With members of Congress stuffing the economic stimulus with green energy projects, they may be overlooking one of the biggest obstacles to getting them in line: the NIMBY crowd.

A recent Zogby poll found that 85 percent of Americans favored government incentives to encourage the growth of renewable energy. But the “not in my backyard” folks — those who support clean energy but, for instance, don’t want any wind turbines within eyesight — could pose serious delays to wind farms and new renewable energy transmission lines included in the stimulus.

The argument isn’t new. Business interests and Republicans, among others, have long complained that the Holy Grail of environmental laws — the National Environmental Policy Act — has made it too easy for naysayers to tie up energy projects in years of environmental reviews and litigation. But lobbyists say lawmakers are overlooking how it could delay stimulus projects designed to wean Americans off foreign fossil fuels.

“Any environmental group that doesn’t think an environmental evaluation on that federal project was adequate can go to court over it,” said David Weinberg, environment and business lobbyist for Wiley Rein. “Everyone from a NIMBY to a person concerned about a particular species of animal can bring a suit. It is inevitable this is going to delay and stop some projects.”

But there’s a reason why even longtime opponents such as Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) aren’t publicly jumping on the bandwagon to revise NEPA.

It would be political suicide. 

“It would be very dangerous,” said Charles Ebinger, energy security director at the Brookings Institution. “I’m sure a lot of the green community would raise hell.”

Environmentalists have already warned there will be a political firestorm if Congress tinkers with NEPA, which they have long relied on to stop or revise environmentally questionable federal projects.

“If we start hearing stuff about reexamining NEPA, this conversation is going to get a lot more lively,” said Sierra Club spokesman Dave Willett. We’re “always looking for a way to make it happen when it comes to solar and wind, but we’re also looking to minimize the environmental impact.”

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is already stirring that pot.

While previous efforts to tweak NEPA had been largely quieted on Capitol Hill, the White House is closely watching Schwarzenegger’s efforts to roll back state environmental laws in order to quickly implement transportation projects funded by the stimulus — a move he’s asked President Barack Obama to approve and one that California Republicans are strongly backing.

If Schwarzenegger succeeds, the California League of Conservation Voters and other greens say California could pave the way for Congress to edit NEPA under the guise of shoring up the economy. But there’s no word yet on Obama’s take.

A large environmental coalition urged lawmakers last month not to take the bait, but the idea is beginning to grow in Washington.

A letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) last week named waiving environmental requirements as a key way lawmakers could speed the delivery of stimulus money into the economy.

“As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation,” said Elizabeth Moeller, Pillsbury Winthrop public policy group leader, who said clean tech companies have been voicing concerns about roadblocks for months.

The lobbyist said a friend who works for a major energy company recently asked her how a proposed energy transmission line in Virginia could be stopped — mostly because the friend predicted it would be an eyesore.
“If people in the energy business have a problem with transmission lines being in their backyard, we have a national problem in everyone’s backyard,” said Moeller, who says that clean technology companies are quietly voicing concerns.

“The realities of how the energy system works is completely lost on people,” she said. “Most people don’t understand what SmartGrid means.”

Schwarzenegger isn’t alone in noticing the NIMBY crowd. Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens’ proposal for the world’s largest wind farm proposes using eminent domain to build transmission lines to carry the wind power.

And faint whispers on Capitol Hill suggest lawmakers may be quietly preparing for a larger problem.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said in early December that it was essential to get money flowing to projects, even if it meant consolidating environmental reviews, The Wall Street Journal reported.

“They’re going to look at streamlining,” Boxer said. “Jobs, jobs, jobs is the name of the game.”

Calls to her office seeking additional comment were not returned.

And Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) noted in a House Transportation and Infrastructure hearing last fall that key projects have been held up by inefficient bureaucratic processes.

“We should focus on eliminating red tape to move forward with projects critical to improving our deteriorating infrastructure and providing out-of-work Americans with jobs,” he said.

Officials from the nation’s largest proposed offshore wind farm say a streamlined NEPA review process could have helped avoid some of the 7½-year delay caused in part by homeowners stalling the project with environmental reviews and community meetings.

Cape Wind, a 130-turbine project off the coast of Cape Cod, just gained clearance in a 2,800-page federal environmental impact report after facing years of opposition from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and other well-heeled residents who didn’t want the windmills marring their oceanfront views.

Opponents are not giving up, and Kennedy said the decision has ensured the project will be tied up in litigation for years to come.

“There is little doubt that the opponents have lengthened the process, seeking delay at every corner,” said Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers. “There’s a lot of room for improvement in consolidating this review. Not short-circuiting it, just making it easier.”

But according to the Sierra Club, fewer than 500 environmental impact statements are prepared each year, despite the tens of thousands of federal actions that are reviewed. Greens say environmentally sound projects shouldn’t unnecessarily delay stimulus projects, many of which are shovel-ready and have already completed their environmental reviews.

Alternative options to rolling back NEPA might include increasing staff at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management and other agencies that oversee the review process, they say.

But much of the work rests with Obama. But it remains unclear early in his administration whether his leadership will change any minds....

By ERIKA LOVLEY
Politico.com
This is just an extract of this article. Click here to read the whole article

 Historically, local governments have had broad discretion in the approval of residential development. However, local parochialism and prejudices often result in policies and practices that exclude the development of affordable housing, thereby exacerbating patterns of racial and economic segregation and creating a substantial imbalance of jobs and housing. In recent years, several laws have been adopted which place important limitations and obligations on local decision-makers in the area of affordable housing.

Housing Element Law (Gov. Code Sec. 65580 et seq.) Every city and county must adopt a housing element as part of its general plan. Most importantly, a housing element must identify sites appropriate for affordable housing and address governmental constraints to development. If the locality fails to adopt a housing element or adopts one that is inadequate, a court can order the locality to halt development until an adequate element is adopted or order approval of specific affordable housing developments.

In most cases, the identification of sites must include sites zoned for multifamily development by right. The court in Hoffmaster v. City of San Diego said that to qualify, a site must be specifically identified and available for immediate development without restrictive zoning burdens. (55 Cal.App. 4th 1098 (1997).)

"Anti-Nimby” Law (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5). Even in communities with valid housing elements, local governments often deny approval of good developments. Misinformation and prejudice can generate fierce opposition to proposed projects. Recognizing this, state law prohibits a local agency from disapproving a low income housing development, or imposing conditions that make the development infeasible, unless it finds that one of six narrow conditions exist. Of the six, three are of most import: 1) the project would have an unavoidable impact on health and safety which cannot be mitigated; 2) the neighborhood already has a disproportionately high number of low income families; or 3) the project is inconsistent with the general plan and the housing element is in compliance with state law.

Prohibition of Discrimination Against Affordable Housing (Gov. Code Sec. 65008). This statute forbids discrimination against affordable housing developments, developers or potential residents by local agencies when carrying out their planning and zoning powers. Agencies are prohibited not only from exercising bias based on race, sex, age or religion, but from discriminating against developments because the development is subsidized or occupancy will include low or moderate income persons. Local governments may not impose different requirements on affordable developments than those imposed on non-assisted projects. Just as with the other state and federal fair housing laws (see below), this law applies even if the discrimination is not intentional. It applies to any land use action that has a disproportionate impact on assisted developments or the potential minority or low income occupants.

California and Federal Fair Housing Laws. These laws prohibit discrimination by local government and individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, marital status, national origin, ancestry or mental or physical disability. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code Sec. 12900 et seq.) expressly prohibits discrimination through public or private land use practices and decisions that make housing opportunities unavailable. Similarly, the federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq., or “Title VIII”) has been held to prohibit public and private land use practices and decisions that have a disparate impact on the protected groups. The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 requires local governments considering housing projects for the disabled to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies and practices if necessary to afford disabled persons equal opportunity for housing (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3604(f)(3)(B)).

Water/Sewer Service (Gov Code Sec. 65589.7). Local water and sewer districts must grant priority for service hook-ups to projects that help meet the community’s fair share housing need.

Density Bonus Law (Gov Code Sec. 65915-16). Local governments must grant projects with a prescribed minimum percentage of affordable units, a 25% increase in density and at least one incentive. An incentive can include a reduction in development, parking or design standards, modification of zoning requirements or direct financial aid.

Permit Streamlining Act (Gov Code Sec. 65920 et seq.) This law requires cities and counties to publish a description of the information that project applicants must file and mandates a timeline for making a decision on the application. If the local government fails to act within the prescribed time limits, a development project is “deemed” approved.

Bonds/Attorney Fees in NIMBY Lawsuits. A court may require persons suing to halt affordable housing projects to post a bond (Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 529.2) and to pay attorneys fees (Gov. Code Sec. 65914).

CEQA Exemption. In 1997 the Legislature enacted AB 175 (Torlakson), amending Pub Res Code Sec. 21080.14, to provide that in an urbanized area, affordable housing developments of not more than 100 units are exempt from CEQA, provided the site is, among other things, less than 5 acres, not a wildlife habitat and is assessed for environmental contaminants. (See Sec. 21080.10 for a similar farmworker housing exemption.)

By Mike Rawson
California Affordable Housing Law ProjectSource: http://www.housingadvocates.org/default.asp?ID=167

Top Ten Reasons People Resist Change:

1. THE RISK OF CHANGE IS SEEN AS GREATER THAN THE RISK OF STANDING STILL
Making a change requires a kind of leap of faith:  you decide to move in the direction of the unknown on the promise that something will be better for you.  But you have no proof.  Taking that leap of faith is risky, and people will only take active steps toward the unknown if they genuinely believe – and perhaps more importantly, feel – that the risks of standing still are greater than those of moving forward in a new direction.  Making a change is all about managing risk.  If you are making the case for change, be sure to set out in stark, truthful terms why you believe the risk situation favors change.  Use numbers whenever you can, because we in the West pay attention to numbers.  At the very least, they get our attention, and then when the rational mind is engaged, the emotional mind (which is typically most decisive) can begin to grapple with the prospect of change.  But if you only sell your idea of change based on idealistic, unseen promises of reward, you won’t be nearly as effective in moving people to action.  The power of the human fight-or-flight response can be activated to fight for change, but that begins with the perception of risk.

2. PEOPLE FEEL CONNECTED TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THE OLD WAY
We are a social species.  We become and like to remains connected to those we know, those who have taught us, those with whom we are familiar – even at times to our own detriment.  Loyalty certainly helped our ancestors hunt antelope and defend against the aggressions of hostile tribes, and so we are hard wired, I believe, to form emotional bonds of loyalty, generally speaking.  If you ask people in an organization to do things in a new way, as rational as that new way may seem to you, you will be setting yourself up against all that hard wiring, all those emotional connections to those who taught your audience the old way - and that’s not trivial.  At the very least, as you craft your change message, you should make statements that honor the work and contributions of those who brought such success to the organization in the past, because on a very human but seldom articulated level, your audience will feel asked to betray their former mentors (whether those people remain in the organization or not). A little good diplomacy at the outset can stave off a lot of resistance. 

3. PEOPLE HAVE NO ROLE MODELS FOR THE NEW ACTIVITY
Never underestimate the power of observational learning.  If you see yourself as a change agent, you probably are something of a dreamer, someone who uses the imagination to create new possibilities that do not currently exist.  Well, most people don’t operate that way.  It’s great to be a visionary, but communicating a vision is not enough. Get some people on board with your idea, so that you or they can demonstrate how the new way can work. Operationally, this can mean setting up effective pilot programs that model a change and work out the kinks before taking your innovation “on the road.”  For most people, seeing is believing.  Less rhetoric and more demonstration can go a long way toward overcoming resistance, changing people’s objections from the “It can’t be done!” variety to the “How can we get it done?” category.

4. PEOPLE FEAR THEY LACK THE COMPETENCE TO CHANGE
This is a fear people will seldom admit.  But sometimes, change in organizations necessitates changes in skills, and some people will feel that they won’t be able to make the transition very well.  They don’t think they, as individuals, can do it.  The hard part is that some of them may be right.  But in many cases, their fears will be unfounded, and that’s why part of moving people toward change requires you to be an effective motivator.  Even more, a successful change campaign includes effective new training programs, typically staged from the broad to the specific.  By this I mean that initial events should be town-hall type information events, presenting the rationale and plan for change, specifying the next steps, outlining future communications channels for questions, etc., and specifying how people will learn the specifics of what will be required of them, from whom, and when.  Then, training programs must be implemented and evaluated over time.  In this way, you can minimize the initial fear of a lack of personal competence for change by showing how people will be brought to competence throughout the change process.  Then you have to deliver.

5. PEOPLE FEEL OVERLOADED AND OVERWHELMED
Fatigue can really kill a change effort, for an individual or for an organization.  If, for example, you believe you should quit smoking, but you’ve got ten projects going and four kids to keep up with, it can be easy to put off your personal health improvement project (until your first heart attack or cancer scare, when suddenly the risks of standing still seem greater than the risks of change!).  When you’re introducing a change effort, be aware of fatigue as a factor in keeping people from moving forward, even if they are telling you they believe in the wisdom of your idea.  If an organization has been through a lot of upheaval, people may resist change just because they are tired and overwhelmed, perhaps at precisely the time when more radical change is most needed!  That’s when you need to do two things:  re-emphasize the risk scenario that forms the rationale for change (as in my cancer scare example), and also be very generous and continuously attentive with praise, and with understanding for people’s complaints, throughout the change process.  When you reemphasize the risk scenario, you’re activating people’s fears, the basic fight-or-flight response we all possess.  But that’s not enough, and fear can produce its own fatigue. You’ve got to motivate and praise accomplishments as well, and be patient enough to let people vent (without getting too caught up in attending to unproductive negativity).

6. PEOPLE HAVE A HEALTHY SKEPTICISM AND WANT TO BE SURE NEW IDEAS ARE SOUND
It’s important to remember that few worthwhile changes are conceived in their final, best form at the outset.  Healthy skeptics perform an important social function:  to vet the change idea or process so that it can be improved upon along the road to becoming reality.  So listen to your skeptics, and pay attention, because some percentage of what they have to say will prompt genuine improvements to your change idea (even if some of the criticism you will hear will be based more on fear and anger than substance).

7. PEOPLE FEAR HIDDEN AGENDAS AMONG WOULD-BE REFORMERS
Let’s face it, reformers can be a motley lot.  Not all are to be trusted.  Perhaps even more frightening, some of the worst atrocities modern history has known were begun by earnest people who really believed they knew what was best for everyone else.  Reformers, as a group, share a blemished past . . . And so, you can hardly blame those you might seek to move toward change for mistrusting your motives, or for thinking you have another agenda to follow shortly.  If you seek to promote change in an organization, not only can you expect to encounter resentment for upsetting the established order and for thinking you know better than everyone else, but you may also be suspected of wanted to increase your own power, or even eliminate potential opposition through later stages of change. 

I saw this in a recent change management project for which I consulted, when management faced a lingering and inextinguishable suspicion in some quarters that the whole affair was a prelude to far-reaching layoffs.  It was not the case, but no amount of reason or reassurance sufficed to quell the fears of some people.  What’s the solution?  Well, you’d better be interested in change for the right reasons, and not for personal or factional advantage, if you want to minimize and overcome resistance. And you’d better be as open with information and communication as you possibly can be, without reacting unduly to accusations and provocations, in order to show your good faith, and your genuine interest in the greater good of the organization.  And if your change project will imply reductions in workforce, then be open about that and create an orderly process for outplacement and in-house retraining.  Avoid the drip-drip-drip of bad news coming out in stages, or through indirect communication or rumor.  Get as much information out there as fast as you can and create a process to allow everyone to move on and stay focused on the change effort.

8. PEOPLE FEEL THE PROPOSED CHANGE THREATENS THEIR NOTIONS OF THEMSELVES
Sometimes change on the job gets right to a person’s sense of identity. When a factory worker begins to do less with her hands and more with the monitoring of automated instruments, she may lose her sense of herself as a craftsperson, and may genuinely feel that the very things that attracted her to the work in the first place have been lost. I saw this among many medical people and psychologists during my graduate training, as the structures of medical reimbursement in this country changed in favor of the insurance companies, HMO’s and managed care organizations.  Medical professionals felt they had less say in the treatment of their patients, and felt answerable to less well trained people in the insurance companies to approve treatments the doctors felt were necessary.  And so, the doctors felt they had lost control of their profession, and lost the ability to do what they thought best for patients. 

My point is not to take sides in that argument, but to point out how change can get right to a person’s sense of identity, the sense of self as a professional.  As a result, people may feel that the intrinsic rewards that brought them to a particular line of work will be lost with the change.  And in some cases, they may be absolutely right. The only answer is to help people see and understand the new rewards that may come with a new work process, or to see how their own underlying sense of mission and values can still be realized under the new way of operating.  When resistance springs from these identity-related roots, it is deep and powerful, and to minimize its force, change leaders must be able to understand it and then address it, acknowledging that change does have costs, but also, (hopefully) larger benefits.

9. PEOPLE ANTICIPATE A LOSS OF STATUS OR QUALITY OF LIFE
Real change reshuffles the deck a bit.  Reshuffling the deck can bring winners . . . and losers.  Some people, most likely, will gain in status, job security, quality of life, etc. with the proposed change, and some will likely lose a bit.  Change does not have to be a zero sum game, and change can (and should) bring more advantage to more people than disadvantage.  But we all live in the real world, and let’s face it – if there were no obstacles (read: people and their interests) aligned against change, then special efforts to promote change would be unnecessary. 

Some people will, in part, be aligned against change because they will clearly, and in some cases correctly, view the change as being contrary to their interests.  There are various strategies for minimizing this, and for dealing with steadfast obstacles to change in the form of people and their interests, but the short answer for dealing with this problem is to do what you can to present the inevitability of the change given the risk landscape, and offer to help people to adjust. Having said that, I’ve never seen a real organizational change effort that did not result in some people choosing to leave the organization, and sometimes that’s best for all concerned. When the organization changes, it won’t be to everyone’s liking, and in that case, it’s best for everyone to be adult about it and move on.

10.  PEOPLE GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS A BAD IDEA
I’ll never forget what a supervisor of mine said to be, during the year after I had graduated from college, secure as I was in the knowledge of my well earned, pedigreed wisdom at age twenty-two.  We were in a meeting, and I made the comment, in response to some piece of information, “Oh, I didn’t know that!”  Ricky, my boss, looked at me sideways, and commented dryly, “Things you don’t know . . . fill libraries.”  The truth is, sometimes someone’s (even – gasp! – my) idea of change is just not a good idea.  Sometimes people are not being recalcitrant, or afraid, or muddle-headed, or nasty, or foolish when they resist.  They just see that we’re wrong. And even if we’re not all wrong, but only half wrong, or even if we’re right, it’s important not to ignore when people have genuine, rational reservations or objections. 

Not all resistance is about emotion, in spite of this list I’ve assembled here.  To win people’s commitment for  change, you must engage them on both a rational level and an emotional level. I’ve emphasized the emotional side of the equation for this list because I find, in my experience, that this is the area would-be change agents understand least well.  But I’m also mindful that a failure to listen to and respond to people’s rational objections and beliefs is ultimately disrespectful to them, and to assume arrogantly that we innovative, change agent types really do know best.  A word to the wise:  we’re just as fallible as anyone.
 

Copyright (c) 2003 A. J. Schuler, Psy. D.
Permission is granted to copy this article as long as the following
 information is included:

Dr. A. J. Schuler is an expert in leadership and organizational change. To find out more about his programs and services, visit www.SchulerSolutions.com or call (703) 370-6545.

What is Coalition Building?
A coalition is a temporary alliance or partnering of groups in order to achieve a common purpose or to engage in joint activity.[1] Coalition building is the process by which parties (individuals, organizations, or nations) come together to form a coalition. Forming coalitions with other groups of similar values, interests, and goals allows members to combine their resources and become more powerful than when they each acted alone.[2]

Why is Coalition Building Important?
The "ability to build coalitions is a basic skill for those who wish to attain and maintain power and influence."Through coalitions, weaker parties to a conflict can increase their power. Coalition building is the "primary mechanism through which disempowered parties can develop their power base and thereby better defend their interests."[4] Coalitions may be built around any issue and at any scale of society, from neighborhood issues to international conflict.

The formation of a coalition can shift the balance of power in a conflict situation and alter the future course of the conflict. People who pool their resources and work together are generally more powerful and more able to advance their interests, than those who do not. Coalition members may be able to resist certain threats or even begin to make counter threats. Generally, low-power groups are much more successful in defending their interests against the dominant group if they work together as a coalition. This is certainly more effective than fighting among themselves and/or fighting the dominant group alone.[5]

Environmental groups in the United States have long understood the power of coalitions. Rather than taking on powerful industries on their own, leading environmental groups have often formed coalitions to challenge big business in the ballot box, at the legislature, and in the courts. They have succeeded in getting environmental candidates elected, and strong environmental protection laws passed. Without having many environmental groups working together, industry would have had a much stronger hand in the fight over environmental protection in the U.S.
How Do You Build a Successful Coalition?
Building a successful coalition involves a series of steps. The early steps center on the recognition of compatible interests. Sometimes this happens naturally. Other times potential coalition members must be persuaded that forming a coalition would be to their benefit. To do this one needs to demonstrate

1. that your goals are similar and compatible,
2. that working together will enhance both groups' abilities to reach their goals, and
3. that the benefits of coalescing will be greater than the costs.

• A coalition of organizations can win on more fronts than a single organization working alone and increase the potential for success.
• A coalition can bring more expertise and resources to bear on complex issues, where the technical or personnel resources of any one organization would not be sufficient.
• A coalition can develop new leaders. As experienced group leaders step forward to lead the coalition, openings are created for new leaders in the individual groups. The new, emerging leadership strengthens the groups and the coalition.
• A coalition will increase the impact of each organization's effort. Involvement in a coalition means there are more people who have a better understanding of your issues and more people advocating for your side.
• A coalition will increase available resources. Not only will physical and financial resources be increased, but each group will gain access to the contacts, connections, and relationships established by other groups.
• A coalition may raise its members' public profiles by broadening the range of groups involved in a conflict. The activities of a coalition are likely to receive more media attention than those of any individual organization.
• A coalition can build a lasting base for change. Once groups unite, each group's vision of change broadens and it becomes more difficult for opposition groups to disregard the coalition's efforts as dismissible or as special interests.
• A successful coalition is made up of people who have never worked together before. Coming from diverse backgrounds and different viewpoints, they have to figure out how to respect each other's differences and get something big accomplished. They have to figure out how each group and its representatives can make their different but valuable contributions to the overall strategy for change (See consensus building). This helps avoid duplication of efforts and improve communication among key players.

• Member groups can get distracted from other work. If that happens, non-coalition efforts may become less effective and the organization may be weakened overall.
• A coalition may only be as strong as its weakest link. Each member organization will have different levels of resources and experience as well as different internal problems. Organizations that provide a lot of resources and leadership may get frustrated with other members' shortcomings.
• To keep a coalition together, it is often necessary to cater to one side more than another, especially when negotiating tactics. If a member prefers high-profile confrontational tactics, they might dislike subdued tactics, thinking they are not exciting enough to mobilize support. At the same time, the low profile, conciliatory members might be alarmed by the confrontation advocates, fearing they will escalate the conflict and make eventual victory more difficult to obtain.
• The democratic principle of one group-one vote may not always be acceptable to members with a lot of power and resources. The coalition must carefully define the relationships between powerful and less-powerful groups.
• Individual organizations may not get credit for their contributions to a coalition. Members that contribute a lot may think they did not receive enough credit.

Nimbys - those campaigners who proclaim Not In My Back Yard - raise big questions about which is more important: the common good or individual rights. But could they in fact be the same thing? Three-bedroom semi, off-street parking, 100ft garden, double glazing, in pleasant residential area close to local amenities and newly-opened foul-smelling tannery.

With one eye on the estate agents' window, any self-respecting player of Property Price Poker is duty-bound to be interested in what is happening locally and what impact it might have on their lifestyle.

Be it a new dual carriageway, an airport, or - in the case of Throckmorton, Newton and Bicester - accommodation centres for asylum seekers, householders can be among the toughest opponents of planning proposals.

Not over my back yard
And ask any campaigner what is the most valuable weapon in their armoury, and top of the list, beating even petitions, posters and placards, is the endorsement of a celebrity. The villagers of Throckmorton have exactly that in fellow local Toyah Willcox.

In coming years, the demonstration may well be followed by people protesting against:

• drug and alcohol treatment centres
• an estimated 4m new homes
• hostels for youth offenders and sex offenders
• even Lord Birt's proposed new toll motorways