A new survey reveals that British voters overwhelmingly oppose the sacrifice of environmental protection to meet ambitious housebuilding targets, challenging the assumption that construction and conservation must compete.
The government aims to construct 1.5 million new homes, and recently introduced legislation to accelerate infrastructure and residential development. However, research conducted by More in Common for the RSPB demonstrates that most people refuse to accept nature’s destruction as the price of progress.
The RSPB is a non-profit organisation that relies on donations and membership subscriptions to fund its conservation and advocacy work dedicated to conserving birds and nature.
Rather than choosing between homes and habitats, people want comprehensive solutions addressing both needs simultaneously. The findings suggest that politicians misunderstand public sentiment on this issue.
What voters actually want
The survey reveals surprising priorities. While housing matters to voters, nature conservation carries even greater political weight—43% say they are more inclined to support parties that prioritise environmental protection, compared to just 10% who favour housebuilding above all else.
Critically, 72% respond positively when politicians advocate for development that integrates with the natural world, rather than demolishing it. This consensus spans all major political parties, with supporters across the spectrum demanding habitat preservation, green space protection, and affordable housing built alongside necessary infrastructure.
Luke Tryl from More in Common notes that popular political framing misses the mark entirely. The “YIMBY versus NIMBY” narrative doesn’t reflect reality—only 17% consistently oppose local development, while most evaluate proposals case-by-case based on specific merits.
Nature as necessity
Two-thirds of Britons believe politicians are disconnected from public values regarding environmental issues, with merely 14% seeing alignment between their views and political leaders’ positions.
The data underscores nature’s fundamental importance to wellbeing. Nearly 80% describe access to natural spaces as essential for mental health, while fewer than half feel economic growth personally benefits them. This creates political risk for leaders perceived as sacrificing environmental quality.
When selecting where to live, at least three-quarters of respondents prioritise fresh air, opportunities for outdoor walks, and hearing birds sing. Yet current developments consistently fail to deliver these basic amenities.
Top priorities for new construction
Survey participants identified three priorities for residential projects: avoiding strain on local services (34%), maintaining affordability (32%), and protecting natural habitats (31%). Notably, these are not viewed as competing interests, but as interconnected requirements.
Two-thirds believe developers should be required to accommodate and care for natural environments within their projects. Additionally, 64% support strengthening protections for ecologically significant areas beyond current levels.
Rejecting environmental compromise
Only one-fifth of Britons support weakening environmental standards to increase housing output. By contrast, 52% prefer to maintain current standards even if construction numbers suffer, while another 17% see no conflict between environmental protection and building targets.
The RSPB says that early environmental consideration during planning substantially reduces both ecological impacts and financial costs. Integration from project inception, rather than sidelining nature concerns, offers the practical solution.
The charity criticises government inconsistency, noting that while officials promise planning systems benefiting both nature and communities, their actions often undermine stated objectives.
The research makes clear that poor planning, unaffordable housing, and inadequate local services—not environmental protections—represent genuine barriers to successful development. People want to live in better-quality, affordable homes constructed alongside nature, with communities meaningfully participating in planning from the outset.
The study ultimately reveals that framing housing and habitats as opposing forces fundamentally misrepresents public opinion, creating artificial divisions where integrated solutions actually enjoy broad support.
Footnote: Developers know the damage they are doing
Developers are aware that it is cheaper and easier for them to destroy the natural environment rather than build on grey land.
The most painful irony and reflection of this are the names that they use to market the new build areas developed.
Instead of Former Meadow Drive, Former Orchard Road or No Oak Tree Lane, developers market with names that sell houses rather than a true reflection of the environment that they have invariably destroyed. A longer article on this will be in next months newsletter.