Nearly twice as many back local housebuilding. So why the NIMBY label?

That is a significant finding. Support comfortably outweighs opposition, but that does not amount to a blank cheque for development without the GPs, roads, schools and infrastructure required to support it. The argument is not really about whether we build. It is about whether we build functioning communities or simply chase a national housing target.

Younger adults are the most supportive

Support is strongest among the generation facing the greatest barriers to home ownership. More than half of Gen Z adults support local housebuilding, compared with 48% of Millennials, 42% of Gen X and 37% of Baby Boomers.

Barclays reports that opposition rises with age, from 16% among Gen Z to 26% among Baby Boomers. Even among the oldest group reported, however, support remains comfortably ahead of opposition. That is not the picture usually painted when local residents are blamed for the housing shortage.

The regional divide is impossible to ignore

Northern Ireland recorded the strongest support at 53%, while Wales followed at 52%. Every region in the survey had more supporters than opponents, but the margin narrowed sharply in parts of southern England. In the South East, 36% supported local housebuilding and 35% opposed it.

That does not tell us why the South East is more divided, and the release does not provide regional sample sizes from which to judge whether small differences are statistically significant. It should, however, stop Westminster treating every housing market as though it faces identical pressures.

The objections are not mainly about house prices

The most revealing part of the research is why people object. Among those opposing development, 61% are concerned about the loss of green space, countryside or natural habitat. Pressure on GPs, schools and other local services follows at 57%, with traffic and congestion at 55% and insufficient infrastructure at 52%.

Only 7% said they opposed development because it might reduce the value of their own home. That figure rather punctures the popular idea that opposition is mainly driven by selfish homeowners protecting their property values.

People are looking at GP waiting times, overcrowded roads, school places and disappearing green space. Those are practical concerns about whether their community can absorb more development without becoming a worse place to live.

There is also a clear route to winning more support. More than a quarter of opponents said additional GP and healthcare capacity would make them more likely to back local housebuilding. Investment in roads and infrastructure would persuade 18%, while 15% pointed to more green space and community facilities.

Promises hidden in planning documents are not enough. Existing residents need to see that essential services will be delivered when the new homes arrive, not discussed several years after the development has been completed.

Affordable housing tops the public’s priorities

When asked what the Government should prioritise over the next three years, 32% chose building more social or affordable housing. Reducing homelessness came next at 28%, followed by helping first-time buyers onto the housing ladder at 25%. For Gen Z, helping first-time buyers was the leading priority, cited by 29%.

There is no single housing crisis here. Some people cannot find a secure home, younger adults cannot raise a deposit, and established communities fear that already stretched services cannot cope with thousands of additional residents. Announcing another national housebuilding target will not solve all three.

A spare bedroom is not a spare home

Barclays also points to previous research which found that 85% of owner-occupied homes in England and Wales contain at least one spare bedroom. That statistic will inevitably tempt some politicians to start preaching about downsizing, but a spare bedroom is not the same thing as a spare home.

People cannot downsize into suitable, affordable properties that do not exist. High transaction costs, the upheaval involved in moving and a shortage of appropriate homes can all make staying put the rational choice. If the Government wants the existing housing stock to be used more efficiently, it needs to make moving worthwhile and ensure that the right homes are available.

Buying a home remains unnecessarily daunting

Building more properties will not automatically create greater housing mobility if buyers do not feel able to navigate the process. Six in ten adults said they were confident about buying a home, but 28% were not.

Among those lacking confidence, conveyancing and legal procedures and understanding taxes and fees were the biggest areas of uncertainty, both cited by 37%. Nearly a third cited paperwork and documentation. For Gen Z, the problems begin even earlier, with 39% citing saving a deposit and 36% saying they lacked confidence in understanding how much they could afford to borrow.

Houses still dominate mortgage completions

Barclays’ own July 2026 mortgage completions show that houses remain the dominant choice. Houses accounted for 81.7% of first-time buyer completions and 88.6% of other completions, with flats and maisonettes making up the balance.

That sits alongside earlier Barclays research which found 33% of recent Gen Z buyers had chosen what they regarded as a “forever home” so they would not have to move again. Across all buyers in that earlier survey, 27% intended to remain in their new home for at least ten years. The familiar assumption that younger buyers will simply climb through several rungs of the property ladder may already be out of date.

That does not mean every new development should consist of houses, but it is a useful warning. Housing demand cannot be satisfied simply by delivering any type of unit at any price and adding it to the national total.

What Barclays and Barratt Redrow said

The question planners cannot avoid

Patel and MacDiarmid are right that more homes matter, but this research is not a blank cheque for developers. It does not prove that every proposed scheme is appropriate or that local objections should be swept aside. It shows that support is far more common than opposition and that additional support can be earned when development leaves communities better served, rather than merely more crowded.

NIMBY and YIMBY are useful shorthand, but people do not necessarily belong permanently in one camp. The Barclays findings show that practical improvements can turn at least some opponents into supporters. The question ministers should be asking is not how to defeat the NIMBYs. It is whether the homes, healthcare, roads, schools and green spaces will be delivered together. If they are not, opposition is not irrational. It is the predictable response to development being done on the cheap.