I am in here now listening to what the five group leaders have to say. I am not party political, but I have to say that both the Labour group and Conservative group leaders are both trawling the depths, trotting out the same spiel and dogma. The other three seem to care about our city

Any talk on the local development plan our housing ?

This was the first issue tackled. ALL parties agreed we need a city region approach.

empire building

I wonder how many would want a city region approach if it meant they would all lose their seats?

Back to housing. Theyve just been asked where we should build

Cons- pls dont build near rhiwbina or lisvane! Our ancestors would be sad. We need city region. He believes that WG is reluctant to talk to CCC.

Libdems-regional,sustainable solution. Jane Davidson refused to meet him, John Griffiths (new minister) has now met him. Voluntary agreement would be acceptable. Surrounding councils now agreeing to build more than they previously agreed. Cardiff had 2nd highest growth in UK set by ONS, but that data was flawed.

Labour-we needed an LDP. She can't remember advocating building on ALL of our open spaces. She thinks we could have friendly chats with neighbouring authorities. We need to build on many of our open spaces on the fringe of our city. We have to be realistic.

Libdems again- asking labour why they voted for the LDP?

Labour - errrrrrmm

Plaid- we agree with Cons on this issue, maybe because we love Cardiff. If we follow the WG we wont have any green belt left. We are asked to build 3000 houses per year, at the height of boom only 2300 built. Asks labour for their position

Labour- im lost as to the answer. Isnt this the authority that wants to build at J33?

Cons- if we stick to the WG housing plans, we will lose our green belt. We need to stand and fight.

Independent- too important to play party politics with this issue. Urges people to get involved with the LDP and challenge the proposals. Rhiwbina people were outraged. Cardiff not a big city, rubbish stuff being built. Take a regional approach

Pheeew, very heated. A lot of heckling from labour in the audience of all the other speakers.

How depressing, did they think they were playing at being on question time or something?
I really don't see the point in getting all party political at this level.

But it wasn't a 'genuine' consultation / debate about housing etc, was it? ...

I suggest this was nothing more than an electioneering bandstand and the parties' point-scoring were not only inevitable but integral to the process


And aside from Mr A I'm willing to bet that most of the audience would have been similarly partisan - many predisposed to negatively challenging their 'opponents'

Mmm, there were about 30 neutrals in there. Most of the rest were Labour, a few libdems and plaid, don't know about conservatives as there was no support when the tory leader spoke. I enjoyed it. They all seemed like intelligent people, Heather Joyce (the labour leader) was let down (and seemed embarrassed) by the labour mob, who were nearly half of the audience. They barracked Berman, Walker and McEvoy. Robson didn't get much chance to speak. The bus station issue certainly embarrased the libdems and plaid; hopefully the CBD project will allow the development of a decent replacement. There are issues with the capacity of the current design, as posters on here have claimed.
The LDP and housing policy showed labour to be at odds with the other groups on the council. All groups were in favour of a city region approach to economic development.

Another case of not being sure where to post, but this thread says City Hall so it will do.

Several times on this forum reference has been made to pics of the Nazi flag flying above city hall in 1936. Current story on Babylon Wales provides some interesting history on the decision to put it up and the actions of those against it:

http://babylonwales.blogspot.co.uk/

Re: the LDP, Labour are correct. Without an LDP you can essentially be challenged by developers on an ad hoc basis, and can only defend it on the basis of an outdated local plan from... 1996. I also agree with the broad thrust of developing land to the north west and north east of current urban areas as a way of getting planned suburban communities that will be attractive and (relatively) affordable for middle income families. I've gone into the arguments again and again.

Saying this, I agree a city-region approach is required for development. But this has got to be about maximising the potential economic growth of the city region, and about investing strategically to maximise that given the resources available. It cannot be an excuse for shunting development away from Cardiff up the Valleys, with little prospect for the jobs the people require also moving up the Valleys. And it cannot be an excuse for an "anti-Cardiff" agenda which takes resources from the city in a vain attempt to boost failing peripheral economies. Ulitmately, I think we have to be managing population declines in the upper Valleys (unless dualling the A465 really does help turn things around), and facilitating growth in the lower Valleys, M4 corridor and especially Cardiff (and, to a lesser extent, Newport). That IS the city-region approach. Rather than thinking about what can be done for Ebbw Vale, or Tonypandy, or Maesteg, it asks "what can be done for South East Wales" as a region? Quite simply, I think the answer to that is having more people living in the more vibrant parts of our region. That opens up opportunities and promotes social mobility.

Unfortunately, Cardiff's NIMBYs' version of a city-region agenda is more about avoiding development, even if that means a glut of houses in the Valleys, that depresses already low house prices, and means people have to commute much longer than necessary.