One of the many disturbing prospects that float over our policies for green space in urban settings – preservation as much as management – has been the 'newts won't stop the builder's' threats. Relaxing planning permission to build one and a half million new homes (and counting) in some fanciful space of time cannot be delayed any longer by objections based upon wildlife or amenity. The government won't be stopped in its drive to brick over the landscape.
This 'roll up your sleeves and put up your fists' approach is more than stupid and crass. It is a mistake that will cost future generations in many ways beyond having a roof over their heads.*
Again and again and especially, pointedly, since the Covid 19 pandemic, access to something like a natural environment has been shown (and widely claimed) to be a life saver, a giver of welcome relaxation from anxiety. Even the smallest of public green spaces has this possibility.
Why should such access and opportunity be an either or choice? Why is it impossible seemingly to avoid sprawl, compaction and bleakness in our housing schemes because green space is seen either as 'profit forgone', or potentially a vector of nuisance none wants to take responsibility for; a dull patch of council mown grass without clear purpose. It doesn't have to be so, but it does take thought, conviction and vision.
Here is an example of how, given some larger but not unobtainable idea about how and where we live longer term, it can be achieved. People and Newts. Together.
* How much new build do we in our region see that is actually for new home owners rather than exclusive executive class aspirational estates?
