http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-28031672

Good news, plans passed by Councillors!

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/cardiff-local-development-plan-passed-7333156

Can Cardiff have a vote on what to do with NIMBY's?

Expanding Cardiff is the most sustainable way of developing housing. If people live in Cardiff then there is a chance they might cycle, walk or take the bus to work. However if "Del Boy" has his way and empty houses are reoccupied (probably in small valleys communities like Ferndale) then chances are people will just hop into their cars and drive to work in Cardiff.

A NIMBY posting on a pro-development forum !

Community referendums are non-binding and I suspect the Council will ignore this one when it inevitably produces a large majority against the plans.

The difference between this vote and the Canton CPZ one is that dropping the CPZ plan only impacted on Canton wheras the LDP is a county-wide plan. If the authority is to meet the targets set by the Welsh Government those houses have to go somewhere.

Having said that, it's easy to dismiss the objectors as nimbys but I think there are real issuses surrounding the plans for Waterhall and Creigiau particularly around traffic on the Llantrisant Rd / Cathedral Rd corridor. Metro Line One is meant to address those concerns but I think it's entirely reasonable for residents to demand concrete assurances about the timing of the Metro as well as around issues like green spaces, schools etc.

A member of the Plaid party came knocking at my door the other week asking me to sign a petition against it...looked pretty shocked when I explained why I was for the scheme. I think he assumed I was a twenty something that didn't care.

On a side note what is this line 1 business

Well line 1 is the way they will go through and have to knock down houses for some of the metro system. For instance in Keyston Road where the old train line doesnt exist anymore.

Why would thousands of extra cars use this route ? Where are they coming from and where are they going to ? What is this statement based on ?

More houses = more cars fact = they'll all be surrounding the area

Isn't it ironic that all these people NIMBYs opposed to the development live in houses that were built on what were once, *gasp* green fields.

Can u explain how u can physically get 2 car lanes & a rapid transport lane here

I think the leaflet also mixes up plans which are, to some extent, mutually exclusive.

My understanding is that one option is to make an extension using tram/trains that will link with the existing city line. This is the one that involves demolishing houses and looks set to be the preferred and recommended option (subject to securing funding - which might happen if network rail grant is devolved).

An alternative is bus-rapid transit. The idea is that it would be on dedicated roads in the new suburbs but would need to share existing roads once in the existing built up area. A few ways of doing this were discussed - including just being normal traffic once on existing roads (journeys would be too slow); or having bus priority lanes, either in one or both directions. One option would be bus priority lanes that vary by time of day - so in morning rush its in bound, and afternoon rush its outbound. That would involve less disruption than implied in Plaid's poster/leaflet.

But you'd never get both happening. Its either/or.

And more importantly, if these houses aren't built on Waterhall, but in sourthern RCT (the next most likely choice), you'd still need to improve the public transport infrastructure, potentially domolishing homes etc. But there'd also be more driving too - much of it also down Llantrisant Road.

NIMBYism of the highest order, and a flyer which reads like it's been written by a 5-year-old.

In what universe is demolishing 5-10 houses to allow the reopening an old railway line to serve 1000s of new houses a "mad" idea? Granted Waterhall road isn't wide enough for three lanes because of the large mature trees along it, but if I recall these plans were drawn without the designer (Arup) having visited the route and were only offered as an alternative if the railway line wasn't reopened - IE a ridiculous suggestion to make the railway line sound agreeable.

I live in the area affected and am actually looking forward to seeing this development happen - A shame I missed this thread yesterday or I'd have gone along to see what the outcome of the meeting was... And to see if there were many there, or if it was just scaremongering by a handful of NIMBYs

images from yesterday to save our historical houses, they may only be 8, but they are peoples homes, look at the woman in Aberystwyth who has taken years to move from one house!!! people power! don't destroy beautiful fairwater

I wonder what the average age of that room is - from that picture there doesn't look to be anybody under 40... Not an ageist comment, merely an observation

Also, judging by the photos used and the comments attached I would suspect that The Dark Man is either Neil McEvoy or one of his representatives - almost every comment by him has been word for word from the @neiljmcevoy twitter feed

I don't think it's right to disrepect people who obviously have genuine and quite natural concerns.

Neil Mcevoy may well be trying to extract political advantage from those concerns - that's what politicians do - but he's also representing his electors.

It does seem to me that the council, so far, has made little effort to engage directly with people in the areas most effected by the LDP proposals. As has been said, it's not unresonable to dislike the idea of a nice green corridor behind your home becoming a railway line or seeing the fields where your kids play given over to housing.

The propsals need to be explained and justified. Local concerns need to be listened to and adressed and where componsation is deserved it should be paid.

Fairwater may not be the most deprived ward in the city but it's mainly social and former social housing and to portray its residents as if they are priveleged middle-class nimbys is both ignorant and crass.

What was the Canton LPZ in 2004? I wasn't in Cardiff back then and don't recognise the acronym.

CANTON DEFEATED the CPZ in the Referendum Vote on Friday 26th January 2007

92.5% Voted NO to the proposed CPZ confirming the serious flaws in the original CPZ consultation in which the Council claimed around 66% voted in favour. Thank you every one! from every one in Canton. Click the red REFERENDUM buttom above for more info.

South Wales Echo 25th January 2007: South Wales Echo poll of 500 on the streets of Canton confirms 82% SAY NO TO CPZ. CRAC says: When will the Council come down off its high horse and listen to the Canton Communities much better parking scheme proposals in which every one Wins!

BBC Dragons Eye 25th January 2007: BBC 2W Dragons Eye 8:30pm features some of Canton Communities difficulties with Cardiff Council over the proposed CPZ and some of the antics such as anonymous leafleting and the Councils removal of notices advising public of referendum, for some additional detail click here

Cardiff Council 25th January 2007: Todays Cardiff Council meeting physically ejects member of the public asking a legitimate public question about the Council's adherence to the CPZ Referendum. Mayor and Council Leader accused in session of being not fit for office, Councillors accused of letting it happen.

24th January 2007: Councillors Call to SCRAP CPZ - Councillors Jayne Cowan, Adrian Robson (Planning), Gwenllian Lansdown (Constitution & Economic Committee) and Mohammed Islam (Planning), say "It is essential that CPZ's are scrapped...", for the detail click here

24th January 2007: Bus Users UK Leo Markham says those Parking in Canton are Anarchists, for the detail click here

18th January 2007: The Council give notice that they will not extend the Polling Hours to help enable all to vote. Please call on your friends, relatives and neighbours and help the less able get out to vote on the 26th Jan.

16th January 2007: At the CRAC meeting today it become clear Canton Residents can defeat the CPZ through the Referendum. It is also clear the Council have chosen not to issue Polling Cards or tell Voters where to vote, do not let the Council hide your views.

Save CANTON
quality of life keep
your right to park
Vote NO CPZ
See our range of POSTERS and Get One click here

8th January 2007: Canton Votes Unanimously for a CPZ Referendum see it on TV, click on one of the TV buttons below:

Controlled Parking Zone Referendum (TV Documentary extract) - click here (Server 1) Controlled Parking Zone Referendum (TV Documentary extract) - click here (Server 2) (TV content is intended for Broadband, you will need a recent windows media player installed, for high quality video please contact us for a DVD version, or broadcast quality video files)

5th January 2007: Canton Residents Action Committee (CRAC) have called a public meeting on Monday 8 January, at 7:00pm at Wesley Methodist Church, Cowbridge Road East Canton, to request Cardiff Council to hold a Controlled Parking Zone Referendum in Canton, click here or the red REFERENDUM button above for more information.

January 2007: read about Cardiff Transport Policy (last updated 24/1/07) click here

17th August 2006: Evidence emerges that Labour Party Councilors decided to promote the CPZ scheme against the majority of Canton Residents and local Business. For more info click here

27th July 2006: Cardiff Council Transport Executive decide to implement a CPZ in Canton despite having clear evidence the alleged parking problems do not exist and that Cardiff Council is in breach of its own rules to do so, for more info click here

25th July 2006: Cardiff Council continue to deceive the public with the false statement that Canton is in favour of the CPZ scheme.

21st July 2006: Canton CPZ issue featured in "Dumber and Dumber Government and Lies", see extracted Scrutiny Meeting 18th July highlights click here

19th July 2006 South Wales Echo Cardiff: "City's parking shake-up process a sham"

See the CPZ TV documentary extract packed with compelling supporting evidence for CRAC, click on one of the TV buttons below (two separate servers):

Controlled Parking Zone TV Documentary - click here (Server 1) Controlled Parking Zone TV Documentary - click here (Server 2)

13th July: At least 55% of Residents in the zone have verifiably voted against the introduction of a CPZ, at least 72% of businesses are against, opposition is expected to grow as more have the opportunity to declare their considered view.

http://www.internet-public-library.org/no2cpz/

"Hundreds of selfish old residents with too much time on their hands, and little consideration for younger people struggling to buy a house close to where they work, rushed to a meeting to ensure that people are forced to commute to work from further, that there is more pollution, or jobs go elsewhere and Wales is left worse off".

All this claptrap about "regional" planning is thinly veiled NIMBYism. Expansions of the city might reduce the quality of life of existing residents a bit in some ways, that is true. But it will also benefit those who would like to live in the city and would otherwise be priced out; and will allow the city to grow and fulfill its role as an economic as well as political centre for Wales. Cities are the economic future and one reason why Wales is poor is that its cities aren't big enough.

And those houses that would not be being built in Cardiff would go somewhere else. Realistically, they would go into southern RCT, which is already witnessing the vast majority of RCT's housebuilding, and which really will have its character changed by development. An extention of 8000 houses to a city with 150,000 houses doesn't change much the character of Cardiff. An extention of 8000 houses, on top of 5000 already planned, to an area with probably 25000 houses, really does change the character of an area. Rather than a series of villages, lower RCT will become a sizeable town centred on Talbot Green retail park (its already heading that way).

And those houses will not be built in the upper Valleys - there aren't suitable plots for anything other than piecemeal developments, and there isn't the demand to live there. Instead, if it isn't built in Cardiff or the lower Valleys, much of the development will go elsewhere leaving the whole region poorer.

And finally, the Echo with its shameless populism and endless repetition of the phrase "concreting over our countryside" really shows how piss-poor our local media in Wales and the UK more generally is. Rather than hold up a mirror to local policy debates it goes for simple sensationalist stories, fed to it as press releases from politicians and busy bodies. This reflects the lack of money in local media now - no money to pay people to do proper research, to look at an issue at all angles. No, simpler just to print what Neil McEvoy's press release says.

Here you go, Cambo Dire. The Daily Wales' take on this. How is London, by the way?

"Cardiff’s Local Development Plan (LDP) has been put under scrutiny after residents of the Fairwater district voted overwhelmingly last night to hold a local referendum on the adoption of the plan. The referendum, which will be the first in Cardiff since 2010, will ask electors in the Fairwater ward if they agree that the council’s deposit LDP should be taken forward.

The LDP, which is the master plan for Cardiff’s development until 2026, proposes that between 41,000 and 45,000 new homes will be needed in the city by 2026. Controversially, 19,000 of these new homes are earmarked for green field sites around the fringes of Cardiff. These green fields, which are currently used for farming, would become vast new suburbs.

Opponents of the plans to build on green fields have a number of objections to the LDP. They claim that the council has over-estimated how much the population of Cardiff will grow between 2006 and 2026 and that this over-estimate has meant that the council has planned to build far too many homes.

Furthermore, opponents believe that the loss of irreplaceable agricultural land is short-sighted and will put pressure on food supplies, and that the loss of green spaces at the fringe of the city will have a negative effect on amenity and well-being.

Perhaps the most serious concern for the residents of Cardiff is that by building an extra 45,000 homes by 2026 (there are currently about 135,000 homes in Cardiff) the council will put terrible pressure on the city’s already overstretched infrastructure. Cardiff and Vale University Health Board had the highest bed-occupancy rate in Wales according to recent figures and many of the city’s schools, dentists and GP surgeries are full.

However it is Cardiff’s transport infrastructure that may be put under the greatest pressure if the LDP is adopted. Bottlenecks along Newport Road, Penarth Road, Caerphilly Road and in Llandaf could cause widespread gridlock with even a small increase in traffic. But with the proposed increase in population and housing, Cardiff could grind to a halt.

To avoid ‘Carmageddon’ the council has pinned its hopes on a South Wales Metro to ease pressure on the roads. Unfortunately, neither the Labour government in Cardiff or the Tory/ Lib Dem coalition in Westminster seem keen to fund the electrification of the rail network, which would be vital to the proposed Metro. Cardiff council has plans to introduce Rapid Bus Transit between a new north-west suburb and the city centre. This would exclude most other traffic from Cowbridge Road East, resulting in cars and trucks being displaced onto other routes such as Lansdowne Road and Cathedral Road.


Residents of Fairwater have perhaps the most to lose if the LDP is adopted as at least 5,000 homes are proposed to be built on the green fields between Fairwater, St Fagans and Radyr. Instead of living on the edge of the countryside, with relatively easy access to the city and the M4, residents would find it difficult to travel from their homes by car. A proposal to re-open the rail line between Fairwater and Creigau could, if adopted, see many homes demolished.

The meeting at Ysgol Gyfun Plasmawr attracted hundreds of electors and they voted by 241 to 20 in favour of holding a referendum. Fairwater councillor Neil McEvoy (Plaid Cymru/Party of Wales) told the Daily Wales that dozens of would-be voters were locked out of the meeting due to the limited capacity in the hall.

The referendum result will be non-binding but in the event of overwhelming opposition to the LDP the council may be forced to rethink its proposals. Each of the 22 local authorities in Wales has produced an LDP and there is considerable opposition to the plans throughout the country. Fairwater may be the first of many communities to challenge what opponents of LDPs say is over-development by councils and profiteering by house-builders."

Your bigoted attack on the people of Fairwater will make it into the Daily Wales next time you or the Tax Advisory Group are mentioned in any other media.

Or maybe the Daily Wales will do a piece on you sooner than that and show our thousands of readers just how bigoted London can make a son of the Valleys.

I don't know who you are but if you are someone representing the Daily Wales and those are the sort of unpleasant threats you're prepared to utter in public, I for one will never trust anything it says. Bullying should never be encouraged. I'm a bystander in this issue, but your behaviour is making me want to support the plans.

Report me for what? Suggesting that the Daily Wales run a story on the bigoted comments of a man recently appointed to a public body? There's no mileage in that. I think the public deserves to know about David Phillips' bigoted comments on the elderly and Fairwater residents.
His impartiality, being a Labour supporter, has always been in doubt. Unfortunately for bigots, there is no law against any media outlet reprinting their public comments.

Those threats are indeed incredibly unpleasant - its a case of "if you criticise the stance we have taken, or our motivations for doing so, we will personally try to harm you". Trying to shut me up?

I was being tongue-in-cheek, re-writing the Echo headline in the kind of language they use (full of emotive terms and grossly simplifying reality). I was being purposefully provocative. However, I stand by the main thrust of what I was saying.

And that is, that I think the media reporting of this topic has been atrocious, simply repeating the arguments and statements of those opposed to the plans, without subjecting them to necessary critique. And that those who are opposing it are doing it largely because of what they see to be the direct negative impact on themselves, rather than an assessment of the impact on the wider community (be that Cardiff, the region, or Wales as a whole). That is how most people make most decisions - selfishly. That isn't a controversial statement I hope. And in most cases, people acting in their self-interest isn't too much of a problem. But in the realm of planning our rigid planning system can,- if paying too much heed to such self-interest of existing residents-, signifiantly constrain the supply of developable land, significantly pushing up house prices (hurting those not yet on the ladder) and can undermine our economy.

What could the press be doing better? It could be delving into some of the reasons used by the opponents to see if they stack up.

So for instance, opponents claim that we will see less demand for new housing than the LDP envisages. The LDP already proposes development at the lower end of the projected demand. What is the evidence it will be even lower? Population growth has continued to be quite high and Cardiff's economy has been outperforming most of the rest of Wales.

And if demand turns out to be lower? Well the houses won't be built. "Greedy developers" won't build houses if there isn't the demand for them. Now perhaps there is concern about houses being built on green field because that is easier than brownfield - so if total demand/supply is lower, it will be brownfield that sees less being built. There is something in this. But, if this were the case:
- more brownfield land is available for after 2026 and can ease the amount of development on greenfield land after that
- a policy of 100% brownfield isn't right anyway as such land is generally expensive to develop and therefore requires high density housing to make economic sense. We also need some low-density housing (of the kind people in Fairwater live in) to provide family homes.

What if the argument is that we can spatially plan so that development takes place over a wider area (i.e. shift supply elsewhere)? Well, in that case, demand will still be in Cardiff. And those people now having to buy further away will be likely commuting further from their homes in the Valleys into their jobs in Cardiff and the M4 corridor. Agglomoration effects aren't going away and cities seem to be becoming more not less important. Longer commutes means more traffic, more pollution, and less-happy commuters. Constrained supply in Cardiff with additional supply in the valleys also exacerbates the difference in house prices we already see. This helps existing Cardiff home-owners; hurts existing Valleys home-owners; and makes it harder for people who want to move from the Valleys to Cardiff do so (while making it easier for Cardiffians to do the reverse). In other words, a policy presented as "spreading the growth" can actually benefit "insiders" already in Cardiff at the expense of "outsiders".

I've not seen any of these arguments considered in the press who are happy to report a simple stories fed to them by campaigners of "greedy housebuilders" and "concreting over the countryside".

Oh and point of information: the demolition of 15 houses to build a railine that would serve around 15,000 houses (if extended to Llantrisant and Beddau) is not really a "substantial number". Building infrastructure through urban areas inevitably means you need some demolition - and yes, people should be properly compensated in that case, but no, that shouldn't be a block on all developments. The A470 required substantial amounts of demolition. Should it not have taken place?

Oh and another point of information: 46000 houses is the total number between 2006 and 2026. I think at least 10000 of those have already been built, around 1000 are under construction, and many thousands more already have planning permission. Wouldn't want to give a misleading impression of the scale of development planned for the future would we?

Can we keep things civil, please?

I have some sympathy with both sides in this arguement but threats and invective don't make either point of view look good.

The residents of Fairwater are legaly entitled to hold their referendum. The chances of it changing the council's mind on the basics of the LDP and the Metro plan are pretty slim but describing people who are simply excercising their democratic rights as "hundreds of selfish old residents with too much time on their hands" is beyond the pale in my view.

Similarly, people post here anonomously. Assuming you know who a poster is and then making threats, however mild those threats are, doesn't look good.

EDIT I've only just read Random Comment's explanation of his 'selfish old residents' quote.

Thats why I had "" marks around that sentence in the original posting. I should have made it clear thats why they were there...

"The voice of reason"... My attack was not on the elderly in general. I think you realise this but like all good politicians (or wannabe politicians - I've not worked out who you are yet, Mr Anonymous) are trying to twist what I say into something that can be used in a more general attack on me either now or at some point in the future. The constant need to watch exactly what you say in case it be misrepresented is one reason why, as you can imagine, I have no desire to be a politician.

But back to the issue at hand. I was making a much more specific point about (a) the people in the picture being older then average, and (b) my view that a lot of the opposition to the plans is driven by selfishness. That is it was a very specific criticism of a specific group of people who happened to be mainly older. Someone else had also already pointed out that the group was predominantly older, and I took that and wrote a faux-Echo strapline. I was pointing out the biased way in which the Echo reports on these issues and being purposefully provocative showing that one could write up the same story in a very different way if you take a different angle.

And yes, I take a very different view from you (and many others) on this. And yes, think that mine is one based on a broader perspective, and that is grounded more in the economic reality that Wales and Cardiff face. I think Cardiff needs to grow - and can grow, with proper planning, which fundamentally is what an LDP is about -, otherwise Wales will continue its slow relative decline in prosperity as we miss out on economic opportunities that might have come to Cardiff but would, instead, go elsewhere. And to the extent that we can redistribute population within South Wales, it is not done costlessly but at significant cost to those who would like to live in Cardiff but find themselves unable to due to restrictions on development. And, potentially at further cost to the environment as people commute further.

That is the crux of the matter - and something that is never addressed by those opposing these plans who like to present the alternative as win-win (which it most certainly isn't). Those in favour at least, such as myself, recognise that there are trade-offs here (between local costs and broader benefits), and they've come down on one side of them.

Have you met me? Because some of those speaking up have, and probably have a better idea for the kind of person that I am and what motivates me.

Dude, I'm 'leaping' to his defence because I think you are wrong to call him a bigot. I'd do the same if someone called Jantra a socialist. Like me, he's been posting on here for years, so I'd like to think that I'd be in a position to judge whether he possesses a bigoted streak. If I thought that he was a serial bigot then I'd put the boot in as well, but I think you've unfairly besmirched his good name by calling him a bigot. He may have a strange taste in music and a dubious dress sense but he's not a bigot.

And for the record, I'm also no more anonymous or inner circle than you are-seriously! This is a forum and we are generally advised to keep a degree of anonymity on the world wide net.Some of us have met up in the past but we're definitely not inner circle! I'll pop in to introduce myself tomorrow if you really want to know who I am but I doubt that you'd find me all that interesting.

Now, let's leave it at that so that I can I get back to my ironing.

I have attended several LDP consultation sessions and must say that having heard genuine concerns brushed aside in a dismissive manner by Council officials has inflamed the situation. At one drop in session I raised a specific point regarding one of the transport options to be told that I was wrong and that no such option had been presented in what I consider was a deliberate attempt to devalue my contribution to proceedings. Having checked my facts I returned to the session later to quote Appendix and Paragraph details to the official who then admitted he had actually written the section concerned but added that "it will never happen".
This is the problem - residents have been presented with a confusing and often conflicting set of proposals in the LDP, some of which may be realistic options and others flights of fantasy. They need clarity, honesty and reassurance that consultation is not just a "tick the box" exercise, but a genuine attempt to engage with the public.

By the way lets not forget that those so called elderly nimbies are the parents of the younger people looking to be housed now and in the future. I am sure they want the best for their children.