There are two main kinds of NIMBY. The first, the “classic NIMBY”, was lucky enough to buy a home before the year 2000 and believes that the youths of today need simply cut down on takeaway coffees and avocados in order to afford the home of their dreams. This NIMBY coats their naked desire to protect the value of their property assets in a veneer of concern for our “precious green spaces”. This NIMBY takes a short-term view, but it is in part a rational one. It is at least understandable on one level why those who define their wealth purely in terms of the value of their house wouldn’t want to make housing more affordable.
These days, however, there is a new breed of anti-housebuilding activist: the “progressive NIMBY”. This NIMBY possesses an altogether different set of characteristics from the older members of the anti-construction brigade. They can be spotted in council and parliamentary by-elections up and down the country, and their arguments contradict the causes they claim to care about. Take Britain’s so-called progressive parties, for example. Lib Dem leader Ed Davey claims to care deeply about climate change. In a late 2020 interview with the New Statesman, Davey described himself as “passionate” about the environment. Less than a year later, in the Chesham and Amersham by-election, Davey’s party put NIMBYism front and centre of their campaign. The Labour leader Keir Starmer has described climate change as “the biggest issue of our time”, yet under his leadership, the party has denied that there is a need to reform the planning system. The Conservative party too is full of this combination of climate talk but NIMBY action.
You might be wondering what the issue is with politicians who support green policies yet oppose new construction and any attempts to change the planning system. The answer is that the environmental crisis and the planning system are inexorably linked. Denser towns and cities lead to lower carbon footprints, and it’s not hard to see why. Many hours spent commuting over long distances produce far more emissions than if people are able to live close to where they work. Public services, too, can be delivered more efficiently if people are closer together, further decreasing emissions. The latter feeds into another progressive policy goal of improving our crippled delivery of healthcare and education. The reason why we can’t achieve denser cities is because of the planning system. No changes to planning mean we cannot plan, build and live in more environmentally friendly towns and cities.
Density is one thing, you might say, but if we change our planning laws, won’t we see the destruction of green spaces? Aren’t those spaces the lungs of our planet? Well, yes and no. “Greenbelt” is not a qualitative label but a legal one. There is no way to measure the “green-ness” of an area, the local authority simply declares it to be so. In fact, much of the green belt isn’t particularly environmentally beneficial land. Only 45% of the greenbelt is actually “green”, and according to the Guardian, much of it is unsuitable for wild plants. Some 18% of this land is “neglected”, meaning it is covered in derelict buildings and rubbish. Much of the greenbelt is utilised for intensive agriculture, one of the most environmentally damaging uses of the countryside. That’s not to mention the fact that so much of the greenbelt is land close to public transportation. One million homes could be built in London on greenbelt land within a ten-minute walk of a train station and the potential for shorter and greener commutes would be transformative. So, in essence, much of the green belt isn’t green at all, and a lot of it is damaging the environment. Here Progressive NIMBYs are actively sabotaging a key tool in the arsenal of climate change prevention.
The yawning wealth gap in our country is something progressives also claim to care about. What has brought about this wealth gap? Well, in large part due to the housing crisis. In the last 30 years, £3 trillion of wealth has been created, at least on paper, purely due to the increasing value of primary residences. The number of private renters in poverty meanwhile has exploded this Century. All the while, this wealth remains largely untaxed, and more and more money is squeezed from the already struggling under 35s. Millennials and Generation Z make up a core component of the Labour and Lib Dem voter coalition. Yet a key string to the bow of both these parties is to perpetuate a system that makes younger people poorer and saddles us with an ever-worsening environmental crisis. There is nothing progressive about NIMBYism. Anyone who wants to solve the triple crises of housing, inequality and climate is increasingly ill-served by “progressive politicians” who pander to rich NIMBYs whilst claiming to be on the side of those who are struggling. It’s time to demand better from our politicians.
PricedOut is the national campaign for fairer house prices. We want to make sure England builds the houses it needs so that everyone can afford a high-quality place to live. If you like our work and want to help us out please consider donating or maybe even volunteer with us!
Cover image: Protester holding a sign with “Climate Justice Now” message at a Global Climate Strike by Ivan Radic
.jpg){kind=link}