United Kingdom

5097 readers

175 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Labour housing plans could destroy 215,000 hectares of nature in England, analysis shows (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Noit@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Let's do the More or Less thing. Is that a big number?

England has a land area of just over 13,046,000 hectares ^https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/land-use-in-england-2022/land-use-statistics-england-2022^
215,000 / 13,046,000 = 1.6% of England we're talking about here.

I'm big on environmentalism and regenerating England's natural habitats, but trading a percent or so of total land area to ensure people have homes seems like a no brainer. Ideally we'd build higher density to avoid having to continue suburban sprawl, but any homes > perfect homes that are never built.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 4 points 18 hours ago

trading a percent or so of total land area to ensure people have homes

Ignoring the huge amount of brownfield area we have from closed factories etc.

Honestly if it was truly about a shortage of land. I'd be all for it. But it is not. It is about refusing to clean up and build on already developed land. In an attempt to increase profits.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

I'm curious what the numbers look like for commercial properties standing empty because they're investment vehicles for legal financial shenanigans. I'm talking about how many offices we've built over the last twenty years when anyone with a lick of sense could see this was a waste of time.

I don't mean "why aren't we doing that instead" - the article just gets me wondering about how much space we've wasted on worthless concrete garbage that stands perpetually empty.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Damned if you do, damned if you dont

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They don't have this problem in China

[–] tinned_tomatoes@feddit.uk 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

because they have much more land and much less regard for the environmental and cultural history and importance of different areas?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 12 hours ago

Doesn't necessarily mean land. A nice big new bus station was built in Belfast and people found things to complain about. Meanwhile the Chinese people I knew were like "woah, this place actually has the ability to develop"

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

or France, Italy, ....

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

NIMBYism is killing this country. We have the smallest available housing stock in Europe by some margin. Labour are right to be trying to make a dent in the issue.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

You do not need to pave green space to build homes. There's plenty of paved, ugly, low-density areas in desperate need of upgrades. The problem is the British public's obsession with that idea that everyone needs their own patch of grass and two cars.