OPINION: The Great, ‘Not in my Backyard’ Sweepstake and Handicap Hurdles

I have been following the debate on the proposed building of 200+ houses off Broad Lane with casual interest. I don’t live there so am not directly influenced by it.

At first, I thought it was basically a two-way affair; rapacious developers hell-bent on squeezing as much profit as they can versus concerned and outraged citizenry, keen to protect Green-Belt land for future generations to enjoy.

Of course, it’s much more complicated than that. The land isn’t actually Green-Belt at all. It is what is known as Protected Open Land.

I am a simple man and like to try to understand things by reducing them to a simple formula. Being partial to an occasional flutter on the horses, I decided to try to think of it in racing terms.

At starting Gate 1 there are councillors of all parties; keen to establish their support of a vocal electorate and ever-willing to slip into voice-of-the-common man mode. Beware the slippery, weasel words such as ‘heritage’, ‘green’, ‘environment’,’ community’, and ‘democracy’, etc. Their agendas are so transparent that you half expect to see the word ‘Pilkingtons’ stamped on their bums.

At Gate 2 are the would-be developers, eager to show their sense of social duty by building the most number of homes, at the least inconvenience to themselves for the greatest possible profit to their shareholders.

In Gate 3 are the town planners. These are paid officers of our illustrious council with no vested interest whatsoever other than keeping their jobs, ticking all the boxes, watching their backs and keeping a weather eye on their inflation proofed pensions.

At Gate 4 are the most interesting group; the protesting residents, some of whom live in the newish homes already built there and who presumably had no quarrel when the once lush green fields were torn asunder by the bulldozers and JCBs to build their own particular semi-rural idylls.

In support of their own vision of over-developed hell, they paint a picture of road-rage carnage and of developer-engineered natural disasters that would make the flood of Noah seem like early morning dew. Schools filled to the roof as a consequence of the massive surge in population and people dropping dead every five minutes from diesel-borne carcinogens pumped out by speeding lorries hurtling towards the site from all corners of Britain to see the rise of this New Jerusalem... or is it Mecca?

Let us examine the role of the councillors in more detail. These people are not stupid, although they are more than willing to play the part when circumstance demands. They are only too well aware of course that if they engage in their usual game of ‘play to the gallery’ and turn down the application it will most likely be subject to a very costly appeal by the developers to the Secretary of State. Still, the real reward for this duplicity is to be seen to be at one with ‘their’ people and sod the consequences.

The tab for this will of course be picked up by Joe and Josephine Public; the council tax-payers being ridden nervously into the box by an overweight jockey and squeezed tightly against the rails at Gate 5 on the inside.

In this Great ‘Not in my Backyard’ Sweepstake and Handicap Hurdles, Hardcastle and Sons, Bookmakers to the Gentry would like to offer the following odds:

Protesters (Wearing blinkers and sheepskin noseband): 10-1 against.
Developers: Odds-on favourites to make a handsome profit.
Council planning officers: 100-1 against losing their jobs.
Councillors: 2-1 against becoming unseated until after the race  (sorry, no bets can be accepted on them changing colours before, during or after the race). 
Council Tax-payers: 1000-1 against