Customer Survey
- New Homes Today 2002 - Introduction
- Key Findings 2002
- Preference for New Housing 2002
- Affordable Housing and Planning Policies
- Executive Summary (2001)
- Glamorous, Aspirational, Well Designed (2001)
- More people want new homes (2001)
- Higher density homes - the impact of PPG3 (2001)
- The power of brand in house building (2001)
- Tomorrow's Homes Today (2001)
Affordable Housing and Planning Policies
The Findings - Qualitative Research
Affordable Housing
Government planning policy is seeking to create integrated communities of both market and affordable housing. In turn housebuilders are increasingly expected to provide for elements of affordable housing through the planning gain process. Therefore discussion centred on the acceptability of mixing private market and affordable housing.
The researchers encountered the inevitable "NIMBY" syndrome when the subject of affordable housing was introduced to the discussion groups. Respondents felt that if the occupiers did not own their homes, they were unlikely to maintain them to what was considered an acceptable standard. Some thought that introducing housing of a "social" nature might result in an increase in crime. Several felt that resale values could be adversely affected. Homeowners, perhaps more than ever in the current market of falling share values, treat their homes as nest eggs for the future and worry about the value of their investment.
My hard earned money is going into buying my home and I’m not sure how affordable housing would affect its value
(Thamesmead, London)
It should be noted that most respondents were embarrassed at their prejudices and because of this it might be possible to calm many of these fears through good management of social housing and problem families. In addition, all respondents agreed that affordable housing built on private developments should blend seamlessly with private housing and differentiation by appearance should not be permissible.
Also, some respondents were beginning to acknowledge the widespread need for affordable housing. They understood that residents would not necessarily be "down and outs", but could easily be key workers such as nurses, police and fire-fighters. Significantly, this view appeared to be more prevalent amongst respondents from higher socio-economic groups.
I think affordable housing can work but it depends on the type of people living in them. Nurses and teachers would be fine. The development as a whole needs to be kept to a high standard and you would have to be careful the area didn’t get run down.
(Thamesmead, London)
Planning and PPG3
Government planning policy for new housing is set down in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3.
Whilst the term "PPG 3" was unknown to the vast majority of respondents, they were vocal on the implications of living in a PPG 3 influenced environment. The hottest topic was undoubtedly the issue of car parking. Across many of the groups, concern was expressed at the lack of adequate provision for safe car parking.
The photograph below shows clearly the problems that are typical of many PPG 3 developments.
It is clear that people are not ready to sacrifice their vehicles, no matter how "difficult" the planners may make it for them to own one (or more). The situation is exacerbated by a public transport system that would appear to be reviled by the majority of the home owning population; for many, there simply isn’t an alternative to using their own car to get to work, the shops or to socialise.
Why have nice gardens, nice houses, nice places to live and then turn it into a car park.
(Ingleby Barwick, Darlington)
A vital point for the housebuilding industry as a whole to take note of is the fact that many home buyers perceive, wrongly, that the consequences of PPG 3 – especially the issue of higher density housing – is a result of "money grabbing developers" rather than a manifestation of central Government policy. Where sales staff have taken the trouble to "sell" the benefits of PPG3 sites to purchasers there is a greater acceptance and understanding.
On a more positive note, there was a good reaction to the variety that is being introduced into many new development layouts. Rows of "little boxes, all the same" does now genuinely seem to be an outmoded view of new housing estates.
I love the look of the development with its different mix of houses and designs. The layout has been well thought out.
(Thamesmead, London)
There is a widespread belief that building houses is not enough and that developers need to build communities that include all the public and private services that make them work properly.
The groups found it difficult to define what made a good community, but there was an overall predisposition towards wanting to feel part of a community in an "ideal world". It seems to be the almost intangible things that make the difference, such as chatting over the garden fence or keeping an eye on a neighbour’s property whilst they are on holiday, rather than the more formalised use of community facilities. Many felt that it was difficult to establish a true community spirit in the traditional sense on a new housing development, as real communities are perceived to have developed over generations. Others were just too busy keeping pace with the demands of modern life to have time to interact with their neighbours. This was especially true of city centre developments, where residents often disappear behind their security protected front doors and rarely have an opportunity to meet their neighbours.
In some areas house developers in the UK were criticised for "putting the cart before the horse" in the sense that houses had been completed and sold in large numbers before any attempt was made to build communal facilities such as shops, pubs and community centres – the inference being that this in itself was stifling the growth of a community spirit.
It can be very expensive having to buy all your food at M&S or Selfridges. There are very few markets – maybe the odd fruit and veg barrow that are difficult to track down. Where do people get their provisions? It is not like Paris or Seville or Barcelona where there are food shops and markets for every street.
(Manchester city centre)
The concept of planning gain was not something that there was great awareness of amongst most respondents, although the reality of the situation in areas such as Warwick Gates (Warwick), Ingleby Barwick (Teeside) and Abbey Meads (Swindon) is that where community facilities such as church halls, libraries and so on have been provided, they are well utilised and even treated with a sense of pride by residents.
Interior Layouts
At first glance, this appears to be a topic that is of little interest to house buyers. Only 13% of respondents in the quantitative research cited interior design as the main reason for choosing their homes, and in the focus groups and telephone research the majority of respondents did not have a lot to say on the matter.
However, the comments that did come out of the focus groups were generally complimentary. Contemporary ideas such as family rooms and open plan kitchen/living areas were well received, but respondents were more traditional in their views of formal rooms such as the dining room; although perhaps only used infrequently for their intended purpose (with many people rather guiltily admitting to regularly eating off trays in front of the TV), few were prepared to consider relinquishing the dining room even if it meant more space in other areas of the home.
It was interesting to note the significant proportion of buyers who, on the face of it, were buying houses with more bedrooms than they needed. The discussion groups revealed that, in fact, purchasers were often left with no choice but to buy, say, a four bedroom property if they were to gain the amount of living space they wanted.
Others were showing a flexible approach to the use of various rooms, with designated bedrooms being used as offices, hobbies rooms, ironing rooms and so on.