Local Activism or Nimbyism?
Where is the line between genuine concern for the local community and curtain-twitching nimbyism?
Firstly, what on Earth is a ‘nimby’? NIMBY is an acronym for not-in-my-back-yard. It is a term that came about in the 1980s to describe someone who objects to development perceived as detrimental to their local neighbourhood. Generally, nimbys are derogatorily branded by those with vested interests in new development as well as the media. Although, the term does highlight an essential question in the argument against new construction: if not in your ‘back yard’, then whose? ‘Anywhere but here’ is the typical response — which expectedly is argued elsewhere too.
Nimbyism is grounded in the conservative ideology to protect existing assets from unwanted change to an unknown. It is identifiable in instances where no objections are raised to similar development elsewhere. But, at what point does caring about the state of your neighbourhood, become politically problematic? Arguably, it depends where the individual positions themselves within the argument, e.g. there is a significant difference between conservative campaigns to protect personal assets, individual access to views or the influence of house prices, and wider campaigns to protect rural nature, culture, or the local community as a collective.
In reaction to the continuing housing ‘crisis’ in the UK, a counter-term has arisen. The YIMBY movement typically supports the development of new housing in regions where renting has reached unaffordable levels, although it may also support public projects such as transport or energy sources. Yimbyism spans the political spectrum from the far left to free-market capitalists, but they collectively agree that the homes should be affordable and accessible for everyone, and the means to do so is to build more housing. In the UK London YIMBY is a driving organisation, campaigning for more homes across London and the rest of the UK.
West Tey. Photograph by Benjamin NourseIn the greenfield development context, perhaps the most intriguing and influential organisation in the country is Campaign to Protect Rural England [CPRE]. Originally formed as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England in 1926 by Sir Patrick Abercrombie to restrict ribbon development and urban sprawl, CPRE has had significant leverage over national and regional policy particularly pertaining to greenfield land and green belts. However, although often criticised for acquiring a nimbyist stance, CPRE’s ‘back yard’ is the whole nation, thus development within it is arguably inevitable. National organisations such as CPRE, then, have a non-political responsibility to not only campaign to protect the countryside but to advise how to successfully build within it.
We must remember that experiences in the English countryside are not experiences with nature. The Domesday Book gives a glimpse into the natural state of the country — ancient deciduous oak-birch forest covering the land. Since 1086, and hundreds of years of Inclosure Acts, the majority of the country has been deforested and enclosed into arable farms. Although the countryside may still be ‘green and pleasant’, it is far from natural. This begs the question: what exactly are we campaigning to protect? Nature, farmland, or anything green in colour?
In the modern day, the enclosure continues. Farms are being further converted into private residential estates. Unfortunately, those on the frontline are losing the fight — the edges of towns are creeping and new low-density towns are being planned. But not all is lost! Local people can do more than revert to nimbyism and simply campaign against new greenfield development. By actively counter-proposing and advising the needs of the area, locals can integrate with the development process, and potentially improve their region.
Content originally published at cpressex.org.uk on January 7, 2019.
