| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts 14:38 - Jan 29 with 7389 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 14:48 - Jan 29 with 4296 views | 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]
|  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 14:48 - Jan 29 with 4294 views | Dubtractor |
It is hugely disappointing to hear such dismissive language used about stuff like this.
Fair to say that I'm underwhelmed by what Labour have offered so far. |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 14:55 - Jan 29 with 4232 views | Ryorry |
| 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]
|
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 14:58 - Jan 29 with 4206 views | DarkBrandon |
| 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]
|
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. |  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:36 - Jan 29 with 4055 views | Clapham_Junction |
| 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. |
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. |  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:39 - Jan 29 with 4032 views | DJR |
Who'd've thunk it?
Alex Wickham from Bloomberg says Rachel Reeves’ speech has gone down well with centre-right thinktanks.
Centre-right think tanks are praising Reeves’ speech, while the main complaints come from climate groups on the left. Perhaps suggests she has begun to make a successful move back to the middle ground of British politics after the budget. And presents a big problem for Kemi Badenoch?
CPS @rcolvile: “The vast bulk of the Chancellor’s speech was hugely welcome”
Britain Remade @samrichardswebb: “For too long, Britain has failed to build the new homes, clean energy infrastructure, and transport links we desperately need. Today’s speech contained concrete steps towards changing that”
IEA @TomClougherty: “The Chancellor is saying all the right things on growth and should be applauded for many of the decisions she has taken today”
Conservative Environment Network @samuelhall0: “These are good market-friendly policies that Conservatives will regret not delivering in government” [Post edited 29 Jan 15:40]
|  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:43 - Jan 29 with 3994 views | blueasfook |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:39 - Jan 29 by DJR |
Who'd've thunk it?
Alex Wickham from Bloomberg says Rachel Reeves’ speech has gone down well with centre-right thinktanks.
Centre-right think tanks are praising Reeves’ speech, while the main complaints come from climate groups on the left. Perhaps suggests she has begun to make a successful move back to the middle ground of British politics after the budget. And presents a big problem for Kemi Badenoch?
CPS @rcolvile: “The vast bulk of the Chancellor’s speech was hugely welcome”
Britain Remade @samrichardswebb: “For too long, Britain has failed to build the new homes, clean energy infrastructure, and transport links we desperately need. Today’s speech contained concrete steps towards changing that”
IEA @TomClougherty: “The Chancellor is saying all the right things on growth and should be applauded for many of the decisions she has taken today”
Conservative Environment Network @samuelhall0: “These are good market-friendly policies that Conservatives will regret not delivering in government” [Post edited 29 Jan 15:40]
|
Nigel Farage : "Let's sign her up for Reform" |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:44 - Jan 29 with 3975 views | 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. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:53 - Jan 29 with 3903 views | 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 |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 15:55 - Jan 29 with 3869 views | nodge_blue |
Please dont hate me everyone but for the second time today im saying good. The completion of the Norwich ndr has been continually stopped and re challenged in court. Its a waste of tax payers money and an abuse of the legal system.
And in the meantime we have rat runs, lorries driving up pavements cos the rat runs are too narrow and poorer air quality. |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:06 - Jan 29 with 3785 views | leitrimblue |
| 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. |
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? |  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:12 - Jan 29 with 3752 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| 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. |
“ 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. |  | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:17 - Jan 29 with 3708 views | OldFart71 |
What Governments say about the environment is mainly lip service to pacify certain sections whilst riding roughshod over everyone else and making them pay for the privilege. Reeves has squeaky bum time due to her last budget and is grasping at any straws she can. The old chestnut that the Tories are to blame may last another year or so but if people can't see any change and more and more are turning up at food banks, fewer have jobs, the NHS is no better and the economy is still on it's knees then there will be blood to quote the film title. Not literally of course and I don't advocate violence. | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:32 - Jan 29 with 3608 views | DJR |
| 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. |
South East Water struggles to maintain the water supply to West Kent from time to time even without the pressure of new housing.
Here's today's news which I was alerted to when my wife got stuck in traffic heading to a water bottle distribution area.
https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/sevenoaks-tonbridge-residents-urged-onl [Post edited 29 Jan 16:33]
| | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:32 - Jan 29 with 3611 views | 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. | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:32 - Jan 29 with 3609 views | DarkBrandon |
| 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? |
"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?"
Yes.
"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?"
If you've got a few million pounds to spend, what it is the best way to spend it? Would it be maintaining existing areas of diversity, such as the Norfolk Broads? Would it be taking large areas of wasteland and reverting them back to a more natural state and allowing the wildlife to return? Would it be cleaning up the rivers and canals (as has happened a lot over the last few decades, water companies not withstanding), or is it dividing this money across lots of housing developments, and infrastructure projects and making tweaks to try and mitigate the harm caused to a couple of species. I'm certainly persuaded it is unlikely to be the latter. | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:34 - Jan 29 with 3596 views | DarkBrandon |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:32 - Jan 29 by DJR |
South East Water struggles to maintain the water supply to West Kent from time to time even without the pressure of new housing.
Here's today's news which I was alerted to when my wife got stuck in traffic heading to a water bottle distribution area.
https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/sevenoaks-tonbridge-residents-urged-onl [Post edited 29 Jan 16:33]
|
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"). | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:41 - Jan 29 with 3526 views | DarkBrandon |
| 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. |
I sympathise with your lack of GP provision. It was the same for us when (ironically) we were living in a largish new-build village. The level of GP funding is determined in part by the proportion of elderly residents in an area and as very few retired people move into new villages we had very few GPs. The high birth rate in the village (caused by the demographic of the people who did move in) caused high demand on the surgery, but no equivalent up-lift in funding.
The counter-argument against housing development and GP provision, is that building houses doesn't create more people. It just allows young people to live in their own house/flat rather than staying in their parents spare rooms forever. At least if you look at the broader picture. Obviously locally there will be challenges.
Even in our new-build village (now 25 years old) there are occasional proposals to increase the size further and increase the housing density on those pockets still undeveloped. I support all these proposals, but they are vehemently opposed by a number of residents who can't see the contradiction of opposing building on land next to their new-build house. | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:44 - Jan 29 with 3506 views | itfcjoe |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:41 - Jan 29 by DarkBrandon |
I sympathise with your lack of GP provision. It was the same for us when (ironically) we were living in a largish new-build village. The level of GP funding is determined in part by the proportion of elderly residents in an area and as very few retired people move into new villages we had very few GPs. The high birth rate in the village (caused by the demographic of the people who did move in) caused high demand on the surgery, but no equivalent up-lift in funding.
The counter-argument against housing development and GP provision, is that building houses doesn't create more people. It just allows young people to live in their own house/flat rather than staying in their parents spare rooms forever. At least if you look at the broader picture. Obviously locally there will be challenges.
Even in our new-build village (now 25 years old) there are occasional proposals to increase the size further and increase the housing density on those pockets still undeveloped. I support all these proposals, but they are vehemently opposed by a number of residents who can't see the contradiction of opposing building on land next to their new-build house. |
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 | |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:51 - Jan 29 with 3459 views | leitrimblue |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:32 - Jan 29 by DarkBrandon |
"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?"
Yes.
"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?"
If you've got a few million pounds to spend, what it is the best way to spend it? Would it be maintaining existing areas of diversity, such as the Norfolk Broads? Would it be taking large areas of wasteland and reverting them back to a more natural state and allowing the wildlife to return? Would it be cleaning up the rivers and canals (as has happened a lot over the last few decades, water companies not withstanding), or is it dividing this money across lots of housing developments, and infrastructure projects and making tweaks to try and mitigate the harm caused to a couple of species. I'm certainly persuaded it is unlikely to be the latter. |
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? | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:53 - Jan 29 with 3436 views | leitrimblue |
| 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 |
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  ) | | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:55 - Jan 29 with 3413 views | bsw72 |
| 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. |
Don't fall for the gvmt rhetoric that delays are a result of the nature itself, the delays are down to mismanagement and poor planning.
The reason that there was a "fortune" spent on the bat tunnels, is because the government chose to ignore evidence presented over a decade ago which warned about the impacts on rare bats in Bernwood Forest, but the government chose not conduct a strategic environmental assessment which directly lead to the delays and additional costs, and could have been avoided.
Ongoing failure to consider viable alternatives for infrastructure within Sites of Special Scientific Interest has resulted in significant delays and complications for developers and the government.
I love the way people think that we need to spend to "improve the environment" and if humans do it well "it will be better than the current situation".
Before we came along nature was pretty good at doing that without our "help". [Post edited 29 Jan 16:56]
| | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:00 - Jan 29 with 3325 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 16:41 - Jan 29 by DarkBrandon |
I sympathise with your lack of GP provision. It was the same for us when (ironically) we were living in a largish new-build village. The level of GP funding is determined in part by the proportion of elderly residents in an area and as very few retired people move into new villages we had very few GPs. The high birth rate in the village (caused by the demographic of the people who did move in) caused high demand on the surgery, but no equivalent up-lift in funding.
The counter-argument against housing development and GP provision, is that building houses doesn't create more people. It just allows young people to live in their own house/flat rather than staying in their parents spare rooms forever. At least if you look at the broader picture. Obviously locally there will be challenges.
Even in our new-build village (now 25 years old) there are occasional proposals to increase the size further and increase the housing density on those pockets still undeveloped. I support all these proposals, but they are vehemently opposed by a number of residents who can't see the contradiction of opposing building on land next to their new-build house. |
“The counter-argument against housing development and GP provision, is that building houses doesn't create more people.”
Which of course is nonsense as otherwise the population of towns wouldn’t grow, we have a lot of people that move out from London due to the cheaper housing. Most places aren’t Royston Vasey where only local people move into new houses. It’s also noticeably harder to get an appointment during school holidays - I doubt that’s can be attributed to elderly people.
Not having a pop at you - just the system which is laughable. I’d also add that whilst building does create some economic benefit- how much of that is offset by our ailing infrastructure- I.e no new roads, or public transport, people taking time off work because they can’t see a doctor etc. [Post edited 29 Jan 17:02]
| | | |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:02 - Jan 29 with 3305 views | Radlett_blue |
On HS2 (which I think was a gross waste of money anyway) they spent £100m on a bat tunnel, to protect some bat which was considered rare at one time but apparently there are now over 20,000 of the species in Britain.
Absolutely batty! |  |
| |
| fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts on 17:09 - Jan 29 with 3256 views | ITFC_Forever |
Some of these newts seem to pop up everywhere anyone wants to build anything, so they can’t be that rare… |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
