I have no issue with this, so long as he isn't converting loads of green space to houses. Brown field sites, or offices that have been empty for ages, should be targetted... not that empty field on the edge of the village.
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)
United Kingdom
4108 readers
217 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The only local objections I have to large estates being built are services.
Round here in the Midlands they've built these massive estates everywhere and not upgraded any infrastructure at all. All the public services are maxed out, schools all full etc
East Anglia has the same problem. Large housing estates built everywhere with small towns and villages rapidly expanding, but no supporting infrastructure to match. Schools are overcrowded, doctors and dentists often impossible to find, roads gridlocked and trains packed.
The town I currently live in has nearly doubled in size in recent years and even the local supermarkets can't cope, there are trolley jams in the aisles.
It doesn't help that some local councils here will seem to rubber stamp housing proposals, but endlessly block anything else. Nor do they seem that interested in making developers keep their promises on services. We've had several estates proposed that were supposed to include schools, surgeries etc which then never appear.
I support increased housebuilding but it has to come with matching infrastructure. Failing to do so both fuels NIMBYism and harms local communities.
Social housing right?
Yeah, Angela made that clear that they'll be "holding developers to account for their obligations" for building social and affordable housing which sounds like strongly enforcing the percentage rules on new developments.
I can just SEE Padme's face.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Labour will need to override local opposition to deliver its plans for more housing, Sir Keir Starmer has warned.
The Labour leader told the BBC he would "bulldoze away" restrictive planning rules, and take on MPs and councils to build more homes.
In his speech to the party's annual conference on Tuesday, Sir Keir promised that, if elected, Labour would deliver more homes to "build a new Britain".
The hour-long address, which was interrupted by a protester showering the Labour leader with glitter, came on the penultimate day of the four-day gathering in Liverpool.
Sir Keir said a victory for Labour, which has a commanding lead in opinion polls, could herald a "decade of national renewal" after 13 years of Tory-led government.
At the heart of the speech was a plan to use dedicated state-backed companies to build a wave of new towns near English cities, echoing those built by Labour after the Second World War.
The original article contains 604 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!