I'm sure similar arguments were raised by the residents of Llanishen when Thornhill was being developed in the early 90's. You can actually see the demarcation point between the Llanishen estate and the new Thornhill - it's a 50m wide swathe of greenery. I imagine the views to Caerphilly mountain were lovely and no doubt generations of kids from the Llanishen estate would have played in the fields and woods surrounding the area. I've no doubt that loads of those kids now live in Thornhill.

Similarly I'm sure the residents of Rumney, Old St Mellons and Trowbridge were worried what would happen when the St Mellons estate was built in the 80's/90's. I was forced to go cross country running through the flat fields that existed there before development all the way to Hendre Lake and back by sadistic PE teachers (not that I've let it affect me). There was nothing there, not even isolated farm houses. Now there are many thousands of dwellings. I know that lots of the kids who grew up in Rumney and Trowbridge have now found perfectly decent family homes in St Mellons which despite its reputation is actually a pleasant area to live in notwithstanding its poor connectivity.

The world didn't fall in on the elderly or the infirm residents of Llanishen, Rumney, Trowbridge etc. New medical centres were built, new schools, shops, pubs, leisure centres, open spaces, new bus routes etc. Thousands of much needed homes were built - if they weren't needed the likes of Persimmon, Redrow etc would not have gone near it with a barge pole. Why would they build houses for which there was no demand?

The arguments raised by some people in Fairwater were probably raised by the residents of Bute Crescent when it was proposed that dockers housing be built nearby. These concerns are probably as old as urban settlements. I don't not sympathise with them because change is worrying but part of living in the city is that you live in a constant state of flux. If a city isn't in flux it's dead or dying. The fact that people want to live in Cardiff, work here, pay their council tax, contribute, raise their kids etc is a good thing on balance although not without it's downsides. What will be important is how those downsides are mitigated and in that regard the council and developers need to reassure those that are affected.

I'd also agree with George that Waterhall has the advantage of better access to better infrastructure already. It also seems that public transport is being put at the heart of the development which is one of the mistakes made with St Mellons and hopefully the way in which Waterhall is built will reflect the change in mindset regarding how we travel from the car centric 80's and 90's.

I would also argue that Waterhall is one of the better sites available, given the potential for railway and linkages with lower RCT. And although at the moment the LDP doesn't have plans for direct links to the A4232, that is also surely an option and one that would relieve substantial amounts of congestion.

The other large site between Pontprennau and Lisvane offers much fewer options for improvements in public transport, and the access roads (Cyncoed Road and the B4562 linking to the A469) are either local roads never designed to service longer-distance travel, or face problems already worse than Llantrisant Road (the A469 takes traffic from Caerphilly and the Rhymney Valley, whereas most traffic from Llantrisant or Beddau, where the Llantrisant Road goes to takes alternative routes).

Waterhall is also owned by one landowner so we can get some real masterplanning here unlike in areas where ownership is more diffuse.

People want to live in Cardiff, more houses need to be built to accomodate them and ensure they are not priced out. Waterhall is the best place for that and will be aided by the potential for railway connections. Luddites and NIMBY's will hopefully be ignored and the City can continue evolving.

Cities that don't grow, die.

Their is also going o b a public meeting in ely before long to save heir green fields. if we all club together we can stop the 'constructors' beating us. I don't want my fields gone, we have got to protect the English language communities from developers, look whats happened in Grangetown

I got the impression that Pringle was parodying the situation. (e.g. sometimes people in North Wales oppose development because of its threat to Welsh speaking communities).

Exactly do we really want more welsh speakers moving to Cardiff, us English speakers need to protect Fair-water, from the welsh speaking nationalists

If I recall correctly, Cardiff is forecast by demographers to be the fastest-growing city in the UK over the next 12-20 odd years.

This is the perfect opportunity to do what has never really happened in Britain and plan large-scale development in conjunction with urban regeneration in as sustainable manner as possible.

The rhetoric issued in press releases by the anti-Waterhall group is worrying, is purposely naive and is misleading. Unsurprisingly. It is such a shame the media lap it up when there is a balance to be struck.

There is a wider picture and it is important that wider issues are considered. And that is not only housing the population of the future, but it is also providing clean energy, ensuring movement is done efficiently and effectively, and that the country's ability to feed themselves is not detrimentally affected. And that better services are provided where they are needed. But sadly - but understandably - anti-development groups (or NIMBYs, or BANANAs) only see part of the picture: the one that helps their cause the best.

Incidentally, a recent publication (http://wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/planningstats/housing-land-availability-in-wales/cardiff/2013/?lang=en) shows that the City has a housing land supply of 3.2 years, rather than the minimum of 5 years it should have. Cardiff needs to grow; it needs to build in a sustainable manner on greenfields and it needs to deliver strong messages to anti-development groups explaining clearly what the fundamental long-term issues are and how they have to be addressed, and in what manner they are to be addressed. This may not have been done, for whatever reason. But the issues remain and the solution remains.

Also, thanks for the explanation of the Canton PZ thing

This has become a very odd thread. There's a lot of interesting debate but also some weird stuff.

I suspect "The Dark Man" and "Voice of Reason" may be the same person. The same may be true of "Random Comment" and "Pringle". They seem to know each other - could they take their private arguement elsewhere?

It's Paul's forum but can't we just stop this stuff?

I'm always randomcomment (I used to post under a different name in the past). Not sure who Pringle is. But have I been known to go on about welsh speakers? No.

And I would add, I didn't start that above.

Thats a fair point - to an extent. But the last LDP put forward suffered two key problems:

1) It didn't have enough housing in total, assuming that the slack would be taken up elsewhere.

2) The densities assumed for brownfield development were too high (e.g. Cardiff Pointe was assumed to be something like 1500 units compared to the scheme which is about 800 units), and it was thought that too much was assumed to come from "windfall" schemes (I'm not so sure here, as I think we might get continued 'windfall' from old offices being converted into residential, and particularly student accomodation).

Taken together, that means an undersupply of housing relative to demand (both because too few were planned in the first place, and many of those planned wouldn't have been deliverable). Given the market for housing elsewhere in South Wales, if those houses got pushed out to other parts of the region, it would have largely been on green fields in southern RCT, Bridgend and southern Caerphilly. That was never explicitly stated - but it would have been the outcome.

So whilst they wanted "brownfield only" in Cardiff - the result would have probably been more greenfield development outside of Cardiff.

Maybe Plymouth estates should erect some faux factories on the waterhall site on the sly. Then a few years down the line announce the sad closure of the industrial units with the loss of 3 jobs, but fear not, as development of the former brownfield site will provide homes for families of the future and hundreds of construction jobs.

Seriously, do people think we have an endless supply of brownfield sites? This is wales. It is nothing but green fields. And a few sheep. White sheep and green fields. I think we can afford to build a few houses on a few green fields. In fact it could be argued we can't afford to not build on green fields.

Well, that guy might be a bully and a bombast, but he called me "inner circle". I was flattered for about five minutes till I realised it only means he's never read the forum before. Damn.

Seems to me this issue (and thread) is just a NIMBY vs ALAINIMBY fight-out for the most part. The ALAINIMBY's generally win over because there will always be more of them.

Fairwater/Pentrebane do seem to be getting double shafted compared to other wards with little to no consultation from residents though, I'm glad they're getting a chance to be a nuisance even if that is all they manage.

The city definitely needs expansion and road travel is horrendous, but the lack of clarity on development strategy from the council isn't helping to stem grievances either.

The residents of Fairwater deserve the full picture says Labour Cllr Sue Lent.
The Deputy Council Leader concedes that the LDP information/consultation process has clearly failed.
So Sue -what has the Council failed to tell them and why?