Pearce Branigan: How can we turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs?

Pearce Branigan is the Deputy Chairman of the Hackney Conservative Federation and is employed in the strategic communications sector, specialising in planning and community engagement

Labour have set out their roadmap to : deliver a planning system that in their words, will ‘back the builders, not the blockers’. The new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, outlined in the King’s Speech, intends to streamline the planning process. Critically, Labour has stated that the planning system must ‘enable democratic engagement with how, not if, homes and infrastructure are built.’ This presumption in favour of development will allow local residents to comment on the style of new housing being built, but not able to object to it getting built.

Beyond the return of local housing targets and the recruiting of more planning officers, Labour also plan to improve decision-making by ‘modernising’ planning committees. Despite these moves, the fact remains that planning committee members will continue to express the views of, and be influenced by, their constituents. Residents may no longer be able to object to developments being built, but they can continue to pressure planning committee members to refuse permissions.

It is this fundamental issue at the heart of the planning system which needs to be addressed: how to turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs. Thankfully, it is possible that local authorities can win community support for developments through the existing levers of the planning system, without the need for additional legislation.

Now for the controversial take: NIMBYs aren’t actually opposed to development, but resent not being actively involved earlier in the local plan process, where they can help guide the development principles for sites. Labour’s reforms would still seek their views too late in the process for communities to feel they had credibly guided the development principles in their districts and boroughs.

Throughout my career as a community engagement specialist, I have had thousands of conversations with local residents concerning local planning applications in their communities. The overwhelming majority of people I have spoken with are not opposed to new developments coming forward. They are instead surprised to learn that: A) X location; and B) the type of development earmarked for X location, had already been decided by the local authority, years prior, with negligible input from the local community.

This, understandably, leaves individuals feeling that the choice before them is a fait accompli. If communities had a more central role in deciding if the policy for X location was best suited to accommodate a development of, i.e. terrace houses, there would be minimal opposition once a developer proceeded to build out said location with terrace houses. In doing this, developers would be conforming to a policy already vetted and crucially supported by the existing community.

But why, if this remedy is so simple, does it not already occur? Local authorities have improved in engaging communities as part of the local plan process. However, this largely focusses on consulting on locations for development, not form or function. Local authorities will ask ‘should we develop here?’ They fail to ask: how tall is tall enough for the buildings here? How dense is dense enough for the built form here? What shops, amenities and level of parking would you like to see here? These questions are often resolved through specialist data modelling which does not factor-in the lived experience and personal preference of existing residents.

There is nothing preventing local authorities from seeking these views. Where any consultation does occur on subjects of height, massing and form, its findings are more generally applied across the entire borough or district, instead of applying to specific sites, on a site-by-site basis.

Local plan consultations must use more accessible mediums when presenting development options to their residents. In a bid to drive modernisation in planning, why not offer VR walkthroughs of allocated sites, giving alternatives for what they would look like when built as either apartment blocks, terrace or semi-detached homes? Some of the most successful engagement programmes I have been part of have also used 3D models of sites. This allows residents to visualise the future communities and form a consensus over the best use of the site to deliver much needed new homes.

How then, can local authorities best use these tools to accurately, and cost-effectively, capture the views of their residents? Each local authority will know, based on population density and settlement locations, how best to divide their boroughs and districts for effective consultation. Whether that be by grouping wards, major settlements or looking at regional partitions within which to review prospective sites. The format of these engagement sessions could run along a uniform agenda, making the delivery more efficient. The materials used to present and capture feedback can be reused interchangeably on sites across a borough or district, all helping to keep costs down for taxpayers.

With community involvement baked-in to the earliest stages of the local plan process, local residents can give clear preference for the type, form and feature, or the ‘what’ that could be built on adopted sites. This will give communities confidence that whenever a site is built out, that the future application will adhere to the appropriate form they approve of.

Developers will benefit from having greater certainty in the pre-application process. With applications drawing less controversy and requiring fewer amendments, developers can save both time, manpower and expenditure during the planning process.

Above all, it will give planning committees the confidence that applications are, from the outset, in-line with their constituents wishes. Free from fear of retribution at the ballot box, this will better enable councillors to agree ‘when’ not ‘if’ new homes are delivered.

The mooted Planning and Infrastructure Bill is unlikely to deliver greater community support for developments. Thankfully, it doesn’t have to. We already have the tools to turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs. It is up to local authorities to best use them.

The post Pearce Branigan: How can we turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs? appeared first on Conservative Home.