National Housing Need Should Override Local NIMBY Opposition to New Towns
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/pollytoynbee. "Nimbys can’t stand in the way of Labour’s legacy: a 21st-century new town boom | Polly Toynbee | The Guardian." September 1, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
Toynbee argues that Enfield's Conservative-Green council shouldn't be able to block a new town of thousands of homes just because some locals don't want to lose a golf course and some 'green belt' land. She says the housing crisis is too severe, the land isn't as valuable as claimed, and decisions like this should be made by the mayor and central government, not local politicians worried about losing votes.
Conclusion
Local councils and NIMBY opposition (such as in Enfield) should not be allowed to block Labour's new town housing developments, because such major infrastructure decisions must be governed by regional/national authorities acting in the broader public interest.
Premises
- Local councils have no actual legal power to block new towns; they can only symbolically 'withdraw' from a process that was never in their control
- Major infrastructure of national importance (grid extensions, power generation, transport, reservoirs) is routinely decided above the local level, and new towns should be treated the same way
- The housing crisis is severe: thousands of families in Enfield are stuck in temporary accommodation and on waiting lists
- The land targeted for development is not high-value green belt but 'grey belt' (glasshouses, garden centres) or low-quality agricultural land
- The London mayor, who represents a wider population's housing interests, has authority over the decision and supports the new town
- Local politicians who oppose new towns are motivated by re-election concerns rather than the genuine interests of unhoused people
- Historical precedent shows new towns (e.g. Milton Keynes) can succeed and become desirable places to live despite initial mockery, and planners have learned from past mistakes
Assumptions
- Regional/national authorities are better positioned than local councils to judge what serves the public interest in housing decisions
- The severity of the housing crisis justifies overriding local democratic preferences
- The 'grey belt' classification of the land is accurate and its lower value is a decisive reason to build on it
- Golf courses represent an illegitimate or low-value use of green space compared to housing
- Lessons from the mid-20th century new town programme and Milton Keynes will transfer successfully to a new wave of new towns
- Local opposition is primarily driven by narrow self-interest (e.g. golf club members, property owners) rather than legitimate environmental or community concerns