The previous chapter discussed resistance to change in the name of conservation. NIMBYism (or ‘not in my back yard’-ism) is the term coined for the negative side to such resistance. NIMBYism has a bad name. It stands for a selfish attitude, protesting against development in the vicinity of one’s own home without caring where the development would otherwise go. Numerous public protests against all sorts of development – housebuilding, waste facilities, airports – have been labelled NIMBY and thus cast in a negative light. Is this such an unreasonable approach? What causes NIMBYism and why is it a bad idea? How does it relate to the idea of the public interest? And where does it leave ideas for encouraging public participation in planning?

The causes of NIMBYism

It would be simple to answer the question of the causes of NIMBYism with the statement that people are defending their own economic interests by engaging in NIMBYism and opposing developments in their locality. And this is part of the answer. As the discussion in previous chapters has emphasised, planning is centrally concerned with the impact of development on people’s interests, but not just economic interests, important as they are. The earlier discussion also highlighted how people’s values and lifestyles are tied up in their attitude to new development. The simpler debates about NIMBYism run the risk of only using this label when the interests, values and lifestyles of those people involved do not seem worthy of support.

But NIMBYism is just a form – quite a common form – that public engagement with the planning system takes. Where people protest against development proposals they are exercising their right to participate in the planning process and express their point of view.

Since the 1960s it has been considered important that people should have a say in decisions that affect them. Therefore the planning system offers a range of opportunities for such participation: responses to consultation exercises, attendance at public meetings, letter and local media campaigns, lobbying of local politicians, attendance at local public inquiries into development proposals, and so on.

Sometimes these protests go beyond the usual procedural avenues and become forms of direct action, such as marches or even illegal occupation of sites.