Both manifestos support Garden Cities and brownfield development, really nothing new in either, apart from the Conservative Right to Buy HA policy (which to my mind fails to add up for all sports of reasons – i’d like to see the CBA – and the sensitivity of the CBR to the interest rate given the time lag between sale of housing and new build during which additional HB needs paying out because of the inability to relet) but one thing was strikingly new
Onshore windfarms often fail to win public support, however, and are unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energy system requires. As a result, we will end any new public subsidy for them and change the law so that local people have the final say on windfarm applications.
What can they mean? Ending the major infrastructure regime for large farms will not mean locals have the final say so they can appeal, so does it mean ending appeals altogether? Why for this only and not other forms of development. Ending appeals will simply mean every case in the courts and clog the whole system up. I think it perhaps is just badly drafted in a day of badly drafted manifestos.
Anyway I found today on site studying Istanbul’s South American style BRT system (the first in Europe) vastly more interesting, flawed though the design of the system is.