NIMBYs – are we all one at heart?

By Andrea Williams

As the housing shortage has become more acute, the famous NIMBY acronym has taken on a new life of its own. Standing for Not In My Back Yard, it is the go-to phrase to describe the local village busy body that is resistant to change. But despite being pro-development, I have found myself in the unexpected position of feeling uncomfortable with parts of the Government’s new Planning Bill, which has been designed to speed up the planning process and create more homes. Announced in the Queen’s Speech in May, these proposals will shake up a planning system that is regularly described as ‘broken’.

In my view, reform that enables the development of more homes should be welcomed. The millennial in me understands how hard it is for first-time buyers to take their first step onto the property ladder and empathises with those that live in insecure accommodation due to a shortage of homes; I have been lucky. But now I have a home backing onto farmland in a small village, the kind of land that could well be prime land for development, and easier to build on thanks to these reforms, I must ask myself an uncomfortable question; am I NIMBY too? There is no doubt that I sympathise with local resident’s concerns on volume of traffic, school places and access to green open spaces. Especially as I am moving from London to make the most of all of the above.

Some of the feedback on the Planning Bill from those I have spoken to in the industry, welcome these reforms, but would first welcome an injection of cash to better fund council planning departments to speed up the application process in the first instance. Years of underfunding has slowed down the system, with fewer officers, some of whom are ill equipped to handle the large volume of complex planning decisions. It also doesn’t help that planning issues locally are highly politicised, which is evident by the feeling of opposition against this bill among Conservative MPs in the Southeast. It has concerned many in Parliament that a new algorithm, which will determine housing need based largely on house prices in local areas, will mean that areas in the south of the country will see greater development than that in the north, perhaps contrary to the Government’s levelling up agenda.

It is in part because of this that the proposed Planning Bill is anticipated to remove local red tape with the Secretary of State given greater power to press ahead with proposed developments despite local council and resident opposition. And in some cases, as we are seeing already, against the recommendations of the Government’s own planning inspectorate. But does this take power away from local communities and authorities that have a greater understanding of local housing and infrastructure needs than policy makers in Westminster? Or is this preventing much needed new housing from being stymied by local communities who are oversensitive to development?

There is lots to unpick in the Bill, and much of it, broadly positive for the sector. Many in the industry will welcome the scrapping of S106 requirements as part of the proposals, which will be replaced with a new infrastructure levy. The plans will also put a new design code in place, to ensure that ‘attractive homes’, which are less likely to be controversial, will be developed. As well as a simplification of the system, the better use of digital technology is also expected to help speed up the planning process.

These are perhaps the boldest reforms to the planning system we have seen after years of tinkering around the edges. My hope is that we get the new homes we desperately need, where we need them, and as part of well-thought-out local plans to build our communities of the future.