Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Tired of Waiting

U K Public Attitudes Towards Development And Planning Reform

Recommended Posts

A news website specialised in social housing ("Inside Housing") has sponsored a public opinion poll by Ipsos Mori about two issues: Housing benefits; and Planning reform.

Both sets of results are in one single Power Point file.

Slides 1-27 - Housing benefits

Slides 28-47 - Local planing and development

( Though I guess it would be better if we discuss these two different issues in two separate threads. We can try to keep this one for Planning/Developments issues. I've started another thread for Housing benefits, here: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=165308 )

POLL RESULTS: http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/Journals/1/Files/2011/6/17/Full%20survey%20results.ppt

(If you right-click on any slide you'll have the option to jump to any other)

Some very surprising results there!

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a +22 balance in favour of building more homes in their community. Higher social groups less so but still in favour of more homes.

There's also a broad support for the idea of simplifying local planning decisions if it makes it easier to build new homes in their community.

Given that the NIMBY's agenda seems to still be holding political sway, this is interesting. It seems they are in a minority in all classes (renters, home owners, mortgage owners, poor and wealthy). So let's just f**king get on with it and build some bloody houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a +22 balance in favour of building more homes in their community.

I suspect it's more like there is a +22 balance in favour of the idea of building more homes in their community. When faced with the reality of a few hundred houses on that field over there, they might feel differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a +22 balance in favour of building more homes in their community. Higher social groups less so but still in favour of more homes.

There's also a broad support for the idea of simplifying local planning decisions if it makes it easier to build new homes in their community.

Given that the NIMBY's agenda seems to still be holding political sway, this is interesting. It seems they are in a minority in all classes (renters, home owners, mortgage owners, poor and wealthy). So let's just f**king get on with it and build some bloody houses.

:lol:

+ 1 !

Yes, I was very surprised by that poll. I thought NIMBYs were a majority. In fact, they are just "noisier", more organised! The quieter majority is in fact in favour of more housing!!! :o Unfeckingbelievable!

You would never guess that, watching the news, BBC - well, at least our local BBC news here in the south. It always has a "tone" against development, and always shows NIMBYs' protests, but I just realised that they never interview random residents around, asking their opinion about proposed developments. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it's more like there is a +22 balance in favour of the idea of building more homes in their community. When faced with the reality of a few hundred houses on that field over there, they might feel differently.

Yes, that is possible as well.

I think the wording of the poll's question would be very important here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

+ 1 !

Yes, I was very surprised by that poll. I thought NIMBYs were a majority. In fact, they are just "noisier", more organised! The quieter majority is in fact in favour of more housing!!! :o Unfeckingbelievable!

You would never guess that, watching the news, BBC - well, at least our local BBC news here in the south. It always has a "tone" against development, and always shows NIMBYs' protests, but I just realised that they never interview random residents around, asking their opinion about proposed developments. :angry:

I would imagine part of the reason that we don't hear moderate opinion on those sorts of issues is because it doesn't make for sensational TV and possibly shows up some of the hysterical reporting that you get on TV these days as being silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine part of the reason that we don't hear moderate opinion on those sorts of issues is because it doesn't make for sensational TV and possibly shows up some of the hysterical reporting that you get on TV these days as being silly.

Yes, that too, but I think the BBC has also a kind of a "Luddite" bias, in general, not only anti-development but even anti-progress! In general, you know: "go green, stay local, loving cute little country cottages, against supermarkets (specially lower-class-but-doesn't-know-your-place-Tesco!), we can't build our way out of anything!, small crowded island, green pleasant land", and play Elgar in the background!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a good example of an organized special interest group overriding the will of a silent majority.

Whenever any development is proposed a small group who live in the area will violently push to stop it. While again the silent majority doesn't think about it too much. However that silent majority should think about it, because NIMBY's have killed off most good opportunity for making money in Britain. Its why we have a terrible youth unemployment.. as Injin says if you make work illegal you get an unemployment problem.

An idea I have had is whenever any development is proposed in my area, to go down to the local hearings and argue strongly in favour of it. Like arguing for new jobs and houses for the young people of the city to get a chance to live in the city they grew up in.

One thing also is when NIMBY's who are your neighbours and even friends go door to door getting signatures to stop a development. To not sign their petitions. I made the mistake once of getting into a debate about the merits of the development. Its one you can't win because the person has already gone door to door collecting signatures so to admit they are wrong now that they have so much invested in front of so many people would make them look like an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a good example of an organized special interest group overriding the will of a silent majority.

Whenever any development is proposed a small group who live in the area will violently push to stop it. While again the silent majority doesn't think about it too much. However that silent majority should think about it, because NIMBY's have killed off most good opportunity for making money in Britain. Its why we have a terrible youth unemployment.. as Injin says if you make work illegal you get an unemployment problem.

An idea I have had is whenever any development is proposed in my area, to go down to the local hearings and argue strongly in favour of it. Like arguing for new jobs and houses for the young people of the city to get a chance to live in the city they grew up in.

One thing also is when NIMBY's who are your neighbours and even friends go door to door getting signatures to stop a development. To not sign their petitions. I made the mistake once of getting into a debate about the merits of the development. Its one you can't win because the person has already gone door to door collecting signatures so to admit they are wrong now that they have so much invested in front of so many people would make them look like an idiot.

Probably best to tell them you don't want any of those petition gatherers on your land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree on that point. HPI is largely a function of lunatic lending.

Lunatic lending would not be able to keep house prices high for too many years if you didn't have also a planning blockage. You would cause a housing construction boom, like in the USA, Spain and Ireland, and eventually prices would collapse, like it happened in all these countries.

There is also a "timing" difference: Finances' effects are much faster, but also more unstable, shorter lived, whilst an expansion of the housing stock's effects are much more durable, stable, almost permanent, "structural".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a good example of an organized special interest group overriding the will of a silent majority. (...)

Exactly.

But well functioning democracies should have systems or institutions to compensate for that. I think a good media is central here. Alas, the BBC failed again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lunatic lending would not be able to keep house prices high for too many years if you didn't have also a planning blockage.

... whilst an expansion of the housing stock's effects are much more durable, stable, almost permanent, "structural".

The last 30 years have seen a 26% expansion of the housing stock against a 9% expansion in population. How much more do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last 30 years have seen a 26% expansion of the housing stock against a 9% expansion in population. How much more do you want?

And the stats to show this? please, remember 26% can have a lower number than 9% it all depends on size, plus how many homes were destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last 30 years have seen a 26% expansion of the housing stock against a 9% expansion in population. How much more do you want?

Population increase was not the main cause of increased need. The main cause was that the average size of UK households went down, increasing the number of households, and therefore increasing the number of dwellings needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population increase was not the main cause of increased need. The main cause was that the average size of UK households went down, increasing the number of households, and therefore increasing the number of dwellings needed.

Then why not include a bit of social engineering in your solution? (I'm sure you recall the lefty tantrums that greeted Cameron's modest proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system).

Edited by the shaping machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why not include a bit of social engineering in your solution? (I'm sure you recall the lefty tantrums that greeted Cameron's modest proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system).

Sure, that could help, but probably only marginally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has ever given me a reasonable (other than the odious NIMBY cartel one) explanation of why unimproved land or even land improved for use in industrial agriculture is worth say £5-6k an acre but its price is up to a thousand times more than this when someone is allowed to build a dwelling on it.

I don't buy the infrastructure arguments I've heard. In the poor parts of the world the residents take care of their own infrastructure while in the developed world a local authority would issue bonds to fund the expansion in roads, schools, etc. knowing that it would be paid back by the new residents over time.

And for the freaks worried about overbuilding - does anyone really think the landscape of Ireland, or anywhere else, has been irrevocably ruined by the recent once in a century construction boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has ever given me a reasonable (other than the odious NIMBY cartel one) explanation of why unimproved land or even land improved for use in industrial agriculture is worth say £5-6k an acre but its price is up to a thousand times more than this when someone is allowed to build a dwelling on it.

I don't buy the infrastructure arguments I've heard. In the poor parts of the world the residents take care of their own infrastructure while in the developed world a local authority would issue bonds to fund the expansion in roads, schools, etc. knowing that it would be paid back by the new residents over time.

And for the freaks worried about overbuilding - does anyone really think the landscape of Ireland, or anywhere else, has been irrevocably ruined by the recent once in a century construction boom.

+1

And to add the point that in 1000 years time there will be no trace of any of todays houses, the odd one or two maybe at best. A fair whack of todays houses will not be present in 100 years time even. And no house has any longterm affect on the landscape anyway, apart from it may stave off the encroaching industrial agriculture to allow for a potential haven for nature in the vast openness that is the green belt. House building is win win basically, unless you are a NIMBY of course.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has ever given me a reasonable (other than the odious NIMBY cartel one) explanation of why unimproved land or even land improved for use in industrial agriculture is worth say £5-6k an acre but its price is up to a thousand times more than this when someone is allowed to build a dwelling on it.

I don't buy the infrastructure arguments I've heard. In the poor parts of the world the residents take care of their own infrastructure while in the developed world a local authority would issue bonds to fund the expansion in roads, schools, etc. knowing that it would be paid back by the new residents over time.

And for the freaks worried about overbuilding - does anyone really think the landscape of Ireland, or anywhere else, has been irrevocably ruined by the recent once in a century construction boom.

You are right. There is no reasonable explanation - one that can survive basic arithmetic, regarding how surprisingly little space human housing uses in relation to countries' sizes. And I mean any country, even Britain. 10 million family homes would "cover" just 1% of Britain, and we just need a fraction of that, like one or two million, hence just 0.1 to 0.2%. And even if we build them all in England, 1 million houses would need just about 0.2% of England's surface.

Perhaps Hong Kong can use the tittle of "small and crowded island", but here it is NIMBY's propaganda - and the BBC is guilty of it too, btw.

NIMBYs who already own a home are despicable hypocrites. And tenant NIMBYs are just poor souls brain washed morons. One of the few Marxists concept I think makes some sense is that a country's dominant culture is the culture of its dominant class - here, via the BBC, the voice of the establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Ireland, Spain and the USA had the natural market response. A shortage of housing, leading to a speculative rise in the prices. Followed by the market response of mass, overbuilding of new houses. End result is cheap houses for everybody. The market worked.

People get confused about the market working, because they may have lost money. But the market working is about delivering material things to people. In this case people without houses, now have houses.

The same scenario has played out before many times, like the railroad overbuilding in the late 19th century... investors and bankers going under but the society ending up with many shiny new rail lines. Or the tech boom in the late 90's where fiber companies went under and a lot of people lost most of their money in the stock crash. But we got this incredible tech infrastructure that we are still using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Ireland, Spain and the USA had the natural market response. A shortage of housing, leading to a speculative rise in the prices. Followed by the market response of mass, overbuilding of new houses. End result is cheap houses for everybody. The market worked.

Exactly.

People get confused about the market working, because they may have lost money. But the market working is about delivering material things to people. In this case people without houses, now have houses.

The same scenario has played out before many times, like the railroad overbuilding in the late 19th century... investors and bankers going under but the society ending up with many shiny new rail lines. Or the tech boom in the late 90's where fiber companies went under and a lot of people lost most of their money in the stock crash. But we got this incredible tech infrastructure that we are still using.

Yes, markets can be messy, but the overall direction is positive. The advancements since the industrial revolution are undeniable. Weird that so many people still don't get the market economy, after allll these years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last 30 years have seen a 26% expansion of the housing stock against a 9% expansion in population. How much more do you want?

Most new developments are large estates on the outskirts of towns. Encouraging the use of cars for travel to and from work, to out of town shopping centres, schools not within walking distance.

If smaller developments were permitted within and around villages and small towns then local communities would have a chance to thrive. As it is now the small villages ossify. Housing is so expensive children of local occupants are unable to afford to buy a home there and have to move away. These consequences are regretted by the NIMBYS who also complain about them, but it is their opposition to local development that causes it.

If you look at small villages they have often evolved with high housing densities, but they function in a way that local planning officials could never understand. Permitted development led to the failed experiments of high rise blocks, sink estates and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at small villages they have often evolved with high housing densities, but they function in a way that local planning officials could never understand. Permitted development led to the failed experiments of high rise blocks, sink estates and the like.

While I don't disagree with your basic premise (that professional planners are worse than useless), the problems of high rises and sink estates are mainly due to political incompetence. As an example: the high rise Barbican estate is such a sought after development you have to be rich or corrupt* to live there.

If you wish to focus on the supply side, high rise residential buildings are a necessary part of the solution.

* socialism in action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wish to focus on the supply side, high rise residential buildings are a necessary part of the solution.

I don't disagree with high rise living in principle, I guess it works OK in big cities in the US and Canada and some parts of London. They were greeted with enthusiasm when they first went up in the UK, shades of Le Corbusier. When people lose responsibility for their own environment and actions though everything degenerates quite quickly and the nastier less considerate side of behaviour takes hold. I read somewhere that some areas have given responsibility for buildings to occupants and the results have been better conditions.

With planning gentle evolution works better than experimental ideas. Flats with caretakers and concierges seem to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.