Mark Hubbard

We could learn a lot from different cultures about how we treat public space. This plaque says it all on how we should prioritise public space and its usage.

Have just found this topic - many thanks for all the kind words. I've never been any good at keeping secrets - always think it is best to be open and honest about things. There are lots of reasons for me moving on at the next election - yes money has got something to do with it. I don't seem able to be a councillor without throwing 100% at it! which generally means a 40-60hr week, not leaving much time for earning extra money. On an allowance of £7k it doesn't leave much spare. With no pension I don't want to have to sell my house to get through old age as I quite like living here! I also think 8 years as a councillor is enough. It is a very combative situation to continually go through (well, the way I do it seems to be). I won't stand by and not speak out and there is so much to speak out about. So it's time I gave it a rest and did something more positive with my energy - something that will let me put a bit by for my old age! It's been fun.... And I am not going anywhere...... I will still be an active citizen! I also still have a year to go and I intend to make it count!

Have just read Jean O'Donnell's letter to the Times and I cannot disagree with what she says. Our city would be a better place if we valued and planned for our historic buildings in the way she describes.

Apologies for not answering the Scrutiny question - which you are all right is yes. Any key decision once made can be called in, but only on very narrow grounds as stated in the constitution: 4.5.16.5 Call-in should only be used in exceptional circumstances including but not limited to; a where there is evidence which suggests that issues have not been handled in accordance with the decision-making principles set out in this Constitution b where a key decision has been taken of which was notice was not given in accordance with the requirements in the Access to Information Rules (Part 4 Section 2), and is not subject to the urgency procedures set out in this Constitution; or c where a decision is outside the Budget and Policy Framework. All along the way we have needed something to hang the argument on - if the Heritage Impact Assessment had given cause for concern or had English Heritage listed the building or had the Council not adhered to its own rules on decision making - something to make the issue stick. BUT the process has been followed correctly (we may not agree with the process, but that is not the issue here), the heritage impact assessment said very clearly that Bath St was not worth saving and English Heritage agreed with this assessment. Any legal challenge would take all of this into account and it isn't looking hopeful. Sorry guys, I've spent the last 7 years being tied in knots by the system, a large part of which I don't agree with, but you cannot change it from the outside - "in it to win it", as they say. And there are many battles along the way that you don't win and have to be content with "having an influence" only. Just trying to be realistic........

The Cabinet of Herefordshire Council met today to agree the terms of the dissolution of the company known as Hereford Futures (formerly known as ESG Ltd). The following were the recommendations of the report: Recommendations THAT: (a) the transfer of HFL obligations to Herefordshire Council (as outlined at paragraph 6 below) be approved; (b) delegated authority be given to the Director for Economy, Communities and Corporate, in consultation with the Solicitor to the Council, to finalise and sign the necessary documentation to effect the transfer of obligations arising from recommendation a) above, including any necessary variation to the joint venture agreement with Homes and Communities Agency; and © the role and efforts of HFL board members throughout the board’s period of operation is recognised and thanks be extended to the board. So let's be clear about what is going on here. Having only completed part of its remit - getting the shopping sheds and the flood alleviation scheme built - since it inception in 2004. The link road and the urban village - two thirds of the site! - have yet to break ground and responsibility for these "obligations" will now be transferred back to the council. Let us also remember that this company was set up by the council and was entirely funded by public money - in recent years exclusively funded by our council funds.We are told that it cost HFL over £350k in staff and running costs last year, but the council will be able to take over all of the remaining obligations and do it for a mere £50k. And even having closed the company down, it will still cost another £150k in the coming year, post demise! You could have heard a pin drop when Cllr Alan Seldon (Chair of Overview and Scrutiny and a recent addition to the IOC team) asked when would the documentation be transferred over to council control - after all, if obligations were being transferred so surely would the paperwork. We have all been dying to take a look at since HFL declared publicly that it did not need to respond to Freedom of Information requests as it was a private company. A light dusting of frost settled on every horizontal surface in the silence, which was broken by the announcement that actually the paperwork was being shredded as they spoke. Cllr Liz Harvery (standing in as deputy for IOC Leader) played a blinder following this announcement, displaying an incandescent level of incredulity at the blatant cover up with Alan Seldon growling in support. Just when we thought we might get some answers with the closing down of a company that has operated as a closed shop, we discover that the shredders are at work. Board minutes promised to be made public by Cllr Roger Phillips back in November 2012 "they wlll be published on the website" he said, but they never were. And now they are on their way to the document heaven in the sky - never to reveal their dirty little secrets. Publicly funded and privately destroyed. The evidence trail has closed down! You heard it here first.......

Aylestone Voice - there has been no debate in a public council meeting you are right, but neither was there any debate in a public council meeting when they decided to hand over the Pavilion to the Friends of Castle Green free of charge - it just happened. There is a strong argument to say that the Pavilion and Bath street are very similar examples. Both assets will continue to serve a public benefit (although the glaring difference is they intend to knock one of them down). Managing buildings does not always go to a full meeting of council. To say there has been no Councillor opposition would not be accurate, but you don't necessarily get to see it all. I repeat what I said earlier in this topic - where is the reduce reuse recycle approach we should all be taking to asset management? To me it makes no sense to eradicate a building with history simply because it is no longer fit for the use it was built for. The economy is wider than just that and the grain of our city deserves better. But, this deal has been on the table since at least last September and probably before. For a development to come off the site, the finances and the timing all have to be right. I agree that the bus station site would be better, but if there ain't no money to make the new transport hub right now (which there isn't) it is just a great idea that won't happen. The city is losing a building we would all rather keep so let's make sure that what they replace it with looks nothing like the monstrosity they are just finishing off on the other side of town! The public meeting will be the beginning of that process - and if you don't want to lose the building you should absolutely make that clear. After all, that is your democratic right! Just try not to swear! Night night all!

We have managed to get ALL parties to agree to attend a public meeting when the Fire Service are ready to launch their public consultation on what they intend to build on the site. This will include a presentation on why after 10 years of looking for a suitable site the only one they could find is the one they are now discussing. I recognise this is not what you will want to hear, because many of you would like to have the decision changed, but there is still a huge amount to influence. It is not about individual battles, but continuous engagement...............

Hi Everyone, Just popping by to clarify and avoid crushing disappointments in situ - the cabinet agenda this afternoon does not have anything about the Fire Station land deal on it at all, so there will be no discussion of the deal. It is a Cabinet Member decision not a Cabinet decision, so will be done without reference to a public meeting. Sorry if this disappoints, but I needed to explain why I will not be going to the meeting at all. No point!

Dear All, 6000 visits is a colossal number, have all of those visits been generated by the 33 users as listed below? Or are people able to view without being listed below? Confirmation of the way these statistics work would give me a clearer picture.

Sorry Dippy was it my post that disappointed you? there is more I have to say about my meeting with the Leader, my conversation with the Chief Fire Officer and a report back from the Policy & Resources Committee of the Fire Service. But I just do not have time just now - I have a meeting of the Friends of Castle Green in 15 minutes and I need to prepare. Will try and post before the night is out.

Further cogitations on "strategic asset management" (goodness I have come over all reflective!): It does my head in that large organisations seem to have completely lost sight of the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra. Indeed I think we as a society have lost touch with that way of living. It is perhaps one of the reasons behind the really significant challenges our civilisation faces. Our use of resources is far outstripping what the world can provide. So in my head it doesn't make sense that two buildings that form part of our street scape in Hereford should be completely razed to the ground. But this is the approach the whole world is taking at the moment. Is it the fault of the officers of the council and fire service that this appears to be the most economic and sensible way forward, when this is the approach being taken across the world? I too try to take a practical, "role my sleeves up" & "get my hands dirty" sort of approach to life. I have tried to turn juggernauts and have been run over (memories of the battle over ESG), but by doing so you significantly influence the bigger agenda. There are small victories on the way, which you have to make do with. The most important thing is not to give up. Keep up the pressure!

Hi Guys, I have been following your discussions and agree that you have come up with some very good and creative ideas! Not quite sure who pays for them all or how you turn them into projects with a sustainable future - after all, bills all need paying and I am fast learning it is an uphill struggle with the work I am doing on the Castle Green. You need a small group of people with a real commitment and with the time & energy to plough into making things actually happen. I have also been reflecting on John Venn, the man who founded the working boys home and gave the land behind it to Hereford City Council to build "quality houses for the poor" - what is now known as the Portfields Estate. I am always very impressed with how lovely the Portfields Estate is and think John Venn would have been pleased with his donation. Whilst many of the houses have now been sold to their occupants (thanks to Maggie T), there are still a significant number of houses in social housing management - continuing to provide social housing for people in challenging circumstances. So what would he have thought about the site of his working boys home in 2014? He was quite a radical in his time - standing up for the poor and dispossessed, but he was also a pragmatist. He was a practical christian of his day - rolled his sleeves up and got on with delivering services to those that needed them, famous for his soup kitchens and providing hope for orphaned children from poor backgrounds. So I pose a question - would John Venn have wanted his building to be sold to a private developer to be converted to private houses for people who could afford them? Or would he have wanted his asset to continue to serve the public in whatever way could be found?

Hi Guys, Just dropping in to answer dippy's question about the public meeting and to re-interpret some of the posts! At this stage I am only suggesting a public meeting as a way forward - this is to try and open up the decision making process to further public scrutiny. The format of the meeting is as yet completely undecided as this needs to be discussed with the various representatives of the organisations that may want to take part, but public meetings usually have the format of one or two presentations followed by a question and answer session. As ward member I would try and organise a brief to all parties attending identifying the issues that have been brought up in this blog along with other concerns that have been expressed elsewhere. Hopefully this would help focus the presenters on the issues of concern. I hope this anwers your questions about the public meeting - of course if either the Fire Service or the Council do not wish to come to a public meeting, there is little point in having one. I am meeting with the Leader of the Council tomorrow morning and expect to speak with the Head of the Fire Service when he gets back from holiday on Wednesday. After both of these conversations, I should be able to feedback more information. Previous bloggers have correctly identified the meeting of the H&W Fire Authority Policy & Resources Committee on Wednesday night this week as being the next important stage of the process of the decision. I am meeting with the IOC representative on the authority this evening to ensure your views are taken into the heart of that meeting. Cllr Lloyd-Hayes is quite capable of speaking out on this issue and she is expecting to attend on Wednesday. You must remember that when appointed to the Fire Authority, members are expected to take decisions and advise about what is in the best interests for the Fire Service, taking account of the areas they represent. If there is a pressing need to replace the Hereford Fire station and if there is only one site on offer, there is little that can be done at that meeting to change things. What we can make sure of is that views as yet unexpressed are made clear. I do not think, as the Ward Member, that I have been "deliberately excluded", as Grid Knocker asserts above. I think the communication around this issue has been extremely poor, but to call it deliberate exclusion is going too far and I would not put my name to that. Having the Fire Authority in place should ordinarily allow for communications to be better than they have been, but both Marcelle and myself have recently been ill which took us both out of circulation for a while, which has compounded the situation. We are now both up to full speed and will do our best to get things opened up. Hopefully everyone will feel this is a useful role to play.

Megilleland - I am not aware of an alternative scheme at all. Grid Knocker - Your statement above "4) H&WFA had been told that it could expect planning approval in April 2014." is inaccurate, the papers for the meeting on the 26th do not state this. Indeed they state very specifically "if planning permission is granted" - IF not WHEN. I am firmly of the opinion that we need to air these concerns publicly. Forums on websites are useful to get a flavour of concerns, but there are a lot of assumptions and misinterpretations that can be made without challenge. Not everyone joins the platform and the major players are significantly absent. I shall pursue a public meeting with the Head of the Fire Service.

Hello Everyone, I have just had a very useful discussion with the Fire Service. I think there has been a lot of assumptions made around how communication happens in Herefordshire or not as the case may be. I am yet to speak to the Chief Fire Officer (he is on annual leave until mid next week), but I am going to propose that we hold a public meeting so that all of the issues around this land swap deal can be aired. As a community, we need to fully understand why the Bath Street site has been chosen; why there is not another suitable site; what happens if this deal does not go through now and how that will affect our fire safety in the future and whether sacrificing a building like the Working Boys Home is one that we would chose to make given all of the facts of the matter. Please watch this space.