Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Residents complain about plans to demolish house to make room for new cycle path

Families say they do not want the cycle path to run through their quiet suburban street

A row has broken out in a quiet cul-de-sac after developers proposed to demolish a house to make way for a cycle path for an affordable housing development.

The four-bedroom private home could be destroyed to create a cycle route which will pass through the close and provide a safe route for pedestrians and cyclists travelling to the new houses.

Mail Online report that the decision has prompted 'outrage' from neighbours who claim the path will change the 'way of life' in their street, situated on the outskirts of Cardiff, South Wales.

Homeowners Paul and Janice Snelgrove have reportedly agreed to sell the home for £400,000 to property developers Edenstone Homes.  

Neighbours in the 50–home cul-de-sac, Clos Nant Glaswg in Pontprenau, say they are 'disappointed' that Paul and Janice Snelgrove have agreed to the deal, but add that they do not blame them for accepting. 

The Snelgroves, who own a garage business in the city and are in their late 50s, bought the four-bed detached, red brick house for around £112,000 in 2001, just five years after it had been built.   

The destruction order for the house is included as part of plans for 45 new affordable housing homes next to their existing private houses on the outskirts of Cardiff.

When demolishing existing homes and buildings, developers can either obtain a compulsory purchase order, or reach an amicable agreement with the owners of the home or building in question. 

The plans are due to go before Cardiff planning committee on April 21. Any destruction order will only come into effect if the plans for the whole site are approved.  

Families say they are not against the new development but do not want the cycle path to run through their quiet suburban cul-de-sac.

A petition to 'Save Number 43' has now been signed by nearly 300 people.

Neighbours say they are 'disappointed' the couple agreed to the deal, but made it clear that they do not blame them for accepting.  

Vaughan Williams, who helped set up an action group to fight the proposed cycle path, said: "I spoke to Paul shortly after the plans for the cycle path were submitted to Cardiff council. 

"I asked Paul how he felt about the proposed demolition of his home and he said he had reluctantly agreed to sell and accept £400,000 for it to be demolished.  

"I don't blame Paul and Janice for accepting. It is a generous offer – £80,000 above its actual market value – but I am disappointed."

Vaughan and Alison Williams are both retired and have lived at their home for over 20 years.

Retired fish and chip shop owner and father-of-four Mr Williams, 63, said: "No one around here blames them for agreeing to the offer. 

"The alleyway created by the cycle path will threaten our safety and security and is utterly pointless, as far as I can see."

Paul Cawley, 61, has also lived in the area for 17 years and says planners have not considered the community in their plans to flatten the home for a cycle path.

He added: 'We have a great community spirit here everybody is aware of who is coming and going.

"I have numerous concerns regarding the demolition [but] I'm not opposed to the housing development.

"I don't think the road is particularly safe for cyclists due to the junction at the bottom. It is ill-conceived and ill-thought through.

"I'd like the application to be rejected, the planners haven't considered us."

Action group chairman Rob Lee claimed: "Even if you build five-bedroom luxury houses we would oppose the plan, if it involved the demolition of one of our homes and destroying our way of life."

Another neighbour, 44-year-old design manager Jason Jeffrey, called the proposals 'ill-informed and ill-conceived'.

He said: "I understand the need for the affordable housing that is proposed, and that developments nowadays should be as environmentally friendly as possible, but this path for cycles won't connect the new community to any local amenities.

"It will only connect them to this close, so what's the point? 

"And I also question the notion of demolishing a perfectly habitable house to make way for this cycle path. I thought our country has a housing shortage. This is crazy."

A spokesperson for Cardiff Council said: 'This application hasn't been determined yet.

"As [the Planning Authority] we obviously consider all objections and comments made on the proposal, which is then set out by the case officer in a decision report which is presented to the Planning Committee when the case is due to be heard.

They added: "There is a specific process, and what we cannot do is predetermine that process before the planning committee reach their decision.' 

Developers United Welsh say it is important for the new builds to 'integrate well' with the community.

A spokesman said: "This development will provide much needed high-quality homes for affordable rent and first-time buyers.

"It is important for the proposed new homes to integrate well with the community and for pedestrians and cyclists to have adequate access to local facilities and amenities.

"Local residents are being consulted as part of the planning process."

Add new comment

25 comments

Avatar
brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

This story reminds me of those blocks in London where the affordable housing flats have their own entrance and lifts round the back...

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

An alternative reading of those situations is that people who have already received a massively subsidised flat complain that it doesn't include a free concierge service.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Rich_cb | 3 years ago
2 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

An alternative reading of those situations is that people who have already received a massively subsidised flat complain that it doesn't include a free concierge service.

Yes dammit, such unter-mensch should be grateful merely for being permitted to exist in proximity to such fine people

Avatar
visionset | 3 years ago
1 like

Would not surprise me one bit if this was deliberately orchestrated to fail as anti cycling propaganda.

Avatar
kitsunegari | 3 years ago
0 likes

Planning doesn't give a stuff about residents or what they want, especially when it comes to those wishes when comparing them to developers wishes.

That said, this is cycling infrastructure so they'll probably surprise me and reject it.

Avatar
Jenova20 | 3 years ago
4 likes

"Developers United Welsh say it is important for the new builds to 'integrate well' with the community."

Not gonna happen while you're dealing with NIMBYs.

Avatar
JohnnyRemo | 3 years ago
6 likes

Brookside Close was never the same after they put in that footpath to the shops. Hostage taking, murders, explosions!

 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to JohnnyRemo | 3 years ago
1 like
JohnnyRemo wrote:

Brookside Close was never the same after they put in that footpath to the shops. Hostage taking, murders, explosions!

 

Don't look under the patio.....

Unless you're in the police.

Then do look under the patio....

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
3 likes
Captain Badger wrote:
JohnnyRemo wrote:

Brookside Close was never the same after they put in that footpath to the shops. Hostage taking, murders, explosions!

Don't look under the patio.....

Unless you're in the police.

Then do look under the patio....

Aaaah, the light dawns; the locals mis-heard it as psychopaths.

Avatar
Captain Badger | 3 years ago
6 likes

Don't know what the fuss is. No one ever uses cycle paths.

Avatar
Mary Willoughby | 3 years ago
19 likes

You may not believe this but I’ve got a road outside my house, A ROAD!  You just don’t know who’s using it these days, almost certainly ne’re do wells and criminals.  The Council have only gone and put a route from every prison, port, remand centre, private school and brothel in the country to my front door.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Mary Willoughby | 3 years ago
13 likes
Mary Willoughby wrote:

You may not believe this but I’ve got a road outside my house, A ROAD!  You just don’t know who’s using it these days, almost certainly ne’re do wells and criminals.  The Council have only gone and put a route from every prison, port, remand centre, private school and brothel in the country to my front door.

Have you considered moving?  Apparently there's a very nice cul-de-sac in Wales without any of those problems.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to Mary Willoughby | 3 years ago
2 likes

More details about the brothels please.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
0 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:

More details about the brothels please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xMHo5CicN4

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
17 likes

One of my many pet hates is the development of housing estates that make no effort to create even walking routes into neighbouring areas. Always seems to be an assumption that the new estate will simply filter all travel down to the main road and no thought to what will happen from there beyond maybe installing a pedestrian crossing.

Porosity to active travel should be a primary design requirement of any new development and damn the NIMBYs.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
15 likes

"The alleyway created by the cycle path will threaten our safety and security and is utterly pointless, as far as I can see."

"Even if you build five-bedroom luxury houses we would oppose the plan, if it involved the demolition of one of our homes and destroying our way of life."

".....but this path for cycles won't connect the new community to any local amenities."

What's the Welsh for NIMBY?  What is it about cyclists that scares people so much?  Why do they think a cycle path would threaten their safety and security?   Then there's the incredibly hysterical comment comment about destroying their way of life!  Get a grip man.  I can't blame the people selling; it must be great to get away from such utterly mean-spirited, narrow-minded curmudgeons.

Glad to see the Mail is taking their IPSO loss like men and not instantly attacking anything to do with cycling.

Avatar
ktache replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
12 likes

Odd that the Mail are objecting to the opening up to other forms of traffic to this already existing LTN.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
5 likes

Not too difficult to read between the lines though. They basically don't want the hoi polloi passing through their wealthy cul-de-sac.

Avatar
Bigfoz replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
2 likes

Looking at the picture of the house, they ain't that wealthy... Not even a particularly unque or interesting house, just a mass produced box of carp.

Avatar
Global Nomad | 3 years ago
1 like

seems like there must be other options alongside whatever other routes exist into the development ( i presume these would be more difficult/expensive for the developer) . The purchase will be subject to planning approval. It is also recorgnised that cul-de-sacs can be less secure spaces and that through traffic at whatever level can provide more safety. 

Avatar
Tired of the tr... replied to Global Nomad | 3 years ago
18 likes

Not much actual detail where the new development will be built, but looking at a map I guess it's north of Ty Draw Rd. If this is so, motor traffic access will be from Ty Draw Rd and have nothing to do with these Cul-de-sacs. But the footpath/cyclepath gives access to the local park, supermarkets and three schools, without this path there would be a long detour around this existing estate.

If this understanding is correct, it has nothing to do with developers saving money, quite the opposite, the path would not be needed for access and they could just dump it, but it will make it easier for people from the new development to cycle or walk to the local amenities.

Presumably the issue is really that it's "affordabable housing" so the residents of the non-affordable houses in the cul-de-sac don't want them walking through their street.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Tired of the trolls here and gone cycling instead | 3 years ago
12 likes
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Presumably the issue is really that it's "affordabable housing" so the residents of the non-affordable houses in the cul-de-sac don't want them walking through their street.

Nail.
Head.

Avatar
Bmblbzzz replied to Rich_cb | 3 years ago
1 like
Rich_cb wrote:
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Presumably the issue is really that it's "affordabable housing" so the residents of the non-affordable houses in the cul-de-sac don't want them walking through their street.

Nail. Head.

House.
Price.
Cancer.

Omg won't someone think of the shame!

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Tired of the trolls here and gone cycling instead | 3 years ago
8 likes
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Presumably the issue is really that it's "affordabable housing" so the residents of the non-affordable houses in the cul-de-sac don't want them walking through their street.

Even worse; lycra louts on BICYCLES!!!!

Avatar
qwerty360 replied to Global Nomad | 3 years ago
1 like

The average cost of cycling infra is ~£100k/km.

So given the area it is likely the £400k paid for the house would pay for several km of path for an alternative route.

It is almost guaranteed that there isn't a useful alternative because they are almost always going to use one rather than knocking down an expensive existing building...

 

Though looking at the plans + map (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5354506,-3.1499478,190m/data=!3m1!1e3 looks down on area) + other comments (yes, I put up with the insanity of the daily mail) is that it is actually an access road. (i.e. it might be a cycle lane eventually but will be built with a locking bollard to provide vehicle access, probably because redundant access is required for safety reasons and they have difficulty getting construction vehicles in)

There is an access road for properties that could have a hedge knocked through that would probably solve access for cyclists + pedestrians, but wouldn't be wide enough for emergency vehicle access... Of course blaiming cyclists gets a pavlovian response, hence the press going that way...

Equally they could do vehicle access by knocking down a garage in the opposite direction, but that probably fell through as they are required to avoid compulsory purchase orders (i.e. if a neighbour is willing to sell and the route is usable then that is how it will be done, even if far less sane).

Latest Comments