In Defence Of NIMBYISM At Home And Abroad

I have noticed that the Coalition Government's C3OH2 (Cameron, Clegg, Cable, Osborne, Hammond and Huhne) have started to rail against so-called NIMBYS (Not-In-My-Back-Yarders) as if these constituted some new threat to national security, so today I want to defend Nimbys at home and abroad today.

Let me start in present day Africa, Kenya to be precise, where, according to BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight programme yesterday, the sustainable livelihoods of tribes people, together with wildlife, are threatened by foreign companies "land grabbing" for the purposes of growing biofuel to help meet the European Union's targets for the use of renewal energy. Some Kenyans have taken objection to this because of the threat that large scale biofuel crops pose both to biodiversity conservation as well as the use of land for growing food. As European targets for renewal energy consumption are clearly a good thing, these Kenyans must be Nimbys standing in the way of progress in the form of green energy. Or might their objections stand up to scrutiny ? There are undoubtedly other ways in which Europe can meet its renewable energy requirements, and such an availability of alternative options often lies at the heart of objections to development which are put down to so-called Nimbyism.

Moving back to Britain - from Australia as it happened - in the mid-1980s, I found myself involved in a planning inquiry into proposals by the Department of Transport to build a new road link across the Thames from the Docklands area to South East London: the never-built East London River Crossing. This scheme would have demolished hundreds of residential and commercial properties, and consumed a large amount of open land south of the river including the famous Oxleas Wood, but the future development of London Docklands depended upon it, or so supporters said. Opponents were cast as Nimbys and, indeed, Luddites, for suggesting that the transport needs of what was later to become known as London Thames Gateway would be better met by strategic rail investment, and - pre-crossrail - an extension of the tube, yet they were proved correct.

The truth is that so-called Nimbys are often right to oppose development, as history will later demonstrate. They frequently have the long term interests of their areas and communities at heart in ways which politicians, technocrats and administrators rarely do. Moreover, some of the most effective Nimby's have a background in precisely those professions most aligned with the apparent march of progress, but "having seen the light" choose to use their talents for the greater good of preventing unsustainable development at home and abroad.