Come up with wholly new and different thinking. DC may be trying to steal our clothes - so we leave them behind and move on.
For example, the planning process yields high prices for land in the envelope and give away prices for land without. This is a major contribution to high house prices and the consequent lack of housing affordability in the UK. At the same time, the government's opposition to cross subsidy prevents LA's from allowing development of land for affordable housing. We should reverse this so that land has a presumption of being developable. Then apply the sustainability criteria to any proposed site together with the ability to cross subsidise, there would be some quite remarkable consequences:
1. House prices would stabilize.
2. More land would become available for development.
3. The use of new cross subsidy policy would enable affordable and intermediate developments without public subsidy.
This would save the taxpayer around £3billion pa in subsidies and would defuse the current affordable housing crisis.

I very much like this suggestion. Cross subsidy seems to be a dirty word these days, but I am not entirely sure why.

But one suggestion: we have an awful lot of very small housing in this country. Families often have no space for children to do homework out of the way of rowdy sibings. Average plot sizes for new developments are getting smaller. By promoting "affordable housing", we are making this worse. But the affordability of housing actually depends on the ability to pay of the income percentile that can just get on to the housing ladder - it depends on the total availability probably more than the "affordability" of new developments.

Building more luxury housing would give everbody a chance to trade up and would still help people get on the ladder at the other end.

The hairshirtedness of promoting exclusively "affordable" housing, is saying to people on typical professional incomes, that if they want a nice house they should emigrate. Is that really a good message to send?