Comment: 'Not everyone opposing new housing is a Nimby'

Nimbyism is back in the news once again thanks to Michael Gove’s not entirely new pledge to get homes built on brownfield land.

But resisting development is not always about lucky homeowners blocking further housebuilding for those yet to get a foot on the ladder.

Sometimes, as in the case of the Peckham residents fighting what to them feels like rampant profiteering off their community building efforts, it’s more a case of making sure that what gets built is right for the area.

Steel and glass tower blocks cramming as many so-called luxury (read: overpriced) homes as they can get past planning inspectors into London’s beloved villages are not always what those neighbourhoods and their inhabitants want or need.

More housing does not automatically mean more affordable housing, nor does it necessarily mean more schools, buses, doctors or bin collections.

At worst it might mean more homes with the lights off, a more divided community, or even the ultimate desertion of once mixed and thriving areas.

Witness the closure of London schools as more and more families find themselves priced out of the capital.

This isn’t a dig at developers – London indisputably needs more homes and for reasons not entirely of their making they are the ones doing the bulk of the building – but nor should we dismiss all opposition as My Backyard gatekeeping.

Rather than wishy-washy chat from Government, we need robust planning, real community involvement and serious investment.

That’s how we’ll really get the right homes in the right places.