Research methods and early findings

Gareth YoungPol icy and Research Intern, BSHF

OPPOSITION TO DEVELOPMENT AND

THE IMPORTANCE OF HIGH STANDARDS

THIS PRESENTATION

My background

Premise of the research

Methodology

Early findings

Next steps

Please note this presentat ion shows only ear ly findings f rom ongoing research. P lease check wi th the author before quot ing

OPPOSITION TO DEVELOPMENT

Research has shown (Dear, 1992; Pendall, 1999; Burningham, 2010; Tighe, 2010) it is thought that people oppose the development of new houses on the basis of some loss of personal amenity and personal satisfaction

It has been suggested that good design quality could help to overcome this problem

Previous research has explored the design of the built environment, but not explicitly the realm of housing

OPPOSITION TO DEVELOPMENT

Source: Sheffield Telegraph, Thursday 12th April 2012

Two approaches have formed a basis for this research: Opposition to development; and The role that design quality can have on reducing the levels of

opposition

‘Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions’ (National P lanning Pol icy Framework, 2012)

Sensitive design can reduce the opposition for affordable homes (West Midlands Regional Assembly, 2006)

‘Banal, indetikit housing schemes have given development a bad name. Experience here and overseas shows that when local people have the chance to influence the function and appearance of development, opposition can be turned into enthusiasm and buildings are constructed and we can be proud of.’ (Greg Clark, Minister of State for Decentral isation and Planning Pol icy)

A survey in 2010 identified that 73 per cent of people said they would support the development of more homes if they were designed and in keeping with the local area (Publ ic Att i tudes to Housing, NHPAU, 2010)

THE PREMISE FOR THE RESEARCH

‘Housing developments with good quality design and characteristics face fewer objections than housing developments that are deemed to have low design quality and characteristics’Building for Life housing audits offer an objective approach to scoring design quality;

Character;Roads, parking and pedestrianisation;Design and construction; andEnvironment and Community

Building for Life scores and responses to planning applications have been cross referencedA total of 31 Freedom of Information requests have been submitted (February/March 2012)Information requested is a sample of the North East, North West and Yorkshire & Humber audit assessmentsCurrently 11 local authorities have responded

METHODOLOGY

There are no early signs to indicate that good design standards will decrease the levels of opposition

No correlation between the development assessment score and neighbour opposition

Occasional instances where design is mentioned does not substantiate political rhetoric

EARLY FINDINGS

Why people object to development; Loss of light and privacy (valid planning objection); Roads, parking, traffic (valid planning objection); Loss of personal view (not a valid planning objection).

Village context has received greater levels of objection than urban and suburban areas

EARLY FINDINGS

More data collection from Building for Life audits across other regions assessed

Continue refining the way that the data is analysed as more of it becomes available

Qualitative and quantitative analysis to help understand local communities rationale behind objecting

Multiple linear regression Textual analysis Discourse analysis

If design quality does not reduce the number of people opposing development, what factors will?

NEXT STEPS

Building and Social Housing Foundation

Memorial SquareCoalville

LeicestershireLE67 3TU

gareth.young@bshf.org

01530 510444

REFERENCESBurningham, K. (2000): Using the Language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an

act iv i ty for researchers, Local Envi ronment: The Internat ional Journal of Just ice and Sustainabi l i ty, 5 :1, 55-67

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2005): Housing audi t : Assessing the design qual i ty o f new homes in the North East , North West and Yorkshire & Humber, London.

Dear, M. (1992): Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome, Journal o f the American P lanning Associat ion, 53:3 , 288-300

National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (2010): Publ ic Att i tudes to Housing 2010. Retr ieved 4 t h Apr i l 2012 from; http: / /www.communit ies.gov.uk/documents/507390/nhpau/pdf /16127041.pdf

National Planning Policy Framework (2012): Retr ieved 11 t h Apr i l 2012 from; http: / /www.communit ies.gov.uk/documents/planningandbui ld ing/pdf /2116950.pdf

Pendall , R . (1999): Opposi t ion to Housing: NIMBY and Beyond, Urban Affai rs Review, 35:1 , 112-136

Sheffield Telegraph (2012): Thursday, 12 t h Apr i l

Tighe, J . R . (2010): Publ ic Opin ion and Affordable Hous ing: A Review of the L i terature, Journal of P lanning L i terature, 25:1 , 3-17

West Midlands Regional Assembly (2006): A Guide to the De l ivery of Affordable Homes in the West Midlands. Retr ieved 4 t h Apr i l 2012 from; http: / /www.wmra.gov.uk/documents/Hous ing/Guide%20to%20Affordable%20Housing.pdf

Wintour, P. (2011): Fed up with 'Legoland' estates? Then re ject p lans, says hous ing minister. The Guardian. Retr ieved 12 t h Apr i l 2012 from; http: / /www.guardian.co.uk/soc iety/2011/mar/09/ legoland-estates-housing-minister