Thursday 22nd October
I am backing our green sites
I ATTENDED the open meeting called by Coun Neil McEvoy at Ysgol Plasmawr School (“McEvoy faces angry voters”, October 17), together with three of my colleagues from the RREEL Action Group.

We went along to the meeting to support the motion of no building on green field belts outside the city.

However, we also wanted to listen to the councillor who, while promoting no building on green field belts outside the city, is more than happy to support his Lib Dem colleagues, who want to build on inner-city greenfield sites and school playing fields such as Cantonian High School, Rumney Recreation Ground and Bute Park. We arrived early, sat in the front row and within minutes were told we had to register our attendance by giving our personal contact details.

Coun McEvoy then told us, in no uncertain terms, that we were not allowed to speak about Rumney Recreation Ground.

To our surprise and gratitude, it was a resident from Coun McEvoy’s own ward who stood up and spoke in support of our campaign of no building of a school on Rumney Recreation Ground. Thank you, sir, for your support.

Coun McEvoy stated in the Echo that he had “cross-party support”. We did not see any Lib Dems present and the few Labour and Conservative councillors who were present said they would not support Green Cardiff because it is a political group.

Coun McEvoy, all I wanted to say is that, for the first time ever, I agree with you and support your motion not to build on greenfield sites outside the city!

Don Taylor
Chairman, RREEL Action Group

McEvoy is to be praised
YOUR headline “McEvoy faces angry voters” (October 17) is a distortion of facts.

We had to put up with the antics of ex councillor Michael Michael playing to the audience like a poor man’s Marlon Brando in the Godfather.

It took a voice from Ely to put a stop to the nonsense and the St Fagans representatives also spoke well.

Councillor McEvoy is to be praised for the way he kept the meeting open and for the dignity shown.

We are the voters in this area and by the time the meeting ended I and others thought it went very well.

A Davis
Lavender Grove, Pentrebane, Cardiff

Not motivated by the politics
IN RESPONSE to Councillor McEvoy’s postbag letter (Viewpoints, October 15), in which he describes “gate-crashing” a meeting of “Consult Cardiff”, the group he refers to consisted of myself and three other founding members of Consult Cardiff. We are a non-political group established to oppose large-scale building around Fairwater and Radyr.

A fifth person present was known to Coun McEvoy as a Labour Party member, who was attending our meeting as a Fairwater resident – our meetings are open to anyone who wishes to attend.

He now seeks to denigrate our campaign by insinuating that we are politically motivated. Once again councillor, we are not.

T Clements
Cherry Close, Fairwater

Park bridge is ill-conceived
HOW baffling that Neil McEvoy should be setting up a Green Cardiff organisation having wholeheartedly supported the building of a colossal bridge into Bute Park – a 30-foot wide monstrosity designed to take articulated lorries that has created a huge gash in the woodland belt that once protected the park from traffic noise.

Extraordinary, too, is his claim that this ill-conceived scheme is designed to separate pedestrians from traffic. How exactly does building a 30-foot wide bridge for articulated lorries in a park, and new roads to go with it, protect us from traffic? Surely, anyone who was serious about green issues would be at pains to keep traffic out of the park...

Nerys Lloyd-Pierce
Pontcanna, Cardiff

Councillor asks residents to protect Cardiff’s green spaces

October 17th 2009 by David James, South Wales Echo

CARDIFF council deputy leader Neil McEvoy faced fierce criticism at a packed public meeting as he launched a campaign to protect green spaces on Cardiff’s outskirts.

The Plaid councillor for Fairwater addressed more than 200 people in Ysgol Plasmawr’s school hall including campaigners from other parts of the city, Green party representatives, councillors and residents.

He unveiled a notice of motion which is going to the next full council meeting and said he was asking all councillors to object to major residential developments which go beyond the line outside Cardiff’s existing residential areas.

The motion affirmed the city’s objection to the proposed 4,000-home developments at Waterhall in the west of the city and between Lisvane and Pontprennau in the north.

Both of these have been proposed by developers in opposition to the council’s own Local Development Plan, in a process called “alternative sites”, and their plans will go before a National Assembly Planning inspector later this year.

Coun McEvoy was supported by several local residents, St Fagans community council and members of the Ely garden village campaign group, who told the meeting he had helped them see off a development in their ward.

One said: “If we can do it in Ely, you can do it anywhere.”

Yet there was criticism from campaigners fighting to protect other green spaces within Cardiff’s boundaries, including those fighting a planned school at Rumney recreation ground.

Several Fairwater residents campaigning for the consultation on the Local Development Plan to be re-opened also confronted Coun McEvoy accusing him of doing “too little, too late” as the consultation had already closed.

And a representative of Radyr and Morganstown community council accused city councillors of failing their residents by not informing them of the plans earlier.

She said: “We have elected people to inform us but we also have a duty to inform ourselves. Councillors have let us down.”

Last night, Conservative councillor Craig Williams said the city’s Tory group would not support Coun McEvoy’s campaign, which he is calling Green Cardiff.

He said: “I think it is a political group. We won’t be supporting it. We are completely against the alternative sites but won’t be supporting Green Cardiff.”

Welsh Green party activist Jake Griffiths said he would not be supporting Green Cardiff as he said it was meaningless unless it also objected to Cardiff council’s proposed International Business Park at Junction 33.

He said: “The proposed International Business Park is the thin edge of the wedge in trying to protect Cardiff’s green belt.

“If it gets the go ahead it will give the green light to developers wishing to build on the green belt to work that bit harder to get their proposals through.”

Councillor McEvoy said he would be pressing ahead with the campaign despite the criticism. He said that much of the opposition to the campaign was directed at him and not the issue.

He said: “Really there’s only an issue on this because I’m proposing it. We’ve got cross party support. St Fagans community council is supporting us.

“It’s up to the other parties to defend their positions to the people of Cardiff.”

Thursday 15th October
Party politics has no place in this issue

LABOUR’S approach in Cardiff is based on complete and utter hypocrisy.

Their latest line against Plaid in Fairwater on the proposed housing developments is, on the one hand, that it will never happen, because it is against the Plaid/Lib Dem Council policy of developing primarily brown field sites (a policy that I voted for).

On the other hand, they are saying that we are doing too little, too late because the Assembly inspector could impose his view on the council.

I would point out to all residents that when similar plans were mooted years previously, not one Labour leaflet was delivered in Fairwater informing residents of what may have happened. Thankfully, the plans did not come to fruition previously.

In contrast, Plaid in Fairwater informed every single resident in our area of the private developer’s plans.

I personally forwarded many objections into the planning process. Still, though, because of the legal process of planning, the democratic will of the council could be overturned by an Assembly planning inspector. We cannot allow this to happen.

The purpose of Green Cardiff/Caerdydd Gwyrdd is to draw attention to the democratic deficit in planning and to make sure that as many people in this city as possible make their objections known and to make sure that the hundreds of objections in the process are heeded.

The “so-called” residents’ campaign in Fairwater is spreading misinformation and has already, I believe, libelled me.

I gate-crashed their open meeting last week and for a second I thought I had gone back in time a decade to a Fairwater Labour Party meeting. I knew the personalities and I was not welcome. They refused to even listen to what I had to say. The credibility of New Labour activists is zero; our community has had enough of them and we will not allow them to hijack a campaign for their own political ends.

The Green Cardiff/Caerdydd Gwyrdd campaign is not party political, it is Cardiffian. I have invited every single elected politician at all levels in Cardiff to the meeting tonight (Thursday) at 7.30pm at Plasmawr School.

On the campaign committee I would like every party to be represented, along with the independents.

Maybe then we can concentrate on what matters and get over the party political nonsense. It has no place in this issue.

Wednesday 14th October - Main Article - South Wales Echo Article - Editor: David James

Meeting over homes plan ‘too little, too late’

CARDIFF council’s deputy leader Neil McEvoy has been criticised for holding a meeting to raise opposition to a proposed development – six weeks after the consultation closed.

The Fairwater councillor is facing a stormy reception in his ward tomorrow night from campaigners who are angry at the way he has dealt with plans to build more than 4,000 homes on undeveloped land in the west of the city.

Councillor McEvoy, pictured, denied the meeting was a waste of time and said community opposition could still influence the National Assembly planning inspector, who will decide whether to include the proposals – against the council’s wishes – in the city’s local development plan.

He said: “Unless we make a bigger fuss than we have made already, I fear that they will overturn the council’s policy. I think we’ve got to make as much noise as possible so that any move to overturn the policy will be untenable.”

He said he was launching a non-political campaign called Green Cardiff against the development of open land in the city.

Campaigners in the west of the city who have set up a website called www.consultcardiff.org said Coun McEvoy should have been trying to mobilise opposition before the six-week consultation finished on August 28.

Website founder Daniel Mohamed, 20, said Coun McEvoy’s campaign was “too little, too late”. He said: “One of our members informed him 17 months ago and now he is organising a meeting after the consultation period has ended. I don’t see what benefit it will have.”

Mr Mohamed said Coun McEvoy’s efforts would be better served trying to get the consultation re-opened than wasting time on a campaign that the National Assembly planning inspector would be obliged to ignore.

Consult Cardiff has argued that the consultation was not publicised well enough and should be re-opened to give more people a say.

During the consultation, the three Plaid councillors in Fairwater were criticised for misleading residents on the Local Development Plan process. The three, who also include Keith Parry and Lisa Ford, repeatedly told residents that the council executive would make the decision and urged residents to write to Coun McEvoy in his position as deputy leader.

Coun McEvoy has now admitted this was a mistake and that a National Assembly Planning Inspector will make the decision on whether to include the alternative sites put forward by developers in the council’s proposed blueprint for the growth of the city until 2021. He said he forwarded all representations sent to him on to the Assembly’s planning inspectorate.

Although the council’s plans protect the green land in the west of the city, owners Plymouth Estates want its plans to build 4,000 homes and a district shopping centre in a development dubbed “Waterhall” included in the local development plan. This, and plans for homes between Pontprennau and Lisvane in the north of the city, have been backed by the Assembly Government and business leaders who have argued that family homes are needed to allow the city to grow.

Coun McEvoy’s meeting is being held at Ysgol Plasmawr, Waterhall Road, at 7.30pm tomorrow.

Tuesday 13th October
Everyone in city should have a say
I WRITE to thank Don Taylor for introducing Consult Cardiff in his letter to Viewpoints (October 5).

I would also like to congratulate Ron Page and his supporters for their victory with Heath Park.

Consult Cardiff is a group that has been set up by concerned residents of Fairwater and Pentrebane.

We are worried that we have not been given a fair opportunity to comment on the Cardiff Local Development Plan (LDP).

The LDP is important as it decides which areas of Cardiff will be developed from 2006-2021.

Basically as we understand it, if a development site is included in the LDP when it is adopted, the chances of STOPPING that development from going ahead in the future are pretty slim.

Sending in a petition later in the day when a developer applies for outline planning permission would possibly get the following response or something similar: “The communities were consulted during every stage of The Local Development Plan process. You had a chance to respond then.”

This is why it is so important that ordinary residents are given a fair chance to input their views on the LDP before it’s too late.

The Community Involvement Scheme is supposed to insure that everyone with an interest is able to comment on the plans. It is a legal obligation!

Our group’s current first objective is to get the council to re-consult on the LDP Alternative Sites.

As they previously failed to inform the city’s residents in a manner appropriate with what they suggest in their own LDP delivery agreement, instead consulting a maximum of just 7% of Cardiff’s adult population! We think 100% would be more apt!

Our second objective would be to prevent the proposed development of Waterhall (Cardiff West).

Fairwater Councillor Neil McEvoy has recently said in a councillor’s report: “We felt the first public meeting was premature, but feel that now we are further into the LDP process, a campaign must be started. We have concerns that the council’s policies on housing development may not be listened to.

So I have a question to ask him: “Neil, yes or no, do you think the council should re-consult on the LDP Alternative Sites, to give everyone in Cardiff the correct opportunity to voice their opinions to support the council’s ‘no Greenfield development’ policy?”

Residents were not consulted

I WOULD like to thank John Sheppard, the chairman of Governors of Cantonian High School for sharing his plans to put blocks of student housing on the school fields with the Echo (“School could get £4m makeover in fields sell-off”, October 7).

Neither he nor Councillor Neil McEvoy, whom I understand is a governor, have consulted a single resident on these grandiose schemes.

These gentlemen have now blighted the properties of everyone living around the school fields including that of my elderly mother, who is less than happy with the prospect.

Furthermore, this mooted £4m is unlikely to remain with the school and the idea of a “centre of sporting excellence” at Cantonian was first floated by Coun McEvoy in the Echo last year (“We can turn school into a field of dreams”, July 1, 2008) so it’s no surprise that he declared it a “win-win” situation.

On October 15 at 7.30pm at Ysgol Plasmawr, he and the other Plaid councillors have called a Plaid-chaired “public meeting” to oppose the Additional Site proposal to build 4,000 houses on the green fields to the north of Pentrebane even though the consultation deadline was August 28!

They cannot start a belated political campaign to stop building on green land in Pentrebane while calling the proposal to slap student blocks on Fairwater doorsteps a win-win situation!

Concerned Pentrebane residents should contact Consult Cardiff – as this is a non-political campaign – at www.consultcardiff.org

Concerned Fairwater residents should write to Mr Sheppard demanding to be consulted in future and ready themselves for the planning battles ahead should the governors not listen to reason.

Paul Mitchell
Former Labour Councillor for Canton and Riverside,
Alexandra Road, Canton, Cardiff

Precious space should be kept

THE announcement by Councillor Neil McEvoy that the building of possibly hundreds of students flats of part of the Cantonian school field is a win-win is bizarre to say the least.

One of the reasons that work is outstanding at Cantonian is the lack of planning by the very council of which Coun McEvoy is deputy leader.

He seems to want it both ways – in leaflets he states that the Lib Dem/Plaid council has a policy of not building on green fields (conveniently forgetting about the green fields earmarked for house building in Trowbridge and St Mellons) and now says that taking green school fields is win-win.

Not long ago he was posting leaflets saying he was going to protect open space in Cantonian.

The last Labour councillors provided first-class sporting facilities in Fairwater costing hundreds of thousands of pounds and did not have to sell one inch of open space.

If additional sports provision is going to be provided at Cantonian it should be done through the council’s huge education budget and not by selling precious open space.

Building hundreds of student flats in this quiet area is not win-win in any language.

Michael Costas-Michael
Former Labour Councillor for Fairwater,
Fairwater Road, Cardiff

It’s not a price worth paying

HAVING recently received a letter from Councillor Neil McEvoy requesting support in objecting to the proposed building on green land on the outskirts of Cardiff West, I was surprised to read (October 7) that he is willing to support the sale of green land, namely Cantonian School playing fields, in his constituency.

He states this is a price worth paying for new sporting facilities. Yes the new sporting facilities may be good for the school and local area and most definitely Cantonian needs money for upgrading, but as a resident who, 25 years ago, fought to save playing fields at Fairwater Primary School, I cannot agree that it is a price worth paying to again sell off school land.

Once the land is built on it is lost forever. We are already congested in this area and open spaces should be left. The council appear to have an “open chequebook” when building, extending or refurbishing Welsh schools, so surely they can find the funds for Cantonian.

IF the suggested housing development for Pentrebane goes ahead, it will destroy another green site and one with great historical memories attached.

The site includes Pentrebane Farm which was used during the civil war as the headquarters for the Royalists (Colonel Horton). Before that it was the site for a Roman counting house and I would think that many a Roman soldier may have been laid to rest in the fields there.

Why are the developers not looking at the site of the Wiggins Teape paper mills instead? It is an eyesore.

Far better to build on such a site than spoil beautiful countryside. Since time began trees have been the most natural way to stop flooding – we have some lovely trees at the end of my street that will have to go. In time this land will become just wetland. Not now – but in time...

Wednesday 7th October - Main Article - South Wales Echo - Editor: David James
"School could get £4m makeover in fields sell-off"

A CITY school could be in line for a £4m redevelopment – if it sells off part of its playing fields for student housing.

The Echo can reveal that the governors at Cantonian High School in Fairwater are in discussions with the University of Wales Institute Cardiff (Uwic) and a developer to work as a partnership on the project.

It is understood the school governors believe the land in question is poorly used and that the cash generated from its sale could help turn the school into a “centre of sporting excellence”.

The plans would include the creation of a Welsh league football pitch, an artificial turf pitch, a new rugby ground and a cricket wicket.

Councillor Neil McEvoy, the council’s deputy leader and a Fairwater councillor, said the plans are exciting.

He said: “The proposal seems to be exciting because we could have first-class sporting facilities in the community of Fairwater.

“The downside is that some of the ground would have to be sold off. No-one really wants to do that but, in the real world, if we are going to sell a small proportion of a field to safeguard the rest, it is probably a price worth paying.

“The school tell me the area proposed isn’t used and is quite difficult to police, so the governors seem quite relaxed. On the face of it, it could be win-win.”

It is understood that in the plans being discussed, the school buildings would be refurbished and re-clad to make them more energy efficient.

The chairman of Cantonian High School governors, John Sheppard, confirmed to the Echo that proposals had been considered by the governors at their last meeting.

He stressed these were at an early stage and were currently confidential, but said the governors had high aspirations for the school.

“We will consider all proposals that will give our pupils the buildings and facilities that they deserve,” he said.

“We are proud of the significant progress that the school has made over the last few years and we intend building on this.

“Academically this year 51% of our children achieved the equivalent to A to C at GCSE level.

“They and their teachers are to be congratulated. Cantonian also prides itself on being an ‘open’ school – a true comprehensive – and we equally celebrate the non-academic and sporting achievements of our pupils.”

The Echo understands that the intention is to generate the funding for the scheme from the development of student accommodation on land currently not used by the school.

The student accommodation would meet the needs of Uwic, which has already gained planning permission to expand its Llandaff campus when it closes its Colchester Road site.

Monday 5th October
We have to fight to save our parks
I JUMPED for joy when I read the article “This isn’t just any park… it was given to the citizens” (Echo, September 29).

If you ask the older generation in Rumney and Llanrumney they will tell you that, like Heath Park, Rumney Recreation Ground was also given to its citizens by Squire Williams, the landowner.

Sadly, the documentation of this gift has been lost and we now have to battle with the Lib Dem/Plaid council to save our beloved park.

It is a sad indictment of this council that the citizens of Cardiff have to fight to save their parks in this wonderfully green city.

Battles have been fought, and won, at Heath Park, Ely Playing Fields and Sophia Gardens (until another car park is needed).

Other battles are still being fought by Bute Park Alliance and the newly-formed Consult Cardiff group, fighting to save green open spaces in Fairwater and Pentrebane from development.

Then, of course, we have our very own Rumney Recreation Ground. It is fantastic that three battles have been won so far.

Has the council finally seen sense or have they simply been backed into a corner?

Many congratulations to Ron Page and the Heath Park Residents Association. Long may you continue to enjoy your park.

THE extensive coverage on your letters page of the difficulties of clarification regarding planning issues as they pertain to LDP Cardiff, and the huge ramifications of getting these decisions wrong, is more worrying than immediately apparent and has far-reaching implications.

The people who have bothered to voice concern through your newspaper are those who understand the system best and are socially active enough to ensure their voice is heard.

However, the main message which filters through is that making the voices of the public paramount in these exercises is far from easy, partly because the mechanisms for this through the planning system are tortuous.

In these times of recession, it is more important than ever to ensure that decisions made by our planning departments are sensible, transparent and accountable, which involves making matters as simple as possible in terms of public response.

Surely we need to address that aspect of procedure sooner rather than later, when catastrophic decisions may make their way through the system by default, affecting generations to come at a time when we cannot afford mistakes.

Government should never underestimate the common sense which can be brought to decision-making by the public, who are those at the sharp end.

Bourke A Le Carpentier
Wales Action for Sensible Planning, an outreach arm of Aberdare & District Chamber of Trade & Commerce

Friday 4th September
Playing politics with planning
I AM writing to support J Hayes letter (Viewpoints, September 1) requesting the LDP consultation period be extended and making a very valid point, that the council has carried out the bare minimum of notification on the Alternative Site consultation process.

The council has failed to adequately alert the people of Cardiff to the magnitude of these proposals but Councillor Berman should refrain from the cheap shots at Rhodri and Julie Morgan (Greenfield site challenge issued over homes call, September 1), accept responsibility and organise a non-political, city-wide consultation to reinforce the council’s preferred strategy not to build on green-field sites.

Unfortunately his deputy, Neil McEvoy (Viewpoints, September 1), continues to misrepresent the process. In a Plaid leaflet, at a public meeting and again in his letter he gives the clear impression that it is the Executive – of which he is a member – that makes the decisions on the alternative site proposals.

The council will indeed discuss the LDP in committees and at a full council meeting on November 19 but the decision will be made by an independent Planning Inspector, who will decide on any amendments that should be made to the Deposit Plan.

Politicising planning issues is a dangerous game and runs the risk of playing into the hands of the developers. Perhaps, Cllr McEvoy should look to J Hayes and D Mohamed for lessons in fact and clarity.

CARDIFF council's deputy leader Neil McEvoy has clarified a mistake he made in a letter to the Echo over who decides the result of a bid to build 4,000 new homes on green land in the west of Cardiff. The Fairwater councillor said he was happy to correct the impression he gave that the council's executive would decide whether the proposal was included in the city's local Development Plan.

A National Assembly planning inspector will ultimately make the decision on all the alternative sites put forward for Cardiffs plan. Councillor McEvoy said: "The council makes recommendations and makes comments on every representation. An Assembly Inspector will then assess the soundness of the plan, with the council recommendations against evidence. There may have been some confusion on this, so I am happy to clarify."

Councillor Neil McEvoy - News Brief Article, Page 20 South Wales Echo - Thursday 3rd September

A COUNCIL blueprint for Cardiff’s future falls far short of what needs to be done to attract new business investment, according to the Assembly Government.

It has told Cardiff Council it should drastically revise its proposed Local Development Plan (LDP), which sets out how the city should develop in the years to 2021.

In a formal submission to a public consultation on the LDP, the Assembly Government says the council’s plans for new housing development falls woefully short of what is required, and that new housing should be built on greenfield sites.

A letter to Cardiff Council from senior Assembly Government planning official Mark Newey states: “There is a fundamental issue regarding the ability of the plan’s strategy to deliver the vision which presents a significant degree of risk for the authority if not addressed prior to submission stage.

“In summary, while the vision sets out a clear position to enable Cardiff to play its role as a European capital city, the LDP strategy does not deliver the council’s own vision, nor does it adequately reflect the evidence base. The degree of concern is significant.”

Top of the list of objections comes the Assembly Government’s belief that there is a need for more family housing to attract workers for the new businesses it believes will be attracted to Cardiff.

A report accompanying Mr Newey’s letter says: “The strategy is over-reliant on existing housing commitments and a residual provision of approximately 8,000 dwellings coming forward on small sites, change-of-use and unidentified ‘windfall’ sites, that is sites of unknown location, scale and delivery. This raises concerns regarding the delivery of affordable housing and infrastructure over the 15-year plan period.

“While the strategy seeks to maximise brownfield opportunities, it does not deliver the range and mix of housing to meet the identified needs.

“With an over-reliance on flats/ apartments and higher densities on existing sites with planning permission, the ability to provide family accommodation will be extremely limited.”

The Assembly Government says there is a need for 2,173 new affordable homes per year, against the LDP target of 306.

Other concerns include the council’s failure to identify where around 200 gypsy and traveller pitches should be located and uncertainty over water resources, flooding and waste management.

David Rosser, director of CBI Wales, aid: “We share WAG’s strong statements on the ‘significant degree of risk’ posed by Cardiff’s current LDP and hope the joint concern of business and government will lead to the substantial revisions that are needed.

“The LDP sets out how the city must grow and be shaped over the next 12 years. What it says is critical for the future economic growth of the city and our country. In June we went on record to highlight the disparity between the council’s ambitious economic development strategy and the restrictive LDP.

“The Welsh government, like the CBI, appears to have rejected the council’s plans on the grounds of it not delivering the range and mix of housing to meet identified needs, instead relying too heavily on flats. The provision of sufficient affordable family housing and commercial buildings to attract a young, professional workforce to the city will be critical if Cardiff is to remain a destination of choice.”

I WRITE in response to recent letters about Cardiff Local Development plan (LDP) Alternative Sites Consultation.

Residents and councillors alike have been forced to send in letters and in Fairwater’s case distribute leaflets, attempting to explain how residents can make representations on proposed candidate sites.

Why should this be the case? Why should David James’ Echo article outlining some of the Alternative Candidate sites, the process, and how affected residents can respond still be considered as “news” five weeks into this consultation period (“Builders putting city plan to test”, August 22)?

In my opinion the answer lies in Cardiff council’s failure to stick to the methods, set out in their legally binding delivery agreement and community involvement scheme has resulted in as many as 90% of residents not being properly notified of this consultation period.

Section 2.16 of the Cardiff LDP Delivery Agreement clearly states that: The council will use a variety of methods to raise awareness and publicise progress of the LDP including press releases and website information.

This will include features in the council newspaper the Capital Times and notices in the South Wales Echo.

These methods plus leaflets and public exhibitions, have been used to raise awareness of the other consultation stages.

Why then, at the stage when residents get a chance to comment on proposed sites that would directly affect them has advertising consisted of only: A legal notice in the classified section of the Western Mail on July 17, and notification e-mailed to the 442 people on the LDP database.

I hope that the council will reconsider its claims that it has satisfied its legal requirements, extend the consultation period and re-advertise this consultation in a manner designed to reach 100% of Cardiff’s population, rather than the 7.9% illustrated above.

Bearing in mind the importance of the LDP, the confusion illustrated on this Viewpoints page and that the council guidance for this particular consultation states that: “The process is necessary so that the Inspector can be confident that everyone affected has had the opportunity to comment before he/she considers making changes to the Plan.”

MY thanks to all residents who expressed their views at the public meeting organised by Communities First in Fairwater and also at the PACT meeting on August 12.

My thanks also to all residents who responded to Plaid Cymru’s 6,000 leaflets in Fairwater on the Local Development Plan.

I would like to state that the former Labour councillor who stated in the meeting that the requests of private developers to amend the LDP have nothing to do with the Council Executive was completely wrong. He seemed to misunderstand the difference between an amendment and an appeal.

All views will be fed into the system and the Council Executive will reach a view on matters, in a balanced, objective way.

The same ex-councillor also criticised Plaid councillors for not letting enough residents know about the proposed amendments.

As mentioned, every house in our area received a leaflet on the issue and there were two meetings the public could attend.

Friday 28th August
No more posh penthouses
I WISH to comment on your article “Cardiff: How it almost was” (August 24).

In February 2008 Plaid expressed opposition about the proposed development of the 33 storey Bay Pointe towers in Cardiff Bay.

Plaid warned that with the housing market facing a downturn because of reckless speculators we could be left with an enormous white elephant dominating Cardiff’s shoreline. Thankfully that hasn’t happened.

I would urge the local council’s planning committee to re-examine its housing policy in Cardiff Bay. In view of the changed economic circumstances now is a very good time to consider future strategies.

Wednesday 26th August
This is about planning, not politics
IN RESPONSE to Councillor Neil McEvoy (Viewpoints, August 24), I would like to start by thanking him for his response.

However, I would like to make it very clear that this is not a political issue, but a planning issue. I have been left totally bewildered with how you have made any sort of link between me and Labour councillors in other wards as I have no political stance whatsoever.

The only reason I mentioned Plaid Cymru in the last letter was because you published your “information leaflet” through Plaid and so therefore I feel it is in fact you trying to make this political.

I also fail to see what my aunt living in Ely has to do with anything. The Local Development Plan is a city-wide issue, and both she and I have worked together very hard over the last few weeks to find information relating to these plans.

I ask you, why are you the only one trying to confuse our fellow citizens by giving inaccurate information on the address they should write to? Other councillors and reporters have written giving the correct address.

This is a planning department consultation, and having had contact with the head of strategic planning at Cardiff council, I have been informed that it is in fact an independent inspector who will make a decision on the views expressed in the consultation, and citizens’ responses will only be counted through the “online portal” or the other methods I mentioned in my previous letter.

Might I suggest people write to both you and the planning department’s address?

Regarding the “Waterhall” development plans, this is a phased development. The first phase has cleverly been formulated to create around 1,500 jobs and just 590 residential units around the Radyr area, making it more likely to go ahead, opening the “flood gates” for further development.

We would like to stress that we aren’t for or against these plans. We just want people to have their say before it’s too late.

There will be a meeting organised by Communities First in Waterhall Youth Centre, Fairwater, at 6pm tonight (August 26) to discuss these plans in more detail and we would welcome all to come along. It will not be political.

Perfect storm in a teacup
I AM writing to respond to Councillor Neil McEvoy’s ill-mannered attack (Viewpoints, August 24) smearing Daniel Mohamed for his letter (Viewpoints, August 21) complaining about the Pact meeting in Fairwater held on August 12.

As far as I am aware, the correspondent is not a Labour Party member but a resident of Fairwater and entitled to hold councillors to account.

Immediately following the Local Development Plan issue being raised at the Pact meeting, Coun McEvoy hastily distributed 6,000 Plaid Cymru leaflets asking people to write directly to him and not the council, even though the deadline for objections is August 28.

In all my years as a councillor, I have never asked anyone to write to me directly on planning proposals because residents’ views are fed directly into planning, which is a quasi-judicial process.

Coun McEvoy clarifies in his letter that “Residents are asked to write to him as an executive member not as a Plaid Cymru councillor” – but this is on a Plaid Cymru leaflet about that very proposal! The accompanying letter, signed by Coun Keith Parry, then says residents should write to the council and then, confusingly, to Coun McEvoy at County Hall.

So in one leaflet and two letters, Fairwater residents are provided with not one but three addresses to send their objections to.

Coun McEvoy knows that the explorative proposal made by the developers will not be approved because it contradicts council policy not to build on greenfield sites.

In other words, he has generated the perfect storm in a teacup to portray himself as the local hero when the proposals will not appear in the LDP.

Unfortunately, this cynical opportunism could adversely affect the prices of properties bordering the site and may provide the developer with hard evidence that he, as deputy leader, has prejudged the issue in a political leaflet.

This could then open the council to legal action for damages by the developer and will probably bar Coun McEvoy, and perhaps the entire Plaid group, from voting or lobbying on the LDP and on any further planning applications in the area.

How can Plaid “walk the walk” – as he puts it – when they keep shooting themselves in both feet?

It was stated that I dismissed the issue of developers’ proposals of potential housing and that we have done little to engage residents. This is simply an untrue smear. The politics of the letter are clear, when he “begs” people to ignore a Plaid Cymru leaflet.

I explained to Mr Mohamed at some length in person that as an executive councillor I am obliged not to give a view on this issue at the present time.

In terms of engagement, my Plaid colleagues have delivered 6,000 leaflets to all houses in our area, informing residents of what the issue is. How on earth can we be accused of not informing residents? Indeed, residents tell us that they have never been better informed.

In addition, the address given to residents in our leaflet is correct. Residents are asked to write to me as an executive councillor, not as a Plaid Cymru person.

I have already fed many views into the consultation. Since I will be one of the people making a decision on this, it is clearly proper to write to me, unpalatable though that is to New Labour.

I noted at our last PACT meeting in Fairwater, dealing with Fairwater and Pentrebane issues, that there were Labour members present from Canton and Llandaf.

Perhaps they were there to hold the hands of the former Labour councillors who turned up for the first time in 15 months? The aunt of the writer also lives in Ely, but seems to be on a mission to act politically in Fairwater.

Fairwater’s new Plaid councillors are talking the talk and walking the walk. The closure of Birdie’s Lane is one example of this. No amount of smear will stop us doing our job for our community.

PRIVATE developers have suggested building a mixed development of 4,000 houses between Fairwater, Pentrebane and Radyr on open farmland.

This is proposed as an amendment to the Cardiff Local Development Plan currently undergoing public consultation.

This is not a council development. The council proposed that developments should take place within the existing built-up areas.

Plaid Cymru encourages all residents to write to the council with their views on this proposal becoming part of the Local Development Plan.

My friend Coun Lisa Ford says she has lived in Fairwater almost all her life and does not want to be surrounded by houses.

The council has to undertake this formal legal process. The council executive will have to make the decision. Please write to Plaid’s deputy council leader Neil McEvoy at County Hall, Atlantic Wharf and express your view.

Neil himself is not allowed to express a view until he has assessed all the options with other executive members.

FOLLOWING numerous discussions with Cardiff council strategic planning officers we can confirm that the “alternative sites” set out in the current consultation document are not council proposals but are proposals submitted by developers and landowners as alternative sites to the council proposals set out in the Local Development Plan.

In a nutshell, “alternative sites” are sites promoted by developers for inclusion in the LDP. This new requirement has been added to avoid such sites emerging when the Independent Planning Inspector is undertaking a Public Inquiry into the plan.

Although potentially confusing, at least it airs such sites and allows people to input their views.

These can then be considered by the council ahead of submitting the LDP to the Welsh Assembly Government for independent examination. The responses will also be considered by the inspector.

The council will formally submit the deposit LDP and will also have to prepare a report that responds to all representations, including any suggested changes to the plan. Guidance advises that such changes must be kept to a minimum otherwise it implies the plan is inherently unsound in the first place.

There will be full dialogue with council members in the autumn to consider all issues raised, with full scrutiny. This will involve the Environment Portfolio (October 26), Executive Business Meeting (November 5), Full Council Meeting (November 19), followed by submission to the Welsh Assembly Government.

At the forthcoming examination of the LDP the independent inspector will consider all the comments received on the deposit Local Development Plan, including the alternative sites submissions and the representations made to them. The inspector will also consider the council’s suggested changes to the deposit LDP which guidance suggests should not be significant.

The deposit LDP proposes a brownfield strategy, with all new housing development within existing urban limits. It should also be noted that this is different from the previous Unitary Development Plan, which included proposals for 4,000 new houses between Pontprennau and Lisvane as these proposals are not included in the present plan.

If the council continues to support this strategy it will be for the inspector to assess whether the plan is sound. In this respect it is good news that the latest population and household projections from the Welsh Assembly Government published in June vindicate the overall level of growth in the plan.

We wish to make it clear that the deadline for the alternative sites representation is August 28.

All residents in Old St Mellons and Pontprennau should have received a letter from us clearly outlining information about “alternative sites”. Copies of the letters are also available in the Pontprennau Community Centre.

If any residents of Pontprennau or Old St Mellons wish to seek further information regarding alternative sites or in fact the deposit LDP please contact Strategic Planning on 029 2087 3468 or e-mail any of the following:

Developmentplanconsultations@Cardiff.gov.uk or JRogers@cardiff.gov.uk orDirees@cardiff.gov.uk

I AM writing in response to Josephine Thompson, of Ashdene Close, regarding the new housing planned for Pentrebane and Fairwater.

I agree we don’t need the additional housing, especially where it is proposed. I attended the Pact meeting last Wednesday (August 12) and was made even more alarmed by Councillor Neil McEvoy’s dismissal of the issue.

As our council representative, he did very little to engage the local residents. He suggested a meeting raising the issue, but then let everyone leave without setting a date or time.

Instead, he suggested raising the issue on the next Pact agenda on September 23. This is a month after the deadline for the council’s “Local Development Plan Alternative Sites” representations (August 28).

My aunt and I brought this matter to the public eye as she discovered these plans nearly two years ago while fighting against housing development on her local recreation fields in Ely.

She made Coun McEvoy aware of them last year. However, he has done very little to inform his ward since. It now seems to be a case of too little too late.

I beg people to ignore Plaid Cymru’s leaflets asking you to respond to them and instead to respond through the proper channel, which is the planning portal of the Cardiff council website:

Or you can write to: The Development Plan Team, Strategic Planning, Cardiff Council, PO BOX 800, Cardiff CF10 4ZQ.

Find more information on the alternative sites by clicking on this link and opening the map as a pdf:

I appreciate this information is difficult to reach, and the subject of accessibility and advertisement by the council also needs to be raised. But please try and get your views in by the deadline.

I AM a resident of Fairwater. I want to know why I haven’t been told about these plans to build 4,000 new homes next to my house.

This is a major development proposal which will affect Fairwater, Pentrebane, St Fagans, Radyr and Danescourt as well as anyone who travels into Cardiff from the West.

I work in the city centre and it takes me long enough to drive to work every morning as it is. If 4,000 additional families were on the road it would dramatically increase my commute time.

I just can’t believe how with so many people affected I’m still only hearing of these plans through the grapevine.

Where is the council? They haven’t told us anything. We have a right to know and they have done nothing to inform us.

I live right on the edge of the city. I love my view across fields and farmland. How much more of our natural surroundings have to be destroyed for housing and out-of-town retail developments? How do we oppose this?

Thursday 20th August
Come along to public meeting
I HAVE recently spent a lot of time delivering information to Pontprennau residents about Cardiff council’s current Local Development Plan, particularly the “alternative site register” which I feel is important information for residents.

Many people have now contacted me, asking me to organise a public meeting for Pontprennau residents to give us the opportunity to discuss it further.

I have organised the meeting, which is to be held at Pontprennau Community Church Centre, Heol Pontprennau, at 6pm tonight (August 20).

Would all Pontprennau residents who read this letter please pass the information on to family, friends and neighbours?

Monday 17th August
New homes? Please let’s think again
DON’T the planning consultants look around before making new sites for building houses before they start destroying the green belt from Pentrebane and Fairwater?

Why don’t they look at the 4,000 empty flats and houses around Cardiff? Some 4,000 new homes mean 16,000 people. How many cars does that mean? Don’t we have enough traffic jams as it is?

Every day the traffic on Llantrisant Road is bumper to bumper. How long are the roads going to last with all the extra traffic, apart from the wildlife it would destroy? I have a lot of the wildlife in my garden and it gives me a lot of pleasure.

I don’t want to be surrounded with houses and cars. I moved into my house because it is nice and quiet and lovely. I hope this is not going to be taken away from me.