Someone think not.
And this could be a rehearsal for the vast amount of housing Rhuthun/Ruthin might see in the future.
Yesterday, a petition appeared via Facebook to try to persuade the County Council to prevent the development of 100 houses on land contiguous to the existing Glasdir estate. This follows a pre-planning consultation on land for housing adjacent to the existing Glasdir housing estate.
Let's take a look at the petition. It's almost as if the writer has marshaled every possible argument he can against the development and tried to make them fit.
I am not persuaded by many of the petitioner's arguments.
Denbighshire County Council, Clwyd Alyn Housing and Taylor Wimpey all have plans to develop the land next to Glasdir in Ruthin—which will mean an increase of 100 homes and reduce a great deal of green space, increasing cars next to two primary schools and adversely impact the local town.
Unlike between Corwen and Wrexham Roads, the green space is not significant and neither is it generally open to many to enjoy. In terms of car use and ownership, it's better to build on a plot here that is relatively accessible for the town centre than in a village miles away which has no shop or school. The fact that it's next to primary schools is a real advantage and one that will be very welcomed my many.
I have grave concerns over the impact of successful planning application and feel that if this goes ahead, the town will be irreversibly affected. To halt this will maintain our quality of life.
This development will not be something that results in the town being '"irreversibly affected'. It isn't a major or significant development and it's already planned for. It's already on land allocated for housing. It may even improve some people's quality of life: living in proximity to schools and the town. It certainly won't have the impact that the Taylor Wimpey site had. Likewise the much bigger Bro Deg, Parc Brynhyfryd, Erw Goch and Maes Hafod.
The building of stated dwellings is a deplorable ecological act. Indeed, in the future, this will be recorded as an idiotic act of Ecocide. The environmental impact of the birds, bees, bats (as well as many others within this ecosystem) will effectively be environmental vandalism. There is of course a sickening irony. The likes of Taylor Wimpey and Clwyd Alyn extol the present natural beauty of Ruthin, yet with their current plans are looking to destroy it.
The land here is not especially sensitive than in many other parts of Rhuthun/Ruthin. Building 100 homes in the AONB may be classed as ecocide and vandalism. Again, this land is close to Rhuthun and can help promote sustainable travel to the town centre. Building here is on land that is much less sensitive.
The dwellings created will bring an influx of people and cars that cannot be sustained. There is a history of flooding and drainage issues, poor roads with speeding cars and rather than follow the example of the rest of the world in caring for the environment, Denbighshire County Council, Taylor Wimpey and Clwyd Alyn could go in the opposite direction.
Here, we start to see some truths appearing among the invective. Virtually all development in Cymru/Wales tends to result in an increase in car ownership and this is regrettable. 'Speeding cars' are sadly a feature of our society, no matter where people live. At least this particular site can offer sustainable travel on foot and by bike.
As for flooding, I'd be nervous but (a) the site is sufficiently far from the Clwyd and (b) the mitigation in place—the wall of Glasdir—and pilling the homes well above the existing ground level is likely to mitigate the worst effects of any flood.
Another negative impact would be on the Welsh language. Forty houses planned by Taylor Wimpey on the land behind the current site of Glasdir, 77 dwellings planned by Clwyd Alyn will trouble an already vulnerable language. If you allow this to go ahead what kind of place will Ruthin be in the years to come?
The development is close to Ysgol Pen Barras and as such you might expect at least some of the parents to be Welsh-speaking who might wish to to move near their school. The Welsh language is by no means as strong as it could be but it is protected and in a healthier state than it was 30 years ago.
As well as language, traffic, services like Doctors and surgeries, dentists, nurseries, and schools will be affected. These are amenities that can barely support existing needs. These plans will transform an area without the consent of the local people. Akin to the proroguing of Parliament by our current Prime Minister!
As towns develop, so their basic infrastructure has to do the same. These need planning and planners consider such things when they make recommendations. As for transforming an area 'without the consent of the local people' since when has any planning application enjoyed local support? And isn't that exactly why we have a planning system, to set policies, identify needs, earmark sites and to look at individual plans objectively?
As a resident of Glasdir since 2012 I find these plans grossly unbalanced. There is no loyalty to those who suffered from the floods—those who were abandoned for 6 and a half years—despite the floods, an effect of the grates, hedge and grass trimmings left by DCC and Taylor Wimpey. Left for 6.5 years in an incomplete site. We are now being asked to live on a building site for the foreseeable future. The noise—both from construction and construction traffic will be unbearable—and I already have evidence of Taylor Wimpey starting before the 8am agreed planning time.
The land was earmarked for housing well before Glasdir phase 1a (that before 2012) was complete. Does the petitioner's remarks smack of old fashioned nibyism?
Furthermore, as a resident of Glasdir I will lose the privacy I currently have. The building of more dwellings will have a visual impact and a loss of landscape given that the plans include apartments. A site that is already crammed and overdeveloped, with narrow roads and atrocious parking (despite yellow lines which people simply ignore), is a place where I fear a vehicle and child collision becomes increasingly likely. A fire engine would struggle to come into Glasdir currently. If more dwellings are built around it, there is a guarantee of more vehicles. Combined new plans could see over 100 dwellings – meaning a possible increase of 200 cars. This is 200 more cars next to two primary schools. Hardly fit for the 21st Century, I hope you agree?
I'd agree that we need to reconsider the whole way in which we live to reduce the amount of traffic and that this requires consideration when it comes to setting planning policy. Where I diverge from the petitioner, though, is that this site is in a good location for housing. It's adjacent to existing development and it's close to the town—for walking, cycling and even in reducing the amount of mileage by car—and close to schools. Amenity and such things as views have little relevance in planning, particularly when the land was set aside for housing in the first place. Oh, and parking on double yellow lines won't be confided to Glasdir—just look at Market Street. It's a universal problem. The Wimpey roads are quite narrow. Expect the new site to do better on tyat front.
I then come to my most important point. Children. Where will the children play? This side of Ruthin will lose its green spaces. No homes should ever be built on greenspaces like these when there are other alternatives available. Childhood obesity is already on the rise. With no green spaces for children to play, what provision will you have to solve an ever-increasing crisis? Green spaces that Ysgol Pen Barras & Rhos Street use for Sports Days – will be a site of pollution and traffic. Is this any way to support our children? Of course not. In fact, as a resident of Glasdir who walks his children to school I am horrified to notice the removal of a passage from Glasdir to the school that will mean we will be forced closer to the busy main road.
What are the other alternatives? Most are less attractive than here. The new school site is far less polluted than the Rhos Street sites the new schools replaced. Far, far less.
The schools themselves will also be under a tremendous increase in pressure which will again transform them without the consent of local people. With the combined plans there will be over 100 new homes. This will mean the two schools will be under severe pressure of increased numbers. Numbers which their own facilities (after school clubs for example) cannot deal with. Working parents already must seek expensive alternative provision – and increase in numbers will see the average working parent hit hard again. An increase in pupils could also see an increase in SEN children. The schools have not the ability to deal with this and this will be extremely detrimental to the children who already (and likely to future) attend.
Housing is coming to Rhuthun whether we like it or not. There are other sites also under consideration. Although repeating some of the arguments above, isn't it better to build homes near schools rather than than far away from them? As for children with specific additional learning needs, irrespective of where they live, they tend to require specialist education which is not available in Rhuthun currently.
As at September 7th, 87 people had signed the petition
And this could be a rehearsal for the vast amount of housing Rhuthun/Ruthin might see in the future.
Yesterday, a petition appeared via Facebook to try to persuade the County Council to prevent the development of 100 houses on land contiguous to the existing Glasdir estate. This follows a pre-planning consultation on land for housing adjacent to the existing Glasdir housing estate.
Let's take a look at the petition. It's almost as if the writer has marshaled every possible argument he can against the development and tried to make them fit.
I am not persuaded by many of the petitioner's arguments.
Denbighshire County Council, Clwyd Alyn Housing and Taylor Wimpey all have plans to develop the land next to Glasdir in Ruthin—which will mean an increase of 100 homes and reduce a great deal of green space, increasing cars next to two primary schools and adversely impact the local town.
Unlike between Corwen and Wrexham Roads, the green space is not significant and neither is it generally open to many to enjoy. In terms of car use and ownership, it's better to build on a plot here that is relatively accessible for the town centre than in a village miles away which has no shop or school. The fact that it's next to primary schools is a real advantage and one that will be very welcomed my many.
I have grave concerns over the impact of successful planning application and feel that if this goes ahead, the town will be irreversibly affected. To halt this will maintain our quality of life.
This development will not be something that results in the town being '"irreversibly affected'. It isn't a major or significant development and it's already planned for. It's already on land allocated for housing. It may even improve some people's quality of life: living in proximity to schools and the town. It certainly won't have the impact that the Taylor Wimpey site had. Likewise the much bigger Bro Deg, Parc Brynhyfryd, Erw Goch and Maes Hafod.
The building of stated dwellings is a deplorable ecological act. Indeed, in the future, this will be recorded as an idiotic act of Ecocide. The environmental impact of the birds, bees, bats (as well as many others within this ecosystem) will effectively be environmental vandalism. There is of course a sickening irony. The likes of Taylor Wimpey and Clwyd Alyn extol the present natural beauty of Ruthin, yet with their current plans are looking to destroy it.
The land here is not especially sensitive than in many other parts of Rhuthun/Ruthin. Building 100 homes in the AONB may be classed as ecocide and vandalism. Again, this land is close to Rhuthun and can help promote sustainable travel to the town centre. Building here is on land that is much less sensitive.
The dwellings created will bring an influx of people and cars that cannot be sustained. There is a history of flooding and drainage issues, poor roads with speeding cars and rather than follow the example of the rest of the world in caring for the environment, Denbighshire County Council, Taylor Wimpey and Clwyd Alyn could go in the opposite direction.
Here, we start to see some truths appearing among the invective. Virtually all development in Cymru/Wales tends to result in an increase in car ownership and this is regrettable. 'Speeding cars' are sadly a feature of our society, no matter where people live. At least this particular site can offer sustainable travel on foot and by bike.
As for flooding, I'd be nervous but (a) the site is sufficiently far from the Clwyd and (b) the mitigation in place—the wall of Glasdir—and pilling the homes well above the existing ground level is likely to mitigate the worst effects of any flood.
Another negative impact would be on the Welsh language. Forty houses planned by Taylor Wimpey on the land behind the current site of Glasdir, 77 dwellings planned by Clwyd Alyn will trouble an already vulnerable language. If you allow this to go ahead what kind of place will Ruthin be in the years to come?
The development is close to Ysgol Pen Barras and as such you might expect at least some of the parents to be Welsh-speaking who might wish to to move near their school. The Welsh language is by no means as strong as it could be but it is protected and in a healthier state than it was 30 years ago.
As well as language, traffic, services like Doctors and surgeries, dentists, nurseries, and schools will be affected. These are amenities that can barely support existing needs. These plans will transform an area without the consent of the local people. Akin to the proroguing of Parliament by our current Prime Minister!
As towns develop, so their basic infrastructure has to do the same. These need planning and planners consider such things when they make recommendations. As for transforming an area 'without the consent of the local people' since when has any planning application enjoyed local support? And isn't that exactly why we have a planning system, to set policies, identify needs, earmark sites and to look at individual plans objectively?
As a resident of Glasdir since 2012 I find these plans grossly unbalanced. There is no loyalty to those who suffered from the floods—those who were abandoned for 6 and a half years—despite the floods, an effect of the grates, hedge and grass trimmings left by DCC and Taylor Wimpey. Left for 6.5 years in an incomplete site. We are now being asked to live on a building site for the foreseeable future. The noise—both from construction and construction traffic will be unbearable—and I already have evidence of Taylor Wimpey starting before the 8am agreed planning time.
The land was earmarked for housing well before Glasdir phase 1a (that before 2012) was complete. Does the petitioner's remarks smack of old fashioned nibyism?
Furthermore, as a resident of Glasdir I will lose the privacy I currently have. The building of more dwellings will have a visual impact and a loss of landscape given that the plans include apartments. A site that is already crammed and overdeveloped, with narrow roads and atrocious parking (despite yellow lines which people simply ignore), is a place where I fear a vehicle and child collision becomes increasingly likely. A fire engine would struggle to come into Glasdir currently. If more dwellings are built around it, there is a guarantee of more vehicles. Combined new plans could see over 100 dwellings – meaning a possible increase of 200 cars. This is 200 more cars next to two primary schools. Hardly fit for the 21st Century, I hope you agree?
I'd agree that we need to reconsider the whole way in which we live to reduce the amount of traffic and that this requires consideration when it comes to setting planning policy. Where I diverge from the petitioner, though, is that this site is in a good location for housing. It's adjacent to existing development and it's close to the town—for walking, cycling and even in reducing the amount of mileage by car—and close to schools. Amenity and such things as views have little relevance in planning, particularly when the land was set aside for housing in the first place. Oh, and parking on double yellow lines won't be confided to Glasdir—just look at Market Street. It's a universal problem. The Wimpey roads are quite narrow. Expect the new site to do better on tyat front.
I then come to my most important point. Children. Where will the children play? This side of Ruthin will lose its green spaces. No homes should ever be built on greenspaces like these when there are other alternatives available. Childhood obesity is already on the rise. With no green spaces for children to play, what provision will you have to solve an ever-increasing crisis? Green spaces that Ysgol Pen Barras & Rhos Street use for Sports Days – will be a site of pollution and traffic. Is this any way to support our children? Of course not. In fact, as a resident of Glasdir who walks his children to school I am horrified to notice the removal of a passage from Glasdir to the school that will mean we will be forced closer to the busy main road.
What are the other alternatives? Most are less attractive than here. The new school site is far less polluted than the Rhos Street sites the new schools replaced. Far, far less.
The schools themselves will also be under a tremendous increase in pressure which will again transform them without the consent of local people. With the combined plans there will be over 100 new homes. This will mean the two schools will be under severe pressure of increased numbers. Numbers which their own facilities (after school clubs for example) cannot deal with. Working parents already must seek expensive alternative provision – and increase in numbers will see the average working parent hit hard again. An increase in pupils could also see an increase in SEN children. The schools have not the ability to deal with this and this will be extremely detrimental to the children who already (and likely to future) attend.
Housing is coming to Rhuthun whether we like it or not. There are other sites also under consideration. Although repeating some of the arguments above, isn't it better to build homes near schools rather than than far away from them? As for children with specific additional learning needs, irrespective of where they live, they tend to require specialist education which is not available in Rhuthun currently.
As at September 7th, 87 people had signed the petition