There's obviously a very good argument in the UK that the planning system is broken, and a good chunk of the incoming government's manifesto was an acknowledgement of that. But perhaps we can agree that while in general we might not need to slowly and expensively ponder every woodland creature when trying to build infrastructure, it's not a bad thing to have some parts of Britain dedicated to rewilding. Besides, it's not infrastructure concerns fighting against that on Dartmoor, it's a complex mix of private landowners (the largest of which is the crown), farmers (many of which have livestock on common land), and ecological jewels like its temperate rainforests. In fact the Dartmoor line, which skirts the national park, reopened in 2021, took less than a year to finish, and came in £10m under budget. Who knew we could build things, eh?
Good? Giving the tiniest little shit about nature and not wiping out the entire biosphere to build super low density housing over everything is the least we can do.
Not good. There is a spectrum of choices between not having enough reservoirs and power generation on one end and paving over the entire country on the other. I would trade having bats confused at night in order to have more housing within 2 miles of a major city.
Why not have more housing in the city? There's lots of space in the UK town I come from that is very poorly utilized. As for power generation, solar panels can coexist with quite a lot of wildlife.
I might agree, if high-density housing in England wasn't coupled with laughable rights for the owners of flats/apartments. The current leasehold system needs to be replaced, but I doubt anything will change even with the new government.
The way you've phrased this comes across as a counterpoint, but both of these things can be true and need fixing. It doesn't have to be either / or.
If we can't manage to build infrastructure problems without destroying habitats, then we need to do much better. Maybe 20mph speed limits are what's required if motorists are going to be destroying wildlife - certainly the ponies will be more likely to survive if drivers reduce their speed a bit.
There are plenty of brown-field sites where NIMBYs have managed to block housing, including places like old gas works, which thankfully seems to be changing under the new government. We don't need to build or have high speed limits on Dartmoor, which is what we're talking about here.
We do need to build and maintain the existing reservoirs that provide water for much of Devon, otherwise we will be shipping it in from Norway. Communities that live in Dartmoor may want to upgrade to more comfortable houses and experience less poverty. A community like Postbridge or Princetown would be severely isolated by 20mph speed limits.
Princetown to the city centre of Plymouth is 15 miles. If the entire way was 20mph then it would be 45 minutes rather than the 30 minutes if it was 30mph. But that's under ideal conditions where you're driving at a constant speed from point to point. In the real world I bet much of that difference would be eaten away by junctions and other traffic etc. as you hit the outskirts of Plymouth. The hyperbole of "severely isolated" really does your argument no favours.
"severely isolated by 20mph speed limits"
Really?
If you work in Exeter you've probably already got an hour's commute each way. It's not unreasonable to consider making that two hours a hardship for many people, whether or not you consider that a worthwhile trade-off.
Surely their hardship stems from their decision to live so far from where they work? I don't think we should hasten the extinction of species just to fit in with making someone's poor decision less onerous.
Sure, and as I understand it anyone living in these places is probably doing reasonably well as the leaseholds are too short to get a mortgage. But as a country we're not doing particularly well building quality housing in cities either, so you can see why it's an emotive subject for some people.
Yes, we do have a big problem with housing (I'm in Bristol which seems to be the most expensive city for housing/rent outside of London). It just strikes me as entitled behaviour for someone to choose a remote place to live and then to complain about it being remote. There's a host of issues with trying to allow people to spend so much time driving at speed (or not as the case may be) just so that they can enjoy living in a remote area - traffic congestion, pollution from fuel, tyres and brakes, danger to pedestrians and animals.
If those housing developments had better lighting policies maybe they wouldn't disturb the bats and be blocked. See: