The polls were only open from 4pm till 9pm. The turnout was higher than many people expected, especially on the No side. You may say that only 13% of people registered their disapproval but on that basis only 0.3% of people registered their approval.

The greenfield developments proposed in the LDP are mainly to make a quick buck for landowners and developers. How will UHW, one of the most under-pressure hospitals in the EU in terms of its A&E and bed occupancy, cope with even a small increase in population?

It won't.

How will the bottlenecks at Ely Bridge, the Heathcock roundabout in Llandaf or Gabalfa interchange cope with even a small increase in traffic?

They won't.

This idea that a city needs to grow or it will stagnate is utter nonsense. Look at Montevideo, for example. Population tends to increase in most countries but those people don't have to be housed in Cardiff. With a metro in existence they can just as easily live in commuter towns, like those which feed into every other major city in the world. The best places to live in the UK are places like York, Cambridge and Norwich. All cities about half the size of Cardiff.

There is a campaign in Cambridge to prevent it being swamped by new housing. Opponents feel that by expanding too fast the city will lose its charm and grind to a halt. It will lose its liveability, just like Cardiff will if this LDP is implemented.

London is just about the wealthiest city on Earth and has regained its preeminence by not building on green fields but on brownfield sites and investing heavily in public transport before new developments are built. Look at the master planning for Nine Elms, the Isle of Dogs, Stratford, Royal Dock, Surrey Quays, Battersea Power Station, Paddington Basin and the biggest of all, the impending Old Oak Common. The public transport comes first.

Our capital should be something we can continue to be proud of and we need a massive investment in public transport before it can grow beyond its current physical boundaries. The pro-LDP people on here are mainly amateurs. James, Barden and Mark Barry all have some expertise but that doesn't make them right. The council's own consultation papers on the LDP regarding traffic and the environment all say, without fail, that the planned housing will be disastrous for Cardiff unless new public transport infrastructure is built.

Do you understand now, Mr accountant?

Not a fact. Conjecture. I walked round Fairwater for hours on the day and most peoplehad no idea that there was a referendum. It was poorly publicised by the council (I wonder why) and there was very little in the media.

FACT?

What I understand is that you have an opinion and that is all you are offering. By all means disagree with the experts but that doesn't make your argument a fait accompli.

Pretty much everyone accepts we need better transport but that doesn't mean we should stop building houses in the interim. As the population grows where would you have them live?

People should live near public transport nodes or within walking or cycling distance of schools, workplaces or shops. Urban design has had these as precepts for the past 25 years. Cities aren't building car dependent suburbs on the fringes of their urban area. They are building upwards, mid and high-rise after adding public transport. The idea that you build the equivalent of Waterhall without improving the infrastructure would be laughable in most European countries.

I am an expert in this field too Jantra. I know what I am talking about. I was born in Cardiff. I studied planning here. I have further degrees in the field. I have further degrees in other fields.

The LDP is about making money for greedy developers. Didn't you know that Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales is under investigation for selling huge parcels of public land to South Wales Land Developments?

The police and Wales Audit Office have been investigating this deal for 18 months. Land in Lisvane was sold off, just before Labour's LDP was first announced. 120 acres sold as agricultural land at £15,000 an acre when it was worth up to £2 million an acre as housing development land. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23304989

The wilful ignorance of posters on this site amazes me almost as much as the knowledge that people tied to this alleged fraud probably post here to nudge the narrative the developers way.

Sad.

Firstly I'm well aware of the land that was sold off but then land is only worth what someone will pay for it. You can't equate the value of land with planning consent with land without. The value comes from the consent.

Secondly, you didn't answer the question. Where do you propose we house the rising population?

Finally, I couldn't care whether you are an expert or not? It matters not a jot. What I do find bemusing is you first claim experts are not necessarily right and then tell us you are an expert as if to give your own argument more credence. Your arguments are all over the place. Perhaps if you adopted a consistent position your message might come through more clearly

Wow. The land was sold, by an arm of the Labour-run government, for 1% of its potential value, 2 months before the LibDems and Plaid lost control of Cardiff Council. Labour fully expected to win that May 2012 election and within weeks they produced their new LDP. Fast workers eh? It was almost like "here's one we prepared earlier."

Included in that LDP was the Lisvane land! Which was now owned by South Wales Land Developments, based in Guernsey. That was one lucky purchase! Imagine, they bought that parcel of land in Lisvane for about £2 million and it within two months it was suddenly worth about £250 million! Even with the maximum 50% clawback that still means a profit of over £100 million for the lucky directors of that company!

Like winning the lottery!

Do you understand or should I t y p e m o r e s l o w l y ?

Experts can be right or wrong, of course. Are you just trolling in your Colonel Cardiff-described 'Feedbackian cycle' way again?

The land sale is very worrying but only affects some sites in the Pontprennau - Lisvane area as far as I'm aware. I don't believe a similar issue is involved in Waterhall, nor at Creigau, nor at "St Ederyn's Village", nor at "Churchlands". So to the extent that our discussion is about greenfield more generally, not just those under investigation - this is somewhat of a red herring.

In any case, the issue with the sites in question is not one of "greedy developers".. its one of, potentially, fraud. A very serious issue that needs to be properly addressed. Although its also worth considering a reverse case. It would also be somewhat worrying if the Welsh Govt / Cardiff Council had been refusing planning permission, but then having bought the land at agricultural values, then gave planning permission and sold for a hefty profit. You might worry then about conflict of interest. So the case isn't quite as clear cut as it looks at first glance.

But lets examine this "greedy developers" point more broadly. Why would "greedy developers" want to built at Waterhall rather than Wattstown? Well, its because the prices they can sell for at Waterhall are substantially higher. New build prices in Cardiff are around double what they are in the upper Valleys.

But what does that tell you? Higher prices means there is higher demand for property in Cardiff than in the Valleys. Higher demand means people would prefer to live in Cardiff than the Valleys.

So, in essence, it is not "greedy developers" that are what drives this. It is the aggregation of the preferences of thousands upon thousands of current and potential residents of South Wales. Those greedy people who've grown up in Cardiff and want to stay there... Or those greedy Valley's folk who want to come down from the hills and live closer to work.. how dare they!

Fundamentally, the problem here is one of insiders and outsiders. Constraining the development of Cardiff favours insiders over outsiders. Those already on the property ladder in the city see the value of their houses boosted. And, yes they might enjoy higher residential amenity, with potentially less congestion, and views over greenfields rather than new housing estates. Outsiders on the other hand lose out - they have to live somewhere they'd rather not live as they can now no longer afford Cardiff, or they have to live in a smaller less suitable property, or in a less nice area of Cardiff.

If this were a zero sum game, it would be just a case of redistribution from outsiders to insiders. That would be bad enough for me. But as we have detailed in discussions about commuting, about agglomeration effects, etc, I think it is very much a negative sum game, with the city and Wales more generally worse off in a world where Cardiff is unable to fulfil its potential.

And I have experience of living in both London and Cambridge. And I can tell you there is a dark side to the success of both.

London is a global success story. That is a story of deregulated finance in the 1980s, and the growth of agglomeration effects.

And yes, there has been a steady increase in the density of the population of London boroughs, through the redevelopment of former industrial sites. However, there has also been a steady fall in the average size of properties, and a growth in overcrowding. Houses that were once the single-family homes for the lower-middle class got split into flats for lower-middle class couples and singles. Those same flats are now affordable only to those in professional jobs. Those working in the low paid service industries increasingly live further from the centre, in houses that have been converted to have 1 Kitchen, 1 bathroom, no living room and 4 or more bedrooms - often with a couple in each bedroom! And at the very bottom, people live in converted sheds in back gardens in Newham and Barking.

The failure to build enough in London and the surrounding area means property is too expensive. This goes back to Greenbelt and other planning restrictions. The high rents, small properties and overcrowding are just about a price worth paying to live in one of the most vibrant cities in the world, where career opportunities exceed anything else in the UK. But they are a price that wouldn't need to be paid (at least to the same extent) if planning freed up sites on the edge of London. That would bring prices down, encouraging some people to move out, in turn, reducing demand and prices in London etc.

Cambridge has similar problems, although obviously on a smaller scale. Its successful economy could be a real driver for the wider region if the city could grow. But instead, people again drive in from places like Newmarket, Baldock, St Neots, Ely, and even further afield. Because so much of the employment is at business and science parks well away from the railway station, this means long car commutes. That means more pollution than if people were living closer to work in an expanded Cambridge.

Fundamentally, its not the "quality of life" in Cambridge that makes it so successful - it is the agglomeration effects. AstraZeneca is moving there not because its staff will enjoy Parkers Piece and punting on the Cam - but because it has a great research university and dozens of other life sciences businesses based there! So the city would continue to be successful economically if it grew - indeed, it would probably become even more attractive for business rather than less.

Also a broader point for you to ponder. If you are a Plaid supporter, I would imagine that you are fairly left-wing. You don't like inequality? But where does inequality arise from? Well, a prime generator of inequality is the ownership of something which generates an economic rent (that is, an above normal rate of return). Rents are created when you artificially constrain the supply of something - like land (or oil, or water, or knowledge - such as via patents). So planning by restricting developable land generates rents for (a) owners of existing properties and (b)owners of land with development permission. This generates inequality as these people are made better off compared to renters, who are typically poorer in the first place. Which presumably, as a left winger you don't like. Now, as I've argued before, there is a need for planning because of negative externalities. I guess ultimately, what our discussion boils down to is whether the negative externalities associated with expanding Cardiff are worse than the inequality and inefficiency that is generated by constraining Cardiff. I find it very interesting though that a left wing party - which you'd think would care particularly about inequality - is taking a position that actually increases rather than helps ameliorate inequality.

And to end, two final points.

First. Your background as a planning graduate is not necessarily something which I think makes you more qualified for discussing strategic planning. Why? Because I think it encourages you to think that development can be planned on a macro-level. That we can decide that people should live in Merthyr and not Cardiff, even if they actually want to live in Cardiff as evidenced by house prices. Trying to push water uphill does not work - economic activity and people will ultimately try to go where it would have gone anyway. The proper role of planning policy is not to redirect development away from favoured areas. It is instead to try to ensure developments are designed in an appropriate way, with proper amenities, proper transport etc.

Second. Jantra made a key point earlier and I want to reiterate it. Some of us make judgements about policies on their own merit, not with reference to the political party that proposed that policy. And indeed, let our views on parties be shaped by the policies they propose.

It's worth bearing in mind that the Metro proposal involves RCT as well as Cardiff. It's designed not only to serve the proposed developments in Waterhall and Creigiau but also the Llantrisant / Talbot Green area. Waterhall and Creigiau are designed as stops - not termini.

@voice of reason

You stated earlier that you were an expert and you then stated that experts can be also be right or wrong. Doesn't it follow that as an expert that you too could be wrong on this issue?

The whole LDP process is tainted and as I expected you have come up with a couple of essays to appease your paymasters in the Labour Party. I am not left or right wing, those are terms which aren't useful, in my view.

I talked about landowners and developers. Who owns Waterhall? It's Other Windsor, a cousin of the Queen. He and his family will make hundreds of millions of pounds from this land sale.

For you to say that just because one site in the LDP is under investigation for gigantic fraud that it doesn't undermine the integrity or validity of the whole plan is laughable.

The way you shill for Labour isn't laughable though. Rambling on about equality and externalities is an attempt to blind others with your inexact 'science'. You are an economist who rubbished the idea of a recession and related housing bubble. Labour increased inequality more than any government in a century, by the way.

London and Cambridge are successful for more reasons that you outlined, Cambo Dai/London David. I note that you never called yourself Ponty Dewi. I wonder why?

Land in the UK is limited and we need to improve public transport before any housing development, whether it be brown or green field. Cardiff is too crowded and the road and hospital infrastructure could not cope with large increases in population.

I truly believe that you are under orders from Carl Sergeant to push these unsustainable housing developments on forums such as these. Some FOIs will be going in.

Happy holiday.

By protecting the community now it endangers the future of that community. Everything grows, from populations to weeds, that's life. By ensuring that homes are not built means we disperse people away from the places that they want to live. Communities grow, adapt, change but should be rooted in a common past and a shared future. By denying developments like this and countless others there is a danger that people within communities will become isolated, old and selfish. That's not what life is about, that's not what communities are about and it's certainly not what society should aim to become.

@voice of reason

Your posts create an image of a rather odious individual. You remind me of the kid who'd take his football home if he didn't get to play as striker. By all means disagree with cambo's posts but why criticise his profession? Yes it is an inexact science (the uk alone has 63m variables) but he at least attempts to bring rational thought and argument to the debate rather than emotional bluster and party rhetoric.

Another thing, why is it ok for you to regurgitate the innovative radicalises baloney ad infinitum but then you criticise others if you think they adhere to a particular party doctrine. You're a hypocrite. Wind your neck in and allow others to express their own opinions without your thinly veiled threats. You come across as a bit of a knob in all honesty

Ha ha! Spot on.

In my final post on this issue I'll tackle the claims 1 by 1.

1) Inequality rising by more under Labour than under any government for 100 years.

To paraphrase your overuse of capitalised words for emphasis. FACTUALLY WRONG. Using any measure of inequality you like - Gini coefficient, 90/10 ratio, mean-log deviation etc, inequality was broadly unchanged between 1997 and 2010. It was in the 1980s that inequality in the UK rocketed - just as in America. In the 1990s and 2000s, inequality rose substantially more in Scandanvia, Germany, even France - albeit from a much lower base. Look at any book on this topic to see that - from official DWP figures, OECD figures, EU Commission figures, anti-poverty charities, free-market think tanks etc.

2) Cricism of economics as an inexact science

Well done. You've grasped the fact that economics is just a set of tools to help guide thinking, not a crystal ball offering certain foresight. I never claimed it was. I have admitted I was wrong on the recession. But then again so were most other people. Its very easy to say there will be a crash. What is hard is to pinpoint when it will happen. In the UK, in previous recessions, the crash has been precipitated by a notable build up of inflationary pressures that just wasn't there in 2007. That's because it was a different kind of recession driven by a banking crisis. Those who are now feted for "predicting the crash when others didn't" had been predicting it was just around the corner for years. I'll make a call now - we'll have a recession in future! House prices will, at some point crash again... fete me when it turns out to be true (at some date in the future!).

3) Success in London and Cambridge

Prey tell. What are the factors that explain their economic success? I agree there's a more complex story to tell, particularly for London. But the reversal of the flight of activity out of cities to suburbs in the 90s is a global phenomenon, suggesting agglomeration is a key factor. And the timing of London's rebound in the late 1980s corresponds to financial deregulation, strongly suggesting that is a key factor too. London is certainly not successful because of its liveability - anyone commuting on the tube or train, or struggling to get on the housing market will tell you that! Again - look for materiality. I wasn't trying to offer a full thesis for why Cambridge or London are successful. I was just saying the most obvious candidates were not what you suggested, and if anything, would favour further development (not less of it) in these cities.

4) On the LDP system as a whole being corrupt

Where is your evidence for this? Why wouldn't that also be the case on a broader "regional approach"? How do you explain the consistent failure to build enough homes in this country if the whole system is set up so that corrupt landowners, developers, politicians and civil servants collude to build? Why aren't we seeing proposals for thousands of new homes in Monmouthshire, where property values are even higher? What about all the prosperous towns in the S. East of England that strangle development? Surely there'd be even greater scope for corruption there. Or is corruption something that only affects Wales, indeed, Cardiff?

As I said, there seem to be specific cases that need investigation. But the evidence is that we have too little rather than too much building in this country - which suggests the mechanism you argue for isn't that widespread.

5) On politics.

You clearly thrive on the intrigue and backstabbing nature of politics. I don't and can simply assure you I take no part in party politics in Wales, or the UK for that matter.

6) On everything else.

I take heart from the fact that you haven't really tackled any of my arguments about planning, inequality, economics, instead resorting to your usual bluster and threats. It means even if we have to agree to disagree - I know I'll have made the stronger arguments.

True. But I think the additional 8,000 homes or so being planned would significantly bolster the business case for the rail line. Llantrisant / Talbot Green are already kind of served by Pontyclun so on their own probably aren't enough to justify a new rail line.

That's rich coming from Wales' least-loved accountant and most-despised poster on a number of message boards. "Why criticise his profession?" When did I do that? I believe that this man, who has just been appointed to a taxpayer funded role by a Labour minister, is incredibly biased and is following his bosses' agenda.

He is a paid-up Labour Party supporter. Why don't you tell him what you think of the Labour Party?

You criticise a whole sector of professions. The public sector. Just because I disagree with this probably fraudulent and certainly unsustainable LDP doesn't link me to any political party. All of the parties in Cardiff oppose this LDP apart from your hated Labour.

As for regurgitating stuff, believe me, it's all my own work.

You have sunk to name calling and, therefore, lost the debate. I am still chuckling about you calling me a knob.

How infantile.

How Damian.

How Feedback

How very Jantra.



And as for winding my neck in, you should do that, Porky, but I suppose your chins would get in the way. I would eat you for breakfast if you weren't so damned fattening.

That's how to insult someone knobHEAD.

Okay chum


P?

What makes you think that's insulting, you're hardly a wordsmith demonstrating rapier wit and devastating repartee. Have another go if you must, I'm sure you'll strike a nerve eventually, then again, maybe not.

Your personal insults to other posters are completely out of order "voice of reason". Just because people don't agree with your opinion is not ever a reason to stoop as low as you have been. Debate is welcome but your style of bullying is not.

I have never been a member of Labour or any other political party, nor donated to one. Fact.

You do not know my motivations. You do not know my politics. You do not know me, despite thinking that you do. Anyone who does know me knows that I don't follow any one party's line - I'll support policies from whoever, and criticise policies from whoever - based on those policies. That's the kind of person who goes into public economics. If you were the kind of person who was tribal, my job would quickly become very taxing - because there is no room for favouritism. Is it so far out of your own way of thinking that you can't grasp that some people don't base their decisions on tribal loyalties but instead on policy issues?

My last post was the final one on the LDP. This is the last one on myself. I've been goaded into the defence of myself above - but I will be goaded no further.

Goodbye.

Err Jantra called me a "Knob". So I responded in kind.

Correct, because that's what your posts suggest

Well if you dish it out, you must be able to take it.

By the looks of you, you dish a lot out and then take it all for yourself.

You have lowered the tone of the debate.

Luckily, hardly anyone really cares about your opinions.

There is a Wales-wide anti LDP movement growing with thousands of supporters.

Maybe you should instigate a pro-LDP group.

I bet that very few people would show even the slightest interest.

you are inferring that it bothers me. it doesn't, it is all water off a ducks back. maybe you get wound up by the musings of strangers on the wunderweb, but please appreciate that I do not. fire away your best salvo, if its amusing you'll find me laughing along, if its akin to what you have written thus far, I'll be taken to new uncharted levels of tedium.


the thing is you really believe this. have a read of this thread and appreciate the common denominator in all of this.


good, because people should be free to form their own opinions and no one should try and force their opinions on to others. perhaps you might take that on board


thousands from a population of millions. a real mass movement then.


why, the LDP has been accepted and is going ahead. Why support something that is a fait accompli? you're an odd fellow, you're asking me to fight battles that have already been won.


I bet more people are interested in x-factor than your crusade. that doesn't make it a just cause though.

I'm bored now, you've served your purpose for a few days, you've not really grasped the idea of internet debate or humour. perhaps you should try a different thread like 'what are you having for dinner'. you might find that more applicable to your writing style.