- Exclusive
- National
- NSW
- Development outrage
The three key ingredients in a development proposal that would change NIMBYs’ minds
It is one of the most divisive questions in Sydney’s suburbs: are you a NIMBY who says “not in my backyard” to new housing, or a YIMBY who says “bring it on” and the more, the merrier?
New research has confirmed residents of our major cities are split 50-50 over whether to welcome more housing development in their local areas, with support for density highest among younger men and renters, and lowest among older women and home owners.
The research interrogated the views of people who said they were inclined to oppose new housing developments near them.Credit: Steven Siewert
But the CT Group survey results, released exclusively to the Herald, also found most people who do not support development near them could be convinced if the proposal contained three ingredients – more parks and greenery, better roads and public transport, and improved health facilities.
“It’s not an intractable problem,” said CT Group director Mark Gorter. “This research shows you can shift people if you can demonstrate the personally relevant benefits of a development to them. That is the critical finding out of this.”
As the Minns government tries to reshape the narrative around housing and density – with major changes to planning laws and attacks on local councils – the research indicates public sentiment is split down the middle, but with a sizeable rump of vehement opposition.
The survey of 1520 voters across Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in May found “housing supply” ranked unusually high among their concerns – second only to cost of living, and slightly above access to healthcare. Typically, living costs, health and education round out the top three concerns.
People were then asked: “Would you support or oppose a new housing development in your area?” Forty-two per cent were somewhat supportive, and 9 per cent were strongly supportive. Thirty per cent were somewhat opposed, while 19 per cent were strongly opposed.
Those latter two groups were given the label “NIMBYs” and interrogated further, including a range of questions to ascertain what inclusions, if any, might make them more likely to support a nearby housing development.
The five top factors were “more green spaces, parks, playgrounds and public art”, more hospitals, medical centres and health facilities, upgraded roads and better public transport options, and improved road greenery/trees.
Three-quarters of people who were instinctively opposed to development in their area said they would support it if it came with all those things.
Academic Kelsie Dadd, 62, is in the “strongly opposed” camp, though she does not use or like the term NIMBY. She helped found the residents’ group Save Marrickville in 2017, after discovering plans to rezone and build up land near the forthcoming metro stations.
The group also fought off a Mirvac proposal for a string of towers along Carrington Road, each up to 28 storeys, that would have forever changed the inner west’s skyline. Local MP Anthony Albanese called it “greed gone mad” in federal parliament.
Dadd says housing development is a broad term, but “where I am that means high rise”. She knows there will be some uplift near the new metro stations – Sydenham, Marrickville, Dulwich Hill – but says a “reasonable height” for the area would be no more than five storeys.
“We’re just a little bit wary of it becoming a high-rise corridor along our main streets, as well as around the station,” she says. “They’re already fairly high density. It’s not like we’ve got great big yards.”
Kelsie Dadd, a founder of the residents group Save Marrickville, outside a forthcoming apartment block that she says is “not too bad”.Credit: Flavio Brancaleone
Dadd exemplifies the NIMBY group identified in the CT Group research; she is over 55, owns her own home and has lived in the area for 30 years – all factors correlated with higher opposition to new housing development nearby.
She is not swayed by the lure of more green space or better roads, saying Marrickville already has “very good” public transport and is well serviced by health facilities. But does that not make it a prime location for more housing?
“Sure. We just don’t need too many more people,” she says. “We’ve met our housing targets already. It’s inevitable there will be some high rise, but we’re concerned that we’re getting more and more. If they were to put in terrace style houses, or something like that – in some areas that would fit quite well and provide at least medium-density housing.”
Dadd’s views on tall buildings are also echoed by the research. Among those who were inclined to oppose more development in their area, 55 per cent said they were against low-rise apartments of three storeys or fewer, 80 per cent opposed medium density (described as four to eight storeys), 91 per cent opposed high-rise (nine to 19 storeys), and 93 per cent opposed super high-rise. In each case, most respondents were “strongly opposed”, not just “somewhat opposed”.
The survey excluded those living in the bottom quartile for housing density – determined using Australian Bureau of Statistics data – because they were unlikely to face new development proposals in their areas. While the total sample size was 1520, the base number for people opposed to new housing development in their area was 735.
Among that group, the top five concerns about more housing development were more traffic, the area becoming busier and noisier, more high-rise buildings, less green space, and noise and dust from construction. Concerns about decreased parking also ranked highly.
Ben Hendriks, founder of urban planning consultancy Mecone, has seen these views displayed in countless meetings and community consultations over his 25 years in the industry. He received a briefing on the CT research last week and says it shows the cognitive dissonance often involved in people’s attitudes to housing.
“The same people complain about development and in the next sentence lament the fact that their children can’t live in the same suburb,” he says. “They’re not seeing the nexus between supply and demand and housing prices.”
Hendriks says the research indicates the “grand bargain” of development – in which communities benefit from improved amenities and infrastructure through higher density – is not being properly articulated at present.
“They’re not joining the dots. People fill the vacuum with their own narrative: ‘it’s just developers making money’, ‘there’s no real purpose to the growth’,” he says. “If you put good information out there and highlight the benefits of proposals, you can change people’s minds. I think it’s possible.”
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.