I'm very disturbed that you frame this as an argument in which opposition is led by Reform. This makes the argument between reactionary and progressive forces. Environmentalist organisations have been strongly opposed to the idea that planning reform is needed to meet the government's housing objectives. More than that the government, contrary to all its promises at the last election, abandoned its promises on the environment and turned on environmentalists calling them 'blockers'. Completely specious claims were made about how protecting nature was preventing development. It is even more extraordinary that you cite developers in support of your argument. Relying on developers to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that is needed is a pipe dream. There are also arguments to be had as to the actual need with the government's numbers claims being disputed and that the only way to achieve this is by a massive increase in supply. Issues around empty homes and the internationalisation of the housing market, particularly in London, with homes left to accumulate value, are not addressed. Also overlooked are the impacts on nature of further concreting over green spaces. The present heat demonstrates that simply ploughing ahead with building during a climate emergency is unviable. Britain is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. Blaming these problems on planning controls is nonsense and goes with the general attitude of this government that 'objectors' whether they are protesters, juries or environmentalist 'blockers' are the problem.
I'm very disturbed that you frame this as an argument in which opposition is led by Reform. This makes the argument between reactionary and progressive forces. Environmentalist organisations have been strongly opposed to the idea that planning reform is needed to meet the government's housing objectives. More than that the government, contrary to all its promises at the last election, abandoned its promises on the environment and turned on environmentalists calling them 'blockers'. Completely specious claims were made about how protecting nature was preventing development. It is even more extraordinary that you cite developers in support of your argument. Relying on developers to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that is needed is a pipe dream. There are also arguments to be had as to the actual need with the government's numbers claims being disputed and that the only way to achieve this is by a massive increase in supply. Issues around empty homes and the internationalisation of the housing market, particularly in London, with homes left to accumulate value, are not addressed. Also overlooked are the impacts on nature of further concreting over green spaces. The present heat demonstrates that simply ploughing ahead with building during a climate emergency is unviable. Britain is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. Blaming these problems on planning controls is nonsense and goes with the general attitude of this government that 'objectors' whether they are protesters, juries or environmentalist 'blockers' are the problem.