Only 31 electors voted yes despite the huge efforts of councillors Paul Mitchell and Michael Michael to get people to rally to their cause. So the FACT is that only 31 voters out of over 10 thousand supported the LDP.

Well spotted Simon_200. You are clearly very perceptive and unusually gifted.

And "poorly produced"? In what way?

Paul - we've discussed the issue of the LDP in depth on here. Full discussion can be found by searching the forum.

But the key issue here is feasibility.

The aim of the metro scheme is to improve public transport into Cardiff from the Valleys. But it will always be at least 45 minutes from Merthyr to Cardiff given the need for stops en-route. Together with further travel at either end, we're looking at commutes of often well over an hour in each direction. And, given most of the available sites are well away from the train station in Merthyr, a lot of people would simply drive - or have to drive to the station in Merthyr, clogging up that town's roads. That makes the option unattractive to many people. Furthermore, many people would want to live in Cardiff but not live in Merthyr - because an extra 3000 houses is not going to turn that into a thriving city with the kind of amenities Cardiff has now does it?

So instead of decamping to Merthyr and pushing up house prices sufficiently there to make development of expensive-to-develop brownfield sites economically viable - the development just won't take place. Merthyr will remain Merthyr and Cardiff won't fulfill its potential as the dynamic capital city of Wales.

This is the problem Wales has been facing for years - trying to push economic activity and people back up the Valleys, when what we need to be doing is adapting to the changed economic enviroment which makes cities the driving force for economic activity.

It might be feasible to get more people living in sourthern RCT, Caerphilly, and. But there the public transport isn't great and we would definitely have extra traffic.

I agree we probably do want wider regional planning, but to help get around very localised opposition - not to pander to it. I think with wider regional planning we'd still end up finding the feasible, sustainable and most economically beneficial option as being concentrating development around Cardiff rather than trying to spread it out in Merthyr, Aberdare, and Maesteg. Such proposals might garner support but they would not pass the credibility test.

The UK is poorer than it should be because we box in our successful cities with Green belts and restrictive planning. Even crowded countries like the Netherlands do a better job of this - and thats one reason why they much higher labour productivity.

Long time reader, rarely post but this thread has stirred me to comment

I was brought up in Fairwater and only moved away three years ago but half my family still live there so I'm there all the time. Traffic has always been a problem and its going to get worse no mater what. It used to take my school bus 20 mins to go from the Green to Waun-Gron station so I understand fully the issue with traffic. But blocking a much needed development that will secure not only jobs, economic stimulus, more local services and more importantly houses for the next generation (not to mention an upgrade on the city line!) Stoping that will not make the traffic any better. The council will not fund capacity improvements if there is no associated development.

I've always thought the problem with Fairwater and its traffic stems from the number of schools in the area 7 of them with a cluster in Pentrebane and two secondary schools (8 if you include Bishop of Llandaff as buses and cars still drop them off on Pwllmelin Road) thats a lot of schools for a relatively small area and to top it off unlike most developments of the time and size our road infrastructure is biased on the old country lanes. These two clash and I believe they cause most of the issues. Maybe the council could re-organise the schools ... but that would be a can of worms for another day.

I hope the development goes ahead, it will be great for Cardiff, Capital Region, the metro ambition and Wales. rather selfishly i get to move back to an area where i grew up near my family, in a nice affordable house with a garden instead of living in an expensive rented shoe box.

you are assuming that those who did not vote did so because they disagreed with the plans. That is an incorrect position to adopt. Simon is quite correctly stating that you cannot make that assumption without additional evidence and is questioning the impartiality of the Daily Wails by suggesting otherwise. We all know the Daley Whales is the mouthpiece of the innovative radicalists so why pretend its not?

I don't have much time for Mcavoy.

Canton, Splott, Llandaff, Whitchurch..they were all surrounded by green fields once. Perhaps we should have stopped building the city then?

Very backwards thinking from Plaid and the people of Fairwater.

Sounds as if you are saying that if the boundaries of Cardiff Council were say drawn up to include countryside in the Vale, Caerphilly and Newport, then it wouldn't be almost full up, in which case it would be ok to build at Waterhall.


Is Waterhall open space? Or is it agricultural land? A development of this scale would include plenty of open space anyway - public open space at that.

LDPs aren't really unconnected. But in case, even if the development planning system changes (as it might), you can't just stop planning!



Merthyr does have its own LDP you know - with housing allocations!

There is plenty of housing development already going on in the Valleys and other areas. Both Bridgend and Newport are having new suburbs created, Caerphilly has been building on brownfild sites for years and I can count five sites off the top of my head that are having this type of development in the town centre alone. Southern RCT had been growing in the last few years as well. Just drive through Llanharan and you'll see plenty of homes that have gone up in the last few years.

These are just some examples of places I frequently visit, let alone plenty of other developments planned in the LDPs of each authority.

I would add to what Kyle says.

Bridgend is building around 2000 homes at Parc Derwen, having a few years ago completely a major development of a similar size at Broadlands. And of course in the 1980s and 1990s there was the huge development at Brackla.

Caerphilly is having ongoing developments after, in the 1990s and 2000s, major developments to the west.

A couple of thousand new homes are planned to the South and West of Llanharan. New homes are also planned around Beddau, and around Church Village, and around Tonyrefail.

Major developments are taking place at Llanwern in Newport, and at Coed Darcy in Neath-Port Talbot. These are of course large brownfield sites, that is true, and it is great that they are being redeveloped. Now unfortunately, Cardiff does not have available brownfield sites on this scale. And those sites we do have - Ely Bridge, Dumballs Road, Roath Basin, are already earmarked for development, and are largely suitable for high density developments. Given the need for some lower density developments of houses rather than flats, greefield development, like in Bridgend, and sourthern RCT, is also going to be necessary.

Quoting from Bridgend Council's website:
"The Bridgend Unitary Development Plan (UDP) allocates 85 hectares of land to the north east of Bridgend for 1,500 dwellings and associated facilities. The area is known as Parc Derwen, and in accordance with UDP Policy H1(25) the Council has adopted the Detailed Design Code and Design Guidance for Parc Derwen, which will accompany and supplement the adopted Parc Derwen Development Brief."

So not your claimed 2000 homes but 1500.

If a new high-frequency railway was built to serve the proposed Waterhall and Creigau developments and was ready before the homes were ready for occupation then I, for one, would have fewer objections. But this essential public transport looks like a distant dream. Without it, Cardiff would grind to a halt.

The road system in Cardiff can only cope with a finite amount of traffic and that point has been reached. Roads cannot be widened and unless new roads are constructed the only option is a multi-billion pound investment in public transport.

The electrification of the south Wales commuter lines is in doubt and anyway, many of the proposed new suburbs are nowhere near a train line. The council should have proposed much higher density housing at Ely Bridge and Roath Basin. A new station at Ely Bridge and restricting provision for car ownership would mean that people buying homes would do so knowing that they would be reliant on walking, cycling or public transport. But no, there will be lots of space for parking in the new development.

I wonder if any of the appointees to government bodies who frequent this board have links to developers. Maybe they aren't serving the public interest with their unremitting shill-like behaviour?

I said about 2000 homes, and 1500 is close enough for the point I was making - that substantial greenfield development is taking place in other county boroughs (given the size of Bridgend town, its equivalent to around 12000 homes in Cardiff.. and it follows other large urban extensions in Bridgend).

I agree that public transport is really important. But at least at Waterhall it is an option, as it is at Llanharan, and in Trowbridge (no idea why that site isn't part of the plans anymore.. it should be!). In many areas, it really isn't an option - like Parc Derwen, or North East Cardiff.

And I disagree that density should be higher on the inner city urban sites. Why are young people being forced to live ever closer together in small pokey flats, as more substantial homes in the suburbs move further out of reach because of constrained supply?

Basing plans on assumed higher densities in inner city brownfield sites just doesn't stack up. The previous LDP banked on something like 1800 homes on the sports village site, instead of the 1000 or so that are now being developed - the old scheme just wasn't viable. Roath Basin is already at a high density and will provide around 1000 apartments. And the idea behind Ely Bridge is for it to be a mix of houses and apartments - a mixed community. Not another apartment development inhabited solely by young singles and couples without children (look at the demographics of the bay LTSOAs to see just how much 25 - 34 year olds dominate the new apartments; a few have babies but move soon afterwards). Now you may wax lyrical about the family sized apartments being built on the continent - but Wales is not on the continent, and Brits still like houses. As long as thats the case house builders will continue to tailor houses to families and flats to those without children.

Time for a referendum in the Victorian suburbs of western Cardiff to return Fairwater/Pentrebane back to green state it once was and make Cardiff even greener. I'm sure you'll give it your 100% backing, not only will it make Cardiff green but it will also reduce road traffic.

Trowbridge has been removed as a candidate site on the LDP? that is disappointing if true, there is a huge amount of land in both Trowbridge and St Mellons that could be built on. I wonder if that land is going into the Housing Partnership Scheme instead of the LDP.

@voice of reason

Are you really making a point that parc derwen is 2000 rather than 1500 or vice versa. You need to learn the concept of materiality. You do you argument no justice by being that pedantic. Give it a rest

So with all these proposed housing developments in both Cardiff and the surrounding towns, can anyone tell me where the tens of thousands of potential occupiers of these homes going to come from?

Just a couple of years ago Cardiff Council were justifying school closures with the fact that there was 8000 surplus places in the city.
That hardly suggests a growing city desperately needing tens of thousands of new family homes.

Or do the Council have one set of figures they use for speculative building projects and a completely different set for when it comes to implementing spending cuts?

The tens of thousands of occupiers come from:

a) Pent up demand, given the increase in house sharing and people staying at their parents longer we've seen in recent years
b) More births than deaths
c) Immigration

And, yes, Cardiff might have to start opening schools again soon. The issue is we had a massive fall in the birth rate between the early 90s and early 2000s, which meant a big fall in the school-aged population. Then in the early 2000s, the birth rate increased substantially, especially in our cities.

Now I don't know whether they've kept the sites of most of the closed schools - I hope so. But the rebound in the number of children will certainly be a challenge for Cardiff. Presently it looks worse at primary level as lots of people move out of the city by the time their children are secondary age (whether to get bigger properties, or for career reasons, I'm not sure).

Newport seems to be building houses like mad, aside from the massive Glan Llyn/Llanwern project there is of course Redrow's Mon Bank, proposed new developments at the former Tredegar golf course, Anglian Water want to build 200 homes at Celtic Way in Coedkernew plus another potential project at the old Whitehead Steelworks.

Cardiff is falling terribly behind in house building, the council needs to get a move on.

It's not really a competition - some of those new builds in Newport will be bought by people who might otherwise have bought in Cardiff.

Newport's advantage is that it has a large number of brownfield sites available like the old Llanwern rolling-mill site where Glanllyn is being built and the old railway sidings where Mon Bank is being developed. With a few exceptions most similar sites in Cardiff have already been utilised. The only big brownfield sites left in Cardiff that I can think of are all in the development pipe-line - hence the pressure on greenfield sites like Fairwater and Creigiau.

I guess a few more brownfield sites might come along - particularly some of the older retail parks which are beginning to look very tired and under-occupied.

A figure that was inflated by 33% being pooh-poohed by an accountant. Whoda thunk it?

Seems like you're a creative person.

Urgh. As I said, I was making a point about there being substantial building outside of Cardiff on greenfields - whether it was 1,500 or 2,000 or 2,500, that point would have stood. If it were 500 homes, it would have been a different kettle of fish.

Jantra was making a valid point about pedantry and materiality *in this context*.

Says the Labour appointee who is obsessed with a contentious property development, proposed by a Labour council after being ENFORCED by a Labour government. Gee I wonder why you are so enthusiastic?

You got a big mouth brah

What utter bollocks! So, only 1311 out of ten thousand oppose the 'controversial plan' in that case then too, eh? Why doesn't the article state that?

Oh, and incorrect use of the word "FACT" in uppercase, does not bolster your spurious logic one iota.

The FACTS are that only 1311 oppose the LDP and only 31 support it. Only 42 times as many people oppose the LDP than support it. Opposition is 4229% higher than support for the LDP. FACT

1,311 oppose and 31 support...of those who voted. Of course that leaves 87% of the people in the area who didn't vote. Plus everyone else in the City, and country, who will also be affected by the development of Waterhall, albeit in different ways, who didn't get to vote at all.

If you think that using 2,000 rather than 1,500 significantly alters the point being made then you are mistaken. Focus on the idea being discussed rather than the detail. It's the Internet forum about development and not the lancet

More nonsense, you're making a lot of assumptions which you just can't make on the evidence you have. This is a referendum against a proposal that has no basis in law. By its very nature the people who are interested in voting are those who will be against it. You also omit the fact that its a fAirwater residents only vote. That's hardly an indication of cardiff's opinion as a whole. You need to remember this is Cardiff city council and not fAirwater district council

I disagree. Spin doctors spin. They used to call it 'Cant'. It's a way of affecting the narrative in politics, culture or society. It's been happening for millennia. Bullshitters bullshit.
Funny that you, with your Libertardian credentials, are supporting the Labour Party in this. All the other parties oppose the LDP. You are clever enough to realise that land and property deals are where a lot of 'funny money' is made.

So why the volte face, Libtard?

How is quoting the FACTS about the voting figures "nonsense"? What is nonsensical about those figures?

The ongoing use of vacuous and gratuitous insults really does make it hard to take your other points seriously.

Are you referring to me? Which insults are these?

I was thnking about the Fairwater proposals and it seems to me that an awful lot depends on the Metro link.

Given the congestion that already exists on the Llantrisant Rd / Cathedral Road corridor and the PDR any development to the north west of the city is going to be problematic without decent public transport.

Funnily enough we have been here before - when Cardiff aquired it's first passenger only railway - the Coryton line. It came about by accident when the Cardiff Rail Company's plans for an additional route for coal trains from Pontypridd was sabotaged by the TVR and the line was truncated - first at Treforest and later, Coryton.

The presence of the line led, first to the construction of Rhiwbina Garden Village, and then to all that followed in Rhiwbina and Coryton. I wonder if Fairwater residents would be less concerned if the developments were contingent on the Metro opening first?

I know that Cllr McEvoy and some of the protesters also oppose the Metro proposal - particularly if it involves the Cowbridge Rd. bus-lane option, but development with a tram link would surely be preferable to development without one.

Cardiff council's LDP Background Technical Paper Number 5: Transportation says:

“All major development sites will need to be supported by significant new transport infrastructure and improvements to existing transport facilities in advance of its beneficial occupation.”

I repeat: "Significant new transport INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPROVEMENTS"

If these are in place before any homes are occupied then I wouldn't object as much.The demolition of homes in Fairwater would be a local issue. But the public transport would need to be a train or tram and NOT a Bus Rapid Transit line. It must be electrified and at least 4 tph in each direction. Two thousand homes would be a much more sustainable target. The Waterhall and Creigau proposals are over-development.

As one who voted no, I am not opposed to development from a nimby viewpoint. I voted against this particular LDP which I see as a very poor piece of work. I agree with Voice that the essential points are overdevelopment and the total confusion over transport policy and infrastructure. How the council can ask us to support a an LDP which Cllr Patel (who I believe is now the lead councillor on this matter) has effectively rubbished by his catagoric assurances that several of the transport solutions will never be adopted is beyond belief.

If things will never be adopted then edit them out. As it stands the supporting documents might just as well say that all residents will be provided with helicopters or roller skates as the transport solution.

As an aside, what impact does the Cardiff Embankment (Dumballs Road) development have on the LDP?

Dumballs Road is one of the candidate sites in the LDP - and a roughly similar density to what is now proposed is assumed in it. So it has no material effect on the housing requirements elsewhere in the city.

2,000 homes is just about enough to support some ancillary services - a primary school, say. Bur it isn't enough to support large scale public transport provision. For that, you need a more substantial development to get passenger numbers. So a smaller development may actually be worse for congestion than a larger development that is of sufficient scale to help fund and justify better transport.

4 trains per hour is probably pushing whats financially viable though - probably 2 an hour, which in addition to the city line services would increase frequency to 4 an hour on the existing city line. That would be a benefit to existing residents of the development.

The discussions of the bus rapid transport system are part of the consultation documents associated with the LDP. They do not form part of the LDP itself. It was right to investigate this option, but it also seems right to now dismiss them. The LDP is a process as well as a final plan - and part of that process is examining different options before deciding on the more appropriate ones to choose.

I do think councillor Patel's handling of the situation has been pretty poor. That letter to the Echo was almost a parody of official-speak. The problem is that no councillor seems willing to stand up and say "this is why the development is the best thing for Cardiff and South Wales".. instead they seem to cringe and grovel about having no choice as the last LDP was thrown out by the planning inspectors.

Just to play devil's advocate here, this vote was clearly staged by "No to LDP" camp, so the fact that "only 31 in 10,000" voted yes doesn't surprise me (you guys had to throw some yes votes in there to make it seem legitimate!). If you were pro-LDP why would you turn up?

The reality that only 1,300 turned up to vote at all shows that the majority are either for the plans or apathetic towards them

That, my friend, is FACT

Mr anonymous, jantard, voice of reason

What makes you think I'm supporting labour? What makes you think I can't pick and choose policies rather than parties? Not all of us are tied to a party irrespective of whether we agree with their policies.

I just happen to think that development is needed or else Cardiff will stagnate

Nothing is nonsensical about the figures, it is your conclusions that are nonsensical. How many driving accidents were caused by blind people last year? Or dead people? I reckon the answer in both cases would be none. That doesn't mean blind or dead people are better drivers than the rest of us.

Use stats to support your argument and not to form the basis of it

Let me out it another way, out of a ward of 10,000 people only 1300 or so could be bothered to voice their disproval in a non legally binding referendum, so only 13% care enough to register their disproval

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.