H.Wilson Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 So did this get passed in the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 It was recommended for approval to committee, subject to resolution of outstanding issues raised by the Environment Agency. I assume it was passed at committee, but planning permission has yet to be issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megilleland Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Taken from the Agenda of the Health & Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee Friday 14 February 2014 10.00 am Executive Rolling Programme: February 2014 28/2/14 KEY Disposal of land forming part of the former Whitecross School, Baggally Street, Hereford To seek the approval of the Cabinet Member to the disposal of land forming part of the old Whitecross School site, following an extensive marketing campaign, to Miller Homes for development for residential housing to include affordable allocation. 27/2/14 KEY Disposal of land and buildings known as the Bath Street Offices, Hereford To seek Cabinet Member approval to dispose of the land and buildings known as the Bath Street Offices, Hereford to the Hereford & Worcester Fire and Rescue Service to enable the delivery of a new fire station for Hereford City. Why is it when I see the word disposal I feel that the Council is giving the land away for nothing. Is this based on previous land deals the council has entered into? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Lloyd Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Something must have gone a bit astray here Miller Homes have decided to withdraw from this development owing to "strategic business reasons". As per today's HT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aylestone Voice Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Costs of development including S106 and price for land too much for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 No loss, it was a cheap and nasty scheme which should have been kicked back to the developers to do better. Also, with them declining to provide even a temporary haul road in to the site off Plough Lane (as the previous scheme had indicated), the residents of Baggallay St would have been subjected to 18 months of heavy plant going up and down a single width road, no doubt taking out cars in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dippyhippy Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Planning permission granted for 69 homes on this site, with the firm Redrow. This must be, what, the fourth developer? I'm sure Persimmon purchased the land first, then sold it on... then Miller Homes and now Redrow Access will be via Baggallay Street...... Mutterings about the playing field being developed, according to the HT report. I'm sure there is a public right of way across here?? (Although I appreciate that this doesn't prevent building.... and we do very much need homes!) I just want to make sure there is still access...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Mutterings, just mutterings and conjecture - from a councillor who lives in Kington - really, what is the point of most councillors? This was only registered on 2 March, so rushed through in double quick time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dippyhippy Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Let's hope the proposed design is an improvement on the last one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lpusseycat Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 20 HOMES ON THIS SITE WOULD BE OKAY THE REST SHOULD BE TURNED INTO A PARK WITH RECREATION FACILITIES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS86 Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 I'm really pleased this has been passed. The Planning drawings look in my opinion that it will be a nice development within Whitecross. It is only the footprint that the old Whitecross School was built on that is being developed with the existing bridge being opened back up for access to the path along the brook. The old Whitecross fields are staying as they are and I thought that land was still owned by Trinity Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts