Tentativo di proteggere rari flussi di gesso nella pianificazione del disegno di legge respinto dai parlamentari laburisti
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/14/attempt-to-protect-englands-rare-chalk-streams-in-planning-bill-rejected-by-labour-mps
di F0urLeafCl0ver
11 commenti
for an alleged nation of nature/animal lovers we sure do seem to fucking hate nature with a vehement passion
Over the recent few years I’ve heard quite a lot about these streams. One fact is quite striking, “There are only 200 chalk streams in the world, the MPs heard, and England is home to 85% of them.”
The time to be worrying about chalk streams was decades ago. The fact is these objections (news, bats, chalk streams) are interchangeable because the real objection is an allergy to building anything at all. Let’s get building!
Only 200 in the world. Well that sounds kinda important then?
> Labour MPs also rejected another amendment which sought to ensure that irreplaceable habitats – which are considered the jewels in the crown of England’s wildlife and nature – could not be developed on and the harm offset by using the nature restoration fund. These habitats include ancient woodlands, blanket bogs and lowland fens.
Really disappointing. We hardly have any ancient woodlands left, why not just protect them?
Man that’s fucked
I do sometimes think we take red tape too far, like with that ridiculous 100 million quid bat house
But these chalk streams are **extremely** rare, like even on the global scale. There’s only like 200 worldwide and something like half of them are in the UK
probably end up with the water being piped to a drinking water extraction point , the rivers filled in and built over
Labour sure seem desperate for me to vote Green in the next election.
You can make an environmental argument to protect literally anything.
The disused Bromley gas works has 70 protected tree orders on it despite being a contaminated disused gas works.
Every home in this country is built on what was once pristine wilderness. Why was it ok to pave over that wilderness to build your house but not to build more houses now?
“Why don’t we just use brownfield sites?”
Because there’s only room for 1.4m houses on them and most have such strict restrictions they can’t be developed at all, such as the disused gas works that can’t be developed on environmental grounds.
We need this planning reform bill to be as strong as possible.
There are only around 200 chalk streams in the world and 85% of them are in the UK. They are exceptionally rare yet we are just going to let them be destroyed.
I’m sympathetic, but I do think we lean far too heavily towards the Nimby side of the scale when it comes to planning permission. We can’t seem to build *anything* without it costing a fortune and getting tied up in endless disputes.
Unfortunately there will always be casualties like this, but at the national scale that’s the price of actually trying to build the infrastructure and housing we need *today*.
And yes, I am also in favour of massively restricting immigration to prevent this spiralling further.