Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

It’s Housebuilding But Not as We Know It: The Impact of Neighbourhood Planning on Development in England

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Building Information Modelling, Building Performance, Design and Smart Construction

  • 3163 Accesses

Abstract

Community opposition to housebuilding has been cited as one of the key factors in the decline in new housing supply over the last decade. The policy of neighbourhood planning was introduced to England in 2011 to overcome this opposition by devolving limited powers to communities to influence development. It was anticipated that giving communities the right to draw up neighbourhood development plans would secure their compliance with a pro-growth agenda and increase the number of sites allocated for housing. This chapter explores the impact of neighbourhood planning in England on housing development and analyses its lessons for the state strategy of localism. It argues that neighbourhood planning is emerging as the proponent of sustainability and social purpose in the English housing market, in conflict with the corporate interests of liberalised housing development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, D., Leishman, C., & Moore, C. (2009). Why not build faster? Explaining the speed at which British house-builders develop new homes for owner-occupation. Town Planning Review, 80(3), 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, T., & Cole, I. (2014). Still not plannable? Housing supply and the changing structure of the housebuilding industry in the UK in ‘austere’ times. People, Place and Policy, 8(2), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. American Institute of Planners Journal, 35(4), 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundel Town Council. (2014). Arundel Neighbourhood Plan 2014–2029. Sussex: Arundel Town Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, M. (2003). Markets and the structure of the housebuilding industry: An international perspective. Urban Studies, 40(5–6), 897–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barratt Homes & Wainhomes Developments v Cheshire West & Chester Borough Council, Stephen Robinson & Tattenhall & District Parish Council. (2014). EWHC 1470 Q.B.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, Q. (2014). Bringing democracy back home: Community localism and the domestication of political space. Environment & Planning D: Society & Space, 32(4), 642–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, Q. (2015). The political identities of neighbourhood planning in England. Space and Polity, 97–109. doi:10.1080/13562576.2015.1046279.

  • Bramley, G., & Watkins, D. (2016). Housebuilding, demographic change and affordability as outcomes of local planning decisions: Exploring interactions using a sub-regional model of housing markets in England. Progress in Planning, 104, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Spaces of neoliberalism; Urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burningham, K. (2000). Using the language of NIMBY: A topic of research not an activity for researchers. Local Environment, 5(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burroughs, L. (2015). Getting Homes Built. Housing Foresight Paper No. 4. London: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. (1994). Taking up space: Redefining political legitimacy in NYC. Environment and Planning A, 26, 937–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, the Rt., Hon, G., MP. (2011). Local planning for sustainable development. Speech to Campaign to Protect Rural England London. Department of Communities & Local Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, N., & Cochrane, A. (2013). Geographies and politics of localism: The localism of the UK’s coalition government. Political Geography, 34, 10–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane v SSCLG. (2015). EWHC 425 (Admin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, N., Taylor, E. J., & Hurley, J. (2013). At home with strategic planning: Reconciling resident attachments to home with policies of residential densification. Australian Planner, 50(2), 130–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2011). Impact assessment to the localism bill: Neighbourhood plans and community right to build. London: DCLG.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2012). National planning policy framework. London: DCLG.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2013). You’ve got the power. A quick and simple guide to community rights. DCLG: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG (2014). Town and Country Planning Act 1990—Section 78 Appeal by Mr. I. P. Crane—Site at Land South of Hallbrook Primary School, Crowfoot Way, Broughton Astley, Leicestershire [Internet]. Retrieved August 10, 2015, from http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/theplanning inspectorate

  • DCLG. (2015a). Notes on neighbourhood planning 16. London: DCLG.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2015b). My community rights. London. Locality [Internet]. Retrieved Novomber 2, 2015, from http://mycommunity.org.uk.

  • DCLG. (2015c). Housing Bill 2015/16 impact assessment. London: Department of Communities and Local Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG, & Bowles, N. (2014). Written statement to parliament: Neighbourhood planning. London: DCLG.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG & Lewis. (2015). Neighbourhood planning powers boosting plans for housebuilding by more than 10%. Press release 2 November. Internet. Retrieved Novomber 2, 2015, from https://www.gov.uk.

  • Davoudi, S., & Cowie, P. (2013). Are English neighbourhood forums democratically legitimate? Planning Theory and Practice, 14(4), 562–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davoudi, S., & Madanipour, A. (2015). Reconsidering localism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVerteuil, G. (2013). Where has NIMBY gone in urban social geography? Social and Cultural Geography, 14(6), 599–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine-Wright, P. (2012). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 426–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the ‘post socialist’ condition. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frome Town Council. (2014). A neighbourhood plan for Frome 2008–2028. Frome Town Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Government. (2011). Laying the foundations: A housing strategy for England. London: Department of Communities & Local Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S., & Massey, D. (2010). Interpreting the crisis. Soundings, 44(Spring), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, P. (2015). Whose land is our land? Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkfleet Homes v Rutland County Council & Uppingham Town Council. (2014). EWHC 4095 Q.B.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Trans. D. Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell. Original work published 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Localism Act 2011 (c.20) London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locality. (2014). The power of neighbourhood planning. London: Locality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowndes, V., & Sullivan, H. (2008). How low can you go? Rationales and challenges for neighbourhood governance. Public Administration, 86(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, E. J. (1999). Race, protest & public space: Contextualising Lefebvre in the US City. Antipode, 31(2), 163–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, P., Bramley, G., & Hastings, A. (2015). Homo economicus in a big society: Understanding middle-class activism and NIMBYism towards new housing developments. Housing Theory & Society, 32(1), 54–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mihaylov, N., & Perkins, D. (2015). Local grassroots environmental activism. Behavioural Sciences, 5, 121–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miraftab, F. (2009). Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the global south. Planning Theory, 8(1), 32–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mountain, C. (2015). Neighbourhood planning: Progress on housing delivery. London: DCLG Neighbourhood Planning Team.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHF. (2011). Home truths. Fixing our broken housing market. National Housing Federation: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. (2015). The take-up of Neighbourhood Planning in England 2011–2015. Working Paper in Real Estate and Planning. September. Reading. University of Reading. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.centaur.reading.ac.uk.

  • Parker, G., Lynne, T., Wargent, M., & Locality. (2014). User experience of neighbourhood planning in England research. Reading: University of Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G., Lynn, T., & Wargent, M. (2015). Sticking to the script? The co-production of Neighbourhood Plans. Town Planning Review, 86(5), 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, R. (2014). Neighbourhood plans: Plan and deliver? London: Turley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersfield Town Council. (2013). Petersfield’s neighbourhood plan. Petersfield Town Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, G. (2015). Revealed: Housebuilders sitting on 600,000 plots of land. The Guardian. Wednesday 30 December. London: Guardian Newspapers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruming, K., Houston, D., & Amati, M. (2012). Multiple suburban publics: Rethinking community opposition to consolidation in Sydney. Geographical Research, 50(4), 421–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaugham Parish Council. (2013). Slaugham neighbourhood plan. Slaugham Parish Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturzaker, J. (2011). Can community empowerment reduce opposition to housing? Evidence from Rural England. Planning Practice and Research, 26(5), 555–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, E. (2013). Do house values influence resistance to development?—A spatial analysis of planning objection and appeals in Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research, 31(1), 5–26.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, E., Cook, N., & Hurley, J. (2016). Do objections count? Estimating the influence of residents on housing development assessment in Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research. doi:10.1080/08111146.2015.1081845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upper Eden Community Interest Company. (2012). Upper Eden Neighbourhood Development Plan 2012–2025. Cumbria: Upper Eden CIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wills, J. (2016). Emerging geographies of English localism: The case of neighbourhood planning. Political Geography, 53, 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. (2015). Self-build and custom-build housing (England) . London: House of Commons Library.Briefing Paper Number 06784

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolsink, M. (2006). Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, C. & Burcher, J. (2014). Love Thy Neighbour: An update on neighbourhood plans. London. No 5 Chambers [Internet]. Retrieved from https://www.no5.com/.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Senior Lecturer in Planning & Housing, Leeds Beckett University School of the Built Environment and Engineering, Leeds, LS2 9EN, UK

    Quintin Bradley

Authors
  1. Quintin Bradley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quintin Bradley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Suffolk, Suffolk, United Kingdom

    Mohammad Dastbaz

  2. Leeds Sustainability Institute, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom

    Chris Gorse

  3. Fellow, Newnham College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Alice Moncaster

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bradley, Q. (2017). It’s Housebuilding But Not as We Know It: The Impact of Neighbourhood Planning on Development in England. In: Dastbaz, M., Gorse, C., Moncaster, A. (eds) Building Information Modelling, Building Performance, Design and Smart Construction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50346-2_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50346-2_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50345-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50346-2

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation