Jump to content

Hereford Fire Station Planning Application


Aylestone Voice
 Share

Recommended Posts

I believe the Fire Brigade had said that they'd ruled it out because it would flood! I think their information was perhaps confused, easily done when dealing with the council - the original scheme would have flooded, because Amey's engineers set the road too low. A new planning application was required to raise it 600mm, which was nodded through, and so all is well. Given the small town that is to be built off Roman Road and the larger town to the south of the city, a more centrally placed station just off the A49 spine seems so obvious doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says he accepts their Transport Statement which says everything will be fine ...

 

He does comment however that 'The forecourt appears to be of insufficient length to accommodate the longest vehicle shown on the swept path drawing and it should be clarified that those vehicles will not need to be parked in that position.' Given that engines are often parked at the front of the present station, this could be considered a major error by the real estate agents 'designers'. It begs the question - is the site not really deep enough and they've fudged the layout to make it appear to work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else catch this lunchtime's Midlands Today??

 

A report on todays meeting about the proposed cuts to fire cover in Hereford was the lead story. The reporter stated that "one member of the panel fell asleep - which did not go down well."

 

No names given though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wednesday 1 October 2014 in Hereford Times by Bill Tanner

 
FUTURE full-time 999 cover out of Hereford fire station will come down to one engine with a crew as few as four.
 
Hereford & Worcester Fire & Rescue Authority (HWFRA) has backed a compromise to Hereford station losing one of its two full-time crews.
 
Two crews will be available full-time over 12 hours during the day with the station’s second engine being covered by a retained crew over 12 hours at night.
 
A third engine remains retained as at present.
 
But the option assumes a crew as few as four for the full-time engine.
 
The vote for the cut was passed at Hereford Shirehall this morning with two abstentions and commits the fire service and authority to exploring the feasibility of the second engine being covered at by a different full-time shift pattern.
 
A report on that option – called day crew plus – is due before HWFRA within the next 6-12 months.
 
An amendment to implement day crew plus as an alternative fell by 18 votes to five.
 
Members heard that, to secure savings, full-time crews could come down to as few as four unless some £800,000 was released from the service’s reserves to support the current five.
 
Four, members heard, was considered “safe†but the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) argues strongly against this.
 
HWFRA was voting on a savings plan called Community Risk Management (CRM) drawn up to cover the service’s projected budget gap of more than £2 million by 2016-17.
 
Under the first draft of CRM  - which outline cuts in funding for frontline services – Hereford would have lost an appliance with full-time cover down to a single engine backed up by a retained crew.
 
Ledbury and Tenbury will lose one of their two retained crews as originally proposed.
 
The approved option saves just over £1.4 million leaving a shortfall of £236,000.
 
HWFRA member  Cllr  Richard Udell said that the compromise allowed for “minimisation†of damage caused by government imposed cuts that neither the authority or the service wanted.
 
Fellow HWFRA member Cllr Jim Kenyon warned: “We’re not playing with lives, we’re making decisions on lives.â€
 
Speaking after the meeting, Julian Jenkins, of the FBU, said that despite the compromise, service remained reduced.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next time you visit the council website to check the number of objections logged (44 this morning; whatever happened to those other 556 flyers you posted through people's letterboxes Cambo?), have a read of the objection sent in by Herefordshire Civic Society. 

 

Two points they make which are interesting are a) the applicants claim that the development will provide a building of architectural merit (if that brick s**t house has any merit whatsover, then I'm a Dutchman) and b) the applicants state that Bath Street is 'the only suitable site for the development of new facilities for this essential public service', a claim which I'd say amounts to a 24ct Porkie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else catch this lunchtime's Midlands Today??

 

A report on todays meeting about the proposed cuts to fire cover in Hereford was the lead story. The reporter stated that "one member of the panel fell asleep - which did not go down well."

 

No names given though!

My thanks go to HT poster Little red fox, who attended the meeting, and confirmed that it was Brigadier Jones who fell asleep.

 

Let's hope he was one of the two who abstained. After all, how can you come to a reasonable desicion when you have slept through the arguments??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bearing in mind these comments were made in 2005! Some interesting points made here in the past about an Integrated transport interchange for Hereford. This would allow the fire station to relocate to Commercial Road site if these plans had been adopted.

 



 

Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions 

 

Integrated transport interchange for Hereford – 635, 830, 1113, 1185, 1361 

 

8.3.2 In my opinion, there is a lack of clear vision regarding future provision for public transport in Hereford city centre. I am left wondering what sort of new facilities are called for and where they would be located. In this regard, there is even a lack of unanimity in documents that have informed the UDP. To my mind, a firm public transport strategy is still outstanding. 

 

8.3.3 I can see the initial attraction of concentrating new facilities at the railway station. However, this is a location that is removed from the main destination of the majority of bus passengers. Further, from what I saw of the site, I would say that there are severe physical limitations on what could be achieved without major disruption. In the future, I would expect some sort of enhanced provision for buses; also good integration between buses serving the railway station and those serving the heart of the city. However, much of this could be achieved under the general provisions of Policy T1 or without reference to the development plan. 

 

8.3.4 As to the identification of a site for a main bus interchange, the Plan refers to a number of possibilities. One of these is the livestock market site. In that there could be opportunities arising out of the comprehensive redevelopment of this area, and its funding, it seems sensible to me to flag up this possibility. I note, however, that there is no obligation to provide an interchange at this location. At the same time, other possibilities can be identified. These include Blueschool Street / Newmarket Street. Again, it seems sensible to refer to candidate sites. 

 

8.3.5 I conclude that it would have been better to include a specific proposal for a bus interchange in an optimum location. However, given uncertainties about implementation of redevelopment proposals, lack of consensus amongst interested parties and the absence of a firm public transport strategy, I consider that the flexibility afforded by the Plan is the way forward. To this extent, no modification of the Plan is necessary. 

 

10 years on and the council are still waiting for the bus!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Please have a look at this petition, it means a lot to me: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-the-old-boys-home?bucket=&source=twitter-share-button â€¦ via @38_degrees




 

 

 

9:36 AM - 5 Oct 2014 Â· Details

 

This is a petition started by Hereford Visions


Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a cracking good response from the Conservation Dept. Very interesting to read 'Pre-application discussions were held with the HWFS concerning the proposals and it has been consistently stated that the existing buildings are considered worthy of retention as locally important, exhibiting as they do architectural, historic, social and cultural evidence of the growth of Hereford'. So despite this, they carried on regardless, perhaps on a promise from a certain cabinet member?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 We are perhaps reaching the end game.

I doubt even in the face of the criticism of the scheme that they will withdraw the planning application.

So at some point the application will go to Planning Committee - did I see November mentioned? Who knows what the recommendation by the Officer will be.

All of the members of the Planning Committee can be lobbied

Anyway when it does all those who objected within the timescale will be given the opportunity to speak at the meeting. But there will only be 3 minutes - not for each person but 3 minutes for all the objectors. So if more than one wants to speak then someone or many will be disappointed. What needs to happen is a bit of co-ordination so that a person best able to make the case against can use the three minutes to the best advantage. They will need to cover the main issues and not I suggest focus on the politics of it all. It is the wrong application - the loss of an important building and the replacement is of no merit and harms the city centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo the conservation dept

& well done Denise for posting it!

I've emailed the planning officer to ask him how many objections he has received so far to date?as I don't think the amount that are listed under representations is correct? As I know some people who have objected are not on the list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...