The aim of this paper is to consider the passions aroused by Green Belts in their urban containment function as a political accomplishment that has the capacity to orient publics around new spaces of governance. The paper addresses what it identifies as a problem of relevance in the new Combined Authorities in England where public identity and belonging may be more firmly rooted in other places and settings. It draws on the literature on material participation to locate the capacity to foster public belonging in objects, things and settings, and considers the environmental planning designation of Green Belt as an assemblage of the human and non-human which has the power to connect and contain. In a case study of plans for Green Belt reduction in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the paper evidences the power of the non-human to mobilise public engagement and to foster territorial identity. The paper concludes by setting out an approach to public participation that foregrounds the importance of material interests and affective relations with objects and things in the formation of political communities.
AndersonB (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
London:
Verso.
2.
BarryA (2001) Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society.
London:
The Athlone Press.
3.
BennettJ (2010) Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things.
London:
Duke University Press.
4.
BennettJ (2018)
Whose place is this anyway? An actor-network theory exploration of a conservation conflict. Space and Culture21(2): 159–169.
5.
CallonM (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: LawJ (ed) Power, Action and Belief.
London:
Routledge, pp. 196–233.
6.
CastellsM (2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age.
Cambridge:
Polity Press.
7.
ChilversJKearnesM (2016) Science, democracy and emergent publics. In: ChilversJKearnesM (eds) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics.
London:
Routledge, pp. 1–28.
8.
CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) and Natural England (2010) Green Belts: A Greener Future.
London:
CPRE/Natural England.
9.
CumbersARoutledgePNativelC (2008)
The entangled geographies of global justice networks. Progress in Human Geography32(2): 188–201.
10.
DuffC (2011)
Networks, resources and agencies: On the character and production of enabling spaces. Health & Place17: 149–156.
11.
FariasI (2010) Introduction: Decentring the object of urban studies. In: FariasIBenderT (eds) Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies.
Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 1–24.
12.
FeatherstoneD (2005)
Towards the relational construction of militant particularisms: Or why the geographies of past struggles matter for resistance to neoliberal globalisation. Antipode37(2): 250–271.
13.
FreestoneR (2002) Greenbelts in city and regional planning. In: ParsonsKCSchuylerD (eds) From Garden City to Green City: The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard.
London:
John Hopkins University Press, pp. 67–98.
14.
GMCA (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) (2017) Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
Manchester:
GMCA.
15.
GMCA (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) (2019) Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework. Greater Manchester’s Plan for Homes, Jobs and the Environment.
Manchester:
GMCA.
16.
HaughtonG (2018)
Learning from the GMSF process. Town and Country Planning87(1): 18–21.
17.
HinchcliffeSKearnesMBDegenMet al. (2005)
Urban wild things: A cosmopolitical experiment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space23: 643–658.
18.
House of Commons (2017) Combined Authorities. Briefing Paper Number 06649, 4 July.
London:
House of Commons Library, UK Parliament.
19.
IrwinA (2006)
The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science36(2): 299–320.
20.
JasanoffS (2010)
A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society27(2–3): 233–253.
21.
LatourB (1988) The Pasteurization of France.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
22.
LatourB (1991) We Have Never Been Modern. Trans. C. Parker.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
23.
LatourB (1999)
Factures/fractures: From the concept of network to the concept of attachment. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics36: 20–31.
24.
LatourB (2004) Politics of Nature.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
25.
LatourB (2005a) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory.
Oxford:
OUP.
26.
LatourB (2005b) From realpolitik to dingpolitik or how to make things public. In: LatourBWeibelP (eds) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy.
Cambridge:
MIT Press, pp. 14–43.
27.
LatourBMilsteinDMarrero-GuillamonIet al. (2018)
Down to earth social movements: An interview with Bruno Latour. Social Movement Studies17(3): 353–361.
28.
McFarlandC (2009)
Translocal assemblages: Spaces, power and social movements. Geoforum40: 561–567.
29.
MarresN (2005a) No Issue, No Public: Democratic Deficits after the Displacement of Politics.
Amsterdam:
Ipskamp Printpartners.
30.
MarresN (2005b) Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey debate. In: LatourBWeibelP (eds) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy.
London:
MIT Press, pp. 208–217.
31.
MarresN (2012) Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics.
Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
Marres N and Lezaun J (2011) Materials and devices of the public: an introduction. Economy & Society 40(4): 489–509.
33.
MasseyD (2005) For Space.
London:
Sage Publications.
34.
MetzgerJ (2013a)
Placing the stakes: The enactment of territorial stakeholders in planning processes. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space45: 781–796.
35.
MetzgerJ (2013b)
Raising the regional leviathan: A relational-materialist conceptualisation of regions-in becoming as publics-in-stabilisation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(4): 1368–1395.
36.
MHCLG (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government) (2018) National Planning Policy Framework.
London:
MHCLG.
37.
MHLG (Ministry of Housing & Local Government) (1955) Green Belts. Circular 42/55.
London:
HMSO.
38.
MolALawJ (1994)
Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science24(4): 641–671.
39.
MurdochJ (1998)
The spaces of actor-network theory. Geoforum29(3): 357–374.
40.
NicholasR (1945) The Manchester and District Regional Planning Committee: Report on the Tentative Regional Planning Proposals.
Norwich and London:
Jarrold & Sons Ltd.
41.
PorterL (2010) Unlearning the Colonial Cultures of Planning.
Farnham:
Ashgate Publishing.
42.
RavenscroftN (1998)
Rights, citizenship and access to the countryside. Space and Polity2(1): 33–48.
43.
RoutledgePCumbersA (2009) Global Justice Networks.
Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
44.
StengersI (2005) The cosmopolitical proposal. In: LatourBWeibelP (eds) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy.
Cambridge:
MIT Press, pp. 994–1003.
45.
SwyngedouwE (2006)
Circulations and metabolisms: (Hybrid) natures and (cyborg) cities. Science as Culture15(2): 105–121.
46.
ThomasKLittlewoodS (2010)
From green belts to green infrastructure? The evolution of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spatial strategies. Planning, Practice & Research25(2): 203–222.
47.
WilkinsonS (1999) How useful are focus groups in feminist research? In: BarbourRKitzingerJ (eds) Developing Focus Group Research.
London:
Sage.
48.
WilliamsR (1980) Problems in Materialism and Culture: Selected Essays.
London:
Verso Editions and NLB.
49.
ZakhourSMetzgerJ (2018)
Placing the action in context: Contrasting public-centred and institutional understandings of democratic planning politics. Planning Theory & Practice19(3): 345–362.
