Oct 21, 2014
“We are all NIMBYs now?” Localism & development SRA Summer event 2012 [email protected]
© Ipsos MORI
Agenda 1
localism
The ‘housing crisis’ (aka The development challenge/the growth imperative)
© Ipsos MORI
Q. On balance, do you think the benefits of building new homes outweigh the concerns you mentioned, or do your concerns outweigh the benefits?
2
Base: 2,003 South East region residents, January-March 2005
19%
21%
24%
26%
31%
40%
36%
34%
32%
61%
69%
64%
62%
56%
48%
46%
49%
31%Central Oxfordshire
London fringe Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley
Gatwick Area
Sussex Coast
Kent Thames Gateway
East Kent and Ashford
South Hampshire
Concerns outweigh benefits Benefits outweigh concerns
localism & its value
© Ipsos MORI
3 localism & ‘cognitive polyphasia’
On the one hand, the public support quite
radical approaches to greater local control
On the other, they want fairness, despise the
postcode lottery and want uniformity of standards
© Ipsos MORI
4 The ‘housing crisis’
Generation Rent Aspirations to own: ‘property owning democracy’
Boom & bust market
Crisis Rents rising
RENTAL BRITAIN
Supply stalling
‘Held-back households’
Affordability
‘Hippies’ – home as pension
Housing welfare reform – IMPACT STILL to be felt?
© Ipsos MORI
5 The ‘housing crisis’
Generation Rent Aspirations to own: ‘property owning democracy’
Boom & bust market
76% “Housing is one of the top priorities of Government”
Rents rising
RENTAL BRITAIN
Supply stalling
‘Held-back households’
Affordability
‘Hippies’ – home as pension
Housing welfare reform – IMPACT STILL to be felt?
© Ipsos MORI
6 localism & The ‘housing crisis’ 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% 49%
‘enough already’ sentiment
‘Nimby’ Source: Ipsos MORI for British Property Federation (Base: 1,699 adults aged 16+, April-May 2012)
‘BANANA’
© Ipsos MORI
Polarised, politically hot debate
“Nobody wants to see our green and pleasant land concreted over, but neither do we want economic development to grind to a halt.”
8
Case study: Canterbury’s future development Public opinion survey
© Ipsos MORI
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
Area & priorities
Support building homes in principle – area & district
Support if .…..
Confidence in outcomes
Extent of building vs
past OPTIONS
Unprompted reasons
Unprompted concerns
Prompted reasons
Location/type of homes
Employment opp.s
Demogs
MEASURE EXPLORE
20 mins 10 mins
0 mins
GENERAL
Current rate of
building
Council decision Context – housing/
employ/pop Options &
implications Greenfield
DK/None allowed
SPECIFIC
STIMULUS
© Ipsos MORI
59% support new homes in principle BUT…
All residents
…it meant that enough affordable homes were provided for local residents
+14
…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 businesses to the area
+9
…it meant an increase in traffic and congestion -37 Base: all
902
(100%)
Percentage point increase in support for building new homes in the district if…
Base: 902 residents, Dec 2011-Feb 2012
13
© Ipsos MORI
…there is ‘swingability’
All residents
In principle opponents
…it meant that enough affordable homes were provided for local residents
+14 +36
…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 businesses to the area
+9 +34
…it meant an increase in traffic and congestion -37 +2 Base: all
902
(100%)
202
(24%)
Percentage point increase in support for building new homes in the district if…
Base: 902 residents, Dec 2011-Feb 2012
14
© Ipsos MORI
This works both ways
All residents In principle supporters
…it meant that enough affordable homes were provided for local residents
-7 +5
…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 businesses to the area
-3 +8
…it meant an increase in traffic and congestion +43 +51 Base: all
902
(100%)
524
(59%)
Percentage point increase in opposition for building new homes in the district if…
Base: 902 residents, Dec 2011-Feb 2012
15
© Ipsos MORI
Q. Which of these options, if any, do you think the Council should choose?
From 10 scenarios to 4 options…
16%
32%31%
8%
9% 2%Option A: 150 new homes
Option B: 550 new homes THE SOUTH EAST PLAN Option C: 760 new homes
Option D: 1,140 new homes
None of these
Don’t know
Base: 902 residents, Dec 2011-Feb 2012
16
© 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.”
Source: Cities for growth, Policy Exchange, 2011 (survey figures unsourced)
See: Ipsos MORI/RIBA The way we live now
Summing up Localism & development
© Ipsos MORI
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
Thank you [email protected]