River pollution. Michael Gove latest plans .

I think it's appalling.

They really hate us, don't they?

I think it’s disgusting as if our rivers need more pollution.

I expect nothing more now.

It is all so utterly depressing.

No doubt the developers will show their gratitude by bunging money into the Tory coffers which is badly needed.

Don’t forget that these same developers had switched off the money tree tap because of the Tory planning laws.

The Tories don’t care what damage they cause as long as they can get the money in.

We do need much more affordable housing, so not sure what the answer is.

Whitewavemark2

I expect nothing more now.

It is all so utterly depressing.

No doubt the developers will show their gratitude by bunging money into the Tory coffers which is badly needed.

This.

DiamondLily

We do need much more affordable housing, so not sure what the answer is.

Whatever the answer is though, it’s not this. This is just madness.

Yes we do need more affordable housing but very little is being built. There seems to be plenty of the other sort with properties being marketed and bought in the far east as investment.

We need more housing to be built. Planners may impose conditions to protect water quality. People complain when sufficient houses aren’t being built and complain when restrictions are relaxed. They also complain about the lack of provision of accommodation for homeless people, young people and asylum seekers. What do they actually want? You can’t have everything. Something has to give. Suggestions?

Germanshepherdsmum

We need more housing to be built. Planners may impose conditions to protect water quality. People complain when sufficient houses aren’t being built and complain when restrictions are relaxed. They also complain about the lack of provision of accommodation for homeless people, young people and asylum seekers. What do they actually want? You can’t have everything. Something has to give. Suggestions?

A solution that doesn’t cause more damage to already heavily polluted rivers is essential, wouldn’t you agree Germanshepherdsmum? I know you’ve said before that you don’t buy clothes from China because of the environmental impact, and this is the same issue, surely?
There is plenty of land already earmarked by councils for development without this requirement, the government should pump prime the building of affordable housing on those sites to start with.

The point is that Gove has taken the planning rules relating to water pollution away to make life easier for the developers.

Of course these houses can and should be built with due regard to the environment.

Totally agree, GSM.
Everything the government tries to do is thwarted by a different pressure group, none of which has a sensible alternative to offer.

eazybee

Totally agree, GSM.
Everything the government tries to do is thwarted by a different pressure group, none of which has a sensible alternative to offer.

Isn’t the sensible alternative to keep the present regulations which developers already comply with? Are you actually saying you think this move is acceptable eazybee?

No Casdon, I don’t buy Chinese products because of the economic impact on the UK and their human rights and animal welfare records, not because of environmental issues. Developers have deep pockets, believe me. Look at the bonuses their senior executives receive (always somewhat galling to me when negotiating fees). Why should the government (the taxpayer) subsidise the cost of complying with planning conditions to protect the environment? That cost will be borne by the landowner selling the site to them. I have no problem with that, having seen how much landowners pocket when selling development land.

The majority want more affordable homes wether rented or owner occupied, gransnet does not represent the majority. The proportion of take home pay spent on housing is far too high.

eazybee

Totally agree, GSM.
Everything the government tries to do is thwarted by a different pressure group, none of which has a sensible alternative to offer.

There are very sensible alternatives suggested on this thread.

What is NOT sensible is to pollute our rivers with chemicals etc. which is what Gove at a stroke of his poison pen has allowed.

Today we walked along the river Avon south of Salisbury/Fordingbridge and watched children paddling, “swimming” and generally enjoying themselves in the shallow waters.

For how long?

There is prime building land upstream and if Gove has his way will be built on without any consideration for the filth drained into the river waters.

Germanshepherdsmum

No Casdon, I don’t buy Chinese products because of the economic impact on the UK and their human rights and animal welfare records, not because of environmental issues. Developers have deep pockets, believe me. Look at the bonuses their senior executives receive (always somewhat galling to me when negotiating fees). Why should the government (the taxpayer) subsidise the cost of complying with planning conditions to protect the environment? That cost will be borne by the landowner selling the site to them. I have no problem with that, having seen how much landowners pocket when selling development land.

The amount landowners get is too high but that’s a product of the planning system restricting supply of land. Which in turn is restricted by pressure groups objecting to proposals, every development in this area is fought tooth and nail, most go to
public enquiry. The one development that didn’t is at a standstill because of demands for road improvements far in excess of expected provision.

Germanshepherdsmum

No Casdon, I don’t buy Chinese products because of the economic impact on the UK and their human rights and animal welfare records, not because of environmental issues. Developers have deep pockets, believe me. Look at the bonuses their senior executives receive (always somewhat galling to me when negotiating fees). Why should the government (the taxpayer) subsidise the cost of complying with planning conditions to protect the environment? That cost will be borne by the landowner selling the site to them. I have no problem with that, having seen how much landowners pocket when selling development land.

I agree, developers do have deep pockets. That’s why they can work within the existing regulations, they will still make a profit.

The developers should be forced to use the land banks they’re sitting on, enough for a million homes.

You can have both houses and clean rivers and wetlands. It just needs government to turn the screw on the water companies to invest in more treatment plants to treat sewage and remove phosphates and to press the developers to use the land banks they have built up. The government's present scheme is clearly to shift costs into the taxpayer and keep up the profits of their biggest donors: disgraceful. And if course not building social housing.

DiamondLily:

'We do need much more affordable housing, so not sure what the answer is.'

Boats?

We live in the most nature depleted country on the planet. Are we proud of this ? As for crowing that Brexit has enabled us to lower our standards even more- it’s disgusting. Have all brownfield sites been used? No.

Regarding new developments, it’s entirely possible to separate run off water in heavy rainfall conditions from waste water that goes to the sewage works where it can be treated. So it shouldn’t be new developments that contribute to sewage discharge its older systems that don’t separate flood water from waste effectively.

It’s the governments responsibility to decide what are acceptable standards for water discharges and fund any improvements, then decide wether the cost is passed on the waste producer be it householder or business.

Trouble is, our government has decided to LOWER our standards, not improve them.