When it comes to house-building I reckon everyone is at least a touch NIMBY.

Even those more liberal about planning would still feel badly done by if they’d shelled out top whack for their dream property only for a mammoth, ugly new estate to be plonked next door, meaning soaring traffic, a fight for local school places and more people making it harder to get a precious appointment at the local doctors’.

Labour seems to be taking a hard line on these concerns, with housing secretary Angela Rayner vowing to quickly dump new houses here, there and everywhere in a bid to tackle the UK’s housing crisis, which sees many people not place their foot on the housing ladder until they’re into their 40s.

I absolutely agree that this is a scandal and action needs to be taken to rectify this. However, what I feel is sneaky – and just plain wrong – is the new approach by Rayner and friends.

The first thing which I foresee causing monstrous issues is the Government’s recently announced proposal that would see some planning applications given automatic approval – meaning the local community can’t get their say on how, for example, a big new apartment block next to their home might impact on their life before it gets a big green tick.

But far more worrying is its sketchy definition of green belt land which is there as a vanguard against precious countryside being concreted over and one town merging into another.

Labour promised that they would prioritise building on so-called “grey belt” land, which is basically a term they’ve conjured up to mean areas of the green belt that are considered “low quality” such as disused car parks and wasteland. I can see how that makes sense.

Dig just ever so slightly, however, and you’ll see that’s not really what’s on the chopping block. And please don’t glaze over whilst I get ever-so-slightly technical on this.

Rayner’s proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework are set to go far further in building on green belt land than I think they have made clear.

The draft new version of the document states that grey belt land will not only be previously developed land but also that which makes “a limited contribution to the five green belt purposes”.

Can you see how this rather changes the “we’ll only build on the worst bits” line that’s so far been trotted out? It’s far too open to interpretation.

Under the new plans, building on the green belt can also be considered if local authorities are unable to demonstrate that they have enough sites for development in line with their targets – which we know have been jacked up to the extreme as Labour attempts to build 1.5m houses in five years.

It is nonetheless treasured by those living here. How on earth are people in these kind of areas going to hold back inappropriate new developments if this is how Labour is treating the most sacrosanct?

I’m happy to be called a NIMBY if that means I am looking out for locals who are concerned about how inappropriate developments will affect their way of life. Sadly, I fear, that battle has just become so much harder.