WIIFTNIMBYS?

Michael White has posted a balanced but fairly upbeat analysis of Labour's 2011 conference so far. What's got me writing is this little snippet:

"All politicians talk about devolving power from Whitehall, only to reassert themselves against local decisions they don't like, as Eric Pickles is already finding."

And I wondered - why do local people fight back against decisions (mostly planning, I would think) that the national Government thinks would be broadly positive for the country?

I grew up not in suburbia exactly, but in an off urban/rural dividing line. The front of the house faced the busiest road in the area (since slightly healed by a by-pass), while the back looked over flat arable fields. Once they put in double glazing in the front windows it was pretty lovely, but last year we heard that the council is pushing forward plans to pave over the field at the back and build a new housing estate. It's been rumoured for 30-odd years, so no-one is shocked, but it'll be sad for anyone still living there when the bulldozers roll in.

It's no surprise that there is local opposition. The main road may well become insanely busy again, the schools might get overcrowded. It's all great news for owners of various local supermarkets and other commercial enterprises, and the developers will make a packet. The Conservative Council will hold out their hands and fees from the development and massive hike in Council Tax returns will make sacrificing some beautiful green fields a very rewarding one. I'm sure voters across the district will benefit from a small cut in their taxes as a result, and of course it's undeniable that we do need to build more homes - somewhere.

But I wonder - what will the families and home owners fringing the field get? The ones whose view will be irreparably harmed? Whose cars will get stuck in the extra traffic jams, or whose children will end up lost in bigger class sizes? I suspect very little. And I'm sure the same applies to every other NIMBY the country over. The national or regional economy may well benefit from a new factory or energy plant, but do the actual locals - the people who have to look at a chimney or breathe in its smoke - get a fair share of the resultant benefits? We're probably talking money here in most cases, but if you're building a factory of buildings at the end of someone's back garden, the very least you should offer them is a slightly longer garden.

There's a sense, I suspect, for most people that councillors and developers are the only people who really get a pay off from controversial planning, or that any democratic benefits are thinly spread and as likely to apply to someone who'll never see the new developments as those who'll have them shoved under their noses.

This is a post of questions, but I can't help thinking that if we answer them it might just be a fairer way of deciding whether things go ahead than moaning about local opposition in the face of national need. And if you fix that maybe localism could be trusted to proceed unhindered for a while and we can see if it works.