Action groups go too far preventing progress

In times past they used to be called curtain twitchers, peering out from behind the lace to ensure that activities on the street didn't break the neighbourly code of peace and quiet at all times, writes Rural Affairs Editor Nathan Rous.

An over-exuberant children's party would be duly noted and repeat offences dealt with severely; awkward parking would be logged and often reported to higher authorities in the hope a towed car would be a lesson learned; even the leaving out of wheelie bins post-collection would incur much wrath.

But given we live in such politically-correct times, the word twitch is now seen as derogatory, suggesting an uncontrollable facial tick or seizure. It's the same logic which means people with disabilities who attend day centres throughout Shropshire are called 'service users' rather than just 'people'.

So for curtain twitchers, now read action group. Action groups sound very powerful but in reality they contain the same sorts of people who would spend a day peering out of the window attuning their noses to the smell of stray dog poo; people with nothing to do but fight glibly for the status quo to remain and capital punishment for any contravention of their self-imposed law.

They are the embodiment of nimbyism, protecting their own environment to the detriment of others; preventing progression and squeezing the life out of the very community they misguidedly seek to cocoon without ever coming up with any alternatives.

Occasionally you will find the odd action group which works, especially those set up to challenge the Government over the postcode lottery of the NHS or the Highways Agency's intention to strike a bypass through the heart of an AONB, but on the whole they are a blood-sucking scourge on our society; a scar on our streets; more damaging to our communities than the supposed perils they are trying to outlaw.

You wouldn't have found too many fans of action groups among the audience at an energy conference held in Shropshire on Tuesday, for despite the desperation to seek new sources of power, and low-carbon ones at that, the good old neighbourly charlatans threaten to put the mockers on any progress.

Take anaerobic digestion; a great way to create electricity, heat and valuable fertiliser out of products traditionally seen as waste - cow slurry, shredded food waste, etc.

Yet with projects starting around the million-pound mark and rising to three or four times that cost depending on the size, it's never going to fall under the action group radar, despite the fact they are likely to be hidden on industrial sites or remote farmland.

Given the latest price rise by British Gas (er, a 35 per cent increase if you missed the headlines) we should be falling over ourselves to encourage anaerobic digestion and sister projects like combined heat and power plants. It makes perfect sense.

Getting them through planning is another matter altogether and the process simply serves to prick the interest of nimbys far and wide.

Within a flash the battle lines are drawn up, banners are daubed with slogans, and chants invented like: "What do we want? No more anaerobic digesters. When do we want it? Not for the forseeable future as long as it's anywhere remotely near my house."

Of course there is no point pretending that the majority of farmers are doing this for 'green' reasons. There is cold hard cash to be made from alternative energy.

But why should we continually expect them to take the moral high ground if the end result is still the same? They have gone through one of the leanest, disease-riddled decades in history so why shouldn't they sniff out the pound?

At least in this way it can benefit us all. I don't know too many people who can cope with a 35 per cent energy increase every year on top of the insane food and fuel prices. As one of the speakers said on Tuesday: "I understand the environmental importance, but if I'm hungry enough I'll eat the last panda."

The end justifies the means. Perhaps there's one action group I wouldn't mind seeing . . . one to campaign against action groups.