planning reforms seem to be under the radar and not discussed.

    Our local labour councilors go very quiet when asked about housing development.

    We need more houses but there is lots of nature depleted land around cities.

    Planning is a national policy enacted at a local level. It’s very emotive so I’m not surprised the councillors go quiet, especially as the new rules from national government haven’t been cascaded yet.

    There’s also a decent amount of time needed to map out the new areas for development

    mrmo
    Free Member

    My observations, it’s not going to happen as it isn’t in the interest of builders and there isn’t the labour to do it. More realistic observations, what will they do around Neo-nics, fox hunting, grouse moors, badger culling, etc.

    2
    funkmasterp
    Full Member

    No to your initial question OP. What needs to happen, is for affordable bloody housing to be built. Every development around here has prices that start at over £260k apart from the shared ownership scams that start at around £190k.

    1
    ratherbeintobago
    Full Member

    what will they do around Neo-nics, fox hunting, grouse moors, badger culling, etc.

    This. They also need to do something about water quality, and some of this stuff is relatively quick wins that might reduce the youth drifting to the Greens?

    1
    Cougar2
    Free Member

    Funny, innit.

    The UK: “We need more affordable housing!”

    Also the UK: “We don’t want you to build more affordable housing!”

    On the topic of ecology, I heard that the Earth recently took on a slightly more eccentric orbit due to Erwin Schrodinger spinning in his grave.

    11
    Cougar2
    Free Member

    Oh, wait, I know the answer to this one. “We want more affordable housing. Just, somewhere else. Not here, obviously. We’re full up round here.”

    1
    cookeaa
    Full Member

    …there is a suggestion…

    The paragraphs are numbered, can you point us specifically to this suggestion please, not a trolling I’m just not up for a treasure hunt, and I don’t think we’re all on the same page as you OP.

    2
    ratherbeintobago
    Full Member

    There’s a few issues at play.

    We seem to have a lot of 1-2 bedroom ‘apartments’ and 5 bedroom ‘executive’ homes, but very little in between – there’s a good argument that we need a lot more medium density building (e.g. mansion blocks) near transport infrastructure, which doesn’t take up that much land.

    But of course the (often wealthy, often retired) people who object to everything will object as it will ‘put pressure on GPs/schools’ because it doesn’t matter what it is, they’ll object. You’d assume these people would look at their children and grandchildren struggling to find decent housing and think a bit harder, but the evidence of Brexit was that it doesn’t work like that.

    It would help of course if there was more of a connection between increasing council tax receipts and better public services, but thanks to austerity councils are largely a device for moving public money to private care and emergency housing providers…

    1
    tjagain
    Full Member

    Is that a useful statistic?

    If we are looking at the whole of the UK yes.   It shows how little building actually impacts on the state of the environment.  Mitigation of ill effects from building are possible, much greater environmental benefits could be achieved by measures to reverse the degradation in rural areas

    2
    spooky_b329
    Full Member

    I’m more concerned that large developments are planned in line with 15 minute cities ideology, and prioritise bus, walking and cycle infrastructure for local journeys.

    There is a highrise proposed near me for over 125 flats, and a large development opposite (400 homes) has just received outline planning, the town already suffers from grid lock most afternoons and apparently they’ve already suggested there will be no affordable homes due to the cleanup cost of a small industrial estate (majority of the site is greenfield)

    There is some mention of a shuttle bus service for the first two years but feels like they need to make a proper effort to make it work, such as offering cut price ebikes with every house sale, dedicated bike storage and cycle links to town.

    ratherbeintobago
    Full Member

    @spooky_b329 In theory Active Travel England should be consulted on that (assuming you’re in England…). It’s probably also worth writing to councillors/MPs asking about walking/cycling infra and why the developers are bing let off the hook on affordable homes.

    I also think it’s worth getting involved in your local active travel campaign group, however peripherally (the 80/20 rule definitely applies, but even relatively inactive members allow campaign groups to say “we represent X people locally”)

    Bruce
    Full Member

    At the moment developers have to show that the environmental mitigation for their development is greater than what was lost (biodiversity net gain).
    This is often not implemented well, because the developers tend to cut corners on the mitigation and plant different trees than those specified for planning etc, or just not doing what they promised. They get away with this because the councils don’t enforce planning properly.

    The paper I posted a link to is suggesting that instead of providing mitigation on or near the site thay can now pay up to the government and the mitigation can happen as part of a scheme else where.

    Couple this with wanting to build on small sites in cities it means that the areas people live in could be more nature depleted than they are now. I am concerned that people who live in cities might get to the point that local green space is very minimal and overused.

    1
    mrhoppy
    Full Member

    The paper I posted a link to is suggesting that instead of providing mitigation on or near the site thay can now pay up to the government and the mitigation can happen as part of a scheme else where.

    Hate to break it to you but you can do that already.

    But why is it a bad thing? You can focus BNG on the areas that it can have significant benefit rather than forcing it into areas of development where it can get crowded out later, you can do intensive development to limit the extent of the building sites?

    Offsite BNG credited schemes are eye wateringly expensive to implement so anything that can be delivered onsite will be done 1st.

    roli case
    Free Member

    Very much doubt they’re going to wreck the environment any more than it’s already wrecked and would expect the direction of travel to be the opposite generally.

    However I do think high house prices are predominantly a south east problem so any easing of environmental protections in order to facilitate more house building should be limited to that region.

    What I fear happening is new houses being dumped on areas that don’t really need them, especially poorer areas where people aren’t very engaged with the planning process so low quality developments are more likely to get through without objections.

    Those areas will have scores of cheap new ghetto-ish estates built with insufficient infrastructure and amenities, worsening conditions for people who live there for no reason other than to hit an arbitrary national target, which will do nothing to solve the south east’s problem.

    3
    cookeaa
    Full Member

    But of course the (often wealthy, often retired) people who object to everything will object as it will ‘put pressure on GPs/schools’ because it doesn’t matter what it is, they’ll object.

    They’re also not above dusting off l old reports of rare lizards or ground nesting birds if it suits their needs.

    Use of environmental concerns just to bolster NIMBYism should be challenged, but not dismissed out of hand, and not at the expense of actual environmental concerns. I think that’s what Raynor was trying to get at (without upsetting the people who will obviously be upset however you pitch it).

    I’m more concerned that large developments are planned in line with 15 minute cities ideology, and prioritise bus, walking and cycle infrastructure for local journeys.

    It’s notable that this is a DEFRA document, thus focussed on rural settings. I would expect other departments to be providing more input on urban planning, the priorities and impacts will differ depending on where a given development is proposed. This isn’t the only paper being published (at least I don’t think it is) on the topic. Expanding and redeveloping existing towns and cities is different to building on green/brown/grey belt land, but no less fraught…

    I’m more encouraged that they’re actually trying to develop a set of policies around housing where the previous lot just gave us promises and rhetoric without much action. But the proof is still in the pudding, the aims are big and the timeframe is short, that does lend some credence to the OP’s concerns.

    3
    Bunnyhop
    Full Member

    Sorry haven’t read the article.

    No green belt should be built on. It all serves a purpose even if it looks like scrub/waste land.

    Around here  quite a few houses have been built on brownfield sites, brilliant, however these are not starter or affordable homes. Most are executive, 4/5 bedroom home and have 3 and in some cases 4 wcs.

    Green belt is always easier to build on and people think oh, it’s only a field. There are many. many places that can  be changed into residential properties, eg, in our area there are a lot of old mills, some are small and could easily be turned into first time homes for young folks,

    Oh and here we go again blaming old people/pensioners for everything. Most of the pensioners I know are helping their Children and grandchildren and the others are too poor.

    However what I do see are –  a lot of elderly people still living in their family homes (often with 4 bedrooms) on their own. Many because they feel safe and have decent neighbours and a good support network around them. So I don’t know what the answer if for this.

    But I am absolutely, totally against building on greenbelt.  It’s imperative we keep it for future generations. And before I get lambasted our semi is built on an old coal yard.

    ratherbeintobago
    Full Member

    However I do think high house prices are predominantly a south east problem so any easing of environmental protections in order to facilitate more house building should be limited to that region.

    No. What we need to be doing is sorting out the fact that the UK is one of the most centralised countries in Europe, and the massive imbalance in the economy that makes people want to move to the South East, and don’t forget that e.g. water supplies in the SE are already marginal.

    A massive brake on the economy outside London is the generally dire public transport infrastructure.

    1
    binners
    Full Member

    Oh, wait, I know the answer to this one. “We want more affordable housing. Just, somewhere else. Not here, obviously. We’re full up round here.”

    Yet somehow those new estates of ‘executive’ homes, with ‘starting’ prices upwards of half a million, still get built. Planning permission never seems to be an issue there


    @ratherbeintobago
    absolutely nails it! I don’t think people in the south east and The Golden City in the Hill have the remotest idea of just how literally crumbling and decaying the entire infrastructure is in other areas of the country.

    roli case
    Free Member

    No. What we need to be doing is sorting out the fact that the UK is one of the most centralised countries in Europe, and the massive imbalance in the economy that makes people want to move to the South East, and don’t forget that e.g. water supplies in the SE are already marginal.

    A massive brake on the economy outside London is the generally dire public transport infrastructure.

    That’s a fine idea but will take many years after the serious planning starts to deliver any meaningful progress, and the serious planning hasn’t started nor does it show any signs of starting soon.

    So in the meantime I maintain that any loosening of planning or environmental protections to support house building should be limited to the south east. You will not solve the south east’s housing crisis by rushing to concrete over some fields near Middlesbrough in order to hit some arbitrary national target. If anything that will just exacerbate regional inequalities.

    ratherbeintobago
    Full Member

    @binners Funny how the developers also always seem to find a way out of weaselling out of building any other stuff e.g. affordable housing, AT infra, etc that were conditions of planning for the executive’ homes?

    binners
    Full Member

    You will not solve the south east’s housing crisis by rushing to concrete over some fields near Middlesbrough in order to hit some arbitrary national target. If anything that will just exacerbate regional inequalities.

    The south east isn’t the only place that desperately needs new affordable housing. The present system is absolutely nuts though. Take Manchester. There’s building taking place all over the city. Big shiny glass and chrome tower after big, shiny glass and chrome tower, everywhere you look.

    Do you know what percentage of those new ‘homes’ are bought, off-plan, by foreign investors before a brick has even been laid?

    85%!

    A lot will sit empty, the rest rented out at extortionate rates. The whole system is ****ed!  At least the government is acknowledging that there’s a problem, instead of listening exclusively to whining nimby boomers

    1
    tjagain
    Full Member

    It doesn’t have to be like that.  Edinburgh ( which has one of the most incompetent and corrupt councils around) has been undergoing massive expansion.  the Granton waterfront development is a long term project building huge amounts of housing on mainly brownfield sites.  So far planning gain ( stuff developers have to do to get planning) has built us new schools, doctors surgeries, cycleways, parks, and delivered a lot of affordable housing

    1
    ratherbeintobago
    Full Member

    @binners IIRC a lot of the shiny towers aren’t mortgageable – they’re explicitly buy-to-let. But again, in GM there’s little medium density building near e.g. Metrolink stops.

    For an example of transport, it’s only recently that Burnley has had a direct rail connection to Manchester – this creates an opportunity cost as lack of decent transport means people can’t get a better job without moving; running a car is more expensive than it’s given credit for and time spent sat in traffic jams due to lack of alternative is both soul-destroying and economically unproductive.

    @roli_case The problem is that the SE is already pretty environmentally deplete (and e.g. chalk streams are significantly endangered), and as I said above there are significant resource issues, to the point where they’re considering a massive reservoir in Oxfordshire as there isn’t enough water.

    1
    kerley
    Free Member

    But I am absolutely, totally against building on greenbelt. It’s imperative we keep it for future generations.

    That smacks of immigrant families who came to UK 30 years ago not wanting any more immigration. All the land was greenbelt as some point and using some of the 94% is no loss to anyone and the future generations will have more to worry about than whether they have 90 or 92% of greenbelt land left.

    1
    binners
    Full Member

    Manctopia   is no longer available on iplayer, unfortunately . It was a great documentary showing in no uncertain how utterly dysfunctional the housing market in the UK now is.

    If you set out to design a system that was totally unfit for purpose, you couldn’t do a better job. It seems like the entire system is set up to exclusively benefit property developers and investors. Whether any actual ‘homes’ get built or not doesn’t even seem to figure in the equation 

    2
    dovebiker
    Full Member

    The big housing developers are past-masters at running rings around hapless, under-resourced local planners – they have get out clauses in their commitments to affordable housing, ecological measures which all get left to the end and ‘oops, we can’t make enough profit so we’re scrapping these’. The Tories were totally in-hoc with the big developers plus deliberately starving councils of money so they couldn’t take effective action anyway.

    1
    roli case
    Free Member

    The problem is that the SE is already pretty environmentally deplete (and e.g. chalk streams are significantly endangered), and as I said above there are significant resource issues, to the point where they’re considering a massive reservoir in Oxfordshire as there isn’t enough water.

    Are there any stats on environmental depletion by region? I’d be surprised if the south east is any worse than elsewhere given other parts of the country have had their fair share of industrialisation, coal mining, intense agriculture, incinerators, fossil fuel power stations and the like.

    There hasn’t been a new reservoir built in the south east for nearly half a century, while several have been built elsewhere in the country, so if we’re measuring environmental destruction by the need for new reservoirs then the south east has done very well. Not sure reservoir demand really tells us much though other than that the population has grown.

    1
    nixie
    Full Member

    There hasn’t been a new reservoir built in the south east for nearly half a century

    Theres a new one under construction near Portsmouth.

    3
    Bunnyhop
    Full Member

    Greenbelt was ‘put aside’, to make sure cities and towns didn’t just merge into one great big sprawling concrete jungle (a bit like Los Angeles). It helps prevent flooding, provides cleaner air, habitats for wildlife and most fauna and flora. It contains ancient woodland, places of recreation for humans and domesticated pets.  It’s not just there to look pretty. We humans are not instead of nature we are part of it and everything will always come down to money in the end. IMO it’s extremely precious. Since covid the use of outdoor spaces has risen dramatically and is more needed now than ever.

    The property developers think it’s fine to fill in the odd pond, chop down some trees and replace with a few feeble saplings that will only be of benefit in 30 – 70 years time.

    3
    Bruce
    Full Member

    Some of the brownfield sites are a lot more diverse than the large farmers field in the green belt.

    tewit
    Free Member

    Wot Bruce said.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 129 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.