UK Nature and Environment

387 readers

81 users here now

General Instance Rules:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
Do not spam or abuse network features.

Community Specific Rules:

Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.

Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.

Our autumn banner is a shot of maple leaves by Hossenfeffer.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

GreyShuck@feddit.uk

Kim@feddit.uk

New Biodiversity Law Mandates 10% Net-Gain for UK Housing Developments (www.edie.net)

submitted 7 months ago by GreyShuck@feddit.uk to c/nature@feddit.uk

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The legal requirement for developers to deliver Biodiversity Net-Gain (BNG) came into effect for developers of major housing projects (0.5 hectares or more, and/or 10+ dwellings) on February 12.

Now, from today (2 April), the requirement will be expanded to small housing developments and all commercial and mixed-use developments. It will impact almost 30,000 planning applications each month in England.

Developments that do not impact priority habitats and only impact less than 25 square metres of on-site habitat are among some of the only projects classed as exempt from BNG. A full list of exemptions can be found here, from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] Kim@feddit.uk 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If we really want to make more houses available quickly then we should be discouraging people from owning multiple houses.

Uhh...

discouraging

I don't think that's going to cut it. Legislating to prohibit maybe but not just discouraging.

[–] snota@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

I'd argue (without any data to back it up) that most of those second homes are in places that are not economically viable places to live (rural, seasonal towns etc.)

Personally I'd say the solution is higher density housing near cities where there are jobs and current infrastructure. These immense satellite towns that stink of American suburbia are the worst case scenario and only serve to line the pockets of shitty companies like Taylor Wimpy etc.