opposition to development and the importance of high standards
DESCRIPTION
Research methods and early findings Gareth Young Policy 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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
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