'STOPPED: Why People Oppose Residential Development in Their Back Yard' is a new
report produced by the Centre for London, but its findings are valid beyond the capital and many apply to all categories of development. It not only highlights how the number of applications rejected or delayed directly harms housing land supply but also how developers may choose not to make an application at all and will actively avoid certain local authorities.
It is simplistic to dismiss all objections as seeking to prevent change or preserve property values, and the Report groups them under 7 headings:
Services: Even where Section 106 or CIL payments are made, it may be necessary to combine funding from different sources for implementation, which often fails to keep pace with development. Roads, public transport, education and health care might already be under strain and additional provision is sometimes not within the control of either the developer or the local planning authority.
Trust: Trust has been eroded by the complexity of the planning system and the vulnerability of development to the economic cycle. Many residents do not believe that the local authority will act in their interests or that developers will stick to commitments. It can be confusing for residents to see site-specific policies seemingly overridden, a frequent event where there is no 5 year supply of housing land.
Outsiders: Social psychology confirms people will identify with their own group and will take action if they perceive that their identity is threatened by incomers. This is a common occurrence where affordable housing is proposed, but it is also true where regeneration projects bring in 'yuppies' to an area.
Places - People fear that development will change the character or identity of the place they call 'home', to the extent that they even organise against the redevelopment of vacant or derelict sites. Of course sometimes there is a genuine concern over the scale or quality of the development.
Politics - Debate is commonly hijacked for alternative agendas and development proposals can become a political football.
Engagement - People are more likely to object where they feel powerless. Statutory consultation by the Council on a submitted application may be too late to influence a proposal. Earlier engagement by developers must not seem manipulative or superficial if it is to be effective.
Disruption - This may arise from work on site and construction traffic, which in some cases has a prolonged localised impact.
Discussion
There are few sites where all 7 reasons for objection will apply, and there is no one single approach to address the full range of public concerns. The position is further complicated as objectors seek out any potential obstacle to a scheme regardless of their real objections, for example in discovering a sudden interest in the welfare of Great Crested Newts.
In its analysis, the Centre for London identifies two types of response which can help to address opposition to proposed new development:
Be more personal: Whilst architects typically assess local character, it is also useful to understand people's own perception of a site and locality. Engagement should involve genuinely listening to people before a scheme is finalised for submission, and not just gathering information which is then unused. Potential end users of development should be invited to attend meetings and consultation events. Residents should have a point of contact to address concerns during the construction phase.
Be more proactive: 'Frame' developments to spell out the benefits. Is housing simply 'affordable' or is it tackling the effects of high house prices on family life and children? Although developers have limited control over infrastructure, they should look for opportunities to make short-term promises and keep them, such as a highway improvements close to the site or provision of a play area.
Mosaic Community Engagement Service
Mosaic recently held a public consultation event for a mixed-use development, including up to 500 houses, on a greenfield site, emphasising the economic, social and environmental credentials of the proposals. It was surprising how little opposition was expressed to the principle of the development or to the actual draft proposals. Instead, almost all of the concerns were about infrastructure and how the impacts could be mitigated. Addressing these impacts must clearly be the priority as the proposals evolve.
Mosaic Town Planning offers a full community engagement service, and we would be pleased to work with you to identify an effective strategy for your development project.
|
