|
@voice of reason
Are you really making a point that parc derwen is 2000 rather than 1500 or vice versa. You need to learn the concept of materiality. You do you argument no justice by being that pedantic. Give it a rest
The tens of thousands of occupiers come from:
a) Pent up demand, given the increase in house sharing and people staying at their parents longer we've seen in recent years
b) More births than deaths
c) Immigration
And, yes, Cardiff might have to start opening schools again soon. The issue is we had a massive fall in the birth rate between the early 90s and early 2000s, which meant a big fall in the school-aged population. Then in the early 2000s, the birth rate increased substantially, especially in our cities.
Now I don't know whether they've kept the sites of most of the closed schools - I hope so. But the rebound in the number of children will certainly be a challenge for Cardiff. Presently it looks worse at primary level as lots of people move out of the city by the time their children are secondary age (whether to get bigger properties, or for career reasons, I'm not sure).
Newport seems to be building houses like mad, aside from the massive Glan Llyn/Llanwern project there is of course Redrow's Mon Bank, proposed new developments at the former Tredegar golf course, Anglian Water want to build 200 homes at Celtic Way in Coedkernew plus another potential project at the old Whitehead Steelworks.
Cardiff is falling terribly behind in house building, the council needs to get a move on.
Urgh. As I said, I was making a point about there being substantial building outside of Cardiff on greenfields - whether it was 1,500 or 2,000 or 2,500, that point would have stood. If it were 500 homes, it would have been a different kettle of fish.
Jantra was making a valid point about pedantry and materiality *in this context*.
The ongoing use of vacuous and gratuitous insults really does make it hard to take your other points seriously.
I was thnking about the Fairwater proposals and it seems to me that an awful lot depends on the Metro link.
Given the congestion that already exists on the Llantrisant Rd / Cathedral Road corridor and the PDR any development to the north west of the city is going to be problematic without decent public transport.
Funnily enough we have been here before - when Cardiff aquired it's first passenger only railway - the Coryton line. It came about by accident when the Cardiff Rail Company's plans for an additional route for coal trains from Pontypridd was sabotaged by the TVR and the line was truncated - first at Treforest and later, Coryton.
The presence of the line led, first to the construction of Rhiwbina Garden Village, and then to all that followed in Rhiwbina and Coryton. I wonder if Fairwater residents would be less concerned if the developments were contingent on the Metro opening first?
I know that Cllr McEvoy and some of the protesters also oppose the Metro proposal - particularly if it involves the Cowbridge Rd. bus-lane option, but development with a tram link would surely be preferable to development without one.
As one who voted no, I am not opposed to development from a nimby viewpoint. I voted against this particular LDP which I see as a very poor piece of work. I agree with Voice that the essential points are overdevelopment and the total confusion over transport policy and infrastructure. How the council can ask us to support a an LDP which Cllr Patel (who I believe is now the lead councillor on this matter) has effectively rubbished by his catagoric assurances that several of the transport solutions will never be adopted is beyond belief.
If things will never be adopted then edit them out. As it stands the supporting documents might just as well say that all residents will be provided with helicopters or roller skates as the transport solution.
As an aside, what impact does the Cardiff Embankment (Dumballs Road) development have on the LDP?
Dumballs Road is one of the candidate sites in the LDP - and a roughly similar density to what is now proposed is assumed in it. So it has no material effect on the housing requirements elsewhere in the city.
2,000 homes is just about enough to support some ancillary services - a primary school, say. Bur it isn't enough to support large scale public transport provision. For that, you need a more substantial development to get passenger numbers. So a smaller development may actually be worse for congestion than a larger development that is of sufficient scale to help fund and justify better transport.
4 trains per hour is probably pushing whats financially viable though - probably 2 an hour, which in addition to the city line services would increase frequency to 4 an hour on the existing city line. That would be a benefit to existing residents of the development.
The discussions of the bus rapid transport system are part of the consultation documents associated with the LDP. They do not form part of the LDP itself. It was right to investigate this option, but it also seems right to now dismiss them. The LDP is a process as well as a final plan - and part of that process is examining different options before deciding on the more appropriate ones to choose.
I do think councillor Patel's handling of the situation has been pretty poor. That letter to the Echo was almost a parody of official-speak. The problem is that no councillor seems willing to stand up and say "this is why the development is the best thing for Cardiff and South Wales".. instead they seem to cringe and grovel about having no choice as the last LDP was thrown out by the planning inspectors.
CARDIFFWALESMAP
- FORUM |