Scrapping housebuilder water pollution rules in England to cost taxpayer £140m

Comments

• Syldon@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  We have to remember that the areas that are stopping house building are predominantly Tory. So this will have more of an effect on non Tory areas.

  But the real question has to be: How much did they donate?

  source
• Emperor@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  That’s OK, public money being directed straight to those in most need: housing developers.

  source
• BobTheBoozer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Please support this petition to stop this… the Tories have ruined our seas, now they plan to ruin our rivers, all for their wealthy friends. you.38degrees.org.uk/…/stop-builders-polluting-ou…?

  source
• autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This is the best summary I could come up with:

  ---

  If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes.

  The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.

  But the new amendment allows planning officials to ignore the extra pollution caused by sewage from new homes in sensitive areas and runoff from construction sites, with the taxpayer paying for the offsets instead.

  “With some areas having been blighted for four years, the prospect of a swift resolution will be much-needed good news for companies on the verge of going out of business, their employees and for households most affected by housing affordability pressures.

  Though many of the measures regard new funding and responsibilities for the government’s advisory body Natural England, its chair, Tony Juniper, declined to comment on the news.

  Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “What the government is proposing here is to remove legal protections for nature, throw away requirements for polluters to pay, and instead use taxpayers’ money to try to fill the gap.

  ---

  The original article contains 886 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  source