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

© 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 ben.marshall@ipsos.com