Moderator: Site Management Team
I just read this article and see that one of the objectors to the road scheme now seems to be unhappy with the idea of housing being built thereorudge wrote:Well, Flintshire Council have apparently granted permission for new housing to be built on part of the alignment that was protected for the road scheme. (Apparently a smaller section of land has been kept back for any potential future works.)
"The road would have decimated the area," she says. "Fifty-plus homes would have been lost." But that *already* happened, hence them now wanting to redevelop that site. Might as well have got on with the road in the first place, then!FurryBoots wrote:It's funny this should come up. I happened to come across this the other day. There's a lot of info here about how to sabotage a road project.
So what she means is that there were 500 homes in the area to begin with?orudge wrote:"The road would have decimated the area," she says. "Fifty-plus homes would have been lost." But that *already* happened, hence them now wanting to redevelop that site. Might as well have got on with the road in the first place, then!FurryBoots wrote:It's funny this should come up. I happened to come across this the other day. There's a lot of info here about how to sabotage a road project.
Come on, you know the average NIMBY struggles to count to 11 unless they're wearing sandles! You really think she'd know what decimate means?ForestChav wrote:So what she means is that there were 500 homes in the area to begin with?
They hadn't when that article was written - it was last updated in August 2009, and the idea of demolishing them was still only a proposal in July 2009. The tenants were evicted long before then, though.orudge wrote:"The road would have decimated the area," she says. "Fifty-plus homes would have been lost." But that *already* happened, hence them now wanting to redevelop that site.
If she does, it'd be the first time I've ever seen anyone using the word decimate to refer to the concept of removing 10% of something or other. You really shouldn't make up meanings for words and criticise people for not using them.ForestChav wrote:So what she means is that there were 500 homes in the area to begin with?
Perhaps not, but Government moves in mysterious ways. I was fairly sure that any new scheme would use up less land, as that was the key criticism in the Inspector's report. A grassy area wouldn't have been a good use for it, as it wouldn't give the Welsh Assembly much of a return for their money, and wouldn't protect the houses behind from the traffic noise.haymansafc wrote:I wasn't personally aware of any housing scheme going ahead on the land left in reserve – although I know a while ago there were plans. I was still under the impression the land was simply going to be grassed over and left for the possible widening in the future. If that was the case, there wasn't much point in demolishing what was there in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're asking. All the criticism related to the idea of the scheme damaging the community. I don't think anyone objected to losing the few open fields it would have affected.haymansafc wrote: New homes from bricks and concrete against an additional narrow strip of tarmac. What exactly is the difference there? The land is still built over...
If you don't tell the press what you think, they're not likely to 'phone you up to ask. I don't remember any businessmen making a public comment on the proposal, and all the politicians with a preference opposed it. Commuters may have supported it, but I don't know if any surveys were ever taken to substantiate the claim.haymansafc wrote:It's funny how the surrounding industry (generating money for the area) and regular commuters who were largely strongly in favour of the scheme have effectively been completely ignored by the local press.
A very fair point. To be honest I think the supporters of the scheme haven't bothered simply because of the climate we live in today. The answer is known even before the question is asked. Personally, I have contacted Flintshire Council who sent an automated "we're looking into it" response back to which that was it. I have also twice tried to contact one particular councilor against the scheme (who shall remain nameless out of respect) at the time it was cancelled to openly and respectfully discuss it with him, to which I have been ignored entirely. I admit that I've given up since then.kieron wrote:If you don't tell the press what you think, they're not likely to 'phone you up to ask. I don't remember any businessmen making a public comment on the proposal, and all the politicians with a preference opposed it. Commuters may have supported it, but I don't know if any surveys were ever taken to substantiate the claim.
Yes, I'd forgotten about this. Thanks for reminding me – I was going to discuss this a few weeks back. I have the leaflet at home about this. It's an interesting idea. Without road improvements and already seeing very heavy rush hour congestion at Aston Hill, I will be intrigued to hear how the councilors against the scheme have to say about this. More people will mean more traffic regardless if they use private or public transport. More industry means more heavy goods vehicles also. How do they plan on getting around that without resorting to any sort of road improvement (that one described as 'disgusting', I can't wait to hear.kieron wrote:Personally speaking, I was more surprised that discussion of the road plan hasn't yet resurfaced in connection with the proposal to build more homes, shops and factories by Garden City.
I don't think FC was alive when the first Roman used the word, when sentencing a deserting group of soldiers. Though commonly pointed out that it doesn't mean that, decimated has acquired a new, far more common, meaning of 'total destruction'.kieron wrote:If she does, it'd be the first time I've ever seen anyone using the word decimate to refer to the concept of removing 10% of something or other. You really shouldn't make up meanings for words and criticise people for not using them.ForestChav wrote:So what she means is that there were 500 homes in the area to begin with?
Wikipediasays:kieron wrote:They hadn't when that article was written - it was last updated in August 2009, and the idea of demolishing them was still only a proposal in July 2009. The tenants were evicted long before then, though.orudge wrote:"The road would have decimated the area," she says. "Fifty-plus homes would have been lost." But that *already* happened, hence them now wanting to redevelop that site.If she does, it'd be the first time I've ever seen anyone using the word decimate to refer to the concept of removing 10% of something or other. You really shouldn't make up meanings for words and criticise people for not using them.ForestChav wrote:So what she means is that there were 500 homes in the area to begin with?
Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".[1]
A unit selected for punishment by decimation was divided into groups of ten; each group drew lots (Sortition), and the soldier on whom the lot fell was executed by his nine comrades, often by stoning or clubbing.
must have kept the hiviz people at RiskAssessmentsrUs busy for a while.
. I'm struggling to think where one would go without it causing so much of a diversion it wouldn't be any slower to just drive through the middle of it. I haven't a clue what's happening on the Dee Bridge at the moment. I take it you mean the temporary 50mph limit over the bridge (co-incidentally recently resurfaced heading east/England bound).? There are yellow signs warning traffic of 'no lighting' or words to that effect, followed by a 50mph limit over the bridge which then reverts to NSL as soon as it opens out into three lanes. There's certainly nothing going on at traffic level. It's been like this for many weeks and just an irritant I go through every weekday evening on my way home from work.M56phil wrote:The other day, it was queuing DOWN the hill into queens ferry due to the work going on in and around the bridge over the Dee! (Does anyone know what exactly they are doing?)
I have always been lead to believe that a link road here was the initial proposal some fifteen years ago following the construction of the new A548 Bridge. It was going to 'cut the corner' as such and take traffic away from Aston Hill and Queensferry. This is why it’s odd to be travelling along the late 90's built D2 A548, over a large and vastly underused bridge simply for the road to curl around back onto it's old S2 alignment at Oakenholt. It's always seemed like such a waste if it was only ever built to serve the industrial estate and traffic bypassing Connah's Quay (of which is still horrendous).M56phil wrote:I am not sure whether an A55-A548 link is going to work, it's a very steep gradient and to be honest the A548 seems constructed for local stuff not long distance traffic as there are loads of roundabouts.
