THE ‘Not in my back Yard’ brigade or nimby has become a real phenomenon of late. There are stories from across the country of local people rejecting plans that may affect their local community.

Of course, local activism has already been present but the rise of the nimby is something quite different. The nimby rejects any plans by private developers, local authorities and other agencies if it might have any impact on their neighbourhood.

The reaction is hysterical; the arguments are frequently ill conceived and based on falsehoods and misconceptions. The benefits of any proposed change are ignored. Alternative opinions are lambasted. Negotiation and compromise are words not found in the nimby vocabulary.

In Swindon the march of the nimby has reached new heights. In just a few short weeks the nimby brigade have flexed their muscles with no sense of embarrassment at the sometimes hilarious arguments put forward.

Take the recent case of a local charity caring for people with autism. They thought they had found the perfect location for a new care home with a large, spacious house in a quiet residential cul-de-sac. That was until local residents objected furiously to the charity’s plans. The argument – that a covenant placed on homes in the area could not be used for business purposes.

But wait, plenty of other homes in the area are being used for business purposes. Why hasn’t anyone fought to stop these businesses? The original report of this incident caused quite a reaction on the Swindon Advertiser website. Many commentators were incredulous at the objections being raised to prevent this care home. It was, as many people noted, a classic example of nimbyism.

Then we have the case of the Averies Recycling fire that sees no sight of being extinguished any time soon. The problem is a large volume of tightly packed waste that firefighters are struggling to reach in the overcrowded site. A multi-agency solution has been drafted to remove safe waste from the site to allow firefighters better access.

But local residents in Penhill aren’t happy with the suggested solution. Despite assurances laid out by both the local authority and the Environment Agency the residents won’t budge on their position. They don’t want the waste anywhere near them despite a suitable location and safety measures being put in place. Swindon Council and the EA offer concessions but still the protests go on. Residents close to the fire continue to suffer.

And the examples keep coming. How about the new shared-space road scheme at Regent Circus?

The idea seems rather simple; the road and pavement is flattened to the same level, excess street furniture is removed and the road surface for both pedestrian and motorist has similar materials and colours. Instead of traditional crossings, pedestrians share the space with motorists. On the face of it the plan sounds ludicrous, even dangerous. But the evidence is plain. Kensington High Street in West London was transformed into a shared space several years ago. Pedestrian casualties have decreased by a staggering 43 per cent.

The success of schemes around the world is ignored by residents with dogmatic views.

So what’s the point in all of this? Perhaps it’s about the role we all have in making decisions affecting our communities. Should we only speak out when we don’t want something? Can we not agree to compromise? Perhaps we should be asking for more change, to challenge our elected representatives, to push for more, not less. Why can’t we fight for pioneering, exciting changes that can transform our town? That is a question only you can answer. What say you?

Christopher Brown, Rokeby House, Swindon