Remploy site
-
Posts
-
Are they mad? Was there a hidden agenda I wonder when they were trying out their ridiculous traffic plan.
Yes, as stated recently that area is bad enough at present with all the traffic through the stansty bridge. This will make the area even worse. Since my post about the bridge two weeks ago, there has been another two accidents involving smashed wing mirrors.
If this is given the go ahead by the planning committee I hope they take the traffic problem on board.Just knew it – now we will see if certain councillors keep their promises to block any planning application on the site for housing
The developers reckon the traffic will be lighter than when Remploy was there but they would say that!
True, but Remploy was only busy early morning and early evening. All these proposed properties will mean traffic all day long.
Firstly let me say that the use of an acronym in the original news report, without an explanation is bad reporting. TRICS I feel sure is not widely used name. I know what it is now after looking it up on the Internet.
Secondly, the methodology used is based on a scheme used by a consortium of Local Authorities, so to blame the developers as in the previous post is blatantly wrong. It is a widely accepted methodology used nationally.
Remploy sites in my recollection were closed by Central Government, so to accuse the Local Authority of having a hidden agenda regarding the site is pure conjecture.
To link Rhosddu bridge with the proposed development is in my opinion, a red herring. The main reason for the accidents is undoubtedly poor driving and knowing the width of the vehicle one is driving. And also people using Plas Coch as a rat run at peak periods.
I feel confident however, that the Planning Committee will take all aspects of the application into consideration when determining the outcome.An open question: Why would it be wrong to use the site for housing?
WCBC’s development plan was rejected by Cardiff for, amongst other things, insufficient provision of dwellings in the County.
The proposed development site is in a predominantly residential area, much better to use it for housing than leaving it to fall into disrepair.
Why, oh why do people need to find fault with EVERY proposal that is brought forward?
I think that I am justified in reminding them that they are the very individuals who criticise, day in and day out, ANYTHING that is an attempt to progress and look to the future. If you want progress, let it happen without the usual whingeing. Try sitting on your hands for a while before committing gut reaction to print. Think before you act.Traffic all day long? Nonsense! Parking provision for 90 cars at most. That’s 10 cars per working day/hour.
Oh, and factor in the fact that some of the residents will be working.
Sorry Rondetto, not a very astute observation.Oh NO!!!!!!! Not another poster who doesn’t want to listen to the thoughts of others and try to influence the majority with witless rhetoric. Friendly advice, go away and learn what a discussion forum is all about and when you have learnt that you may come back and join in the friendly discussions.
It is what it is, and I for one am still hoping for a buyer of the Remploy factory so we can get the majority of those made redundant back in work.I am totally willing to listen to the thoughts of others providing those thoughts have been thought out. Bald statements without sound foundation do little to enhance credibility.
I was just pointing out that the statement you made lacks substance in its’ assumption. If you are not able to accept a quite valid observation, that is not my problem.
And thank you for permitting me to join in with discussions when I learn to suffer gladly.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
