|
Another referendum is being organised in the Canton district, where many residents are alarmed by traffic proposals that could see main thoroughfare Cowbridge Road East closed to all traffic bar commuters. in june!
I don't live in Cardiff but am back frequently and stay not too far from Fairwater. I know of the heavy traffic you get on Llantrisant road, which also backs up into Llandaf north. I'm not sure about what its like within Fairwater itself.
Traffic and congestion will be an issue wherever development takes place. It will be more of an issue for developments located further from Cardiff - because they will end up commuting to Cardiff. And it will be more of an issue for NE Cardiff, where there just isn't the potential for public transport on the same scale as at Waterhall. As I said there are reasons that I think Waterhall is a better option than others:
- there is scope for re-instatement of a train line, potentially serving Creigau, Llantrisant and Beddau too.
- there is also scope, if necessary, for western access from a new junction on the A4232.
- an integrated 8,000 home development has the critical mass to support community and commercial infrastructure that cannot be provided in smaller developments.
The other option is of course to build nothing - but that isn't really an option. Because what that will mean is greater upwards pressure on house prices, particularly in Cardiff. This will make life less affordable for young people. It will also mean less social mobility. And, it will mean a less successful economy, as growing businesses cannot find the staff they need in Cardiff, and instead look to locate or grow elsewhere.
And the Canton vote is going to be about what exactly? Will it be based on facts or on scare-mongering? Because at the moment there are no plans for "one way systems" or "bus only routes". What we had was a consultant's assessment of the options which stated that such options could deliver the public transport capacity required, but would have significant knock on effects on other road users. And it seems highly unlikely such a plan would be taken forward given this. If people want to make their feelings known about this particular scheme - thats fine: it will help ensure it does not happen. But what I think is likely to happen is that campaigners will try to knit the broader plans for Waterhall and this one single unlikely option together as "the council's plans". That is misrepresent to kill two birds with one stone, and do some valuable political point scoring.
I saw this happen in Pontypridd with plans to develop the town centre. There the result was the decline of a town. If we hobble Cardiff its worse - we get the continued decline of a nation.
not sure why everyone here is anonymous..... the basic issue is about the Welsh LDP process. It's rubbish, because it manages at once to give truly local communities (like Fairwater, where I live) no real say, and at the same time plan strategic issues like transport and housing on the absurdly small scale of the Welsh Counties. Cardiff is almost full, look at the map.
We don't want to lose what's left of open space. We need a regional strategy that is then open to local approval. The WG wants councils to merge in any case, so why force the nonsensical and unconnected plans to go forward?
I am not speaking for other communities, but I imagine various valleys towns like Merthyr might welcome thousands of houses on ex-industrial sites with a rapid and high capacity public transport link to Cardiff.
People in power are always interested in increasing their taxable base, having a bigger empire, so they will be easily persuaded to allow massive development. Actually. developers seem to find it quite easy to persuade local councillors to do what they want in most situations.
So does this mean now that Waterhall is now not going to happen or will the council just ignore them? I'm looking to buy a house within the next few years so I take great interest in the LDP. I live in the east of Cardiff so don't know Fairwater all too well. Was this NIMBYism or the council trying to implement a badly designed plan?
Labour should ignore this joke and plough on. Can't let some NIMBY's in Fairwater kill Cardiff. Cities which don't grow, die. End of.
http://dailywales.net/2014/04/30/cardiff-residents-reject-local-development-plan/
"With only 31 voters out of over ten thousand in the ward supporting the controversial plan,"
What? are we assuming that every single abstention are voting "No" now or what? Is that poorly produced organ, merely some partisan mouthpiece or other?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@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
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.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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
CARDIFFWALESMAP
- FORUM |