The radical English changes proposed to house planning, unsurprisingly, don't seem to be meeting with much favour in environmental circles (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/06/planning-reforms-will-damage-uk-nature-environmentalists-warn). The dividing up of land into growth, renewal and protection zones is obviously designed to appeal to house builders and house owners (they would be able to add extensions at the drop of a hat) rather than biologists (who like to see areas protected for their wildlife and corridors between such areas along which organisms can move). Although it suggests there will be minor 'improvements' (like all 'new' roads being lined with trees), it avoids cutting into builder profits by insisting that all new homes should be properly insulated and heated in ways that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Little also appears to be said about avoiding building on land that is (or, in the future, will be) liable to flooding. Perhaps it might be a good idea not to have to add too much to the road network to serve 'growth' areas? In essence, the proposals make no contribution to the country's urgent need to attempt to counter climate change. These planning ideas also intensify the 'us and them' message, as only people in protection zones, will get anything like the current level of preservation of their environments. The worst aspect of the proposals as far as environmentalists are concerned is that they remove any voice from people who want to protect locations important to the natural world (but we know what Boris thinks about newts!). The most scandalous aspect, however, is the fact that it does not appear to be planning permission that accounts for England's low rate of building new housing. There are, reportedly, large tracts of land in England which already have planning permission but builders have elected not to start constructing.Company profits rather than 'red tape' appear be causing the feeble performance.
No comments:
Post a Comment