The City Council have made a planning application to demolish and replace a small pedestrian bridge in a small public park. A small matter one would think. The Councils Parks department are making an effort to replicate the existing structure but given current budgetary constraints we can at best expect a well- meaning pastiche which will lack the substance, character and durability of the original. The parks department are to be commended for the efforts that they have made but the proposal raises the wider issue of the conservation status of that part of the park itself. The area affected forms part of the Roath Mill Conservation Area but is not designated an Historic Park as are the adjoining Westville and Waterloo Gardens. I do not understand why this part was excluded given that they were created at the same time, form part of the same conservation area and, to all appearances, remain very much of a piece. The existing bridge is of that period and forms part of that same heritage. It is a small but characteristic feature in an exemplary piece of Edwardian urbanism. I would therefore consider it a custodial asset of the city and as such a feature which would warrant restoration rather than replacement.
If that argument is lost then I suggest we must investigate the redesignation of that part of the park to prevent any further 'whittling away' of its character in future. The parks and squares of Victorian and Edwardian Cardiff are one of the principal assets of the city. The smaller less formal spaces such as Westville Walk are features which may by and large be taken for granted. They are part of our common inheritance from a time of greater relative prosperity in the city when there was more generosity in the provision of public space. They may evidence that the standards imposed on developers by Victorian landowners were more rigorous and far sighted than those imposed by the current planning authority. We should however take collective responsibility for this legacy acting as we feel necessary as individuals to foster and maintain civic pride and ensure the proper maintenance and conservation of the whole. The loss of a visual feature like the bridge is merely another incident in the gradual erosion of quality. The provision of these parks also serve a practical purpose beyond visual amenity. They are an important environmental asset, in contemporary parlance a sustainable drainage system which reduces the impact of surface water drainage discharges. Our civic forefathers gifted us a very attractive means of draining away surface water run-off through collection, storage, and cleaning before allowing it to be released slowly back into the environment through open water courses. This is in marked contrast to the effects of conventional drainage systems that often allow for flooding, pollution of the environment – with the resultant harm to wildlife – and contamination of groundwater sources.
Westville Walk is part of that greater system, a civic amenity provided a hundred years ago and, in my view, no less ‘historic’ than its neighbouring public spaces. Any diminution of its original quality should be resisted and opposed. The current view as expressed by a local councillor is that we will probably have to accept the proposals for replacement of the bridge as they stand, albeit with the original pillars retained and the additional design features added if feasible. Whilst it may be possible to make objections and delay the process it is unlikely that the Council would find the money to preserve the Edwardian bridge. The implied threat is that any protracted delay may result in the budget allocated for replacement of the bridge being diverted elsewhere. In that case the bridge, no longer deemed safe, might simply be closed to the public and left to decay further. Or demolished and not replaced. The proposed replacement currently proposed is not then the worse option. It is not even the cheapest possible option but may be considered half a job for half the price. The lesser of two evils.In conclusion we should remind ourselves that when we choose the lesser of two evils we still choose evil.
