Putting Localism in Place: Conservative Images of the Good Community and the Contradictions of Planning Reform in England

Tait, Malcolm; Inch, Andy

doi:10.1080/02697459.2015.1104219

Cited by 39 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Heeding Tait and Inch's (2016) warning, it is important to stress that community remains a highly problematic concept, with generations of urban sociologists and geographers questioning the extent to which community can ever be synonymous with neighbourhood (for a summary, see Blokland 2017). Inevitably, not all who dwell on estates form affective ties with other estate residents, and in many cases it is possible to talk about multiple communities rather than a singular one.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The right to community?

Hubbard

Lees

2018

City

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The right to community?

Hubbard

Lees

2018

City

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Moreover, the government's planning reforms -aimed at removing what was seen as state interference -reduced the scope for ecological regulation of land development. Pitched as a radical simplification exercise, the creation of the new National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) not only removed hundreds of pages of planning guidance, it substantially reconfigured the relationship between growth and conservation duties in favour of the former (Cowell, 2013;DCLG, 2012;Tait and Inch, 2016). For instance, as part of wider reforms, responsibility for delivering five-year housing supply was passed to LPAs.…”

Section: A Failure To Command Commodificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why there and then, not here and now? Ecological offsetting in California and England, and the sharpening contradictions of neoliberal natures

Lockhart

Rea

2019

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Failure has become an increasingly important theme of debate in the literature on neoliberal natures. In this article we take up this topic with respect to ecological offsetting, often regarded as an exemplar of market-oriented conservation. Comparing the case of species banking which emerged in California in the 1990s with frustrated efforts to implement a biodiversity offsetting programme in England beginning in 2010, we develop a novel analytical framework for explaining why this kind of environmental market-making may or may not be successful in different contexts. Drawing on work in geography on the neoliberalisation of nature and insights from economic sociology, we characterise ecological offsetting as ‘command-and-commodify’ regulation: a peculiar form of hybrid ecological regulation which depends on an institutional mix of ‘authoritative’ and ‘economic’ power to function. In California, these kinds of environmental markets initially emerged at a moment of compromise, contingent on an embrace of ‘market’ solutions to environmental problems on the one hand, and a somewhat paradoxical expansion of authoritative power to ecologically regulate land development, on the other. In England, by contrast, deep fiscal austerity and deregulatory zeal, combined with resistance from nearly every quarter, initially undermined the possibility of balancing economic and authoritative power, which we argue is necessary for the construction of viable ecological offsetting. Reflecting on themes in the wider literature, we conclude by questioning whether the English experience is indicative of sharpening tensions between economy and ecology in the late neoliberal era.

show abstract

“…Yet localism policy has also been strongly critiqued for the ways that it has been imposed on communities (a top‐down, “guided localism”; Stanton, , p. 271) based on devolution of power but not resources (an “austerity localism”; Featherstone et al., , p. 177) and these are critiques that Wills acknowledges. Tait and Inch () argue that the localism agenda will further social inequalities by suggesting the “naturalness” of bottom‐up, uneven development and offers a narrow vision of localism, based on an imaginary of the English country village that is restrictive of the range of more urban or progressive forms that localism could take.…”

Section: Introduction: Finding Common Groundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Positive parochialism”, local belonging and ecological concerns: Revisiting Common Ground's Parish Maps project

Devine‐Wright

Smith

Batel

2018

Trans Inst British Geog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scepticism about the value of parochialism and local belonging has been a persistent feature of geographical scholarship, which has advocated a relational account of place and a cosmopolitan worldview. This paper revisits the Parish Maps project that was instigated in 1987 by UK arts and environment charity Common Ground, which led to the creation of thousands of maps across the UK and beyond, and was appraised in 1996 by Crouch and Matless in this journal. Drawing on archival materials and in‐depth interviews, we examine the legacy of the project. We argue that Common Ground's vision for Parish Maps represents a “positive parochialism” that confidently asserts the validity of the parish without retreating towards insularity. We complicate this by revealing diverse ways that communities took up Common Ground's vision. We conclude by arguing that the view of parochialism manifest by Parish Maps offers a foundation for ecological concern that remains relevant today, with places offering the potential for solidarities that bring together local and incomer. This “positive parochialism” disturbs assumptions that local attachments are necessarily exclusive and indicates the unresolved challenge of finding ways to realise the value of affect and creative environmental engagement in wider policy and land‐use planning.

show abstract

Putting Localism in Place: Conservative Images of the Good Community and the Contradictions of Planning Reform in England

Cited by 39 publications

References 40 publications

The right to community?

The right to community?

Why there and then, not here and now? Ecological offsetting in California and England, and the sharpening contradictions of neoliberal natures

“Positive parochialism”, local belonging and ecological concerns: Revisiting Common Ground's Parish Maps project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About