Existing residents in high-demand housing areas of South East England are not as implacably opposed to new housebuilding as may be commonly assumed.

Although a minority of so-called ‘NIMBYs’ would instinctively reject proposals for more homes, a research report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds no evidence of a blanket objection to land being used for development.

Based on a survey of more than 1,400 residents in Aylesbury, Maidenhead, Chatham and Gillingham, the study argues that a clearer understanding of local people’s preferences can be used to plan new developments that are more acceptable to the public, as well as meeting the Government policies for tackling the shortage of affordable homes.

The report, by Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd (CAR), is being launched in London today at a conference where the speakers include Kate Barker of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, whose report for the Treasury on future housing demand was published to coincide with this year’s Budget.

The CAR survey found residents were more likely to disagree that ‘many more homes should be built’ (46 per cent) than to agree (28 per cent). However, the proportion who believed the South East must be allowed to go on growing (40 per cent) outnumbered those who disagreed (24 per cent) by almost two to one.

And while a third (35 per cent) insisted that more homes would mean a poorer quality of life, there was a larger group (43 per cent) who disagreed with them. Likewise, 38 per cent of those interviewed rejected the proposition that their town and surroundings should be kept just as they were, compared with 34 per cent who agreed.

Development options

Asked about six different ways that development might occur in the next 20 years, there was no clear favourite. The options that were slightly more popular were increased housing densities, development on the sides of existing towns (urban extension) and construction of completely new towns. The possibility of permitting only minimum growth was also marginally more ‘liked’ than ‘disliked’. Options for village growth and new settlement (2,000-4,000 homes) were less popular.

House type and density

Residents were also asked about the types and densities of housing they would find most acceptable in developments. Detached and semi-detached properties, built at a density of 20 homes per hectare, were the most popular (liked by 55 per cent), followed by two- or three-storey terraced homes (liked by 47 per cent) which could be built at a higher density of 45 dwellings per hectare. Blocks of flats, which could achieve a density as high as 83 dwellings per hectare, were disliked more than liked as an option - although 30 per cent of first-time buyers said they would like to live in them.

Steve Platt, Chairman of Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd and co-author of the report, said: “Politicians, locally and nationally, often behave as though the only response they expect to hear from residents when development is proposed in the South East is: ‘Not in my back yard’. This survey shows that ‘NIMBYism’ is far from rife and that people don’t have a blanket objection to land being used for new housing. The options favoured by a representative sample of local residents were for balanced development that would deliver quality housing at affordable prices, open space and access to schools and other services that communities need.

“Residents’ views on density also suggest that it will be possible to gain public support for mixed developments as a means of delivering the Government’s targets for the region. For example, an overall combination of 45 per cent low density, 35 per cent medium density and 20 per cent higher density would meet Government policy.”

He added: “Perhaps the most encouraging feature of the survey results is the evidence that engaging the public in a sensible dialogue about the shortage of affordable homes and other planning problems is not only possible, but highly effective. People, like those we interviewed in the four South Eastern towns, make reasoned choices and compromises when presented with reliable information about a range of options.”