“OMG, didn’t they notice there was an airport when they moved there?” This was a typical response on Twitter to the news that Newham council had rejected a proposal by City Airport to extend its operating hours, over noise pollution concerns.
Cue the incomprehension, performative or otherwise, of the Yimbys — the “yes” in my backyarders.
Now, you don’t need to convince me that Britain needs to build: perhaps not greater airport capacity, but certainly more houses, train lines, reservoirs, electricity cables, wind farms, practically everything. And you name it, our planning system has stopped it.
But the “just build more things” lobby is at a distinct disadvantage, not only when it comes to the incentives of local councillors, but in their understanding of the other side.
Many homeowners don’t want new housing developments nearby because it is not obviously in their interest
Many homeowners don’t want new housing developments nearby, even on the brownest of brownfield sites, because it is not obviously in their interest, certainly in the short term.
Residents have to deal with the disturbance inherent in the construction process, such as traffic, noise and unsightliness. Even when complete, incumbents may fear busier roads, trains and public services.
Implying people are stupid for hoping to evade these real-life problems is unhelpful at best.
It’s curious, because in so many facets of life, we don’t expect others to behave altruistically. Consumers purchase goods and services not to keep total strangers in employment, or boost GDP, but because they need or want things. Indeed, I can name a number of utility firms that I actively resent paying.
It is for this reason that the concept of workers returning to the office in order to bail out local sandwich shops, let alone central London Prets, received short shrift. That is not how our economy operates. So why expect it to be any different over something as emotive as housing?
Even when mortgage-free boomers acknowledge we ought to build more homes, it’s usually because they are worried about how their children or grandchildren will ever step onto the housing ladder. Again, caring about your family is typical (and I’d suggest positive) behaviour.
The only way around the impasse, which is crippling our economy and blighting lives, is to shift the incentives. Local residents should enjoy more of the benefits of development.
The concept of community benefit is hardly revolutionary, but it should be more widespread and lucrative. This might come in the form of hard cash, or community land auctions, where local authorities (and therefore residents) could benefit from an uplift in land values.
Of course, we still need planning reform, from the green belt to flexible zoning and street votes. Nothing should be off the table. But the point is that laws alone cannot overcome human nature, let alone first-past-the-post.
When it comes to the Nimbys we ought, as Aneurin Bevan explained in getting the GPs onside over the foundation of the NHS, to “stuff their mouths with gold”.
