14 Sept 2011: I see that Rushcliffe BC are running a brief consultation process, but you have to be quick, I gather that comments have to be in by 19th Sept.
Actually, it seems that all the Local Authorities in Nottinghamshire have agreed to issue identical policies, except Erewash BC who seem to be applying slightly tougher standards or sooner targets for achieving certain standards (good for them).
It's good to see that the authorities all agree and are avoiding some US-style split on doctrinaire grounds where it becomes obligatory to deny climate change if you want to continue in the party.
I quickly scanned the document and can't find anything to disagree with, they seem to be intending to continue on target to meet 2016 standards etc.
Rushcliffe fell at the sustainable hurdle....
Having said that, it is a pity that a proposal was discussed in the Rushcliffe cabinet last week to instal PV on some of the RBC buildings, and eventually the whole proposal was turned down without so much as agreeing to a single pilot project. (click the link to read the Evening Post story). They considered it Solely on Payback considerations, without once valuing the benefit of producing clean electricity without burning coal and emitting carbon.
Why mention this here?
The personal angle on this is that I did the powerpoint illustrated report for RBC outlining the costs and returns, and showing how the panels might fit and look on the buildings. I gather from a witness that the powerpoint was not shown, that a civil servant had converted it into a dry document just listing the financial equations without mentioning the qualitative aspects.