Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006 – 2026

Hearing Session 2: Constraints to Development, Provision of Infrastructure,

Timing and Delivery

Statement by RPS on behalf of Redrow Homes (2470) and South Wales Land

Developments in relation to Churchlands (part of North East Cardiff –

Strategic Site F)

This Statement sets out the position of Redrow Homes and South Wales Land Developments in

relation to Churchlands (part of North East Cardiff – Strategic Site F) having regard to the Matters

and Issues Agenda set by the Inspector for Hearing Session 2 – Constraints to Development,

Provision of Infrastructure, Timing and Delivery where relevant.

This Statement supplements an earlier Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) in relation to Strategic

Site F: North East Cardiff (West of Pontprennau) (December 2014) agreed with the Council (ED009.6)

following a request made by the Inspector in a letter to the Council dated 2nd October 2014 (ED004).

That earlier SoCG provided:

A Trajectory of proposed Housing provision over the Plan period;

A table summarising Infrastructure Requirements (including an explanatory note’ to clarify the contents); and

An updated site specific Master Planning Framework for the Strategic Site F.

The SoCG demonstrates the collaborative approach that is being taken to the development of

Strategic Site F to ensure that it responds to the spatial vision and objectives of the Council as set

out in the Deposit LDP.

The numbering below reflects that within the Matters and Issues Agenda for the Hearing.

2. Has there been a realistic assessment of how the LDP will be implemented?

a) Does the Plan provide an integrated approach to delivery, particularly in relation to

infrastructure/transport, housing and employment?

It is considered that the Plan does provide an integrated approach to delivery, particularly in relation

to infrastructure/transport, housing and employment.

A comprehensive list of infrastructure requirements has been prepared as part of the SoCG

(ED009.6) for Strategic Site F. The requirements are indicative at this stage (costs and funding

streams) but set out what is likely to be required to support the development of the site over the

Plan Period. Similar information has been provided in relation to the other Strategic Sites.

The phasing, triggers and mechanisms for the delivery of these elements will be secured through

development agreements, negotiations and discussions with the principal landowners. It will be

secured through S106 agreements/CIL payments (as necessary) agreed as part of the future

development management process. The principles, however, are already agreed such that the

Inspector can be assured that the development and required supporting infrastructure will be

phased in a timely and cost-effective manner consistent with the LDP objectives. As the first phase of

Strategic Site F, Churchlands will deliver its proportionate share of the overall infrastructure

requirements for the Strategic Site.

Specifically with regard to transport, Vectos has produced a Position Statement that is agreed by the

developers of the main strategic sites that supports the approach taken with regard to transport

infrastructure. That Position Statement is appended to this Hearing Statement (see Appendix 1).

In addition, with regard to the Churchlands part of Strategic Site F, the LDP (for instance at Point 5 in

the Summary and Chapter 3 Vision and Objectives para 4.a.2) has led the approach that has been

taken. That approach is one of an inextricable connection between land uses, community

placemaking and mobility (see for instance the Churchlands Transport Assessment (TA) submitted

with the original application (13/02000/DCO) in September 2013 paragraphs 1.5, 1.6 and 1.8 and the

TA for the current application dated November 2014, paragraph 1.2).

The LDP seeks to establish an integrated approach to living and travelling in the City (for instance in

Chapter 3 – LDP Vision and Objectives and Objective 4) in such a way to maximise social interaction,

minimise travel and providing for a large choice in mobility. This has been applied to Churchlands by

a focussing its transport infrastructure on (TA September 2013 para 9.3):

Sustainable Travel Corridors, including walking and cycling corridors (TA September 2013,

para 9.14) and public transport corridors (TA September 2013 paras 7.5 and 7.6);

Sustainable Travel Choices (TA September 2013 Sections 5, 6 and 7);

Integration with Neighbouring Areas with a direct connection to Lisvane via Maerdy Lane (TA

September 2013 para 9.11), cycle routes to all key destinations (TA September 2013 para

6.10) and an exemplar bus service (TA September 2013 Appendix F);

Strategic Open Space Corridors which include pleasant, fast and convenient cycle routes (TA

September 2013 para 6.6); and

Sustainable Hierarchy of Movement prioritising walking, cycling and public transport (TA

September 2013 para 9.13).

b) Should development of the Strategic Sites be phased?

Specifically in relation to Strategic Site F, the Trajectory included within the Statement of Common

Ground for Strategic Site F North East Cardiff (Examination Document Number ED009.6) sets out the

anticipated timescale for delivery of the site. The Churchlands site will be the first phase of the

development of Strategic Site F.

The original application for Churchlands is the subject of an appeal against non-determination and

the Council is currently considering a hybrid planning application for residential development of

approximately 1,000 units including a Primary School and a Village Centre (outline) and highway and

drainage infrastructure works (full details) on the site. This application was submitted to the Council

on 10th December 2014.

It is expected that the Churchlands transport design and infrastructure will always remain ahead of

the delivery of the built environment so that it always provides suitable choice and capacity for the

mobility of new and, over time, the existing residents of North East Cardiff.

In terms of whether the overall development of the Strategic Sites should be phased there is

currently a significant shortage of housing land in Cardiff and as such there is a need for housing

developments to come forward in order to address this shortage. Churchlands, if approved, will not

only assist in the delivery of the Council’s LDP requirements, as referred to in the second SoCG for

Hearing Session 6 – Strategic Site F, but will also make a significant contribution to Cardiff’s 5-year

housing land supply requirements.

c) Is there sufficient evidence to show that mixed-use sites would be delivered as planned?

The original (now appealed) application is predominantly residential although it does afford the

opportunity for certain buildings at key nodes/junctions within the site to be designed to be ‘future-

proofed’ such that they could potentially be used to accommodate community facilities and/or small

shops and businesses.

The second application is also predominantly residential but includes a defined mixed use ‘village

centre’ focussed around a new primary school. The exact uses to be included within the ‘village

centre’ are not yet known but the application allows for a wide variety of uses to come forward in

addition to the school within Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, C1, C2, C3, D1, and D2. The village centre

will link with and complement the proposed mixed use centre in the wider North East Cardiff Site, as

well as complementing existing facilities in the surrounding area.

Whilst there is confidence that the mixed use elements of the schemes will be delivered, the exact

composition of those uses will be defined through the process of marketing the site following the

grant of planning permission.

A development viability assessment has been undertaken and it is universally agreed that Strategic

Site F is deliverable/viable over the lifetime of the Plan. If that was not the case there would be no

developer interest in the site. Its viability will, however, be affected by eventual S106 contributions

and possible Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges.

It is being discussed with the Council that in order to deliver the necessary Infrastructure for the NEC

site in its totality (as set out in the SoCG (ED009.6)) the correct allocation of appropriate

contributions are best secured through S106 agreements rather than CIL (which to date has only

reached an early stage in the adoption process) for the strategic sites in Cardiff. This will be

consistent with experiences elsewhere and it will underpin delivery of key infrastructure at the

appropriate time to support the development of the site and meet the requirements set out in the

Masterplanning Framework (SoCG Dec 2014) and Infrastructure Plan.

3. Is the LDP sufficiently clear about the constraints and/or barriers to development and the

infrastructure required to overcome them within the Plan period?

a) Is there sufficient clarity regarding sites at risk from flooding and appropriate mitigation?

Strategic Site F includes some small areas of land at risk of flooding. However, these are not

significant and do not represent a barrier to the development of the NEC allocation.

With regard to the Churchlands site, both the original and the second planning applications were the

subject of full EIA and the applications are accompanied by Environmental Statements (ESs). This

work included detailed assessments of hydrology and flood risk and has confirmed that there are no

significant constraints or barriers to the development of the site in this regard, in particular as the

land at risk of flooding will remain as open space within the developed site.

Indeed, in its response to the original application dated 14th October 2014 Natural Resources Wales

(NRW) confirmed that it had no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds.

b) Significant infrastructure requirements have been identified which will need to be in place

before the Strategic Sites can be delivered. Have all of the infrastructure requirements,

including transport, been taken into account in the Infrastructure Plan?

As set out above in response to Question 2a, a comprehensive list of infrastructure requirements has

been prepared as part of the SoCG (ED009.6) for Strategic Site F. The requirements are indicative at

this stage (costs and funding streams) but set out what is likely to be required to support the

development of the site over the Plan Period. Similar information has been provided in relation to

the other Strategic Sites.

The phasing, triggers and mechanisms for the delivery of these elements will be secured through

development agreements, negotiations and discussions with the principal landowners. It will be

secured through S106 agreements/CIL payments agreed as part of the future development

management process. The principles, however, are already agreed such that the Inspector can be

assured that the development and required supporting infrastructure will be phased in a timely and

cost-effective manner consistent with the LDP objectives.

Specifically in terms of transport, Vectos has produced a Position Statement that is agreed by the

developers of the main strategic sites that supports the approach taken with regard to transport

infrastructure. That Position Statement is appended to this Hearing Statement (see Appendix 1).

The Infrastructure Plan, together with other parts of the LDP (Chapter 4 – Strategy, Key Policies and

Key Diagram Policies KP4, KP5, KP6 and KP8) adequately takes into account the transport

requirements for City growth. Cardiff’s transport strategy, as set out in the LDP (Chapter 5 –

Detailed Policies: Transport Policies T1-T8) can only be realised with delivery of the strategic sites.

Equally, each phase of each strategic site can only come forward by delivering the requisite level of

transport infrastructure (see answer to Q2(b)) and this infrastructure also delivers a part of the LDP’s

transport strategy. In doing so, each new phase of development adds cumulatively to the City’s

transport infrastructure requirement and therefore has a wider benefit than catering just for the site

it relates to. For instance, Churchlands will deliver:

Strategic cycle routes through the site, connecting with existing routes beyond the site (TA

September 2013 Figure 6.1 p26);

Integration at a walkable scale between new and existing communities (for instance, Maerdy

Lane (TA September 2013 paragraph 9.11);

High frequency and high quality ‘rapid transit’ style buses (express) and local buses running

on priority corridors through the site;

The delivery of network management facilities and junctions as they relate to the site; and

Safeguarding routes through the site for future routes brought forward as part of the

remainder of Strategic Site F.

4. Planning Obligations.

a) Is Policy KP7: ‘Planning Obligations’ sufficiently flexible? Should it say that contributions

will be assessed on a case by case basis in line with the provisions of WG Circular 13/97

‘Planning Obligations’ and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as

amended?

As set out above in response to Question 2c, it is being discussed with the Council that in order to

deliver the necessary Infrastructure for the NEC site in its totality (as set out in the SoCG (ED009.6))

the correct allocation of appropriate contributions are best secured through S106 agreements rather

than CIL (which to date has only reached an early stage in the adoption process) for the strategic

sites in Cardiff. This will be consistent with experiences elsewhere and it will underpin delivery of key

infrastructure at the appropriate time to support the development of the site and meet the

requirements set out in the Masterplanning Framework (SoCG Dec 2014) and Infrastructure Plan.

Specifically in relation to Churchlands, the S106 will be addressed prior to the adoption of the LDP

either via the determination of the current application in March 2015 or via the appeal process in

May 2015. The obligations will be established on a site wide basis for Strategic Site F and

proportionally allocated to Churchlands, as confirmed in the first SoCG (ED009.6).

b) Should Policy KP6: ‘New Infrastructure’ set out its priorities for contributions linked to

delivery of the Plan’s strategy?

As stated in response to Question 2a above, a comprehensive list of infrastructure requirements has

been prepared as part of the SoCG (ED009.6) for Strategic Site F and whilst the requirements are

indicative at this stage (costs and funding streams) they set out what is likely to be required to

support the development of the site over the Plan Period. Similar information has been provided in

relation to the other Strategic Sites.

Furthermore, as stated in response to Questions 2a and 4a above, Churchlands will deliver its

proportionate share of the overall infrastructure requirements for the Strategic Site.

c) Is further clarity required to explain how contributions towards infrastructure will be

sought after April 2015 when it will no longer be possible to pool Section 106 contributions

(for 5+ developments) which could be funded via CIL? Will this lead to a policy void which

will affect the Plan’s ability to deliver the necessary infrastructure?

Please see the response to Question 4a above.

d) Has an assessment of all the LDP requirements and how they could cumulatively impact on

the viability of development and delivery been undertaken?

Please see the response to Question 4a above. In addition, it is considered that if an appropriate

level of CIL is not achieved for the strategic sites then it is likely that delivery of key infrastructure at

the appropriate time to support the development of the sites and meet the requirements set out in

the Masterplanning Framework (SoCG Dec 2014) and Infrastructure Plan will be compromised.

5. Is delivery of the LDP strategy realistic and is it founded on robust evidence?

a) Does the Plan provide sufficient clarity about how and when development will be

delivered over the Plan period?

Specifically in relation to Strategic Site F, the Trajectory included within the Statement of Common

Ground for Strategic Site F North East Cardiff (Examination Document Number ED009.6) sets out the

anticipated timescale for delivery of the site. The Churchlands site will be the first phase of the

development of Strategic Site F and will make a significant contribution to Cardiff’s 5-year housing

land supply requirements.

b) Is there sufficient clarity and certainty regarding the funding and timescales of the

provision of infrastructure/transport and the links to development necessary to deliver

the Plan strategy?

As set out above in response to Question 2c, it is being discussed with the Council that in order to

deliver the necessary Infrastructure for the NEC site in its totality (as set out in the SoCG (ED009.6))

the correct allocation of appropriate contributions are best secured through S106 agreements rather

than CIL (which to date has only reached an early stage in the adoption process) for the strategic

sites in Cardiff. This will be consistent with experiences elsewhere and it will underpin delivery of key

infrastructure at the appropriate time to support the development of the site and meet the

requirements set out in the Masterplanning Framework (SoCG Dec 2014) and Infrastructure Plan.

Specifically with regard to transport, Vectos has produced a Position Statement that is agreed by the

developers of the main strategic sites that supports the approach taken with regard to transport

infrastructure. That Position Statement is appended to this Hearing Statement (see Appendix 1).

The LDP transport strategy is considered to be entirely realistic and achievable. It follows the

pattern of development that other quality cities achieve, improving community and mobility whilst

weakening the bond between economic growth and traffic. Comfort regarding certainty and clarity

of funding and timescale is substantially linked to the delivery of the strategic sites (see answer to

Q3(b)). In particular, Churchlands is demonstrably coming forward and discussions in terms of its

transport infrastructure are well progressed with the Council, public transport operators and other

key stakeholders.

Appendix 1 – Vectos Position Statement

LDP Strategic Sites, Statement of Common Ground

Transport Infrastructure – Position Statement

Introduction

1. To assist the Inspector at the Cardiff LDP Examination (2015) this is a Position Statement

from the Parties involved with bringing forward Deposit LDP (LDP) Strategic Sites (SS) C,

D, E, F and G.

2. This is a summary document. Each of the Parties is happy to expand on the content of

the note, and may do so separately in response to the written questions already raised

by the Inspectors.

3. It is not an exclusive list of matters, but is aimed at addressing the most salient issues.

4. The Parties are:

• Castell Y Mynach Estate (developers for Site E)

• Redrow plc (joint party

developers for the

substantial part of SSC,

and the ‘Churchlands’

area of SSF)

• Taylor Wimpey/NEC

Landowners’ Consortium

(developer/land owners

for a substantial part of

SSF)

• Persimmon (joint party

developers for a substantial part of SSD, and SSG)

5. Between them, these developers represent the LDP strategic sites in North West and

North East Cardiff.

Page: 2

Policy Context

6. The transport context is set by Planning Policy Wales July 2014 (PPW), having regard to,

amongst others, the Wales Spatial Plan 2008 (WSP).

7. The Welsh Government (WG) aims (PPW 8.1.1):

• to extend transport choice,

• to secure accessibility,

• to encourage a more efficient and effective transport system

• to achieve greater use of healthy forms of travel

• to minimise the need to travel

8. It supports a transport hierarchy (PPW 8.1.3) in the following order (highest first):

• Walking and cycling

• Public Transport

• Private motor vehicles

9. It expects this to be achieved (PPW 8.1.4) through land use planning by:

• reducing the need to travel, especially by private car, by locating development

where there is good access by public transport, walking and cycling;

• locating development near other related uses to encourage multi‐purpose

trips and reduce the length of journeys;

• improving accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport;

• ensuring that transport is accessible to all, taking into account the needs of

disabled and other less mobile people;

• promoting walking and cycling;

• supporting the provision of high quality public transport;

• supporting traffic management measures;

• supporting necessary infrastructure improvements; and

• ensuring that, as far as possible, transport infrastructure does not contribute

to land take, urban sprawl or neighbourhood severance.

10. The Wales Spatial Plan 2008 (WSP) sets out the planning agenda at a spatial level.

11. It supports reducing the need to travel by co‐locating jobs, housing and services (WSP

13.3). It includes changing behaviour in favour of walking and cycling, public transport

and car sharing.

12. The LDP supports the objectives of PPW and WSP. These strategic sites have been, and

are being, designed in accord with these principles.

Page: 3

Working Together

13. The Parties have worked closely with the Council in evolving the designs for each

strategic site, culminating in schemes that are now at an advanced transport planning

stage. These provide confidence that developments consistent with the aspirations of

the LDP are deliverable, viable and will promote and encourage the transport principles

for Cardiff expected by the LDP.

North East Cardiff, SSF and SSG

14. There is an extant planning consent, approved at planning committee in 2014, for a

mixed use development at SSG, incorporating, and making contributions towards, the

strategic transport concepts set out in the LDP.

15. Following many and

involved working group

sessions between the Council

and Redrow, a revised

planning application has

recently been submitted for

the Churchlands area of SSF.

An earlier planning

application by Redrow is the

subject of an appeal. The

masterplan and the transport

design and assessment have been set in the context of SSF and SSG.

16. The detailed transport working group and assessment sessions, which have involved

Cardiff Council, Design Commission for Wales, Welsh Government, public transport

operators, Sustrans and a development team representing Redrow and other

landowners, have been ongoing for over two years.

17. At the Council’s insistence, the masterplanning and the design and assessment of the

transport networks, have been predicated first on development of SSF, incorporating

the effects of SSG

18. The transport philosophy for these two strategic sites has been considered holistically,

incorporating both the approved SSG scheme and the notional masterplan for the

entirety of SSF. The transport impact assessments have considered movement within,

and to and from, both strategic sites.

19. Planning and transport officers of the Council have influenced and considered the

transport elements of the Churchlands element of SSF. They have advised that, subject

to minor clarification and detail, no further submission of evidence or transport

assessment is required ahead of determination of the planning submission(s).

Page: 4

20. The relevant Parties are satisfied that in transport terms SSF and SSG are deliverable,

achievable and capable of providing sustainable growth in the City in a way that also

contributes to the wider LDP transport strategy and provides transport and social

benefits for existing residents and visitors.

North West Cardiff, SSC, SSD and SSE

21. Discussion and design workshops, involving Cardiff Council, Design Commission for

Wales, Welsh Government, public transport operators, Sustrans, ‘Redrow and Plymouth

Estates’ (for SSC), and Persimmon (SSD) over more than two years have resulted in

advanced masterplan and transport system designs for these strategic sites and the

North West transport corridor.

22. The transport

philosophy, design and

assessment have been

considered holistically

for the three corridor

strategic sites, and the

existing north west area

population.

23. There are planning

applications awaiting

determination for SSC

and the substantial proportion of SSD.

24. The content of these applications has been led by the design workshops. The proposals

contain, articulate and demonstrate how the transport principles and philosophies

expressed in the LDP will be implemented.

25. The proposals, and the evidential base and assessments that underpin them, reinforce

the confidence expressed within the LDP that development of all three of these

strategic sites is, in transport terms, deliverable, achievable and capable of providing

sustainable growth in Cardiff.

26. These schemes will accelerate already changing travel habits in a way that provides net

benefit in the City in the plan period, improving mobility choice and convenience.

27. The initiatives associated with these schemes, including Park and Ride (SSD), the use of

technology to provide flexible and seamless travel options, cycle super routes,

personalised travel planning, public transport priority, a step change in public transport

quality and facility, and perhaps most importantly masterplanning for community first,

displays an understanding of, and commitment to, the LDP transport philosophy.

Page: 5

Travel Mode Shift

28. As part of the assessment process that led to the LDP in its current form, Cardiff Council

undertook a high level traffic modelling assessment of Cardiff City. Based on that, it

drew the conclusion that for commuter peak car driver convenience to remain at

current levels by the end of the Plan period, the changes in the way in which people

would live and travel, which are already evident, would have to be accelerated.

29. For that car driver status quo to remain, it predicted that the average proportion of

people driving to work across the City would reduce to 33%.

30. When added to its expectation that 17% of people would travel to work as a car

passenger, it forecast that 50% of people would travel to work by car. This is the

derivation of the 50:50 mode split referred to in the LDP.

31. It compares with an average travel to work mode split across the City of 64% by car

(driver and passenger) in 2011, made up of 59% car driver and 5% car passenger.

32. Cardiff Council’s traffic model was intentionally high level, and did not assess the

specific effects in the north east or the north west corridors.

33. The work undertaken for the strategic sites has specifically assessed these corridors and

these ambitions. It includes traffic models that specifically take into account traffic and

movement associated with all of the strategic sites in the north east and north west.

34. This work led to the conclusion that in broad terms, car driver mode split in north east

Cardiff in the vicinity of the strategic sites would be about 50% if car convenience were

to remain broadly similar. In the north west corridor, the figure was broadly 40%. This

is consistent with the LDP investigation work, where the equivalent average car driver

mode split is 33%.

35. The Parties are satisfied that sufficient transport networks (all modes) will exist, as a

combination of existing provision, design of the strategic sites, and strategic new

provision, to conveniently accommodate mobility.

36. Cardiff is a relatively small City, and the terrain is generally flat. It is a pleasant and easy

City to move around within at a walkable and cycleable scale.

37. The infrastructure already exists for movement by foot, by cycle, by bus, by rail and by

car. The greatest load on this network is during the weekday commuter peak periods.

At this time, car drivers experience greater inconvenience than at other times. Journey

times by car are longer.

38. However, it is not the purpose of planning policy to prioritise protecting the

convenience of commuter car drivers. It is the purpose of transport planning policy to

encourage community interaction, social inclusion, economic growth, and in doing so to

provide for a choice of mobility, and encourage the most energy efficient movement.

39. Many of the networks in Cardiff are not under significant load during the commuter

peaks, including the walking, cycling and bus networks. There is already available

capacity for easy movement at the busiest times. As travelling by car becomes

Page: 6

increasingly constrained, or the behaviour of people changes, whether through

education or changing priorities, people are making greater use of these available

networks.

40. For that reason, the approach in the LDP, supported by the Parties, is not to forecast a

traditional traffic demand, and then seek to accommodate it within an empirical limit by

building bigger roads (predict and provide). It is to think smart about mobility.

41. It is to move away from the premise that travel must be habitual, to a realisation that

travel in the modern world is going to be about flexibility and choice, and often guided

by an information technology platform on a computer or a smart phone. People now

look for flexible seamless travel, and this will include virtual travel (the use of

technology to replace travel).

42. The LDP transport strategy assumes that ‘stick and carrot’ approach. It assumes that

people will act to minimise their inconvenience.

43. Driving to work will become increasingly inconvenient for some people as a

consequence of the LDP strategy and the Council’s approach to transport, with, for

instance, increased parking charges and greater priority on the road network given to

non car modes at the expense of car convenience. This is a ‘stick’ and is already

happening (and will continue).

44. With the stick comes the carrot. This is greater awareness of the existing alternatives,

management measures (for instance, walking buses to Primary schools) to encourage

their use, and provision of new alternatives, spreading choice and maximising

convenience. This may include cycle super routes, seamless public transport, and

priority over car drivers.

45. Approaching travel planning in this way does in fact maximise the convenience of the

road network for those that must drive, or who continue to choose to drive, and this is

even if it is relatively inconvenient compared to other modes.

46. The consequence is that the traffic modelling used to inform the planning process has

been used to predict the number of movements that can pass through the network at

the busiest times assuming a specific level of convenience. This allows carefully

considered judgements to be made about the need for mobility choice, mobility

management and the necessary capacity of the other networks.

47. This has informed the way in which each strategic site has been masterplanned, the

type and quantum of new transport infrastructure to come forward as part of those

sites or as part of LDP strategy, and the type of travel management systems (Travel

Plans) required for each site and for the City.

48. All of this forms part of the planning submissions and representations for SSC, SSD and

SSF. The Parties are satisfied that the balance is right in terms of the design, the

strategic transport measures provided for by each site, and the capacity of the transport

networks.

Page: 7

49. The Parties are satisfied that the transport infrastructure that will be delivered with

each of the strategic sites will not just cater for the site itself, but will contribute to the

wider LDP transport strategy.

50. The LDP transport strategy can only be delivered with implementation of the strategic

sites. Implementation of each phase of each strategic site delivers cumulatively to

support and implement the LDP transport strategy.

Cardiff Council Transport Strategy Initiatives

51. The consistent and passionate approach by all of these strategic site developers makes

it easier for the Council to deliver the non strategic site measures in a timely manner,

and increases the confidence that the LDP initiatives will be effective and will come

forward in the Plan period.

The Overarching Transport Strategy

52. The transport philosophy for each strategic site takes its lead from the LDP strategy, and

is predicated on:

• Design

• Choice

• Behaviour

• Management

53. It is Design in terms of creating a community, where

public interaction, outdoor and indoor, is the norm.

Where friends and day to day activities are nearby and

easy to get

to, and

where it is

not an

automatic

reaction

when

leaving

home to get

into a car.

Page: 8

54. The site masterplans are

predicated on a pedestrian scale

environment, where people will feel

comfortable and safe in any of our

environments. Motor vehicles will

be accommodated as part of these

environments, in a way which keeps

speeds within that pedestrian

comfort zone, and where the desire to undertake antisocial actions is minimised or

removed entirely.

55. Choice is important. Choice in whether to walk,

cycle or scoot to school; choice to enable walking

or cycling to the Park and Ride site, or bus stop.

Choice to enable commuters to choose to cycle,

to work,

or to use

electric

assist

cycles,

even if it’s

only one

day per week, but when it suits them. Choice

will include driving, but with relatively similar,

or even less, convenience than the alternatives.

We want to build the infrastructure to best

provide this choice.

56. We want to promote sustainable living and

to do this we want to encourage the most energy efficient types of travel.

57. This means prioritising cycling for short and longer trips, and walking for short trips.

58. Behaviour matters. It is no

accident that in Groningen in

Holland, 60% of all trips are made by

bicycle. The people of Groningen

are not ‘cyclists’ per se, in the same

way that the people of Cardiff are

not ‘drivers’. They are simply Dutch

people, who happen to use cycles to

get around, because, by design, the

Page: 9

choice exists, and so does the culture. We want to work towards this cultural

acceptance of cycling.

59. Management is the smart way to control movement. For instance, people travelling to

school make up 48% (27% of cars) of the morning peak period movement (much higher

than travel to work at 27% (37% of cars)), yet few existing schools in the City have active

travel plans.

60. Changing travel habits to existing schools, and making sure that travel to the new

schools is efficient and sustainable, is a relatively easy win, through management.

61. The highway network does

and will experience queuing at

certain times of the day. As

part of the overarching

transport strategy, the aim is

to manage where these

queues occur. This Network

Management Strategy (NMS)

will control network capacity

at specific places, and provide

relative benefit for non car

travel.

62. For instance, the current

strategy for SSF is to limit the

exit capacity from the site onto

the existing road network,

whilst providing bus and cycle

priority through the site and

within the existing network.

63. For north west Cardiff,

(SSC, SSD and SSE) the strategy

is to control queuing, and

capacity on Llantrisant Road. In

particular, this will result in holding traffic in platoons away from the Air Quality

Management Area in Llandaff.

The Cycling Network

64. The strategic site developers have worked with Sustrans to provide a draft masterplan

for cycle super routes in the City, which is consistent with the Council’s aspirations for

cycling in the City. The Council will consider cycling in detail in a study commencing in

September 2015.

Page: 10

65. This masterplaIIIt proposes a network of priority cycle super routes, many of which are

not dissimilar to the existing Taff Trail. The Taff Trail has seen a substantial change in

use by commuting cyclists over recent years.

66. Within each site there will be a network of roads and paths. In some places, largely the

main transport corridors, cycling will be segregated to provide higher speed

convenience for cyclists. In other streets, cyclists will share the street with vehicles.

Public Transport

67. A choice of travel which includes high quality

seamless public transport (bus rapid transit),

and local transport, is an important aspect of

the strategic site designs and the LDP strategy.

Page: 11

North East Cardiff

68. SSF and SSG will deliver this

through a network of local and

express bus routes. These have

been designed in conjunction with

the local public transport

operators. The priority routes are

contained with the LDP.

69. For SSF, the expectation is that in

the order of 18% of journeys will

be by bus, requiring about 15

buses an hour visiting the site.

70. This provides the opportunity for new buses to serve Lisvane, which is currently poorly

served by bus at one bus per hour during the day. By the end of the Plan period, we

expect in the order of 5 ‐ 7 buses per hour serving the existing Lisvane community.

North West Cardiff

71. A substantial contribution to

the strategic use of public

transport will be the new Park

and Ride site and associated

transport hub at Junction 33 of

the M4, which is part of SSD.

72. This has the opportunity to link

with other initiatives, to

provide significant local

improvements to modal choice as well as regional services along the M4, and

connecting Cardiff City Centre with SSC, SSD, SSE and the City region.

73. It will contribute to greater

choice, and a reduced need to drive

into the City Centre. It is consistent

with plans to make commuter

parking in the City Centre less

attractive.

74. Bus priority will be provided

through SSD and SSC, as well as

along Llantrisant Road and

Cathedral Road.

Page: 12

75. One of the benefits of bus based transport is the flexibility it affords to react to changing

conditions. The strategic sites will pump prime new routes and services with an

appropriate quality and frequency of service. The bus operators will increase service

frequency to match demand on a commercial basis resulting in cumulative benefits

across Cardiff.

76. For clarity, a non bus based rapid transit system serving the north west corridor is not

necessary for the delivery of the north west strategic sites. The rapid transit concept is

currently the subject of

investigation. This

investigation includes

the nature of any

route, the nature of the

vehicles, and the

emphasis, i.e. whether

it is an express route to

the City region, with

limited stops in Cardiff

City, or whether it can

better serve the north

west area of Cardiff.

77. The Parties are satisfied that suitable provision has been made in the masterplanning to

date to accommodate whatever rapid transit system is considered appropriate for each

area of the City region.