In my area, a high proportion of the development is planned to be on the green belt, development on brownfield land has all but ceased (it's cheaper to build on fields), and nationally there is a large pool of totally unoccupied property.

Despite the national shortage of smaller cheaper properties, most development is of "executive homes" - don't cost much more to build but greater proportional profits.

If all we protect are National Parks, what proportion of the population live near enough to one to benefit regularly from enjoyment of the natural environment?

If we keep building outwards from cities on to agricultural land, what prospect do we ever have of being less reliant on imported food?

I'm not giving any answers - there wouldn't be so much argument if there were easy answers.