Nimby – has there ever been a more horrible and insipid word that has seeped its way into the English dictionary?

It was intended as a way to show a community’s united opposition to controversial developments.

But instead the term has been tarred as a way to describe a stuffy, hysteric bunch of mainly retired people who care more about protecting their own nest egg than future progress.

Is there anyone out there who doesn’t shiver at the sheer mention of the word?

Nimby, nimby, nimby, nimby – say it repeatedly and it sort of makes you queasy.

Now let’s be clear, I’m not against nimbyism per se – nobody knows their local communities better than the people that live there.

The merits of campaigners coming together to save an open space or a listed building is something I encounter on a daily basis and really helps to build communities.

Among the finest examples saved by nimbyism are Brighton’s North Laine and Hove’s Brunswick Square.

If either of these had been lost, a piece of the city’s special identity would have been swallowed up.

But screaming from the hilltops every time plans to build on a plot of green land are submitted really does nobody any favours.

Take a step back: that house you’re sat in right now used to be a field you know.

And I’m sure there used to be birds and other wildlife that used to enjoy the same view that you wake up to every day.

As it was, our predecessors decided that they needed places to live. But society has moved on with a nation of big thinkers becoming a nation of big whingers.

Developers just can’t win. Propose bungalows? Opponents cry: “Too sparse”. Flats? “Too dense”. High rise? “Too tall”.

And if there’s no obvious reason to oppose it then there’s always “loss of amenity” and “overshadowing” to fall back on.

The truth is we have a massive housing shortage in the UK. In Brighton and Hove estimates show we need at least 17,000 new homes by 2031.

Not all of this demand is down to immigration and people having too many babies. Improvements in healthcare means we are becoming an older population.

According to the Office of National Statistics, the number of men aged 75 and over in the UK has increased by more than a quarter since mid-2001 to more than two million now. This means more and more homes are under-occupied. 

Those born in the 1940s and 1950s are always happy enough to tell you how a family of five had to survive in a two-bedroom house.

But now those same baby boomers have five-bedroom homes which provide shelter for only two people.

More often than not these are the same groups who go door-to-door with carefully-crafted leaflets issuing a call to arms.

They claim to be defending the achievements of past generations for future ones.

But by doing so, they are actually the antithesis of the 19th century engineers, who created such wonderful landmarks as our seaside piers, the Regency squares and Volks railway.

When championing the idea of more development in our national parks last week, planning minister Nick Boles said he was worried about “the danger of making rural communities into museum pieces where they are not so much protected as embalmed”.

But actually this mentality of constantly trying to mumify what we have is only damaging future generations.

So here’s a challenge to those nimbys: don’t want building in your back yard? Then do society a favour and if you have a spare room, take in a lodger. Or, even better, sell your five bedroom house and downsize to free up the space for someone that needs it.

If you don’t then don’t be surprised or upset if there’s an application for dozens of homes in your back yard.

Until we ditch this “cannot” attitude then genuine concerns from nimbys about development will continually be undermined.