"We are all nimbys now?" Localism & Development

“We are all NIMBYs now?”Localism & developmentSRA Summer event 2012ben.marshall@ipsos.com

Agenda 1localism The ‘housing crisis’ (aka The development challenge/the growth imperative)© Ipsos MORI

localism & its value 2Q. On balance, do you think the benefits of building new homes outweigh the concerns you mentioned, or do your concerns outweigh the benefits? Benefits outweigh concerns Concerns outweigh benefits Central Oxfordshire 40% 31% London fringe 36% 49% Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale 34% 46% Western Corridor and 32% 48% Blackwater Valley Gatwick Area 31% 56% Sussex Coast 26% 62% Kent Thames Gateway 24% 64% East Kent and Ashford 21% 69% South Hampshire 19% 61% Base: 2,003 South East region residents, January-March 2005© Ipsos MORI

localism & ‘cognitive polyphasia’ 3 On the one hand, the public support quite On the other, they want radical approaches to fairness, despise the greater local control postcode lottery and want uniformity of standards© Ipsos MORI

The ‘housing crisis’ 4 Boom & bust market Rents rising Affordability Supply stalling Housing welfare Crisis reform – IMPACT STILL to be felt? ‘Hippies’ – home as pension Aspirations to own: ‘property owning Generation Rent democracy’ RENTAL BRITAIN ‘Held-back households’© Ipsos MORI

The ‘housing crisis’ 5 Boom & bust market Rents rising Affordability Supply stalling Housing welfare 76% reform – IMPACT “Housing is one of the top priorities of STILL to Government” be felt? ‘Hippies’ – home as pension Aspirations to own: ‘property owning Generation Rent democracy’ RENTAL BRITAIN ‘Held-back households’© Ipsos MORI

localism & The ‘housing crisis’ 6  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  Planning should “proactively drive and support substantial development to deliver homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs”  12 months, then beyond scope  Must have “adequate and proportionate” evidence base© Ipsos MORI

But will it deliver? 7 Housing the Nation 63% ‘enough already’ sentiment 49% ‘Nimby’ ‘BANANA’ Source: Ipsos MORI for British Property Federation (Base: 1,699 adults aged 16+, April-May 2012)© Ipsos MORI

Polarised, politically hot debate 8 “Nobody wants to see our green and pleasant land concreted over, but neither do we want economic development to grind to a halt.”© Ipsos MORI

Case study:Canterbury’s future developmentPublic opinion survey

Key challenges 10  The primacy of the providing a robust evidence base  The complexity of planning/development issues and scenarios  Working within budget & timescale limitations© Ipsos MORI

Our approach 11  2 stage random location quota sampling  52 points, 900 face-to-face in-home interviews  Non-proportionate stratification  Top-up survey of 100 off-campus students  ‘Deliberative quant’  Stimulus material  2 day cognitive testing© Ipsos MORI

‘Delib quant’ questionnaire 12 GENERAL SPECIFIC MEASURE EXPLORE Area Employment& priorities Unprompted Confidence in opp.s Unprompted concerns outcomes reasons Prompted Demogs Support Extent reasons building homes Support of building vs in principle – if .….. OPTIONS Location/type past of homes area & district 0 mins 10 mins 20 mins Council decision Current Context – rate of housing/ STIMULUS building employ/pop Options & implications Greenfield DK/None allowed © Ipsos MORI

59% support new homes in principle BUT… 13Percentage point increase in support for building new homes in the district if… All residents …it meant that enough affordable homes +14 were provided for local residents …it increases the demands on public services -15 …it meant that young people and families could stay +17 …it meant building on ‘greenfield’ -42 …it helped to create jobs by attracting people and +9 businesses to the area …it meant an increase in traffic and congestion -37 Base: all 902 (100%) Base: 902 residents, Dec 2011-Feb 2012© Ipsos MORI

…there is ‘swingability’ 14 Percentage point increase in support for building new homes in the district if… All In principle residents opponents …it meant that enough affordable homes +14 +36 were provided for local residents …it increases the demands on public services -15 +11 …it meant that young people and families could stay +17 +45 …it meant building on ‘greenfield’ -42 +2 …it helped to create jobs by attracting people and +9 +34 businesses to the area …it meant an increase in traffic and congestion -37 +2 Base: all 902 202 (100%) (24%) Base: 902 residents, Dec 2011-Feb 2012© Ipsos MORI

This works both ways 15 Percentage point increase in opposition for building new homes in the district if… All residents In principle supporters …it meant that enough affordable homes -7 +5 were provided for local residents …it increases the demands on public services -2 +20 …it meant that young people and families could stay -12 +2 …it meant building on ‘greenfield’ +48 +58 …it helped to create jobs by attracting people and -3 +8 businesses to the area …it meant an increase in traffic and congestion +43 +51 Base: all 902 524 (100%) (59%) Base: 902 residents, Dec 2011-Feb 2012© Ipsos MORI

From 10 scenarios to 4 options… 16Q. Which of these options, if any, do you think the Council should choose? Don’t know None of these Option A: 150 new homes Option D: 1,140 new homes 9% 2% 16% 8% 32% Option B: 550 new homes Option C: 760 new homes 31% THE SOUTH EAST PLAN Base: 902 residents, Dec 2011-Feb 2012© Ipsos MORI

Public opinion: conditional, trading off protect/progress 17  More than a housing issue & key trade-offs: – most (76%) in principle opponents go on to back an option – 60% of Options C-D previously said wanted ‘the same’ pace – 70% said would not support building if greenfield, but 88% backed 1 of 4 options  Common denominators: – infrastructure first – worries about economy: conviction not enough jobs  Less NIMBY, more YIMLAAI… Base: 902 residents, Dec 2011-Feb 2012© Ipsos MORI

But what and where?: quality and quantity matter 18 “69% say the quality of what is built near them is more important than the quantity, only 9% disagree.” “Eight in ten people feel that the built environment has a strong effect on their quality of life and bought their home because they liked the area…To reduce NIMBYism, development must improve.” See: Ipsos MORI/RIBA The way we live now Source: Cities for growth, Policy Exchange, 2011 (survey figures unsourced)© Ipsos MORI

Summing upLocalism & development

Opportunities and challenges 20  Localism presents opportunities and challenges  Local ‘stress-testing’ makes sense  But like national level policy-making, requires “adequate and proportionate” evidence base: – there is a role here for social research – and involvement of the centre  Public opinion is neither NIMBY nor BANANAs  But is conditional and fluid…..who will lead.....?© Ipsos MORI

"We are all nimbys now?" Localism & Development

by Ipsos MORI on Sep 11, 2012

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

"We are all nimbys now?" Localism & Development Presentation Transcript