Tory plans will institutionalise Nimbyism

Not in my back yard objections have held up a number of new housing developments in the south-east of England, including eco-towns and urban extensions. One recent report (by the TCPA and Price Waterhouse Coopers) suggested Nimbyism was a major reason for the failure of government to deliver its new housing targets in the UK over the last ten years.

Although opposition to development might not be as decisive as the report suggests, it is instructive to take a close look at Nimbyism at this time because of the political situation. With the Tories in power in the majority of local authorities and poised to win a general election next year, their instinct for no growth may well become formalised as policies to block new housing across the southeast.

Local Conservatives have often been active in groups campaigning against ‘building over the countryside’, and regularly write letters to local papers opposing growth. These campaigns have been contained so far by the pragmatism of local authorities who have accepted the reality of working with central and regional government planning and housing policies over the past ten years. But if policies for regional growth are removed and local delivery vehicles are wound down, the voices of opposition may dominate the politics of local planning and development.

One of the recent proposals from shadow ministers is ‘open source planning’. Draft local plans would be published and local people invited to comment in a very open-ended way, and eventually a ‘community-led’ plan would emerge. But without national and regional policies for development, this approach could potentially lead to a patchwork of community opposition to development in the growth areas of the southeast.

The relationship between the Conservatives and the property industry is thus a curious one. Recently, developers were furious at the letter Caroline Spelman, shadow housing minister, sent to Tory local authorities telling them not to proceed with major development schemes before the general election.

The national Homebuilders Federation (HBF) is generally regarded as a supporter of the Conservatives, but with this rhetoric, the relationship is potentially fraught.

On October 12th the chair of the HBF, referring to the ‘enormous innate Nimbyism’ in the country, said: ‘The Tories’ commitment to localism presented a real danger that the supply of land with planning permission would decline just as the property industry began to recover.’

By allowing ‘local people to decide’ rather than having properly formulated land use plans that allocate land to meet housing needs, not only the supply of market housing will dry up but also the availability of land for social housing.

If ‘local people’ don’t want new development, the Conservatives will find themselves in opposition to a key business sector (housing and property) while preaching elsewhere the need to free business from state regulation and restraint.

It is somewhat of a paradox that Labour – with its plans for additional housing across the southeast – is the friend of landowners and housebuilders, while Tories with their localism are becoming the enemy.

But who loses out from the Nimby mindset? First and foremost those in housing need, because local resistance to social housing is the strongest. Next on the list are those seeking affordable housing (though there is acceptance of small schemes aimed at local people in village communities). Some upmarket homes may get built but there is resistance to larger socially mixed developments in urban extensions and new settlements. Perversely this opposition pushes up land values which makes the next round of housing growth even more expensive (and profitable for a few landowners and developers who have options on land), and at the same time keeps out social development which cannot afford to enter the market.

But does this resistance weaken if the new development is truly ‘sustainable’? This is crucial because it is one of assumptions underlying the sustainable communities plan for the southeast, the spirit of which the Conservatives have signed up to. In brief, the plan seeks to make housing growth acceptable by making it ‘sustainable’, that is, passing a low energy and design threshold.

In practice, very few new housing developments in the southeast allowed under new Labour’s Growth plans meet this threshold. Thus there are serious reasons to doubt the sustainability credentials of much new development.

The technical objections to some of the eco-towns and urban extensions were on sustainability grounds (in transport or employment or environmental terms for example). But these objections were often not as they seemed. Arguably some of the objections were presented as being about sustainability when the real reason was opposition to mixed housing on greenfield land near villages and small towns. e.g. Weston Otmoor eco-town proposals just outside Oxford.

A further interesting case is local authority opposition to inland wind farms. Around 60% of wind farm proposals have been opposed by Tory councils – even though by definition the schemes are sustainable development. Though there have been cases where wind farms were badly sited, the opposition campaigns in many schemes have gone beyond that.

The likely scenario under the Tories in central government with the backing of councils in many areas outside the big cities, is thus one of resistance to ‘sustainable’ development even though it creates jobs, reduces housing waiting lists, and potentially plays a key role in healing the ‘broken society’ the Conservatives are so keen to champion.

The sane answer is to have central direction (even targets?) and provide mechanisms such as public/private development companies to deliver new development. Yet with the Tories aiming for a smaller central state, less central direction, and more localism, they are institutionalising Nimbyism. Encouraging this will be a disaster – but how long will it take them to find out?