After raiding a storybook witch's cupboard for their next scapegoat, ministers are posing in Bob the Builder cosplay, ready to bulldoze their way through the planning system and our wildlife. But don't be fooled, deregulation isn't the magic spell that's going to solve our housing crisis.

This is all part of Labour’s plans to gut environmental protections in their new Planning bill in order to reach their unreachable goal of 1.5 million homes. This ode to free market capitalism definitely has nothing to do with the millions of pounds that property developers have donated or the lunches with Blackrock CEOs and is clearly because they care so much about homeless children…the same children they all voted to keep in poverty.

We are in a full blown biodiversity crisis that's reached panic level. 1 in 6 species are at risk of extinction, 97% of our wildflower meadows are gone and raw sewage was discharged into UK waters for nearly 4 million hours last year.

So why does the government want to strip environmental protections and put our endangered species and habitats at risk when we are in the middle of an ecological emergency?

This is their logic: the only way to lower house prices is to build more homes and the only way to build more homes is to remove environmental regulations.

This is obviously wrong so let's debunk it piece by piece and address some common housing myths.

Our Lord and Savior Supply and Demand

Myth: ‘The market will fix house prices, we just need to build more ’

Always be wary of someone offering a simple solution to a complex and systematic issue, especially if that solution just happens to benefit billionaires. The “build build build” fanboys cling to Econ 101 as if it is holy scripture, but somehow never make it to Econ 102 where the real-world complications live. For them, supply and demand is not just an economic model, it’s a religion. They hunt non-believers like witches, but instead of burning them at the stake, they pile on with verbal abuse and regurgitated memes on Twitter.

However, the supply-only messiah can be quickly disproven by looking at our housing and population data. We have built enough to meet and even exceed population increases but prices are higher than ever. In the last two decades, the number of surplus housing has more than doubled from 700,000 to 1.5 million, all while house prices have surged by over 181%.

The UK now has more homes per person than it did in 1971, with the ratio improving from one home for every three people to one for every 2.25 today. Homes were significantly more affordable in 1971, with the average house costing around 3.5 times the average salary. If simply building more homes was the answer prices would’ve gone down not up.

Myth: ‘Households are being suppressed so the housing surplus isn’t real’

The common rebuttal to the fact we have 1.5 million more houses than households is to claim that ignores ‘hidden households’. Also known as ‘concealed households’ these are individuals from separate families living together because they can’t afford a home of their own, such as house shares or adult children living with parents.

There is no hard data on hidden households but ONS figures show there’s only 347,000 multi‑family households. While that number likely has some hidden households, it also includes people living together by choice. For example, as a child my grandmother moved in with us after having a stroke, and over 100,000 people in the UK live in intentional co‑housing communities such as ecovillages and communes. Either way, 1.5 million is a lot more than 347,000.

Household size has also decreased from 2.4 to 2.35 in the past 10 years so this suggests that households are not growing with house prices.

Myth: ‘Building luxury homes will make all housing affordable’

Housebuilding giant Barratt Redrow has commissioned a new report claiming building bigger, pricier homes will somehow make housing more affordable for low‑income families. This is called ‘filtering’ and its just rebranded trickle down economics for housing.

They insist building luxury homes allows rich people to free up cheaper properties which filters down as if we are hermit crabs lining up to swap shells. Sadly we are not hermit crabs and the people at the top hoard housing just like they hoard wealth.

Myth: ‘We have a deficit of over 4 million homes’

The idea that we are over 4 millions homes behind despite having a 1.5 million surplus comes from developer-funded think tank Centre for Cities. This figure is often reported in the news, leading people to believe there are 4 million more households than homes. In reality, this ‘backlog’ is just a comparison of the UK's housebuilding rate to that of France and other EU countries. That's literally it. There are not 4 million people on the street or in cramped accommodation like the statistic implies.

Speaking of France they have more restrictive environmental protections than the UK does so this contradicts their view that bats and newts prevent building. All that ‘red tape’ didn’t stop France building did it?

Now that we’ve established the housing crisis is more complicated than ‘build build build’, let's challenge the idea that the only way to build more homes is to remove environmental regulations.

Meet the ‘Blockers’

Myth: ‘We have the strictest environmental regulations so nothing gets built’

The housing crisis is not caused by environmental protections. The planning system is often blamed but nationally, there are over 1.4 million homes with planning permission left unbuilt so planning is not the problem. Additionally there are 700k empty homes, plus brownfield sites could deliver a further 1.2 million homes. This means Labour could reach its building target without touching a single green field. There is no need to build over endangered habitats and species.

Environmental protections do not block or delay development. The government’s own evidence shows that environmental protections are not a significant barrier to housing delivery. Many countries like the US have stronger protections against environmentally harmful development but still manage to build more than we do. As an example in 2023, Ireland built almost triple the number of houses per 1000 citizens compared to the UK, despite having the same protection levels for bats and newts.

Our environmental protections are not only weak, we are one of the least protected countries in the world when it comes to nature. Less than 3% of land is adequately protected for nature which is one of the lowest percentages globally. To put that in perspective 8.7% of the UK is built on and that figure is often used to claim not enough land is developed.

With such lenient regulations it's no surprise that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, sitting in the bottom 10% in biodiversity. There is no land that is 100% protected from development based on ecological reasons, whereas buildings with listed status are untouchable. It's shameful we don’t have an equivalent status for nature. Our irreplaceable habitats deserve legal rights.

Some land needs to be off limits for development. Despite what some growth obsessives suggest, you can’t just move all the greater crested newts into one big pond. No one is saying every blade of grass must be saved but nature can’t always come last.

Myth: ‘Environmental laws forced a £100mil Bat Tunnel which killed HS2’

The HS2 "bat tunnel" is a key piece of misinformation in the debate over environmental regulations. Its £100 million price tag, often spun as £300,000 per bat, is falsely used to claim environmental rules have gone mad. In reality, the 900-meter structure protects rare Bechstein's bats that live exclusively in ancient woodlands. The tunnel was proposed by HS2 Ltd, not Natural England or conservationists, and was approved by Parliament despite a failure to conduct proper environmental assessments that could’ve identified better routes. This cost is a tiny fraction of HS2's multi-billion-pound mismanagement, driven by its own inflated contracts, poor oversight, and constant scope changes. Ultimately, this 'war on bats' is a manufactured crisis, designed to justify weakening vital environmental protections.

Myth: ‘Environmental assessments slow down the delivery of much needed housing’

Environmental assessments are not bureaucratic delays but essential safeguards preventing irreversible damage to wildlife and habitats. You wouldn’t say fire safety inspections slow down the delivery of much needed homes, would you? This is no different.

In fact, evidence shows most developers are failing to meet their mitigation and offsetting obligations. Removing environmental obligations would reward such poor behaviour instead of holding them accountable and protecting nature.

Myth: ‘Environmental assessments add costs which drive up house prices’

The financial impact of environmental measures is often negligible. For instance, Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) adds, on average, only £300 per house on a brownfield site. A typical site that doesn’t have any potential for protected species will cost around £500 for a preliminary ecology assessment. Even on a small site, ecology surveys are unlikely to exceed 1-2% of the total project value, and on larger, multi-unit developments, this percentage would be significantly smaller.

On the other hand, developers allocate thousands of pounds to planning consultants, advertising, and public relations. There are even services where they can pay for supportive comments for their planning applications. Funny how they complain about bat surveys but never mention the money spent on PR and lobbying.

The narrative that ecology surveys are a major driver of house prices is a fallacy, used to undermine necessary evaluations and protections.

Myth: ‘The unbuilt 1.4 million homes are the developer’s normal pipeline’

Property developers are dying to tell you that ‘land banking’ isn’t real but 1.4 million homes is a massive backlog. That number is too large to be considered a normal development pipeline.While some delays stem from labor, supply chain issues, or unforeseen circumstances, many of these homes could be built today but aren't.

A 2024 report from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), found that developers’ business model prioritizes a slow pace of construction to prevent an oversupply of homes. This ‘build-to-market’ strategy aims to maintain high prices and maximize profit margins.

The CMA also identified that a few large developers control a significant portion of the land with planning permission, giving them the market power to manage supply and enforce the slow build-out model.The CMA was actually investigating the top 7 house builders for sharing "competitively sensitive information" but they agreed to pay a few million so they ended the investigation. Nothing to see here.

The planning system is not the blocker here as it approves the vast majority of applications. The problem lies with the developers' commercial decisions to not build on the land they already have permission for.

Myth: ‘Regulations have made every building application a mountain of paperwork’

‘Back in my day all you needed was a handshake to get things built, now an application for a train is over 3,000 pages! This is why building anything is illegal!! Red tape gone mad!’ This common hyperbole however, misdirects blame at environmental regulations. While there is undoubtedly some frustrating bureaucracy in the planning process, the excessive length of applications are often due to developers and their consultants and are not a requirement for approval.

Developers hire expensive contractors and specialist consultants who, in an effort to ensure approval, produce incredibly detailed reports. These documents, sometimes resembling press releases more than technical assessments, can be hundreds of pages each. They are designed to present the project in the best light, often including extensive background information that isn't necessary for regulatory compliance.

This is assuming the best intentions of course, and doesn’t account for dodgy practices which also add length to bury information that could get an application rightfully refused. I call this the ‘I’m not reading all that’ tactic.

If you really want to speed up the planning process, fund councils properly. Local planning authorities are often under-resourced, facing staff shortages and backlogs. Only a third of councils have an in-house ecologist which means they have to hire an independent contractor every time an application needs to be assessed. This also applies to other areas like flooding and unexploded bombs. Regulations are there for a reason, to protect you.

Myth: ‘Powerful NIMBYs are blocking everything’

Britain's supposed decline is often blamed on a mythical group of NIMBYs who veto every planning application. However, this is not how the planning system works.

Planning is a quasi-judicial process and an application can only be refused if it violates a specific planning policy. The volume of objections received for an application is not something that can be factored in a decision. Similarly, a neighbour’s house value or a blocked view have zero weight in the planning system.

If a refusal were to be made for an unjustifiable reason, the developer has the right to appeal. If the independent inspector finds that the refusal was unreasonable, they will overturn it, and the council may be required to pay the developer's costs. So the idea that local residents can block housing because they don’t like it is completely false. It’s actually extremely difficult to stop a development.

Of course this doesn’t mean we should stop building and we do genuinely need more affordable housing. It just proves that the private sector will never build us out of the housing crisis through deregulation. Removing environmental regulations is not the answer.

The Nature-Killing Planning Bill

Myth: ‘The new planning bill is a win/win for nature and housing’

Current environmental protections are already pathetic and part 3 of Labour’s new planning and infrastructure bill will make them even worse.

This new bill allows developers to pay to destroy habitats without restoring them in the same place. This approach risks a net loss of irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and chalk streams which is why it’s being described as a “licence to kill.” The bill could also remove the requirement for many ecology assessments so developers might be destroying species they don't even know are there.

Every nature related organisation in the country opposes this bill with the same fervour that I write about here. They warn the bill weakens environmental protections and fails to guarantee either housing delivery or nature recovery. This Bill serves wealthy developers, not people or wildlife. This is permitted ecocide.

However there is some hope!

The Amendments:

After a lot of pushing from environmental groups and campaigners the government has made some positive changes to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. These changes are a step in the right direction, but they still fall short on what is needed for this bill to not be terrible.

Here’s a simple look at what’s actually changed and what still needs to change:

1.Protected Species:

1. What's new: The government's nature agency, Natural England, now has to ‘consider the need to achieve favourable conservation status’ of protected species when making Environmental Development Plans (EDPs).
2. Why it matters: This is a stronger commitment than before and could align with current rules and legal decisions.
3. The catch: It's still not clear how often these plans will have to achieve favourable conservation status in their lifetime, or if the wording is strong enough to really make a difference.

2.Improving Delivery:

1. What's new: The bill now gives more power to make sure conservation efforts are actually carried out with clear timelines. It also says these plans must use the ‘best available scientific evidence’.
2. Why it matters: This is great for making sure developers actually do what they promised to.
3. Thecatch: There's no clear definition of what ‘best available scientific evidence’ means yet.

3. Overall Improvement Test:

1. What'snew: The Secretary of State can now only approve a development plan if the positive conservation actions clearly outweigh any harm the development causes to the environment.
2. Why it matters: This is a welcome change that should prevent harmful developments.
3. The catch: It’s not clear if the Secretary of State could simply wave it through by saying the test is met, even when it isn’t. That would pretty much defeat the purpose.

4. Backup Measures and Monitoring:

1. What's new: If conservation efforts don't work as planned, the Secretary of State must take action to fix it. There's also stronger language about checking progress regularly, including mid-way and final reviews.
2. Why it matters: This provides a safety net and ensures accountability.
3. The catch: These new rules will need to be tested to make sure they work.

5.Irreplaceable Habitats:

1. What's new: There's no direct wording in the bill yet, but I’ve been told the government will make a statement soon saying Irreplaceable habitats (like chalk streams and ancient woodlands) won't be included in development plans which is fantastic!
2. Why it matters: This is a big win!
3. The catch: A ministerial statement isn't strong enough so we're pushing for an amendment to the bill that would give these habitats proper legal protection, which will be debated in September.

6. Mitigation Hierarchy:

1. What's new: Unfortunately, there's still no direct mention of the mitigation hierarchy in these new changes. This hierarchy basically means you should avoid harming nature first, then reduce any harm, and only compensate for it as a last resort.
2. Why it matters: This is a fundamental principle for protecting nature.
3. The catch: Although the bill hints at these ideas, it's crucial to have it explicitly stated to make the new rules as strong as possible.

I’ve been told these changes happened because of grassroots campaigners and local residents so we are making a difference!

How you can help:

1. Email your MP and tell them the planning bill isn’t good enough, environmental regulations need to be strengthened. Link to this article or copy and paste it to educate them on what needs to change and why. Copy in your local Councillors so they know this is an issue their constituents care about.
2. Join a local grassroots campaign group. The Community Planning Alliance has a map of over 700 local campaigns fighting harmful development in their area, chances are there’s a group near you.
3. Check your council’s local plan and see if any important nature sites are allocated for development in the current or draft plan. Make sure to keep an eye on your council’s planning website for any problematic applications. Sign up for email notifications if your council offers them. If you find a damaging proposal, gather evidence and form a campaign group to fight it.
4. Spread the word! Share this article and talk about the planning bill on social media. Challenge misinformation whenever you see it and hold politicians accountable.

• Danica Priest
  Danica is a marathon runner and environmental and housing campaigner from Bristol. You can follow her on TikTok.