| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts 14:38 - Jan 29 with 7392 views | GeoffSentence |
Or the quality of our environment generally.
Today she proudly announced that they are reducing environmental requirements on developers so they can stop worrying about bats and newts.
I was aware that Labour didn't really seem to have any regard for the countryside but they seem more intent on ripping it up than I ever imagined.
|  |
| |  |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:16 - Jan 29 with 1263 views | Dubtractor |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:53 - Jan 29 by itfcjoe |
This stuff is needed, some of the environmental bits (especially around newts and bats) are just used to totally frustrate building which is required.
We'd be much better off trying to have more eco friendly developments with bio spending elsewhere then stopping things for years and years because there may be some great crested newts dumped on a site by the local NIMBYs |
I think it's fine to acknowledge that the balance isn't quite right, and I'm sure there are plenty of examples of unnecessary blocking of development, but alongside the nonsense about the development of a third runway at Heathrow being 'sustainable', the tone and language being used in general about environmental matters is really bad. |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:20 - Jan 29 with 1241 views | DJR |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:34 - Jan 29 by DarkBrandon |
Cambridgeshire too.
The NIMBYs use this as arguments against housing of course. They won't accept more reservoirs. They won't accept reductions in water usage ("You can't have a house, I need to be able to wash my car and water my lawn"). |
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]
|  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:22 - Jan 29 with 1237 views | Oldsmoker |
Everybody is green and environment friendly when it suits them.
Next door neighbour used to bang on about how organic his garden was.
Out came the pesticides when his crop was threatened by slugs and insects. |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts (n/t) on 17:28 - Jan 29 with 1209 views | DJR |
I blame Ken Livingstone. [Post edited 29 Jan 17:32]
| | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:28 - Jan 29 with 1207 views | flykickingbybgunn |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:32 - Jan 29 by HampBlue |
I get it, but I'm really intrigued as to what the alternative is?
We have a Housing crisis, we need millions of homes. Headline yesterday stated 'UK population set to grow by five million within 10 years' which increases this.
Unfortunately too often these are the classic NIMBY go too's that are used to block things by people who think they are entitled to live somewhere over others, just because they were there first.
I suspect some will argue that Landlords owning multiple properties are also to blame (which I would agree) But what can be done about this now? Those on the right will argue immigration is the cause, but we know it's not that simple and even if the borders were shut, it would cause major issues elsewhere. |
The BBC said this week that it is expected that we are to gain 1 million immigrants a year over the next few. They also expect us to lose 500k through emmigration.
Where are these 1100 odd/day people to live ?
The govt is hammering private landlords and they are selling up like it has gone out of fashion because of increased restrictions.
Should we start to go back to council housing ? I think we need to.
It's a grim business being poorly managed at the moment. |  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:34 - Jan 29 with 1175 views | DanTheMan |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:28 - Jan 29 by flykickingbybgunn |
The BBC said this week that it is expected that we are to gain 1 million immigrants a year over the next few. They also expect us to lose 500k through emmigration.
Where are these 1100 odd/day people to live ?
The govt is hammering private landlords and they are selling up like it has gone out of fashion because of increased restrictions.
Should we start to go back to council housing ? I think we need to.
It's a grim business being poorly managed at the moment. |
Bear in mind with those numbers that there's probably a good 600,000 deaths a year and our birth rate is not anything near replacement level.
Not to say we don't need more housing, we desperately do. |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts (n/t) on 17:36 - Jan 29 with 1171 views | PhilTWTD |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts (n/t) on 17:28 - Jan 29 by DJR |
I blame Ken Livingstone. [Post edited 29 Jan 17:32]
|
You think this is an element of a purge of the left of the party? |  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:41 - Jan 29 with 1139 views | Swansea_Blue |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:44 - Jan 29 by itfcjoe |
If you want to build a house in the woods, then you are a developer
If you are already living in a house in the woods, then you are conservationist |
If you want to flatten the woods to build houses, then you are a developer.
She’ll argue that we need the houses and that investing in infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy. She’s probably right. People can’t eat impact assessments, whilst eating, or heating - you decide! (ooh, that’s a good idea for a Tory game show), are what a lot of working class people are worried about now.
I’m very much for environmental conservation alongside things like energy conservation (go Insulate Britain!), so I’m not keen on what she’s doing. But it’s easy to worry about green issues when you don’t have financial worries. Lots of people will probably like what she’s saying unfortunately. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:43 - Jan 29 with 1129 views | Swansea_Blue |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:22 - Jan 29 by Oldsmoker |
Everybody is green and environment friendly when it suits them.
Next door neighbour used to bang on about how organic his garden was.
Out came the pesticides when his crop was threatened by slugs and insects. |
Maybe you misheard and he likes having orgasms in his garden? | |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts (n/t) on 18:11 - Jan 29 with 1066 views | DJR |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts (n/t) on 17:36 - Jan 29 by PhilTWTD |
You think this is an element of a purge of the left of the party? |
They'll be building on allotments next, just to spite Jeremy Corbyn. [Post edited 29 Jan 18:11]
| | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 18:11 - Jan 29 with 1065 views | bluestandard |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 14:58 - Jan 29 by DarkBrandon |
As it usually the case it depends on the execution.
If you have a million pounds (say) then you can probably find ways of spending it that improve the environment and bio-diversity that are better than direct mitigation of the effects of a particular development. If it is done well it will be better than the current situation.
We've ended up spending a fortune on tunnels to protect bats from HS2, and putting speakers in the sea to drive fish away from warm water outspills at Sizewell 2.
All of this stuff slows development down (how long do bat and newt surveys take?) and isn't the best way of protecting the enviroment.
Of course if the money for the funds is spent poorly then we don't get these benefits but you'd think identifying suitable areas wouldn't be too hard. |
Have an upvote for one of the few sensible comments on here. |  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 18:14 - Jan 29 with 1055 views | bluestandard |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:06 - Jan 29 by leitrimblue |
Are you suggesting that 'bat and newt surveys' or environmental impact assessments prior to the commencement of large infrastructure projects isn't the best way to protect the environment?
Surely its the results of these environmental reports that will help direct the best way to protect our natural and historical environment?
Has for your 2nd paragraph, im not convinced how spending this money may improve the environment and biodiversity better then direct mitigation based on the findings of specialist reports? |
Sorry but I think you've completely missed the point here.
It is proposed to replace EIAs with a different regionally based assessment which looks at the environment as a whole. Piecemeal mitigation on a project-by-project basis achieves very little and costs a disproportionate amount of money and resources. Better to pool money together and create regional mitigation schemes which really make a measurable difference. I think the OP explained it rather eloquently. | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 18:16 - Jan 29 with 1041 views | bluestandard |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:12 - Jan 29 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“ If it is done well it will be better than the current situation.”
Not much evidence of that…I think you found the flaw in your own plan. You just know it’s going to be status quo for development judging this lot so far.
As a millennial I know the struggle of getting on the housing ladder. However, THEY (Council/govt) have turned me into a nimby. Since they built a new housing estate we had no extra doctors surgery, not even an extra GP when it was already stretched. It’s now virtually impossible to get a doctors appointment and I’ve had to resort on occasion to using a private GP.
It’s all very well saying you’ll build 1.5m homes, but it’s just as important to build the amenities with it. Why WOULD you support new development near where you live if it impacts your health or quality of life - you’d be bonkers. |
Sorry but imho you are conflating a number of unrelated issues here. This has got nothing to do with supporting infrastructure, and everything to do with how we approach the issue of ensuring that building and construction has a net positive and enhancing effect on the environment as a whole. | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 18:30 - Jan 29 with 1013 views | Leaky |
Or OAP'S & farmers |  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 18:32 - Jan 29 with 1010 views | Swansea_Blue |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 18:14 - Jan 29 by bluestandard |
Sorry but I think you've completely missed the point here.
It is proposed to replace EIAs with a different regionally based assessment which looks at the environment as a whole. Piecemeal mitigation on a project-by-project basis achieves very little and costs a disproportionate amount of money and resources. Better to pool money together and create regional mitigation schemes which really make a measurable difference. I think the OP explained it rather eloquently. |
Although EIAs are prepared by the developer at their cost, same as other regulatory requirements such as FRAs. If it was centralised and not on a project basis, how would the financing work? Councils don’t have the money.
Good idea to have a wider view, but maybe Councils would say their Local Devp Plans already tick that box as much as possible at a regional scale? | |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 18:41 - Jan 29 with 986 views | Oldsmoker |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:43 - Jan 29 by Swansea_Blue |
Maybe you misheard and he likes having orgasms in his garden? |
You're probably right.
I used to switch off when he started talking, especially when he suspected his neighbours on the other side of his property of nicking his toms. | |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts (n/t) on 18:42 - Jan 29 with 985 views | PhilTWTD |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts (n/t) on 18:11 - Jan 29 by DJR |
They'll be building on allotments next, just to spite Jeremy Corbyn. [Post edited 29 Jan 18:11]
|
Huge tax increases on homemade jam. | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 19:29 - Jan 29 with 906 views | ronnyd |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:09 - Jan 29 by ITFC_Forever |
Some of these newts seem to pop up everywhere anyone wants to build anything, so they can’t be that rare… |
They must be transient newts. | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 19:29 - Jan 29 with 907 views | GeoffSentence |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:09 - Jan 29 by ITFC_Forever |
Some of these newts seem to pop up everywhere anyone wants to build anything, so they can’t be that rare… |
This could all be boollocks, because it is one of those half-@rsed, half-remembered things, but I have it in the back of my mind that Great Crested Newts are very rare in Europe so they were designated as a protected species when we were in the EU, but that the UK is a bit of a stronghold for them and that's why they keep holding up developments here.
Nonsense or not nonsense.....you decide | |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 20:12 - Jan 29 with 864 views | Swansea_Blue |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 19:29 - Jan 29 by GeoffSentence |
This could all be boollocks, because it is one of those half-@rsed, half-remembered things, but I have it in the back of my mind that Great Crested Newts are very rare in Europe so they were designated as a protected species when we were in the EU, but that the UK is a bit of a stronghold for them and that's why they keep holding up developments here.
Nonsense or not nonsense.....you decide |
Are you sure you’re not getting confused with Pissed As A Newts. They’re really common through the UK, especially at weekends 
(GCNs are pretty common in England, but are disappearing in large numbers as their habitats get concreted over). | |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 20:18 - Jan 29 with 847 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 14:55 - Jan 29 by Ryorry |
Seriously thought of tearing my card up, SEZs & Freeports was bad enough. Only the ability to protest from within at CLP meetings & send the feedback to central office keeps me going. |
 |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 20:35 - Jan 29 with 832 views | Swansea_Blue |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 20:18 - Jan 29 by BanksterDebtSlave |
|
Justified to a degree, but what was the genuine alternative last time? | |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 20:37 - Jan 29 with 825 views | itfcjoe |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:53 - Jan 29 by leitrimblue |
You wanna try to explain that in greater detail?
Just sounds like the unthought through ramblings of a developer type. ( I work with a lot of um  ) |
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.... |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 22:26 - Jan 29 with 745 views | stonojnr |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:44 - Jan 29 by flykickingbybgunn |
There has been a study into if rare snails can be moved from one part of the marshes to another. It has been ongoing for 10 years by the Acle Straight. Thus holding up road improvements to prevent accidents. The road is a death trap with regular accidents. 2 Blokes died as recently as last August.
But let us not risk moving the snails 100 yards away from the road. Far better to let people die. After all there are plenty of them around. |
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. | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 22:59 - Jan 29 with 720 views | bluestandard |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 18:32 - Jan 29 by Swansea_Blue |
Although EIAs are prepared by the developer at their cost, same as other regulatory requirements such as FRAs. If it was centralised and not on a project basis, how would the financing work? Councils don’t have the money.
Good idea to have a wider view, but maybe Councils would say their Local Devp Plans already tick that box as much as possible at a regional scale? |
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. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
