Cardiff Planning Committee has decided to defer a decision on the application by Cardiff Met, and has asked officials to advise on appropriate grounds for refusing permission. Bottom line: they do not want this development but want the grounds for refusal to be sufficiently robust to deter legal challenge.
The complete lack of response here does tend to underline my point that many on this forum have become so trapped by their NIMBY mantra/reflex that they are now incapable of addressing the merits /demerits of certain proposals.
And it's not as if anyone can say this is a trivial issue, involving as it does development next to one of Britain's most ancient Christian sites, visited by lots of people from all over the world.
After being accused of Nimbyism over the awful LDP I can't be bothered to debate with people on here. Good luck, for example, getting to UHW via Western Avenue once the extra 41000 houses have been built. I find it highly ironic that on the day the LDP was adopted the Welsh Government launched its Cardiff City Region.
Surely the point of having a city region was to develop a strategy for the region. As someone who attended all of the public consultation sessions I know that the officers dislike the plan and that they know that Cardiff's transport, health and education infrastructure will not cope with the 30% increase in population in the next 12 years.
Llandaf meadow should be protected but it is a very small issue compared to the LDP.
a) the LDP has not been adopted - it has been approved by Cardiff Council for consultation, after which it will be submitted to the WG, after which it will be examined by an Inspector, after which it will be adopted
b) whilst it may make sense to have a regional strategy ahead of the LDP, the LDP is needed now (or as soon as possible). Cardiff's adopted development plan dates from 1996 and is out of date. Further delays, whether to wait for a city-region plan or for any other reason, would lead to 'planning by appeal', piecemeal development and would not be condusive to good planning.
As for this development, I've not seen the application documents yet and would reserve judgement until I had.
Cardiff Met (i.e. formerly UWIC, formerly Llandaff Tech) hardly, if at all, use their existing playing field adjacent to the meadow.
Their aim is to BUILD on the current playing field and/ or meadow, as part of their largely self serving expansion.
That's what this is all about.
The meadow is ( and has been for centuries) a gloriously green haven, for people and wildlife, next to one of the oldest christian sites in Europe attracting discerning visitors from all over the world . And Llandaff Tech wants to put up buildings all over it ( and, in passing, just look at the third rate stuff they've already bunged up).
Reminds me of that line ( duly adapted for these purposes ) in Robert Bolt's A Man for all Seasons
...."For Cardiff Met? .Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Cardiff Met!”
Shouldn't they be allowed to though? The URBANO who used to frequent here used to object to the whole principle of planning, thinking instead that the market should elad the way. What's the difference here?
"Shouldn't they be allowed to though? The URBANO who used to frequent here used to object to the whole principle of planning, thinking instead that the market should elad the way. What's the difference here?"
That is a fallacious argument. Firstly, you do believe in a planning system, Secondly, so long as one exists I am entitled to use it as much as Cardiff Met.