Angela Rayner says newts can’t be more protected than people who need housing
https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayner-says-newts-cant-be-more-protected-than-people-who-need-housing-13269419
by topotaul
Angela Rayner says newts can’t be more protected than people who need housing
https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayner-says-newts-cant-be-more-protected-than-people-who-need-housing-13269419
by topotaul
28 comments
Surely there are parts of Britain that don’t have either houses or engendered species on them, can’t we build on those?
First they came for the newts and I said nothing. Then they came for the bats, and I did nothing. Now they are coming for me. Badger badger badger /s
Apologies for mangling that quote.
Acording to the [Wildlife Trust](https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/amphibians/great-crested-newt), newts are found:
> …breeding in pinds [and] spending most of the rest of the year feeding on invertebrates in woodland, hedgerows, marshes and tussocky grassland. They hibernate underground, among tree roots and in old walls.
So actually what she’s saying is woodland, hedgerows, marshes and trees can’t be more protected than people who need housing. It’s the same old ‘builders should be allowed to rip up the green belt and destroy our natural environment’ argument dressed up as 3 newts in a trenchcoat…
Build higher density housing that goes up then rather than spreading low density detached new builds across endangered species land. Doesn’t have to be Tower blocks either, 5 Over 1s would be a big improvement for housing density.
Oh right, Labour aren’t actually interested in solving the housing crisis they just want more donations from property developers.
Affordable and plentiful housing, biodiversity and an end to depletion of nature, population growth from migration.
Pick two.
If Ken Livingstone had not retired from politics because of his ill-health, imagine what his response would be.
I am so sorry to be a broken record but 30 Years of +8m Size of London Population increase is inevitably going to be bad for the Biodiversity and Nature and Environment when the POST HOC:
* We need so many houses & Infrastructure (sewage, water, energy, roads etc etc, council tick boxes) to solve the S-show of living basics for so many people’s basic welfare.
Where was the serious take on all this? Never.
Because it was always pre planned to boost the economy and population with global deals to send millions to the UK so it was always wasted discussion on migration is liberty vs xenophobes little britain or anti eu.
Never did the full modelling and simulation of the above ever take precedence eg Newts seem insignificant and yet the balance of a beautiful green and nature rich UK with modernity is severely skewed and needs rebalancing via LOWER POPULATION not higher for balance between humans and nature and then higher standards of living sustainably for humans too!
Looking after the lowly newts ultimately is looking after the optimal future for humans in the UK as seemingly incredulous as that sounds… roll on all the other living networks of biological organisms…
Or just turn the whole place into a giant shopping mall!
This is an absolutely ridiculous take, especially when wildlife in Britain is in sharp decline. We need houses, but we don’t need them on greenbelt land. There’s plenty of inner city/town old industrial areas and old plots sitting empty, build on those first!
Football grounds and golf courses cannot be more protected than people who need housing. Lets build on those and save the newts.
If Labour are going with a ‘fuck the environment’ mindset why is Miliband going to add huge costs to consumers for clean energy to supposedly help the environment?
Although the UK’s contribution to clean energy will be dwarfed by the damage by the likes of India and the US.
Ah yes, because humans are worth more for biodiversity than other species.
Vile woman.
She turned me into a Newt.
A Newt?
I got better..
Ok then build over some brownfield dump or some old roads or whatever. Or better yet, bulldoze the ecological hell that are golf courses and build on that. We and the newts can coexist you know.
For all the waffle that Britain likes to do about it being a nation of “animal lovers” and getting all foaming at the mouth when somebody kicks a puppy, you don’t seem to be putting your money where your mouth is. [One in six species are at risk of going extinct](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/september/one-in-six-species-at-risk-of-going-extinct-in-great-britain.html) and farmland birds, as an example, have dropped in number by 58%. [70 species of bird are red-listed, including once common species like the house martin and swift.](https://www.bto.org/our-science/publications/birds-conservation-concern) . It’s bleak for amphibians as well- 4 out of 13 species are threatened (https://www.arc-trust.org/news/extinction-risk-defined-for-britains-amphibians-and-reptiles#:~:text=The%20exercise%20reveals%20that%204,classed%20as%20%E2%80%9CCritically%20Endangered%E2%80%9D.).
You need to start caring more about your wildlife. It’s all very well going all outraged when some alpaca is gonna be put down or when someone kicks a golden spangled shit-poodle but your biodiversity is collapsing around you and nobody notices.
So how many people can this island accommodate?
Wait, got an idea
Let’s tarmac the whole island, huh?
That would make all this building war mongers happy I guess.
I’ll one this up: let’s tarmac the whole world.
Who cares about environment. It’s not as if we need it to live, right?
Pretty sure we shouldn’t be building on wetlands for the obvious flooding reasons.
The UK is one of the most bio depleted countries, with more species under threat, on a rapidly heating planet, and she thinks we can just build over the environment without consequences such as flooding and sewerage overflows etc. We can’t even produce enough crops to feed ourselves.
In her own borough of Tameside they are destroying hundreds of acres of countryside for housing, when there have already been enough brownfield sites identified.
Awesome let’s kill off as many animals as possible 🤦♂️
It is not either newts or homes. It’s such a cop out.
The same legislation protects otters, bats and others. It’s no wonder some would love to rip that particular rulebook up.
There is definitely a way to do both, and we have a serious problem with nature degradation in this country that will affect us through issues like food security. Some of you might like r/rewildingUK
I agree with the statement, but we should probably also just build houses on land and not in ponds. Seems like a win:win.
Build high density housing in new cities with adequate public transport in a grid system and intelligent zoning.
Not glamorous, but 15-20 new cities will do the job.
There’s tons of empty run down houses in places like Liverpool, Bradford, Chester, Leeds? Perhaps the issue is jobs being sucked into the south and London rather than being well distributed across the U.K.
Was hoping to see less of the playing to the masses and some actual leadership and thought from this government.
more of the same bollocks.
Require developers to use brownfield sites first, and give organisations that are land-banking sites just 12 months to build.
England has one of the lowest biodiversity in the world, I used to work in construction, and the amount of wildlife that got decimated made me leave the industry. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be building, but high density near already established infrastructure is vital.
I’ll not bother disputing the 1.5 million figure but take it as gospel. Riding roughshod over local opposition will repeat mistakes made after WW2 where you got grotholes like Peterlee, Skelmersdale or monotenure urban sprawl like Hemel Hempstead, Harlow, and Redditch. Sure there were exceptions amongst which I’d class Milton Keynes but that’s me for you. NIMBYs nimb because they feel it is being done to them not for them. Letting councils decide on the mix, architecture, layout are key and would remove a lot of opposition. Newts are important and if you’re moving newts why are building in a wet pond anyway? The one thing that we are not hearing is pushback against the greedy developers who get away with building identikit ticky tacky boxes all over regardless of the vernacular (sometimes they don’t, I agree), and wriggle out of their s106 agreements. Councils should be given the power to force them to pay for communal facilities up front and building them in advance. For it’s part the government should facilitate proper transport and accessibility for the new housing and stop kicking these things down the road, or track, ahem.
Used to live in a small town which had an old colleriey that had been turned into a green space with paths, a brook was really nice, it had deer on it, great crested newts and ground nesting birds.
Was a triumph of turning brownfield into a community enhansing area
Then the torys got hold of the council, sold it off to developers, said it was brownfield. Then surveys showed the protected newts and ground nesting birds.
They didn’t mow it. Waited untill nesting season then the council mowed it right to the ground, then a survey done that week found no evidence and they built on it.
While the newts should be protected and we should be protecting nature, I udberstand her point but the newts are the tip of the iceberg. There are so many back handers between council and developers it makes a mockery of the system, as does land banking.
Development go up for approval with x hundred houses a new school a couple of shops and a doctor’s. By the time it gets built it’s just housing and none of the other works. Then it’s handed over the the council even if there is a management company in place.
Fix these things before reducing protection on the animals
They will have to continue the “new school” scam. Nobody complains about a new school being built, so they build a school on green belt, then knock the old school down and build houses on there. Pacifies the easily manipulated.
Comments are closed.