This is exactly how Waterhall should be developed, and should be relatively easily done given the single current landowner. This statement iskey:
"These should be entirely new neighbourhoods, each centred on a station on the proposed rapid transit route all the way from western Cardiff to growth areas around Llantrisant."
What this rapid transit route is will be critical however. Bus lanes = no. reinstating the rail link (and electrifying) = yes.
Not so sure about limiting to "high density communities" however... why not high density near stations, with a central commercial hub, then progressing to lower density the further from the station you get...
However, a further point however is that I need to stop using however.
While Roger Tanner's premise is fine I'm not sure it fits in with the current thinking regarding the first phase of the Metro.
As I understand it, the plan is for the line to run along the old Llantrisant No 1 (Waterhall) branch railway and then the Llantrisant & Taff Vale Junction Railway to Llantrisant. Apart from the section between Waterhall and Creigiau most of the route passes through or near existing urban communities.
I think there's quite a good arguement to be made for a "garden city" type developement around Rhydlafar with green wedges seperating it from Llandaff, Fairwater, Creigiau and Pentyrch. It's probably a better idea than the current LDP proposals for Faiwater.
It's difficult to see where else along the proposed route such a development could could take place though. For Roger Tanner's plans to work the Metro would need to follow a route that was currently more rural.
If you look at the map, the route is largely through rural areas - between Fairwater and Creigiau is rural, for instance. And then the route goes north west from Creigau through largely rural areas towards Cross Inn. You couldn't have a completely new town, but you could expand existing settlements and have a series of new "villages" along such a route.
I prefer a development that is contiguous with Cardiff - because I think this will be more feasible to develop in stages. For instance, the first houses could be built before a primary school was complete. A development further away would need additional infrastructure sooner (which is difficult given today's spending environment).
Nice idea, trouble is someone has forgotten the price of land that has planning permission and that a garden city by its very nature will have a lot of open space. I also think there are targets for housing density still.
So the development will have loads of flats and no matter what planners might say people still want a house.
Potentially the houses are going to be too expensive, unless the council owns a lot of land and effectively gives it away, or house builders start building townhouses to gain the maximum utility from the land they can build on.
The devil will be in the detail, will they plan for the future around the needs of young families (or those wanting to start families) or those who are 50+ and whose children are flying the nest (and hence make an easy profit)?