By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 22:26 - Jan 29 by stonojnr
the road is death trap because people drive like idiots on it, its that simple, its got nothing to do with the environment or ecology holding anything up.
The road is a death trap because if you have an accident there is no way off the it except a 10 foot ditch filled with water on either side.
I have personal experience of this when my newly fitted disc brakes suddenly siezed and I found myself upside down trapped under the car. I remember it being pitch black. I could hear water but I did not know if my head was above it or below it. So, I remember deliberately opening my mouth to see if water came in. That was an interesting experience.
Did not see any newts or snails.
0
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 04:58 - Jan 30 with 1713 views
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 14:48 - Jan 29 by bsw72
It's ok, developers can pay into a nature fund, because obviously we can buy back extinct species.
I've not been worried about most of Labour's approach until now but that comment has really boiled my p!ss and shows a blatant disregard for the environment.
[Post edited 29 Jan 14:49]
You want to see what it’s like around Benters now,bloody new housing estates in every direction,and the wildlife don’t know if it’s coming or going.
It’s not uncommon to see dead Deer,Hares,Rabbits,Foxes,etc now on the road or verges.
I live in a quiet close,but sadly as the roads have got busier and busier peoples cats have been mullered crossing the road to get into one of the few farm buildings we have left to hunt rats etc.
Just this year alone two cats from our close have died crossing that road.😩
The main reason our economy has flatlined and young people have so few opportunities is NIMBYs blocking the housing and infrastructure that we need, so it’s correct to do something about this.
I wonder how many people on this thread decrying this decision to make it easier to build are already on the housing ladder? If so, you’re commenting from a position of relative privilege.
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:20 - Jan 29 by DJR
As Kent's water tends to come from underground, the main issue is a lack of investment in infrastructure by South East Water and Southern Water.
And long term planning for all sorts of services (gas, electricity, water) disappeared after nationalisation.
[Post edited 30 Jan 8:22]
I am a Southern Water customer (the worst of the lot) and my bill is going up by 47% in April.
In addition, no new reservoir has been been built in the UK for 30 years. That's not nimbyism, it's privatisation where creaming off profit has been the bottom line.
[Post edited 30 Jan 8:22]
1
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 10:54 - Jan 30 with 1515 views
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 20:37 - Jan 29 by itfcjoe
I'm a builder, rather than developer - but just always massive hypocricy of people who live in houses in the same area, who have developed them over and over but think because they have a couple of pigs in the garden that no one should build any more houses in the area and cite biodiversity and the likes when really it's just that they don't want more people to have the same opportunities as they have had. Pull the ladder up behind you....
There have been expansions of housing in waves since the industrial revolution, so it seems to me that what is happening now is just an extension of that. After all, I live in an area developed in the 1950s which was formerly orchards.
A few further observations.
1. Much land on which building takes place is not particularly environmentally useful, including much agricultural land.
2. I think safeguards are needed for environmentally sensitive areas.
3. If development is to take place, there must be sufficient infrastructure in place (including schools and surgeries).
4. Building on flood plains is not a good idea.
5. In the post-war years, we planned for such things but that hasn't been happening since the 1980s.
[Post edited 30 Jan 10:59]
2
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 11:09 - Jan 30 with 1469 views
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 20:37 - Jan 29 by itfcjoe
I'm a builder, rather than developer - but just always massive hypocricy of people who live in houses in the same area, who have developed them over and over but think because they have a couple of pigs in the garden that no one should build any more houses in the area and cite biodiversity and the likes when really it's just that they don't want more people to have the same opportunities as they have had. Pull the ladder up behind you....
OK, well that I can understand and relate to.
I'm not anti development in anyway, quite the opposite. Developers are probably my biggest clients. ( I think the UK should push ahead with HS2 phase 2 and 3, phase 1 us probably gonna put my kids through college)
Separating genuine archaeological and environmental concerns from this sorta nonsense in order to achieve planning consent is part of why they employ me
0
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 11:20 - Jan 30 with 1447 views
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 22:59 - Jan 29 by bluestandard
I don’t think this would be as costly as you’re thinking it would be, although I admit that I don’t know what the cost of each regional plan would be. The idea though as I understand it is that each local planning authority would be responsible for drawing up a single strategic assessment and delivery plan for the area under its purview. IMO it would be a straightforward process to map a local authority area into relevant designations, much as we currently have conservation areas etc with settlements. Some sites will have protected status if they meet certain criteria (meaning no environmental harm will be acceptable), other sites will have development status (ie they are considered essential for a town/city’s growth and do not have so many of the features of a protected site (these sites might be strategic land on the edge of settlements or designated sites in the local plan). This won’t be a charter to bulldoze ALL land in ALL areas irrespective of the environment.
The bottom line is that you’ve got two legitimate competing interests here. I don’t think any rational person would argue that 100% of the natural environment should be preserved in perpetuity right? Assuming that’s true, it then simply becomes a matter of degree on how far you move the dial in an attempt to balance the legitimate competing interests of the environment and the need to develop new homes/infrastructure etc. The balance has tipped too far one way and the proposals represent a rebalancing, that’s all. Check out the Dec 2024 working paper from the government if it’s of interest.
Many questions Who would be paying for the drawing up of these strategic assessments? Is it not just away of transferring the cost from the developer to the tax payer?
How do the local planning authority draw up these plans without an assessment being carried out for individual areas? Has in how does the planning authority know there is for example Badger sets or subsurface archaeology in a particular area without archaeological or environmental assessments being carried out?
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 11:09 - Jan 30 by leitrimblue
OK, well that I can understand and relate to.
I'm not anti development in anyway, quite the opposite. Developers are probably my biggest clients. ( I think the UK should push ahead with HS2 phase 2 and 3, phase 1 us probably gonna put my kids through college)
Separating genuine archaeological and environmental concerns from this sorta nonsense in order to achieve planning consent is part of why they employ me
Yep, I’ve not got the view that we should just tarmac the country - but there is millions of taxpayers money wasted by these appeals just designed to frustrate the process because people don’t want it first and foremost and they then look for a reason afterwards
It’s important than areas are protected, but the balance and because of how the courts can slowdown has swung way too far the other way
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 08:20 - Jan 30 by DJR
I am a Southern Water customer (the worst of the lot) and my bill is going up by 47% in April.
In addition, no new reservoir has been been built in the UK for 30 years. That's not nimbyism, it's privatisation where creaming off profit has been the bottom line.
[Post edited 30 Jan 8:22]
I can't believe I'm writing this but those private companies have been trying to build reservoirs, they get stuck in the planning stage.
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:36 - Jan 29 by Clapham_Junction
Wait until they start limiting what you can discuss at CLP meetings (or simply suspend the CLP).
I don't know if you saw my comment on a previous thread that got deleted (or possibly responded to it before it got deleted), but I asked if you really expected anything different/better from them given what they'd been saying and how they'd been behaving in the last couple of years before the elections? Pretty much everything I saw suggested this is exactly how they were going to be, which is why I couldn't bring myself to vote for them. I've only kept my membership in the hope that there is a decent choice at the next leadership election (although the rigging of the selections has meant that there likely won't be).
With regards to the topic at hand, unfortunately the party's stance is being heavily influenced by property developers and their lobbyists.
Can't remember if I saw your previous comment or not, defo didn't reply to it.
In answer to your question - yes I did expect better. I'd have thought they'd have the sense to invest in the green economy, R&D, sustainable energy, renewables at the very least. And taper the WFA if they went down that route. And not keep on supporting SEZs & Freeports.
Like JC, KS's choice of Chancellor has been disastrous, & he doesn't want to be seen as backing down in his determined support of her. They’re both hamstrung by their stupid starting position of being determined to address the criticism that they’re spendthrift & can't do economics, by opting for a budget that out-tories the Tories.
Re Bankster's post further on - if the Greens had stood any chance of getting into Govt., I'd have voted for them. Sadly, it would have been a wasted vote, & getting the Tories out was then the priority - even in this true blue rural constituency, the Lab candidate nearly made it, only an excellent campaign focussing on local issues getting Julian Smith back in.
Edit: Forgot to say that if the LP do do what you outline in your first para, I'll be posting a video clip of myself cutting up my card & explaining why to KS on Twitter/X.
A fair bit of satire (I can only assume that’s what it is) in this thread. How on earth people with a straight face can pull Labour completely apart after 6 months in office, off the back of this country being left on its knees with a completely broken NHS, a ruined economy (the self harm assisted considerably by hauling us out of the single market and separating us from our closing trading partners), crumbling infrastructure, a laughing stock reputation around the world, parties in Downing Street whilst members of the public get fined for having a cup of coffee with their families. It’s quite incredible.
As many people on the now disgruntled side were quick to point out when the conservatives got (many) things wrong, “they’re all as bad as one another”.
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 08:17 - Jan 30 by tractordownsouth
The main reason our economy has flatlined and young people have so few opportunities is NIMBYs blocking the housing and infrastructure that we need, so it’s correct to do something about this.
I wonder how many people on this thread decrying this decision to make it easier to build are already on the housing ladder? If so, you’re commenting from a position of relative privilege.
Fair point on housing; that needs attention and unfortunately we’ve got to keep building as the population grows (although I’d like to think we could be more creative with our dying town centres and revitalise them as places for people to live). Expanding airports not so much.
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 11:38 - Jan 30 by itfcjoe
Yep, I’ve not got the view that we should just tarmac the country - but there is millions of taxpayers money wasted by these appeals just designed to frustrate the process because people don’t want it first and foremost and they then look for a reason afterwards
It’s important than areas are protected, but the balance and because of how the courts can slowdown has swung way too far the other way
I now mainly work in Ireland . But I'm sure the problems with environmental and archaeological conditions are probably similar in both places.
In my opinion bad decision making, often based on poor research at government/planning department level is to blame for a lot of the decisions that frustrate those involved in the development process as well as the general public.
A couple few years ago I had a client attempting to build a wind farm in Co Cavan. 1 of the many conditions imposed on him prior to approval of planning consent was he carried out a bird migration survey. This involved him paying a environmental consultant to seat in a car on the proposed site for 3-4 months a year over a 2 year period to spot any migratory birds that flew over the site. This delayed the project for 2 years and I struggle to believe the project would have ever been stopped due to it being on the route of migratory birds. So it's just a box ticking exercise that delayed a project by 2 years and makes the planning process look flawed.
There also needs to be a quick way to separate these trumped up appeals due to people not wanting potential construction projects in the neighbourhood from genuine archaeological and environmental issues. I mean you can usually tell within minutes of reading these appeals, reports etc if they are genuine or not
1
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 14:08 - Jan 30 with 1162 views
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 13:32 - Jan 30 by Swansea_Blue
Fair point on housing; that needs attention and unfortunately we’ve got to keep building as the population grows (although I’d like to think we could be more creative with our dying town centres and revitalise them as places for people to live). Expanding airports not so much.
My fav housing charity* works on renovating properties & empty spaces that are abandoned, derelict brownfield sites, etc. etc. There are over 265,000 properties in England that are classified as long term empty** If the Govt. properly addressed the long term housing shortage, they'd be looking at investing in this - a far more environmentally friendly & economical way of going about things than simply building the equivalent number of new houses.
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 13:00 - Jan 30 by radiogaga
A fair bit of satire (I can only assume that’s what it is) in this thread. How on earth people with a straight face can pull Labour completely apart after 6 months in office, off the back of this country being left on its knees with a completely broken NHS, a ruined economy (the self harm assisted considerably by hauling us out of the single market and separating us from our closing trading partners), crumbling infrastructure, a laughing stock reputation around the world, parties in Downing Street whilst members of the public get fined for having a cup of coffee with their families. It’s quite incredible.
As many people on the now disgruntled side were quick to point out when the conservatives got (many) things wrong, “they’re all as bad as one another”.
Seems to me quite reasonable to comment on & protest about some of the things Labour *have* done - eg indiscriminately withdraw the WFA; continue with the Tories' policies re SEZs & Freeports even though those things are antithetical to everything Labour's previously stood for; clobber genuine small/medium family farms (which will bring consequent negative environmental impacts); ride roughshod over environmental protections.
On the plus side - re-nationalising the railways, raising the pay of their staff & junior hospital doctors.
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 14:08 - Jan 30 by Ryorry
My fav housing charity* works on renovating properties & empty spaces that are abandoned, derelict brownfield sites, etc. etc. There are over 265,000 properties in England that are classified as long term empty** If the Govt. properly addressed the long term housing shortage, they'd be looking at investing in this - a far more environmentally friendly & economical way of going about things than simply building the equivalent number of new houses.
Interesting thanks. I ran out of steam last night but have had a look through those links this morning. I wasn’t aware of Habitat for Humanity. They seem to be doing some great work globally too.
I’m fully on board with prioritising existing/empty homes, brownfield site developments, etc. Town centres seem like an huge opportunity - bring people in and the businesses they need for daily stuff will follow. We could relocate public offices back into centres too, combined with redeveloping derelict shops into flats, just to make centres hubs again.
Then we’ve got the second home issue that’s blocking access to property for locals in rural areas especially. It’ll be interesting to see whether the Welsh Govt changes to taxation on second homes works.
Even speeding up things like probate when there’s a property bequeathed could probably help. It took me ages to sell my dad’s place.
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 04:58 - Jan 30 by Benters
You want to see what it’s like around Benters now,bloody new housing estates in every direction,and the wildlife don’t know if it’s coming or going.
It’s not uncommon to see dead Deer,Hares,Rabbits,Foxes,etc now on the road or verges.
I live in a quiet close,but sadly as the roads have got busier and busier peoples cats have been mullered crossing the road to get into one of the few farm buildings we have left to hunt rats etc.
Just this year alone two cats from our close have died crossing that road.😩
The answer is to build over the farm buildings and get rid of the rats,
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 14:08 - Jan 30 by Ryorry
My fav housing charity* works on renovating properties & empty spaces that are abandoned, derelict brownfield sites, etc. etc. There are over 265,000 properties in England that are classified as long term empty** If the Govt. properly addressed the long term housing shortage, they'd be looking at investing in this - a far more environmentally friendly & economical way of going about things than simply building the equivalent number of new houses.
Josh Ryan-Collins at IIPP (UCL) was commissioned by the government to write a report (linked below) on housing and I know he strongly supports the position you have outlined.
I have spent a fair bit of time with the people at IIPP on government finance for climate change and this policy seems common sense.
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 14:08 - Jan 30 by Ryorry
My fav housing charity* works on renovating properties & empty spaces that are abandoned, derelict brownfield sites, etc. etc. There are over 265,000 properties in England that are classified as long term empty** If the Govt. properly addressed the long term housing shortage, they'd be looking at investing in this - a far more environmentally friendly & economical way of going about things than simply building the equivalent number of new houses.
I agree that habitat for humanity are doing great work. One of the most exciting things they are at the forefront of is 3D concrete printing/construction which has the potential to transform the construction industry worldwide. Sadly the UK will lag behind because our planning laws on design are not very compatible with the technology. Another area of planning in this country which needs fundamental reform.
0
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 09:53 - Jan 31 with 711 views
A spokesman for (I think) Natural England on the Today Programme said that they were happy for alternative habitats to be created, and it was not them that had called for the £100 million tunnelling to protect bats. He said that decision was down to HS2 who must have assumed money was no object.
0
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 09:57 - Jan 31 with 681 views
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 11:20 - Jan 30 by leitrimblue
Many questions Who would be paying for the drawing up of these strategic assessments? Is it not just away of transferring the cost from the developer to the tax payer?
How do the local planning authority draw up these plans without an assessment being carried out for individual areas? Has in how does the planning authority know there is for example Badger sets or subsurface archaeology in a particular area without archaeological or environmental assessments being carried out?
I don’t know who would pay for it, but I’m guessing it would be the local authority in the first instance. But this cost could easily be recovered as part of the developers payment into the nature restoration fund. Also, I don’t think there’s any doubt that a proper assessment by a qualified ecologist(s) will be required. Just one big regional assessment though, rather than the thousands of site specific ones we have now. Of course, in carrying out the regional assessments, they have the benefit of access to all previous EIAs submitted before, and I’m guessing these would at least partially inform regional assessments.
1
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 12:51 - Jan 31 with 603 views
fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:51 - Jan 29 by leitrimblue
I'm not sure how your suggesting works in the planning process.
So if i understand correctly,how your scheme would work is, if for example somebody proposed to say build a hundred houses on a site that say was home to badgers, newts etc and contained a ploughed out Bronze age ring barrow and a iron age settlement. You would suggest that rather then protecting these individual resources you could just plough straight through them but spend a few quid on the Norfolk Broads to make it OK?
Get sensible - There is a practical and rational middle ground here.
Most people would agree that a major infrastructure projects should not be held up for a few bats and that making financial contribution to an alternative provision would be sensible.
On the other hand an infrastructure project that endangered a significant SSI and ancient monuments etc. could reasonably be objected to.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
