How many more green fields can we realistically sacrifice before we admit it's not working? We keep building and building, chasing growth targets that seem to benefit no one but the construction companies and their shareholders. Meanwhile, our flood plains are expanding, our biodiversity is plummeting, and the simple pleasure of walking through a meadow is becoming a distant memory. It's like trying to grow prize-winning tomatoes in a desert of concrete; you just keep watering a losing battle.
My proposal is simple: a radical shift in planning law that prioritises brownfield development and genuinely protects designated green belt land. Developers should be legally required to restore and rewild a significant portion of any land they are granted permission to develop, or contribute to a national fund specifically for habitat restoration.
Discussion (2)
Sign in to join the discussion. Debate and humour are both very welcome.
Mock the policy. Not the person. Community principles →
It’s just madness, isn't it? They’re always going on about “levelling up” but it feels more like levelling down our environment. We’ve got to get serious about using old industrial sites first, not just bulldozing the nearest bit of green.
They need to actually enforce the brownfield rules properly. We can’t keep eating into the countryside just because it’s cheaper for them in the short term. The long-term cost is massive.