Not in my back yard! - A consequence of localism, but not just in planning.

A few weeks ago the National Housing Federation complained that there was a danger that aspects of the new Government’s planning policies risked becoming a ‘NIMBY’s charter’. Then, last week, the Rural Coalition was vocal in questioning the high 80% threshold proposed for the ‘community right to build’ – because a very small number of objectors could effectively block much-needed developments in small villages. But, actually, nimby-ism isn’t just a planning phenomenon and raises interesting issues for everyone involved in consultation and public engagement.

The truth is that low levels of public participation and traditional barriers to involvement have enabled public-spirited politicians and officials historically to take all manner of decisions in a sincere attempt to serve the wider public interest. Shielded from public scrutiny by the mists of apathy and a media that is bored by the un-sensational, many of these decisions reflected a more enlightened view of society, trying to solve difficult problems but, no doubt, on occasions to the detriment or inconvenience of a minority. We may no longer have ‘smoke-filled rooms’ – but the cliché of decisions ‘behind closed doors’ is still around. The idea of consultation around some of these decisions would have appalled those involved – it might have produced the ‘wrong answer’!

Now it has not needed a change of Government to put this model under pressure. One of the consequences of the information revolution and the internet has been to overcome several barriers to greater citizen involvement. Requiring public bodies to publish minutes of their management meetings has lifted the veil on many key decisions, especially in organisations like NHS Trusts which do not have direct democratic governance.

This administration has, of course, gone further with the requirement to publish public expenditure in great detail. Government departments have published the COINS database and local authorities have till the end of the year to publish everything they purchased costing over £500. Organisations like the Taxpayers’ Alliance are likely to pour over these looking for items of which they disapprove and, no doubt, interested parties or municipally-minded citizens may do the same. Apart from the bureaucracy involved, there can be few real objections to this greater transparency.

Where some doubts arise is in the motives of those who will become most deeply involved. In a landscape free of some central controls, without an Audit Commission, without Regional Spatial strategies or Regional Development Authorities, is there anyone there who can put forward the case for physical or social investments that are needed in a wider context? With a very sharp focus on localism, and on greater accountability to local people - both good in principle - is there a danger that campaigners will organise themselves to promote and defend their most immediate priorities?

What worries housing experts is that the most likely people to use better information and the immense power of social media are coalitions of those who wish to oppose new developments. By all means build more houses – but not here! The same types of concerns arise with emotive issues like sites for gypsies and travellers. Or waste incinerators? Or wind farms? Or even phone masts?

Localism plus populism can make life uncomfortable. But it isn’t wrong! Why should a community suffer anything it doesn’t want without a fully reasoned argument and an open debate?

In fact, public money is spent on all manner of activities of which some may approve and some might not. An exhibition of sculpture; research on genetic crops; bursaries for athletes; treatments for obesity or infertility; expensive drugs that marginally prolong life; drug treatment therapies; books or education for prisoners; policing for country sports; help for asylum seekers; grants for small business; tax-breaks for entrepreneurs. There’s an endless list of matters over which public opinion is divided and where one side or another in an argument may be better at manipulating the media.

Taking decisions on these matters can also be uncomfortable. And that’s the case for a well-developed consultative democracy where those who are elected have the benefit of formal processes designed to ensure that we don’t just listen to those who shout loudest. When done properly good consultation has the ability to put issues under the microscope fully and expose the arguments to challenge and counter-challenge. And the consequence is that just occasionally .... it might have to be in my back yard after all.

Trigger points

• Are you developing checks and balances in your organisation to subject NIMBY-style issues to proper reasoned debate?
• Will your organisation work with stakeholders to help them understand financial data that may now be published more fully?
• Are you learning how to use or manage the response to social media? Our course, Using Social Media in Public Engagement & Consultation
• The Institute will shortly be publishing a thought-provoking Paper by Davy Jones on Life after the Audit Commission. Members will receive this automatically.

This is the 169th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement