Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


megilleland last won the day on August 2

megilleland had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

588 Superb

About megilleland

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Newton Farm, Hereford

Recent Profile Visitors

2,885 profile views
  1. megilleland

    Change at the Council

    Here is the Herefordshire Council Senior Managers Structure as at June 2018. How will this change.
  2. megilleland

    Change at the Council

  3. megilleland

    Hereford Voice. Use it or lose it

    Part of the problem I feel was when the website was upgraded. I found the new format confusing and has I am sure deterred some past members from posting on it. The original version was simple to use, clear, and easy to immediately to respond to. Change can be good if it benefits us, but not always. The present trend today is to sow discord, confuse, harass, unsettle and divide the population in everything it does to bring about change. Examples of "creative chaos" the words of Nicholas Boles, Tory MP for Grantham and Stamford (18/12/2010) This is already happening in our day to day life regarding family life, education, work, leisure and health. It is not that people count anymore, but that their data is sucked out of their life styles to feed and justify the politicians, bankers, media and global corporations manic ambitions which will entail total control of your mind and actions and enslave you as a moronic consumer. The best thing is to get your face out of your mobile and talk to those around you. Not many people are aware, care or respect one another today and it will only get worse, but then it doesn't affect me or does it? Will I bother to post in the future who knows.
  4. megilleland

    Plans for 75 Dwellings in Marden Refused

    Meanwhile in Leominster: 6th September 2018 Hereford Times Seems these large concerns involved with the Council are only in it for the money. Get the deal signed off and sit back.
  5. megilleland

    New Cyber Security Centre Rotherwas

    Hereford Enterprise Zone - Cyber Security Centre joint venture with University of Wolverhampton To seek approval for the council to undertake detailed legal and financial due diligence to determine the preferred partnering arrangements with the University of Wolverhampton (the University) for the development and operation of a centre for cyber security on Hereford Enterprise Zone. The University propose to develop a centre for cyber security located on the Hereford Enterprise Zone, as a joint venture with Herefordshire Council. The proposed site will form part of a national ‘Cyber Triangle’ with GCHQ Cheltenham and the Government Cyber Centre in Newport, South Wales, and ‘Cyber Valley’ with Worcestershire. It will be an anchor building generating new research and short course opportunities that will feed into training and education in industry and within the University. The University are proposing that the centre for cyber security is undertaken as a joint venture with the council. It is recommended that the council agree to take a direct role in the development and operation of the centre for cyber security through the establishment of some form of appropriate partnership structure, such as a company limited by shares. Further legal and financial due diligence will need to be undertaken to determine the most appropriate nature of this role for the council and evaluate the business case for the project and risks and opportunities associated with it. In July 2018 Council made provision within the capital programme of £3.5m to support the delivery of the centre for cyber security. When the due diligence work has been completed a recommendation on the way forward will be brought to Cabinet for consideration. Decision: That: (a) Up to £35k is allocated to provide the necessary legal and financial advice on appropriate partnership structures to secure delivery of the centre for cyber security in partnership with the University of Wolverhampton be approved. Alternative options considered: 1 Not having a direct role within the centre for cyber security project but instead seeking to sell the site to the University of Wolverhampton (the University). Advantages Should the University still proceed with the project, the council would receive a capital receipt in the order of £500,000. All risk associated with establishing and operating the centre would pass to the university. Disadvantages There is a strong likelihood that the University would review the business case for the project and may determine to postpone implementation of the project, or withdraw from the project altogether. The council loses direct influence on the aims, objectives and future operation of the centre particularly in terms of ensuring local business benefit. The council loses direct influence in terms of using the centre as an asset to leverage national government cyber policy, and future funding initiatives to invest locally, as well as a draw for international business investment into the zone. No opportunity for the council to benefit from future success, financial or otherwise. 2 Council undertakes to deliver the project itself. Advantages Avoid the need to enter into negotiations with the University. The council retains 100% control over the centre’s construction and operation going forward. Disadvantages Need to find £9m plus to fund the centre – not part of the current capital allocation for the Hereford enterprise zone. Funding has already been secured by the University from the Marches Local Enterprise Partnership (Marches LEP), and from its own resources, with a bid to European funding already well advanced. Likely to be significant fall out with those funding partners and an important local partner (the University). The University is very experienced in starting and running business centres; the council would need to start from scratch, and seek to find a replacement and credible higher education partner, given the research and development, and knowledge transfer components. Lack of operating expertise within the council so would require recruitment of additional staff or procurement of services to manage the facility.
  6. Plenty of forward weather information on internet. Surely someone appointed in BB can make a decision based on TV or internet forecast and instigate action as necessary.
  7. Just mentioned on H&W radio: Traffic lights not working on ASDA roundabout - NO DELAYS Enough said.
  8. megilleland

    University campus on Station Approach

    No respect for property or other people. Manchester’s bike-share scheme isn't working – because people don't know how to share Manchester bike hire operation `could be suspended in weeks´ due to vandalism The unexpected beauty of China's bicycle graveyards – in pictures These images of abandoned dockless share bikes in China are astonishing Bike-share companies accused of creating e-waste mountains
  9. megilleland

    University campus on Station Approach

    Agree, especially as the station is unmanned after 9.30pm.
  10. megilleland

    University campus on Station Approach

    I overheard one of the Keepmoat workers who were removing the site equipment by The Oval talking to our bus driver and he said they are moving up to the link road to start building the 800 homes in The Grid. Have they got any plans for what is going there?
  11. megilleland

    Money's too tight too mention

    July 2018 figures in for council expenditure of £29,941,410.94 Top 20 payments 1. Worcestershire County Council £6,900,000.00 2. Balfour Beatty Living Places Ltd £2,629,744.71 3. Balfour Beatty Living Places Ltd £1,630,982.34 4. West Mercia Police & Crime Commissioner £1,349,077.00 5. Balfour Beatty Living Places Ltd £1,202,425.71 6. Worcestershire County Council £1,131,152.62 7. Worcestershire County Council £953,819.45 8. Hereford & Worc Fire & Rescue Service £560,874.30 9. Hereford & Worc Fire & Rescue Service £560,874.30 10. Fcc Environment Services (uk) Ltd £331,461.60 11. Fcc Environment Services (uk) Ltd £327,465.66 12. Integral UK Ltd £311,576.85 13. Shaw Healthcare (Herefordshire) Ltd £268,452.87 14. Shaw Healthcare (Herefordshire) Ltd £262,325.10 15. Integral UK Ltd £254,283.84 16. Whitecross@Stepnell Ltd £246,355.01 17. Whitecross@Stepnell Ltd £246,355.01 18. Wye Valley NHS Trust £207,843.98 19. Wye Valley NHS Trust £207,843.98 20. Wye Valley NHS Trust £207,843.98 Making a total of £19,790,758.31 to 10 organisations Other payments made to these organisations outside the top 20 total £20,400,616.43 which represents 68% of all monies spent during July. Nice work if you can get it.
  12. megilleland

    From Cider pressing to Brexit bashing

    Why not give all of us £20 to vote leave and get the result he wants.
  13. megilleland

    From Cider pressing to Brexit bashing

    Julian Dunkerton: the man who gave £1m to the People’s Vote campaign Can't say I agree with him. Must have drunk too much cider!
  14. megilleland

    It never rains, but it pours at Plough Lane office

    Replacement of roofs over Units 1-6 Tarsmill Court, Rotherwas, Hereford Purpose: To seek approval to release capital funds set aside in the approved budget for the financial year 2018/19 and undertake replacement of defective roofs over units 1 – 6 Tarsmill Court, Rotherwas via an appropriate contractor procured and appointed through the council’s competitive tendering process. Decision: That: (a) replacement of defective roof over units 1 – 6 Tarsmill Court, Rotherwas be undertaken within a budget of £400k; and (b) the works are procured from an appropriate contractor via open tender to ensure that best value is obtained. Alternative options considered: 1. Do nothing. The existing roofs leak extensively and are causing significant disruption and damage to the two business tenants of the units. Both have threatened to leave and to sue the council for financial loss caused by water penetration damaging machinery and goods and loss of business. If the tenants leave, current rental income of £61k will be lost, the units will be difficult to re-let in their current condition and the value of the council’s investment property portfolio will be reduced. 2. Dispose of the freehold interest in the units, selling as seen in their current condition. This would shift responsibility for improving the units to the new owner but the capital value achievable would be depressed due to the condition of the roof. It would also lead to the loss of the regular rental income stream which the council invests in delivery of local services. 3. Use existing contractor to carry out work. The cost estimate is higher than the threshold for both the existing Integral maintenance contract or the new BBLP contract so open tender is the most appropriate method of procurement and will be managed by the design and maintenance team.
  15. Urgent improvement roof works at Plough Lane Head office Decision to award the contract to carry out maintenance and improvement works to plough lane roof To award the contract to carry out the urgent improvement roof works at Plough Lane Head office through the expenditure of the 2018/19 capital maintenance budget. The reasons to award the contract to carry out the improvement roof works at Plough Lane offices through the BBLP public realm contract are:- (a) The estimate of 249K for the works was provided by Integral (Hereford) Ltd, the council's current provider within an agreed delivery timeframe, however the current maintenance contract with them is due to finish by 1st September. BBLP have been awarded the maintenance and cleaning contract from the 1st September and in order to address the urgency to carry out the work before winter the most expedient course of action is to appoint BBLP to carry out he works through the existing public realm contract. (b) there is rain water ingress through the roof that is causing damage to the finishes within the building (c) water ingress damage is causing disruption to services every time it rains (d) the water ingress is causing deterioration to the building fabric which will lead to greater cost and losses in the medium to long term if the issue is not resolved and will also ultimately render the building no longer fit for its intended purpose Given the nature of the ingress problem equality issues in respect of the working environment have been taken into account. The contract with Integral is due to finish by 1st September and therefore they cannot deliver the works hence BBLP is being asked to take on the works through the public realm contract. Timescale for completion is to be agreed and may run into periods of inclement weather. Details of any alternative options considered and rejected: Alternative option —do nothing. This has been discounted as there is water damage to the finishes within the building and disruption to services every time it rains as well as deterioration to the building fabric leading to greater cost and losses. Instigate patch repair. This will not provide a comprehensive resolution to the problem and may lead to greater deterioration of the roof in the longer term. The cost implication of not completing the work is potentially further damage to the buildings fabric and interior therefore adding to cost overheads. Service delivery will also be affected. Haven't they already spent a large sum of money on this office?