A normal village or town is structured with a high-density centre (containing shops, pubs, banks etc. plus relatively high density housing, perhaps as flats). It is likely to have good road access and public transport will service it. The village centre is also likely to attract doctors, dentists and other important services.  As one moves away from the centre there may be some industrial premises and housing becomes less dense.  Further away still from the centre the building pattern is almost entirely residential and is the least dense of any in the township area. etc.

This pattern is not rocket-science - it's natural and obvious. It matches service-users with service-providers. I's becoming more important too, in the shape of sustainable developments. The argument is that by getting service-users and service-providers close together, there is less travel time and car use involved, better use of public transport and the generation of a community spirit.

Which brings us back to the NSE's proposals. The worst possible place to build the highest density housing in a town or village is on its periphery. Yet that's what the NSE's proposals amount to. It's as far away from the village centre as it can be (so far, in fact, it's beyond the boundary of existing housing and out into the Green Belt).

So how would the 880 new people get around if the fringe development went ahead? By car. Outward and return. Time and time again.

Cycling and walking are possible, but time consuming and not easy if one is carrying things. Public transport by bus is sporadic and unlikely to improve when the Newlands campus closes.  Train stations are out of walking range and realistically are only available to the fit and brave cyclist.

This NSE's proposed housing estate is a classic example of a fringe development.