This paper reviews the planning process for a Scottish prison located near a former mining village. Analysing the letters of objection submitted by residents offers an opportunity to explore local views about prison and community and to relate these to the unique social and spatial history of the area. The planning process itself structured how residents were able to express themselves and defined what counted as a relevant objection. After deconstructing this process, the paper then restores and uses as a framework for analysis three geographies of objection stripped from local responses to the development proposal: The emotional, temporal, and spatial. Emotional expressions of objection added intensity and gave meaning to claims about the historical decline of the region and also conveyed a deep sense of the proposed building site as a lived space. Particular grounds of opposition—over fear of strangers, the fragility of a local orchid, and the pollution from mining—provide an opportunity to explore the complex nature of place meaning and community identity, ultimately leading to a conclusion that the meaning of place is always in flux. The paper argues that Simmel's classic concept of the stranger, as the outsider who comes to stay, offers a useful analytic in understanding how the quality of proximal remoteness that prisons and other unwanted developments constitute participates in a constantly evolving sense of the local.
AitkenMMcDonaldSStrachanP, 2008, “Locating ‘power’ in wind power planning processes: The (not so) influential role of local objectors”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management51777–799
2.
AndersonKSmithS, 2002, “Editorial: Emotional geographies”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series267–10
3.
ApthorpeR, 1997, “Writing development policy and policy analysis plain or clear: On language, gerne and power”, in Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power Eds ShoreCWrightS, (Routledge, London) pp 34–45
4.
BarryJ, 2003, “Resistance is fertile: Cultivating the virtues of sustainability citizenship”, unpublished paper, Institute of Governance, Queen's University of Belfast
BondsA, 2006, “Profit from punishment? The politics of prisons, poverty and neoliberal restructuring in the rural American northwest”Antipode38174–177
7.
CheD, 2005, “Constructing a prison in the forest: Conflicts over nature, paradise and identity”Annals of the American Association of Geographers95809–831
8.
CliffordJ, 2000, “Interview with James Clifford by Alex Coles”, in Site-specificity: The Ethnographic Turn, de-, dis-, ex- Ed. ColeA, (Black Dog, London) pp 52–73
9.
DavisA, 2003Are Prisons Obsolete? (Open Media, New York)
10.
EllisG, 2004, “Discourses of objection: Towards an understanding of third-party rights in planning”Environment and Planning A361549–1570
11.
FlyvbergB, 1998Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
12.
FreudenburgWPastorS, 1992, “NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the syndromes”Journal of Social Issues48 (4) 39–61
13.
FrisbyD, 2001Simmel and Since: Essays on Georg Simmel's Social Theory (Routledge, London)
14.
GilmoreRW, 2007Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
15.
GoodA, 2006, “Writing as a kind of anthropology: Alternative professional genres”, in Critical Journeys: The Making of Anthropologists Eds De NeeveGUnnithan-KumarM, (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 91–116
16.
HartlandR, 2005, “Report by Development and Building Control Manager for the Development Control Sub-Committee”, Ref. No. 1086/2005, 7 December, West Lothian Council, Livingston
HooksGMosherCRotoloTLobaoL, 2004, “The prison industry: Carceral expansion and employment in U.S. counties 1969–1994”Social Science Quarterly8537–57
19.
IngoldT, 2008, “Bindings against boundaries: Entanglements of life in an open world”Environment and Planning A401796–1810
20.
KuAS, 2012, “Remaking places and fashioning an opposition discourse: Struggle over the Star Ferry pier and the Queen's pier in Hong Kong”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space305–22
21.
LakeR, 1993, “Planners' alchemy transforming NIMBY to YIMBY rethinking NIMBY”Journal of the American Planning Association5987–93
22.
LeggCJ, 1992, “Putting concrete vegetation into abstract boxes”British Ecological Society BulletinXXIII letters to the editor
23.
MartinLMitchelsonM, 2009, “Geographies of detention and imprisonment: Interrogating spatial practices of confinement, discipline, law, and state power”Geography Compass3459–477
24.
MontaguEvans, 2003, “Supporting planning statement for a new permanent prison at Addiewell”, planning submission on file with West Lothian Council
RandallSC, 1990Studies of the Scottish oil Shale Industry, Volume 1: A Socio-historical Study of Scottish Shale Mining Communities in Midland West Lothian final report on US Department of Energy Agreement no. DEAC02- 84ER66199, Research Report TM/90/02 (IOM, Edinburgh)
29.
RedwoodII, 1897A Practical Treatise on Mineral Oils and Their By-products (Spon and Chamberlain, London)
30.
ReedA, 2006, “Documents unfolding”, in Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge Ed. RilesA, (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI) pp 158–177
ShoreCWrightS, (Eds), 1997Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power (Routledge, London)
33.
SimmelG, 1964 [1908], “The stranger”, in The Sociology of Georg Simmel edited and translated by WolffK, (The Free Press, New York) pp 402–408
34.
SmithH, 2004, “Place, identity and participation”, in Place Identity, Participation and Planning Eds HagueCJenkinsP, (Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon) pp 39–54
35.
StoneD, 2002Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decisionmakingrevised edition (Norton, New York)
