# Save Bute Park Demonstration!!!!!!



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 9, 2005)

Are you aware of the proposals to build a massive 17300 seater stadium in Sophia Gardens on the verge of Pontcanna Fields? This is to house the ice-rink temporarily although it now emerges that the Council could build it in the “International Sports Village” within 12-15 months. The application has been made by Glamorgan Cricket Club who stand to gain a £2.5 million grant from the Council (that is, public money). 

Anyway, there’s a rally on Saturday, October 15th at 2.00 starting in Llandaf Fields Car Park and I will post more info when available!


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 10, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Are you aware of the proposals to build a massive 17300 seater stadium in Sophia Gardens on the verge of Pontcanna Fields? This is to house the ice-rink temporarily although it now emerges that the Council could build it in the “International Sports Village” within 12-15 months. The application has been made by Glamorgan Cricket Club who stand to gain a £2.5 million grant from the Council (that is, public money).
> 
> Anyway, there’s a rally on Saturday, October 15th at 2.00 starting in Llandaf Fields Car Park and I will post more info when available!



Its only temporary though - so whats the big deal?

The ice hockey team need a venue while the St Davids 2 is being built and this would seem to offer the opportunity.

Plus, Glamorgan Cricket Club are desperately seeking to upgrade their facilities in order to achieve Test Match status and therefore allow them to attract international matches to Cardiff for the first time ever.  It seems like the 2 million pounds you mention would help the cricket club massively to achieve this.

And if i am not mistaken the stadium will be removed at the end of its shelf life - which is more than likely (if not certaintly) likely to be a condition of any planning permission.

So whats the big deal? - i think we should be organising a group in favour of this development - whats the big deal to get you objecting to this?


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 10, 2005)

I'm not really bothered about this, but the opinions of local residents have to be taken into account and they should protest accordingly.

A new stadium will look nice!


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 10, 2005)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> I'm not really bothered about this, but the opinions of local residents have to be taken into account and they should protest accordingly.
> 
> A new stadium will look nice!


Yes - but the poster advertising the demo still hasnt stated what exactly his reasons for protesting are - protesting for protests sake maybe?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 10, 2005)

Some background information can be found at this website:

http://savebutepark.blogspot.com/

It seems that even members of the cricket club are unhappy about the developments.

I will post more information when I have time.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 10, 2005)

Members of Glamorgan Cricket Club say heart and soul is being ripped out of the game by moneymens plans to develop Sophia Gardens:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/counties/glamorgan/4179678.stm

Sorry for the cut 'n' paste, but I hope this clarifies things:

"Cardiff's central parklands consist of 300 acres of woods, grasslands, and meadows through which the River Taff runs. The parklands include an area described by Dr. Owen Johnston of the Tree Register as being "the richest urban park in trees in the world". They are home to diverse wildlife, including foxes, grey herons, kingfishers, owls, all three native species of woodpecker, and much else. In the River Taff, fish species include trout, grayling, chub, roach, barbel, salmon, and dace.

I have put some of my photographs of this wonderful and rich parklands online here: http://cardiffparklands.blogspot.com/

The parklands were gifted to the people of Cardiff; some areas were part of the Marquis of Bute's bequest and others were bequethed by the Thompson Estate.

They now under threat from a massive development in the Sophia Gardens area of the park that will inevitably bring a huge volume of traffic into the parklands with appalling consequences for the area bordering on the development and for the river, and which will put the remaining parklands under yet more pressure.

We are trying to stop this. We are collecting petition signatures locally and we would also like to present a national/international petition, reflecting the international status and preciousness of our parklands. Wherever you are in the world, you can help by signing the petition here: Save Our Parklands

If you are on any conservation/environmentalist mailing lists, please copy this message to them and invite others to sign. The petition URL is: http://www.petitiononline.com/savepark/petition.html

Thank you for reading this."


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 10, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Members of Glamorgan Cricket Club say heart and soul is being ripped out of the game by moneymens plans to develop Sophia Gardens:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/counties/glamorgan/4179678.stm


You cant please all of the people all of the time - yeah sure Glamorgan is a qaint idylic ground at the moment and that will change if the development goes ahead. But ultimately to reach test ground status and in order for the club to move on the ground will need to be developed. Surely you cant argue that having test match statsu would be of detriment to Cardiff. It would be a massive boost to grass roots cricket in Wales in general as the income would be ploughed back into developing the next generation of Glamorgan players.

Its a simple case of ecomomics - be brave and run with the new stadium and carry on growing  - or have a nice little ground that looks great but ulimately doesnt add up economically and wait for it to fall into disrepair like has happened at St Helens in Swansea.

Surely its in everyones best interest for Glamorgan Cricket club to move forward and to expand?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 10, 2005)

Naturally there are conflicts of interest and differing opinions - feel free to organise a counter-demo. 

Personally, as an environmentalist and ecologist,  I believe that the damage to the environment and to the local eco-systems are not justifiable - especially given that a swathe of opinion in the cricket club seems to be opposed to this development

I should note that this development despite being endorsed by the Neo-Liberal Democrat council is actually illegal as the land was bequeathed by the old Marquis of Bute for public use


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 10, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Naturally there are conflicts of interest and differing opinions - feel free to organise a counter-demo.
> 
> Personally, as an environmentalist and ecologist,  I believe that the damage to the environment and to the local eco-systems are not justifiable - especially given that a swathe of opinion in the cricket club seems to be opposed to this development
> 
> I should note that this development despite being endorsed by the Neo-Liberal Democrat council is actually illegal as the land was bequeathed by the old Marquis of Bute for public use



Thats one for the lawyers to sort out - they can still grant planning permission regardless of any restrictive covenants on the land - im sure they will be aware of that and how to remove any such covenant.  As for organising a protest - ill leave that to the experts.

I have to say that I haven’t looked in detail at any plans – but my feeling is that the cricket club could be developed with negligible impact upon the ecosystem of the park – its on the periphery and occupies a fairly large urban footprint at the moment .   My guess is that the development could take place without any harm to the park and that any landscaping proposed as part of the development could potentially increase the biodversity within the area – I’m sure there is a way of accommodating the development whilst protecting the park.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 10, 2005)

You don't take into account how secretive this development has been, the pretence that a permanent fixture is temporary - also, on a more important note their has been total lack of debate or public consultation. You write "you can't please all the people all of the time" - but the people surely should be given an opportunity to debate and discuss this development. Yet there has been no public consultations instead there has just been wheeling and dealing between the Neo-Liberal Democrat Council and the men with the cash!

And remember, "Money doesn't talk it swears".

As it says on the petition:
*
"Our principal objections are: 

- The central parklands include "the richest urban park for trees in the world" (according to Dr. Owen Johnston of the Tree Register), are the only urban parklands in Britain in which all three of our native woodpecker species can be found, are a habitat for diverse wildlife, and surround one of the best salmon rivers in Britain. They are of local, national and international importance and must be protected 

- The central parklands were gifted to the people of Cardiff and no part of them should be surrendered for development 

- The central parklands are a unique part of Cardiff's heritage and distinctive character and should be treasured as such 

- The development has significant traffic and parking implications for the parklands as a whole that will have a substantial negative effect on the Sophia Gardens/Pontcanna Fields area 

- The development will cause significant environmental damage to the parklands as a whole and Sophia Gardens/Pontcanna Fields in particular "*


----------



## Brockway (Oct 10, 2005)

I can't get worked up about a bunch of Pontcanna-ites worrying that some oik is going to nick their parking space whilst pretending the issue is actually about trees.

Where were all these born-again environmentalists when the council recently cut down most of the trees on the Gabalfa estate?   

And Save Bute Park from what exactly? As I understand it the ice-rink is going to be built in that largely treeless, enclosed area next to the cricket ground. So what's the problem? Personally I think it would make a great site for a speedway track.

Up the City


----------



## osterberg (Oct 11, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> Surely its in everyones best interest for Glamorgan Cricket club to move forward and to expand?


It's not in my best interest.I hate cricket.
Why do sporty people think everyone else also sees sport as important,almost as a matter of life and death?
 What's nice about Cardiff is all its green space in the town centre and it would be a shame to see some of that ruined.
Why does Cardiff need a Test cricket ground?Surely England should be playing tests in England?


Brockway said:


> Where were all these born-again environmentalists when the council recently cut down most of the trees on the Gabalfa estate?



 I didn't know about this but if you were concerned about the Gabalfa trees , Brockway , why didn't you do something about it yourself? Or were you waiting for 'environmentalists' to come down from outer space and organise a campaign for you?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 11, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> It's not in my best interest.I hate cricket.
> Why do sporty people think everyone else also sees sport as important,almost as a matter of life and death?
> What's nice about Cardiff is all its green space in the town centre and it would be a shame to see some of that ruined.
> Why does Cardiff need a Test cricket ground?Surely England should be playing tests in England?




You ignoramus! - Its the England and Wales Cricket team - hence Welsh players play in England and Wales Team! - so that to me seems like a fairly good reason to have test venue in Wales - to encourage development of cricket further.


And as for sporty types - you must surely admit that grass roots sports of ally types helps to nurture children and provide a good grounding and allow them to develop as people. Just because you dont do any sports doesnt mean that they dont have massive socio economic benefits that can only be increased by the proposed development.

As far as i am concerened the development does not ruin any green space - but merely uses the already urbanised part of the park to expand the cricket facilities and provide much needed first class cricketing facilities that will benefit the economy of Cardiff by bringing in masses of revenue on test dates and also benefit the children of Wales by allowing more investment in cricket development.

Just because you were the last to be picked in the playground doesnt mean that you have to have a downer on everyone else Osterberg!


----------



## osterberg (Oct 11, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> Just because you were the last to be picked in the playground doesnt mean that you have to have a downer on everyone else Osterberg!


Oh no!You found me out.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 11, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Oh no!You found me out.


Clearly - i dont see you arguing any of my points either - so clearly you are objecting because its a sports proposal?


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 11, 2005)

I'd like to see more tall buildings in Cardiff, i love skyscraper architechture.


----------



## osterberg (Oct 11, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> Clearly - i dont see you arguing any of my points either - so clearly you are objecting because its a sports proposal?



 I'd be dishonest if I said 'no'.

I hated sport at school . The teachers were sadistic bullies and so were the  kids.But that was a long time ago.I'm sure its different now.  

I don't disagree with you that children should do more sports so instead of building stadiums for professional sportsmen so
shouldn't the money be used to improve sports facilities in schools?

 The main reason I'm against this scheme though, is that I cycle to work every day through Sofia Gardens along the riverside path where I can see ducks , swans , herons , cormarants , woodpigeons , magpies , squirrels and more . I don't want to see a bulding site instead.

 By the way I did know it was the England and _Wales_ cricket team.But I just don't give a toss.And neither does the media who insist on referring simply to the _England_ team .


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 11, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> I'd be dishonest if I said 'no'.
> 
> I hated sport at school . The teachers were sadistic bullies and so were the  kids.But that was a long time ago.I'm sure its different now.
> 
> ...



I think you are massively missing the point.  

The development is for proffesional sportsmen yes - but it will also have an academy for youngsters as part of it.  In  addition the money brought in by the cricket club through the increase in gate receipts will be used across wales to develop young cricketers. And if there is no proffesional stadium then what is the point in developing youngsters as they will have nowhere to go if they get good enough and will have to move away to other areas that can provide for their needs - so like i say i think you really have missed the point with your fluffy logic.

As for wanting to see ducks , swans , herons , cormarants , woodpigeons , magpies , squirrels and more on your way to work - im sure they will still be there while the building work is going.  The site is segregated from the park proper and is on part of the built up area. So i cant really see your point on this one.. Sure you may have to see some building work - but everything around you that now blends into the landscape had to built at some point.

As for the England comment - surely having a test match ground in Wales can only add to raising the profile of Wales and getting the team recognised as England and Wales like it should do.

To me this just seems like complete NIMBYISM wihtout any consideration Being give to the benefits of the development.


----------



## osterberg (Oct 11, 2005)

Not going to agree ,are we?
Not Nimbyism , by the way , I don't want the bloody thing built anywhere.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 11, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Not going to agree ,are we?
> Not Nimbyism , by the way , I don't want the bloody thing built anywhere.


 Not Nimbyism then - so you are just anti development full stop! what a great perspective to come from that is.  You dont have a rational objection but yet you object regardless.  You really should do something better with your free time instead of objecting to things that dont concern you nad could impact upon people that would benefit from them. I just think your line 'I don't want the bloody thing built anywhere' nicely summarises your argument. Now please go off and buy your copy of todays Daily Mail.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Oct 11, 2005)

Is this going to be where the old Sophia Gardens pavillion was, i.e. where the circuses go?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 11, 2005)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Is this going to be where the old Sophia Gardens pavillion was, i.e. where the circuses go?


No its just around the exisitng cricket pitch - new stands within the exisitng ground plus the proposed ice rink stadium to the side - which is to be temporary.  Basically it doesnt extend the footprint of the cricket club So I cant believe / understand why people are getting so wound up – as ive said people just want to object for the sake of it as far as I am concerened as the plans are sympathetic to the park and its surrounds and don’t encroach on any of the open space.  People with too much time to kill hey!


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Oct 11, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> No its just around the exisitng cricket pitch - new stands within the exisitng ground plus the proposed ice rink stadium to the side - which is to be temporary.  Basically it doesnt extend the footprint of the cricket club So I cant believe / understand why people are getting so wound up – as ive said people just want to object for the sake of it as far as I am concerened as the plans are sympathetic to the park and its surrounds and don’t encroach on any of the open space.  People with too much time to kill hey!



It's not really Bute Park as I would see it, is it?
It's more pitches and sports use as it is , or am I way off.
Anyone got  a plan of it?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 11, 2005)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> It's not really Bute Park as I would see it, is it?
> It's more pitches and sports use as it is , or am I way off.
> Anyone got  a plan of it?




You are pretty spot on. Link here:

www.hititforsix.net/hit46.nsf/dx/Cricket%20plan.pdf/$file/Cricket%20plan.pdf

hardly going to ruin the park is it?! - bloody nut jobs objecting to everything as usual!


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Oct 11, 2005)

Yep Sophia Gardens then, not Bute Park 

* can sit back down now and relax *

Fucking hate cricket myself, and ice hockey, but it provides a lot of people with enjoyment so can't see the problem.


----------



## Brockway (Oct 11, 2005)

"I didn't know about this but if you were concerned about the Gabalfa trees , Brockway , why didn't you do something about it yourself? Or were you waiting for 'environmentalists' to come down from outer space and organise a campaign for you?"

I chained myself to a beech and waited for the Pontcanna tree-huggers to arrive but they didn't show.


----------



## osterberg (Oct 11, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> Not Nimbyism then - so you are just anti development full stop! what a great perspective to come from that is.  You dont have a rational objection but yet you object regardless.  You really should do something better with your free time instead of objecting to things that dont concern you nad could impact upon people that would benefit from them. I just think your line 'I don't want the bloody thing built anywhere' nicely summarises your argument. Now please go off and buy your copy of todays Daily Mail.



Ooh er! Who rattled your cage?
 I'm not anti-development.I'm all for building schools,hospitals,doctor's surgeries,train stations,bus-shelters,decent social housing,whatever but not yet another big sports stadium in Cardiff.As well as the disruption when the thing's being built but what about the disruption on the day of big cricket games?There's enough disruption on the days of big rugby and football games when local shops and businesses lose trade because non-fans avoid going into town.Only the landlords and breweries do alright.

Waterloowelshy said:


> And if there is no proffesional stadium then what is the point in developing youngsters as they will have nowhere to go if they get good enough and will have to move away to other areas that can provide for their needs - so like i say i think you really have missed the point with your fluffy logic.



 Shouldn't we try to get _all_ kids involved in sport and activity.Not just those good enough to be the next Freddie Flintock?And so what if they have to move to other areas?Travel broadens the mind.

 Also any jobs this project provides while its built will be temporary 
and there are lots of other building sites in Cardiff  that provide jobs already.

 As for location its going to bigger than the original buildings so its not going to be invisible is it? The Millenium Stadium disrupts the skyline badly enough already.

Anyway,best of luck
See you on the demo


----------



## Brockway (Oct 11, 2005)

If the new building was going to be built in Bute Park then I would be severely miffed. But it ISN'T.

In fact the plot of land where the ice rink is going to be located has been used for ages as a makeshift car park (without any protests from the local community or environmentalists I might add). Car park or ice rink - which is worse for the environment?  

This issue has very little to do with trees or sport. It's actually about the well-heeled denizens of Pontcanna having their tranquility disturbed once a week by a bunch of outsiders. That's fair enough, but I just wish they'd be a bit more honest about it.


----------



## osterberg (Oct 12, 2005)

Brockway said:
			
		

> If the new building was going to be built in Bute Park then I would be severely miffed. But it ISN'T.


 Plans can change.Wasn't the Millenium Stadium going to be built without knocking down the Empire Pool,Cardiff's only olympic sized swimming pool?
Instead they did knock it down and built a multiplex cinema as if we needed yet another of those.

Actually if this building in Sofia Gardens does stick to some old car park and is built with minimal disruption that might be OK.I'm just suspicious I suppose.

 By the way won't more car parking have to be built if attendance at cricket and ice hockey matches increase? And where will they be built?
 Oh,I'm not well heeled and I don't live in Pontcanna.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 12, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Plans can change.Wasn't the Millenium Stadium going to be built without knocking down the Empire Pool,Cardiff's only olympic sized swimming pool?
> Instead they did knock it down and built a multiplex cinema as if we needed yet another of those.
> 
> Actually if this building in Sofia Gardens does stick to some old car park and is built with minimal disruption that might be OK.I'm just suspicious I suppose.
> ...




But you are part of the tin foil brigade though arent you! - bloody hell talk about paranoid! The world is out to get you Osterberg!


----------



## osterberg (Oct 12, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> But you are part of the tin foil brigade though arent you! - bloody hell talk about paranoid! The world is out to get you Osterberg!


What's the tin-foil brigade? 
You need to calm down mate.And don't get so upset when someone disagrees with you.
 I don't understand the 'paranoid' remark either.


----------



## Brockway (Oct 12, 2005)

Oi Osterberg, did you name yourself after Mr James Osterberg aka Iggy Pop? You can completely redeem yourself by answering yes.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 12, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Ooh er! Who rattled your cage?
> 
> See you on the demo



There is no need for me to attend the demo - do you really think it achieves anything.  Your naevity is heartfelt but to suggest that a bunch of crusties turning up to moan about ruining the park - which the development clearly isnt going to do - will have any impact upon the decision is laughable.

I suppose i am confident enough in the decison makers making the correct decision and approving it that i have better things to do with my time than turn up and listen to the objectors drivel.


----------



## osterberg (Oct 12, 2005)

Brockway said:
			
		

> Oi Osterberg, did you name yourself after Mr James Osterberg aka Iggy Pop? You can completely redeem yourself by answering yes.


 I'm afraid so.
I'm glad somebody's friendly around here


----------



## osterberg (Oct 12, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> There is no need for me to attend the demo - do you really think it achieves anything.  Your naevity is heartfelt but to suggest that a bunch of crusties turning up to moan about ruining the park - which the development clearly isnt going to do - will have any impact upon the decision is laughable.
> 
> I suppose i am confident enough in the decison makers making the correct decision and approving it that i have better things to do with my time than turn up and listen to the objectors drivel.


 Yes,I was _seriously_ expecting you to turn up


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 12, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Plans can change.Wasn't the Millenium Stadium going to be built without knocking down the Empire Pool,Cardiff's only olympic sized swimming pool?
> Instead they did knock it down and built a multiplex cinema as if we needed yet another of those.



I use that multiplex cinema quite often, so do alot of young people?

Plus it looks really good next to the stadium.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 12, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> There is no need for me to attend the demo - do you really think it achieves anything.  Your naevity is heartfelt but to suggest that a bunch of crusties turning up to moan about ruining the park - which the development clearly isnt going to do - will have any impact upon the decision is laughable.
> 
> I suppose i am confident enough in the decison makers making the correct decision and approving it that i have better things to do with my time than turn up and listen to the objectors drivel.



First of all I'm a marxist and member of the Socialist Workers Party and Respect (to be a true green you have to be a red!) not an anarchist crusty (though I have nothing against them).

I am also not a resident of Pontcanna, I live in Roath - but as a socialist I take an interest in the preservation and conservation of public park land, which across Britain is being sold off to private firms and increasingly under attack from commercial interests.

And the groups of crusties opposing this development include local councillors and members of the cricket club.

I should note that the campaign has even had mention in the national press (Mail on Sunday)

Finally, you still haven't responded to our objection that the public have been deceived. The Neo-Liberal Democrat Council have pretended that their is a small temporary development happening when it is in fact a larger permanent development occurring - why are they deceiving the public?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 12, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> First of all I'm a marxist and member of the Socialist Workers Party and Respect (to be a true green you have to be a red!) not an anarchist crusty (though I have nothing against them).
> 
> I am also not a resident of Pontcanna, I live in Roath - but as a socialist I take an interest in the preservation and conservation of public park land, which across Britain is being sold off to private firms and increasingly under attack from commercial interests.
> 
> ...




After reading your thread i realise that you are the type of person that will be ignored during any objection and you arent worth rising to here. 

Mail on Sunday sums it up nicely! - what a quality paper that is! 

Nobody has been decieved - the development will not impact upon any part of the established park -its within the cricket ground and the adjoining car park - which is already urbanised in nature - how the fuck can you regard that as park land.

No land is being sold off -its Glamorgan Cricket club land - so take your boring philosophical tirade to a demonstration that fits your moral ideologies and stop wasting everyones time with this one!


----------



## osterberg (Oct 12, 2005)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> I use that multiplex cinema quite often, so do alot of young people?
> 
> Plus it looks really good next to the stadium.


Do we need 3 in Cardiff?
What about all the healthy exercise one gets from swimming?


----------



## osterberg (Oct 12, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> After reading your thread i realise that you are the type of person that will be ignored during any objection and you arent worth rising to here.
> 
> Mail on Sunday sums it up nicely! - what a quality paper that is!
> 
> ...



 You really don't like people disagreeing with you,don't you?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 12, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> You really don't like people disagreeing with you,don't you?


Its not the disagreeing i mind - its the illogical argument, lies and pretence that the objections are being made for the greater good.

The simple and plain fact is that the development will not harm the park - or be located within the park! - to have a save the park demo is therefore completely illogical and misrepresentative.


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 12, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Do we need 3 in Cardiff?
> What about all the healthy exercise one gets from swimming?



I prefer hiking to swimming, I enjoy both man-made and natural scenery.


----------



## osterberg (Oct 13, 2005)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> I prefer hiking to swimming, I enjoy both man-made and natural scenery.


Me too,I like a good walk.Birdwatching and cycling are good too.
A while back Waterloowelshy called me part of the tin-foil brigade and I have no idea what he meant.Did he mean these ?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 13, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> ...I suppose i am confident enough in the decison makers making the correct decision and approving it...



You're not really serious, are you?

I mean, genuinely, there's not really anybody _that_ naive and daft in Cardiff, is there?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 13, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> ...The simple and plain fact is that the development will not harm the park - or be located within the park!...












			
				hititforsix.net said:
			
		

> As you can see this view is significantly different from being on the ground, and begins to make sense of Cadw's objections to the whole scheme where they argue that the GCCC grounds are still very much part of the whole picture of the protected parks.



Source - hititforsix.net


----------



## osterberg (Oct 13, 2005)

Thank you for the link Col Buenida.
That certainly puts a clearer perspective on things.

One thing I asked earlier was where would  the car parking spaces to replace the ones that would be lost come from?That nice,inviting field at the top left of the picture perhaps?

 I think those in favour of a project this large are naive if can be done quickly and quietly with little impact with little disruption and kept to a small patch of land.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 13, 2005)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Thank you for the link Col Buenida.
> That certainly puts a clearer perspective on things.
> 
> One thing I asked earlier was where would  the car parking spaces to replace the ones that would be lost come from?That nice,inviting field at the top left of the picture perhaps?
> ...


The picture emphasises that the development will be within the cricket gound and not the park! - what was that meant to prove.

Have fun at the demo - ill maybe see you in the new stands when they are built!


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 13, 2005)

To Lewislewis -

It is ironic that we disagree over this development, as your own party Plaid Cymru (Cardiff West branch) has been heavilly involved in this campaign. Indeed it was a Plaid Councillor (who represents the local area) with whom I've worked with in a number of campaigns who e-mailed me about this demonstration and campaign

I bring this to your attention, just to clarify that although I criticise Plaid quite often on these boards, I am quite willing to take part in joint actions with them against the war, racism or destruction of the environment.

On a completely different tack,

There needs to be a serious debate over the "development" and corporate take-over that has been taking place across Cardiff in recent years. From the outrageous destruction of Butetown (once one of the most vibrant areas of Cardiff now dead and souless) to make way for the bay-development that doesn't even engage with local communities, through to Russell Good-pay's collosal waste of cash and the current St.David's/Hayes developments.

The St. David's Centre/Hayes development much hyped by Neo-Liberal Democrat Council leader, Cllr. Rodney Berman consists of building lots of trendy Restaurants and cafes + the "first John Lewis department store in Cardiff".

Other than raking in lots of money for a few, will these monstrosities seriously make Cardiff a more interesting, vibrant and happening city?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Oct 13, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> On a completely different tack,
> 
> There needs to be a serious debate over the "development" and corporate take-over that has been taking place across Cardiff in recent years. From the outrageous destruction of Butetown (once one of the most vibrant areas of Cardiff now dead and souless) to make way for the bay-development that doesn't even engage with local communities, through to Russell Good-pay's collosal waste of cash and the current St.David's/Hayes developments.
> 
> ...



NO!
save the Vulcan and the Hayes, and keep independent shops rates down.
Spillers next?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 13, 2005)

Why do we need more Cafe's on the Hayes, when we have the Hayes Tea Island?

(Just out of interest, I think it is to do with the developments that MVC recordshop has recently shut down, but not definite)


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 13, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> The picture emphasises that the development will be within the cricket gound and not the park! - what was that meant to prove.
> 
> Have fun at the demo - ill maybe see you in the new stands when they are built!



Congrats, Waterloo, you completely failed to (1) read the text in the quotation from the website from which the piccy was lifted, or (2) engage with what it said. I think that about sums up your level of engagement with the people who have bothered to answer your ill-humoured rantings on this thread. Your comedy jibes about crusties and _ad hominem_ attacks on other posters do a great discredit to the argument that there ought to be decent sports facilities in Cardiff. And you still haven't answered my first question: are you really stupid enough to write something like this in all seriousness? 






			
				waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> I suppose i am confident enough in the decison makers making the correct decision and approving it...


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 13, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> To Lewislewis -
> 
> It is ironic that we disagree over this development, as your own party Plaid Cymru (Cardiff West branch) has been heavilly involved in this campaign. Indeed it was a Plaid Councillor (who represents the local area) with whom I've worked with in a number of campaigns who e-mailed me about this demonstration and campaign
> 
> I bring this to your attention, just to clarify that although I criticise Plaid quite often on these boards, I am quite willing to take part in joint actions with them against the war, racism or destruction of the environment.



Good stuff Udo.

My point was simply that i can't get worked up over it as i'm not from there, and without wishing to be heartless don't care about the development/campaign. Like i said, the final decision should be based on the opinion of local residents (but i'm not going to lose any sleep over it).


----------



## Brockway (Oct 13, 2005)

"One thing I asked earlier was where would the car parking spaces to replace the ones that would be lost come from?"


There's a car park opposite the Sports Centre and another one on the site of the old Sophia Gardens venue (where the roof caved in before a Motorhead gig!). Plenty of car parking space then, and both within one minute's walk of  the proposed venue. And if those are full... people can park in Pontcanna.

That aerial shot doesn't show the great big wall that separates the cricket ground from Bute Park. It's about 12 foot tall!

I'm up for any kind of naughtiness to save the Vulcan. After all it's part of our literary heritage: John Williams


----------



## Brockway (Oct 13, 2005)

...or even: John Williams


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 13, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> To Lewislewis -
> 
> It is ironic that we disagree over this development, as your own party Plaid Cymru (Cardiff West branch) has been heavilly involved in this campaign. Indeed it was a Plaid Councillor (who represents the local area) with whom I've worked with in a number of campaigns who e-mailed me about this demonstration and campaign
> 
> ...




Ultiamtely the public gets what the public wants - we may not all be in agreement with those things but the bottom line they make money and land costs money! - if people didnt use them and they didnt make money they wouldnt be built - so surely you have to accept that the common concesus amongst people is that they are wanted or needed. its just simple economics.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 13, 2005)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Congrats, Waterloo, you completely failed to (1) read the text in the quotation from the website from which the piccy was lifted, or (2) engage with what it said. I think that about sums up your level of engagement with the people who have bothered to answer your ill-humoured rantings on this thread. Your comedy jibes about crusties and _ad hominem_ attacks on other posters do a great discredit to the argument that there ought to be decent sports facilities in Cardiff. And you still haven't answered my first question: are you really stupid enough to write something like this in all seriousness?


yes i stand by that comment - i am convinced that the application will be approved as it meets all the planning requirements and if refused at the local level by the Council due to objections making it a political decision then i am certain that common sense will prevail and it will be approved by the Planning Inspectorate should it go to appela and the application be decided without any political slant by an independant person.

Ultimately the application fits with planning policy and no amount of moaning / distorting the truth can alter that.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 13, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> Ultiamtely the public gets what the public wants - we may not all be in agreement with those things but the bottom line they make money and land costs money! - if people didnt use them and they didnt make money they wouldnt be built - so surely you have to accept that the common concesus amongst people is that they are wanted or needed. its just simple economics.



This is so much (badly spelt) crap that it is scarcely worth bothering with  I'm not sure this isn't just a good wind-up.... you don't really believe this, do you? I mean, WTF are you rabbitting on about you lunatic? "The public gets what the public wants... we may not agree...it is economics" Holy cock-sucking christ, what is it to be? Grammar, sense and a coherent argument or dribbling drivel, WLW? Do those who do not agree become, mysteriously, disqualified from being part of your homogeneous "public". If you disagree you don't count? What sort of decision-making process is this then?

Earlier it was this -






			
				waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> I suppose i am confident enough in the decison makers making the correct decision and approving it...


and now it is the public who get what they want. Do you want to bother trying to clarify your confused and muddled spoutings, WLW, or do you want to leave the thread to people who can marshall adequate spelling and cogent sentences?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 13, 2005)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> This is so much (badly spelt) crap that it is scarcely worth bothering with  I'm not sure this isn't just a good wind-up.... you don't really believe this, do you? I mean, WTF are you rabbitting on about you lunatic? "The public gets what the public wants... we may not agree...it is economics" Holy cock-sucking christ, what is it to be? Grammar, sense and a coherent argument or dribbling drivel, WLW? Do those who do not agree become, mysteriously, disqualified from being part of your homogeneous "public". If you disagree you don't count? What sort of decision-making process is this then?
> 
> Earlier it was this -and now it is the public who get what they want. Do you want to bother trying to clarify your confused and muddled spoutings, WLW, or do you want to leave the thread to people who can marshall adequate spelling and cogent sentences?


forget the spelling i a have more pressing things to do than check my spelling before i submit - what are you marking me now?

we live in a democracy dick wad - hence things get built that will make money and appease the majority of people.  I dont contend to always be part of the main stream - but hey its tough shit! What do you want you own private park built for you? 

Sure you can disagree but you have to accept the stronger argument - quite frankly i cant be bothered wastimg my time arguing with you either - especially as the decision in my mind will be a foregone conclusion.

In essence there is no point continuing to argue here - i am content to sit back and wait until the decision is made.

Fortunately there are probably more sane and rational people than the minority that oppose anything being developed - hence the public get what the public want and you'll be left to move on to your next fruitless objection. I would sympathise if i felt the park were to be adversely affected i really would - but the bottom line is that there is no logical reason why the cricket club cannot be increased in size to the benefit of Cardiff and Wales as a whole whilst maintaining one of the best urban parks around!


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 13, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> <snip>...quite frankly i cant be bothered wastimg my time arguing with you either - especially as the decision in my mind will be a foregone conclusion.



Nuff said then, walter 

_<log out button is over there =============>
close the door on your way out, there's a good chap>_


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 13, 2005)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Nuff said then, walter
> 
> _<log out button is over there =============>
> close the door on your way out, there's a good chap>_



lets just hope the thread is around when the app is approved or successfully appealed.

So far you have failed to present any justification as to why it should be refused.  Your argument suggests - indeed the title of this thread (Save Bute Park) - that the park will be ruined if this goes ahead. This is clearly not true at all.

What you doing next week? - organising a bunch of kids to stand around a proposed telecoms mast with placards?

The title of this thread, and the argument against the development,  is based on emotive propoganda that just discards the facts. 

Close the door - dont make me laugh - if you had your way there would probably be no doors to close cos you wouldnt have let anyone build them!


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 14, 2005)

Just had this from Cardiff People & Planet:


> I just wanted to say a big thank-you to everyone who wrote letters at the meeting last week - the planning officer has rejected the application making it unlikely that it's going to be approved. The demo on saturday's still on though - 2pm LLandaf Fields just to make sure the council don't think about overturning the planning officer's recommendations when they make the final decision next wednesday.


----------



## osterberg (Oct 14, 2005)

Good  . I'll be there on Saturday.


----------



## bendeus (Oct 14, 2005)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> lets just hope the thread is around when the app is approved or successfully appealed.
> 
> So far you have failed to present any justification as to why it should be refused.  Your argument suggests - indeed the title of this thread (Save Bute Park) - that the park will be ruined if this goes ahead. This is clearly not true at all.
> 
> ...




How wonderful, then, that someone with an encyclopedic and up-to-date grasp of 'the facts' (such as your good self) is around to put these disseminators of false and emotive propaganda in their rightful place. 

I'm wondering also where you got your information that an expansion of cricketing facilities (a third-class sport in Wales) has the overwhelming public approval that you allude to. I don't know a single fucking person who wants this development, be they Pontcannaites or no.

As far as I can tell, this development will:

Cause car  parking to be moved onto field areas - areas currently used for RECREATION - thus turning said areas into a quagmire and unsuitable for any more recreation.

Open up the park road to traffic access where it is currently only open to parks vehicles, bicycles and walkers, thus increasing pollution, risk to park users, and noise as well as changing the entire nature of the park itself.

I have also heard that a high percentage of those signing the petition against the development are NOT from the Pontcanna area, but instead are a representative cross-section of park users from all over the city. 

Finally, don't you think that apparently small encroachments on the edge of a protected city green space are just the first step? Give developers an inch and the fuckers will take a mile. It's exactly the same principle as those opposing the Bluestone development at the edge of the Pembrokeshire national park took: if the developers and profiteers win on this one, it's a green light to them to start nipping small chunks of parkland in any given city - to them parkland is anathema because it doesn't turn a profit - until the whole lot is concreted over. 

Bottom line is that we are lucky to have such an incredible park in our city, and should do everything in our power to preserve it exactly the way it is for current and future residents of Cardiff to enjoy.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 14, 2005)

Front page of the Echo today + 2-3 pages of coverage. Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4341036.stm

It seems part of the problem has been caused by the Neo-Liberal Democrat Council's incompetence and right wing agenda in the field of town planning.

Cllr. Rodney Berman's big contribution to the social ecology and cultural life of Cardiff is to have a big building site in the middle of the Hayes where a really imaginative St. David's Centre Mrk. 2 will be built with (how imaginative) lots of Cafes and Restaurants + a John Lewis department store.

Because of this development, the Central Library for a couple of years probably won't even be in the town centre and the Ice rink is being knocked down.

Rather than building the sports village in the Bay which will house the new ice rink first, they have decided to spend one and a half million pounds temporarilly housing the ice rink in Sophia Gardens at the expense of local parkland - such is their incompetence and the Lib. Dems desire to have a public monument (St. David's Centre2) as their legacy built before the electorate kicks their corrupt asses out of offices.

They have made such a hash of the planning that they have managed to upset the cricket club, ice hockey fans, local residents and park-users.

The question is - Do we really need St.David's Centre2, and why the hell is millions of public money being wasted on turning Cardiff into one huge shoping centre?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 14, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> ...such is their incompetence and the Lib. Dems desire to have a public monument (St. David's Centre2) as their legacy built before the electorate kicks their corrupt asses out of offices.



Ta for the link. Hey, anybody'd think you have an axe to grind against the Lib Dems


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 18, 2005)

I'm with Udo on this (seriously), St.David's 2 is pointless, that building site is going to ruin Cardiff city centre for the next four years too...and also i agree, kick the Lib Dems out. Who would you elect to run the council instead Udo?


----------



## nwnm (Oct 20, 2005)

coverage here (only national newspaper to cover the demo) http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7597


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 20, 2005)

bendeus said:
			
		

> and should do everything in our power to preserve it exactly the way it is for current and future residents of Cardiff to enjoy.



Does that mean pruning the trees daily to make sure they are exactly the same lenght and size at the end of everyday?

God that statement is so naive and blinkered its frightening! You can have the best of both worlds - but you just seem content to sit back and let everywhere rot!


----------



## bendeus (Oct 21, 2005)

How the fuck do you know?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 21, 2005)

because of your ever so insightful quote saying that everything should be preserved exactly the way it is for current and future residents of Cardiff to enjoy.  If that was the case then there wouldnt be a Cardiff for anyone to enjoy!  - as it would never have been built in the first place!


----------



## bendeus (Oct 21, 2005)

I was referring to your insider knowledge of the fact that I 'sit back and let everywhere rot'. Do you get these nuggets from the same source as your fascinating 'grassroots support for welsh cricket' facts?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 24, 2005)

bendeus said:
			
		

> I was referring to your insider knowledge of the fact that I 'sit back and let everywhere rot'. Do you get these nuggets from the same source as your fascinating 'grassroots support for welsh cricket' facts?


For your information i do know from first hand experience of the grassroots support for Welsh Cricket that Glamorgan Cricket Club provide.  Given that 99% of the current squad is Wales and have been brought through the various regions within Wales from a young age its pretty bloody obvious that they invest in youth training.  But i wouldnt expect somebody as ignorant as you to consider this issue because you are bound to be too busy making placards for your various objections!


----------



## Swan (Oct 24, 2005)

I signed an online petition against this development.Had I read this thread first Im not sure I would have.  I was lead to believe that this development would destroy the park,a park I like to spend time in when I vist Cardiff.Can anyone who actually lives near enough to know answer me this;will this development actually happen on land currently in use as parkland?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 24, 2005)

Swan said:
			
		

> I signed an online petition against this development.Had I read this thread first Im not sure I would have.  I was lead to believe that this development would destroy the park,a park I like to spend time in when I vist Cardiff.Can anyone who actually lives near enough to know answer me this;will this development actually happen on land currently in use as parkland?


No! - its within the cricket ground and the adjoining area already used as a car park area.


----------



## jannerboyuk (Oct 24, 2005)

Swan said:
			
		

> I signed an online petition against this development.Had I read this thread first Im not sure I would have.  I was lead to believe that this development would destroy the park,a park I like to spend time in when I vist Cardiff.Can anyone who actually lives near enough to know answer me this;will this development actually happen on land currently in use as parkland?


Hmmm...i'm not too sure who would have told you that the plans would have 'destroyed' considering its size. Perhaps it would be useful to re-post the council planning officers objections:

1. The loss of open space to the north of the Cricket Ground would be detrimental to the character of the Cathedral Road Conservation Area and the Grade II Sophia Gardens Historic Park and the setting of the Pontcanna Fields Grade II* registered Historic Park. This would be contrary to policies 3, 4 and 45 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, policies 2.53 and 2.54 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) and 6.5.15 and 6.5.23 of Planning Policy Wales.

2. The arena building by virtue of its form, scale and massing would be prominent when viewed from the Pontcanna Fields Grade II* registered Historic Park and Grade I registered Bute Historic Park which would adversely affect their setting and character. It would adversely affect the character of the Cathedral Road Conservation Area, and Sophia Gardens Grade II registered Historic Park. This would be contrary to policies 2.53 and 2.54 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) and policies 3, 4 and 45 of the Local Plan and government advice contained in paragraph 2.99 and 6.5.15 and 6.5.23 of Planning Policy Wales and paragraphs 4.8, 5.44 and 5.45 of Technical Advice Note 12 : Design.

3. The design of the arena building by reason of the large expanse of monopitch roof, industrial appearance, proposed materials, particularly aluminium roof cladding and large area of concrete steppings behind the western, southern and eastern stands would be inappropriate and out of character with the setting of the Pontcanna Fields Grade II* Historic Park, and the character of the Cathedral Road Conservation Area and Sophia Gardens Grade II Historic Park. This would be contrary to policies 3, 4, 11 and 45 of the Local Plan, and government advice contained in paragraphs 2.99, 6.5.5 and 6.5.23 of Planning Policy Wales and paragraphs 4.8, 5.44 and 5.45 of Technical Advice Note 12: Design.

4. In the absence of an appropriately worded unilateral undertaking to improve footpaths to the site and measures being implemented to mitigate the effects of the loss of on-site car parking and added travel demand resulting from the proposal there would be a detrimental effect on highway safety, contrary to policies 17, 18, 19 and 45 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, and policy 2.58 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2005) and paragraphs 8.42 and 11.3.2 of Planning Policy Wales.

5. The proposed arena building would be sited on part of the car park required to be provided by condition 4 of planning permission 98/427W and result in a loss of available car park when the ground is used for cricket or any other sport.

6. In the absence of a ground condition survey adjacent to the trees on the northern boundary there is no certainty that the car park could be provided without harming the trees, to the detriment of the Cathedral Road Conservation Area and Historic Parks.

7. Insufficient details of storage and collection of refuse, have been submitted as required by the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance : Waste Management.

http://www.hititforsix.net/hit46.nsf?Open
http://savebutepark.blogspot.com/

Also according to Cadw a number of 100 old beech tree's are already being killed by carparking (and now have a preservation order on them) and this would only get worse with the now withdrawn plans.


----------



## Brockway (Oct 24, 2005)

Most of the people who work for CADW in Cardiff live in Pontcanna.

I don't understand how an alteration to the skyscape is suddenly so awful. The Millennium Stadium dominates the view from Bute Park but I don't remember any objections to that. 

And whatever they say, the walled-off area adjacent to the cricket ground *doesn't* encroach on Bute Park whatsoever. There are 3 car parks within 5 minutes walk of the proposed sight, not to mention every car park in the City centre. The paranoid notion that people would have parked their motors on Bute Park is hilarious (it's physically impossible). Also the idea that only Parks vehicles use that road cutting through Bute Park is also utter bollocks. There's a caravan park; special school and stables there - people don't parachute into those places, they drive). And when there are Parks football games on, that road is chokka with vehicles... but strangely enough nobody seems that bothered about it. 

Anyway, the NIMBY/tree-hugger/anti-libdem alliance won - it's going to be built somewhere else.

I read in the _Echo_ about some trees being cut down in Grangetown the other day. How come all you nature lovers aren't up in arms about that? Maybe you don't take your dog for a walk there; or maybe it's not on your cycle route; or maybe it's just not in a poncey enough area for you to give a shit.


----------



## zog (Oct 24, 2005)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102559http 

and bollox to the cricket ground n all


----------



## Brockway (Oct 24, 2005)

Expecting much support from Pontcanna?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Oct 25, 2005)

Brockway said:
			
		

> Most of the people who work for CADW in Cardiff live in Pontcanna.
> 
> I don't understand how an alteration to the skyscape is suddenly so awful. The Millennium Stadium dominates the view from Bute Park but I don't remember any objections to that.
> 
> ...



Its not going to be built elsewhere as yet - what i imagine will happen is that the developers will take on board some of the comments made by the Planning Officers in the reccomendations for refusal that were never used to refuse the scheme as it was withdrawn by the applicant.  The developer will prob come back with a more appealing scheme addressing the issues and then either it will be approved by the Council or taken to appeal where it IMHO have a very strong chance of success.

I still think that the development is acceptable in this position and any redesign that will now occur will be much more favourable and like i said before i still think it will, as it should, go ahead.


----------



## osterberg (Oct 25, 2005)

Brockway said:
			
		

> I read in the _Echo_ about some trees being cut down in Grangetown the other day. How come all you nature lovers aren't up in arms about that? Maybe you don't take your dog for a walk there; or maybe it's not on your cycle route; or maybe it's just not in a poncey enough area for you to give a shit.



Now,now.That's a bit unfair.
I think its terrible what's happening in Grangetown.
If you're so concerned about it , Brockway , why don't you start a campaign to save the trees? I'm sure  all here will  be right behind you (except waterloowelshy who will be weiding the chainsaw no doubt)


----------

