Paper short abstract:

This paper considers how nature was represented and given voice in the case of an off-shore wind power project. It adopts an STS perspective but departs from the Latourian proposition for a Parliament of Things. It suggests a more open form for giving voice, open to uncertainties and contingencies.

Paper long abstract:

Who speaks for nature? This is a question that has been repeatedly posed in environmental planning contexts as developments of all kinds are increasingly understood to generate a range of environmental impacts. Wind power projects are notable for generating such impacts and creating intense debates about their significance in relation to the benefits of the development. This paper considers the case of an off-shore wind power project and discusses how nature was represented and given voice. In doing so it adopts an STS perspective but departs significantly from the proposition put forward by a key STS exponent, Bruno Latour, for a Parliament of Things as the ideal benchmark for how nature should be given a voice. The paper begins with this exploration and critique of the idea of a Parliament of Things. This leads to an empirical investigation, following a development proposal for a major off-shore wind farm as it goes through the process leading - in this case - to a refusal to grant development consent. The case suggests that a more open form of opportunity for giving nature a voice in planning is possible, one that is open to the uncertainties of change and the contingent nature of outcomes. Rather than a grand proposal for new deliberative arenas, this considers planning as a set of institutional arrangements with regulatory and other intent but where deliberation, negotiation and consultation are possible in the gaps within the institutional framework.