2nd opinion: The joy of compromise

Well, I'd like my neighbours to be pleasant and approachable. I'm not looking for someone who wants me to be an active member of the local neighbourhood watch, but I do want someone who will take a parcel in for me or feed my cat.

Let me ask you another question. What makes a good tenant? One who just takes the keys and pays the rent, or one who is community-spirited enough to coordinate neighbourhood views, bringing local concerns to the landlord's attention? Once again, the government is looking at ideal types of neighbour and tenant by telling us how it will tackle antisocial behaviour. I won't go into the details – I'm sure you've read quite enough of the home secretary's latest ideas. You'll be aware of what he is aiming to stamp out, but I wonder what he thinks will be left behind.

It is a common misunderstanding that mediation aims to make neighbours into friends: that somehow we will enable two warring parties to settle their differences, realise the error of their ways and find a mutual regard for one another. Although mediators do have high success rates, this idealised outcome is quite rare.

Removing the cause of upset, getting rid of nuisance or eradicating antisocial behaviour on its own doesn't leave you with harmonious and socially cohesive neighbourhoods. If anything, all it does is leave a few people smug at their success in getting the council to tackle their problems.

It also gives them the knowledge that if they have an issue, contacting the authorities is the way to sort it out. Is this the type of neighbour/tenant we want?

What about those whose antisocial behaviour has been tackled? Will they disappear quietly, with a new-found respect for authority and a greater understanding of their responsibilities? Will they, then, be the type of neighbour/tenant we want? Maybe.

One of our most successfully mediated agreements was between two neighbours who had been arguing for five years. The council or police were called at least once a week over that period. Since mediation, there hasn't been a single problem for nearly three years.

So, what agreement did they come to? Basically (and I am paraphrasing heavily here), the agreement said: "Party A hates Party B and always will. Party B hates Party A. However, they know that shouting about it in the street will do no good; neither will ringing the police every five minutes." When they saw the agreement, they were very pleased. It gave them permission to hate one another.

Some seem to believe that if you remove antisocial behaviour, the vacuum will be filled by "pro-social behaviour" – whatever that is. But in the case I've just outlined, most people would find it hard to describe what emerged as pro-social.

In the same way that food with reduced fat "can only help weight control as a part of a healthy, balanced diet", removing antisocial behaviour will only contribute to well-managed neighbourhoods if equal attention is paid to creating healthy ways for people to manage their differences.

A healthy, balanced community needs all types of people and lifestyles – and a way of managing the differences that will emerge.

Some young adults will always want to play music loudly: a similar proportion of older people will want peace and quiet. Dogs will always bark and children will always play football in the street.

We may not like nuisance but we need to give some serious thought as to what we like. Then we should find out if it is good for us – we may be surprised by what we find.