Artefacts, the Gaze and Sensory Experience: Mediating Local Environments in the Planning Regulation of Major Renewable Energy Infrastructure in England and Wales

  • Yvonne Rydin
  • Lucy Natarajan
  • Maria Lee
  • Simon Lock


An ANT perspective suggests that artefacts can play a key role within the regulatory process. Such artefacts are material entities in their own right, and they also mediate the perception and understanding of the natural or built environment. The idea of planning as the circulation of artefacts is explored through research on offshore wind farms and other major low-carbon energy infrastructure in England and Wales, where a distinct regulatory regime for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) operates. Detailed research highlights not only the role of maps, photographs, other visualisations and a range of other artefacts but also the reliance on the “gaze” and embodied experience of the key regulatory decision-makers in the regulation of these projects.


  1. Barratt, S., and C. Fudge. 1981. Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  2. Beauregard, R. 2015. Planning Matter: Acting with Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauregard, R., and L. Lieto, eds. 2016. Planning for a Material World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. DECC. 2011a. National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). London: HMSO (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office).Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2011b. Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). London: HMSO (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office).Google Scholar
  6. Gouldson, A., and J. Murphy. 1998. Regulatory Realities: The Implementation and Impact of Industrial Environmental Regulation. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  7. Hill, M., and P. Hupe. 2008. Implementing Public Policy: An Introduction to the Study of Operational Governance. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Hull, M. 2012. Government of Paper: The Materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2010. The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d’État. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lee, M., C. Armeni, J. de Cendra, S. Chaytor, S. Lock, M. Maslin, C. Redgwell, and Y. Rydin. 2013. Public Participation and Climate Change Infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Law 25: 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Macnaghten, P., and J. Urry. 1998. Contested Natures. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Rydin, Y. 2013. Using Actor-Network Theory to Understand Planning Practice: Exploring Relationships Between Actants in Regulating Low Carbon Commercial Development. Planning Theory 12 (1): 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2014. The Challenges of the ‘Material Turn’ for Planning Studies. Planning Theory and Practice 15 (4): 590–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rydin, Y., and L. Tate. 2016. Actor Networks of Planning: Exploring the Influence of Actor Network Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. TSO. 2008. Planning Act 2008. London: TSO (The Stationery Office).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yvonne Rydin
    • 1
  • Lucy Natarajan
    • 1
  • Maria Lee
    • 2
  • Simon Lock
    • 3
  1. 1.Central House, Bartlett School of Planning, UCLLondonUK
  2. 2.Bidborough House, UCL Faculty of LawsLondonUK
  3. 3.UCL Department of Science and Technology StudiesLondonUK

Personalised recommendations