1. Opposition to development and the importance of high standards
Research methods and early findings
Gareth Young
Policy and Research Intern, BSHF

2. THIS PRESENTATION My background Premise of the research Methodology
Early findings
Next steps
Please note this presentation shows only early findings from ongoing research. Please check with the author before quoting

3. 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

4. OPPOSITION TO DEVELOPMENT
Source: Sheffield Telegraph, Thursday 12th April 2012

5. The premise for the research
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 Planning Policy 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 Decentralisation and Planning Policy)
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 (Public Attitudes to Housing, NHPAU, 2010)

6. Methodology
‘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; and
Environment and Community
Building for Life scores and responses to planning applications have been cross referenced
A 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 assessments
Currently 11 local authorities have responded

7. Early findings
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

8. 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

9. NEXT STEPS
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?

10. Building and Social Housing Foundation Memorial Square Coalville Leicestershire LE67 3TU

11. REFERENCES
Burningham, K. (2000): Using the Language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers, Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 5:1, 55-67
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2005): Housing audit: Assessing the design quality of new homes in the North East, North West and Yorkshire & Humber, London.
Dear, M. (1992): Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome, Journal of the American Planning Association, 53:3,
National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (2010): Public Attitudes to Housing Retrieved 4th April 2012 from;
National Planning Policy Framework (2012): Retrieved 11th April 2012 from;
Pendall, R. (1999): Opposition to Housing: NIMBY and Beyond, Urban Affairs Review, 35:1,
Sheffield Telegraph (2012): Thursday, 12th April
Tighe, J. R. (2010): Public Opinion and Affordable Housing: A Review of the Literature, Journal of Planning Literature, 25:1, 3-17
West Midlands Regional Assembly (2006): A Guide to the Delivery of Affordable Homes in the West Midlands. Retrieved 4th April 2012 from;
Wintour, P. (2011): Fed up with 'Legoland' estates? Then reject plans, says housing minister. The Guardian. Retrieved 12th April 2012 from;