New research from More in Common for the RSPB, drawing on polling and focus groups, shows that Britons want developers to build with nature, not against it, and are more likely to vote for a party that prioritises nature.
As the Planning & Infrastructure Bill nears completion and the UK Government looks to deliver 1.5 million new homes before the next election, a new More in Common report urges policymakers to reconsider how the public perceives the housing crisis.
Far from the polarised “YIMBY vs NIMBY” debate, polling suggests most Britons are not as divided. The research highlights that public support hinges on developers being made to build with care, improving the quality of new homes, and ensuring developments protect and enhance rather than harm the natural environment.
The report also shows that people are much more likely to vote for a party that makes nature conservation a priority. And that they want their politicians to present a more compelling vision of economic growth that delivers tangible benefits to everyday lives and respects the value people place on nature.
The research reveals that the political debate around housing has created a false binary that doesn't reflect public opinion. Rather than viewing housing and environmental protection as competing priorities, Britons consistently demonstrate they want both issues addressed together - the protection of nature being the more popular policy across all political parties.
When asked to rank national priorities, similar numbers put "affordable housing" and "climate change and the environment" among their top three issues facing the country.
At least three quarters of Britons consider breathing fresh air, walking among nature and hearing birdsong to be important when choosing where to live. Yet new developments are seen as failing to provide these basics, with focus group participants describing modern estates as lacking the green spaces that were standard in developments built 20-30 years ago.
Seventy-two per cent of the public think more positively of politicians who say "New housing and infrastructure should integrate with the natural world, not destroy it." This sentiment spans supporters of all major parties.
The public's concerns about housebuilding extend beyond nature but show the same pattern.
When asked about priorities for new developments, avoiding pressure on local services tops the list (34%), followed by affordability (32%) and protecting irreplaceable natural habitats (31%).
Focus group participants consistently raised concerns about developments being built without supporting infrastructure, from GP surgeries and schools, to adequate transport links, and to green spaces for residents. Combined with a perception that new builds are poorly constructed yet expensive, this has created widespread scepticism about the current approach to development.
Britons tend to say that they assess each development on its own merits (50%), rather than offer blanket opposition or support. Only 17% would usually oppose any new development, while 26% would usually support it.
The YIMBY-NIMBY divide, an idea which has much purchase among politicians, rarely applies to the broader public.
However, those who have engaged with the planning process report feeling ignored and powerless. All focus group participants who had opposed developments in their area had been unsuccessful, creating a perception that the public’s views are disregarded in the government’s housing policy. The idea of local communities being “run roughshod” over was prevalent in focus groups.
There is a political consensus around the idea that housing and environmental protection should go hand in hand. Supporters of all major parties want to see habitats safeguarded, green spaces preserved, infrastructure developed alongside housing, and more affordable homes built.
Even among Labour supporters (whose housing Minister is pursuing a ‘Build Baby Build’ agenda) 54% say economic growth should not be prioritised if it comes at the expense of the environment.
The research suggests the public want the environment to be included and accommodated in plans for housing development, rather than overridden. They support building more homes, but not at the expense of everything else that makes communities liveable. They want developments that work for both people and nature, with proper infrastructure and genuine affordability.
Luke Tryl, UK Director at More in Common said: “What’s striking about this research is how little the YIMBY–NIMBY debate reflects how the public actually think. Only a small minority - 17 per cent - say they would usually oppose new developments in their area, while most people take each case on its merits. When Britons talk about what matters most, they point to specific areas in which they see current housing developments to be lacking: avoiding pressure on local services, keeping homes affordable, and protecting irreplaceable habitats.
“The challenge for policymakers is that while only four in ten people feel economic growth benefits them personally, nearly eight in ten say access to nature is vital for their mental health. Politically, the risk isn’t in protecting nature but in being seen to sacrifice it. Voters are far more likely to reward politicians who talk about development that works with nature, not against it.”
Beccy Speight, RSPB chief executive, said: “The UK government has promised a planning system that delivers for nature and people, yet ministers’ words and actions continually threaten the very thing they claim to want to protect.
“It’s clear from More in Common’s research that people don’t see nature as a barrier to housebuilding. Poor planning, unaffordable homes, and a lack of services are the real problems. The public wants better, affordable homes built with nature, not at its expense. This isn’t homes vs. habitats, it’s about creating places that work for people and wildlife, with communities meaningfully involved from the start.
“Right across the political spectrum, a clear majority of people say they are much more likely to vote for a party that makes nature conservation a priority. Trashing nature is not just bad policy, it’s bad politics.”
