Ben Marshall, research director for housing, planning and development research at the Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute presented to the Social Research Association 2012 summer event.

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

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

3. localism & its value 2
Q. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Case study:
Canterbury’s future development
Public opinion survey

11. 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

12. 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

13. ‘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

14. 59% support new homes in principle BUT… 13
Percentage 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

15. …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

16. 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

17. From 10 scenarios to 4 options… 16
Q. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Summing up
Localism & development

21. 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

22. Thank you
ben.marshall@ipsos.com
© Ipsos MORI