Labour housing plans could destroy 215,000 hectares of nature in England, analysis shows
Labour housing plans could destroy 215,000 hectares of nature in England, analysis shows
Let's do the More or Less thing. Is that a big number?
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.
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.
And the country's largest project to convert a brownfield site (Teesworks) to housing has sucked up hundreds of millions in public grants and investment, hoarded cash and extracted private profit for one man Lord Ben Houchen.
Possibly the biggest case of local government corruption and mismanagement in our time.
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.
They could always start with this issue:
The effect of this would be extremely minimal. Almost all empty homes in the UK are homes that are temporarily empty pending sale or between renters. Having empty homes is actually extremely normal, you can't really not have empty homes, as people are always moving.
With rare exceptions, empty homes aren't just sitting there empty for years, like this article implies. The landlords would much rather rent them out and make money.
The UK has far fewer empty empty homes than anywhere else in the developed world. Our housing stock isn't enough.
There's no other option but to build more. I hope Labour's plans can help with that, but who knows. And it'd need to be sustained.
There are 28 million families in the UK. [1]
Your article implies there are 25 million houses and 1 million is empty. [2]
The empty houses in the photos are not suitable for living in and should be condemned if they haven't already. Rebuilding a mid-terrace house is not simple and even after blow all of that we managed 1 million out of the 4 million required to at least have one home per family. That sounds like a terrible plan to work on the most expensive work and ultimately not make a dent in the issue.
[2] https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/why-empty-homes-matter
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.
According to The Big Issue (I can't find where they got their numbers from) there are/were more than 20 million square feet of empty office spaces in London. Which if we extrapolate from data I can find on occupancy rates within just the city of London, equates to around 5% of the total office space.
Not really a particularly large amount when you also see that roughly 7-8% of residential properties are also currently unoccupied.
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.
Damned if you do, damned if you dont
They don't have this problem in China
because they have much more land and much less regard for the environmental and cultural history and importance of different areas?
or France, Italy, ....