The bad examples are predominantly lower density greenfield sites with very limited public transport and facilities nearby. I reviewed a few of North London schemes and they were generally fairly good but were incorporated in existing neighbourhoods with facilities. Urban development fares better and the existing grain and density is a key aspect. Reviewing schemes outside London the standards struggle unless the LPA is strong and insists on the highest quality.
If you can’t retrofit this estate it is proof that this is a meaningless policy. So much that could be done to improve its relationship with the surrounding area.
99% of the benefits at considerably lower cost sound like a strong case for redesign or even "value-engineering"
When the electorate outside London has foolishly just elected Johnson maybe he will find a way of reviving his mad scheme with our money. Is that what PJS is advocating?
Carbon neutral project? I doubt it.