twowheelsgood

Local Authorities should be doing this anyway - it's part of the statutory requirement for a 5 year housing plan. Herefordshire Council doesn't have one (yet). They do have lots of highly paid planning officers responsible for failing to produce one in a timely manner. In addition, they are now paying expensive consultants to do the work the highly paid officers have failed to do, whilst the highly paid officers continue in their highly paid jobs. In the meantime, developers are grabbing greenfield sites and there is nothing we can do.

Of course, what Johnson & Co really want is for the HT to read like the risible 'Herefordshire Munters' that we were forced to pay for, until it was laughed out of town. That is never going to happen, and Bill Tanner's reports seem to me to be very balanced - they're just reporting the facts, albeit ones which take some digging to find, but facts nonetheless, and ones which I am sure are checked by the HT's lawyers before going to press. Keep it up Bill - they don't like it up 'em.

Do we even have CSO's any more? I know they generally came in for a lot of stick, but we built a good relationship with the ones covering St James and Bartonsham and they sorted out a number of longstanding issues (under age drinking, anti-social behaviour etc) in a professional manner.

40% for me in Central Ward - in my defence it does cover the City Centre, which does skew the number of dwellings, but I should have done better ...

Why would you want to eat any later?

That junction at present is at something like 95% capacity, the proposal would push it to 105%. Their highways consultant spun it every which way in their report - by changing the timing of the lights to allow pedestrians to cross every third change - like schoolkids are going to wait THAT long - they maintained there would be no change. On that basis, the council's highway officer said it'll be all absolutely fine and dandy. I know Jim was on the case for the previous application, so lets hope his common sense can get these damned things changed/removed with planning obligation monies.

In a similar vein, Balfour Beatty are consulted by Planning about Highway and associated matters - with clearly no skill base of their own, BB subcontract the questions to Parsons Brinckerhoff, a 'global consulting firm' and one of the most expensive infrastruture consultants in the UK, to which BB add 20% mark up - again, how much money is this saving or, rather, costing us? Conservatively, I would guess the operation as a whole must come in at about 50% more than if it was done in-house. Well done councillors, you've really shafted us with this one.

Because it conveniently wipes out the open market value of the site. It is then compulsorily purchased for peanuts and passed to, or just bought by, a 'preferred partner' such as a Housing Association, who build rental and a proportion of of open market housing, sold at huge profit because of next to nothing land cost - bonuses and new cars all round for the management structure. The management car park at Sanctuary headquarters is a sea of expensive German cars I'm told.

We did, it seems to have gone, like others.

It will have been (or should have been) a condition on the planning permission that site management details, inc vehicle parking, were submitted - if these are not being adhered to, it is an enforcement issue by the Council.

All of the 'historic core' of the City now has a 20mph limit, as well as all of St James & Bartonsham - drivers take not a blind bit of notice, many seeing it as their right to drive as fast as they want to at any time and s-d anyone else. Some of the worst offenders are mums on the 4x 4 school run through St James to and from Cathedral School.

dippy - your memory is functioning well - the east route is the only sensible and logical solution to encourage more business into the city. Without business the city is doomed. It is also substantially shorter and cheaper. Jesse has gone into it in some detail. That the council have already discounted the east route will be their undoing at the core strategy public enquiry, methinks. They are putting all their cards on builders being cash cows - a dangerous and uncertain game to play - certainly one they lost at the OLM. With thousands more houses, the city will simply choke to death.

dippy - my thoughts exactly! Madness to be spending millions at Plough Lane for Hoopla to luxuriate in and to then pay rent for office space elsewhere! Here's a thought - there is an empty building on Bath Street the council own and which owes them nothing - why not use that free of charge??!! The rent they will be paying could be invested into the building - too simple? I don't know who is in charge of their building strategy but some serious questions need asking by councillors as to what is going on - but then there are lots of questions need asking, but are not. Hoople are in Plough Lane, Franklin Barnes and the old Thorn offices at Rotherwas - all council owned buildings - that should be generating a sizable rental income. As we've said and asked before - are they paying the market rate?

It was only in September of last year that the Council restructured, and yet they're off again playing musical chairs. Was there a power struggle between Geoff Hughes and Mr Norman, who won and now has his own directorate (and presumably yet more money)? Even their own web site can't keep up with it - so much for transparency … https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/government-citizens-and-rights/democracy/transparency-senior-management-salaries-and-roles

Yes, but its worse than that - its 2 x £130k, for two assistants to support someone on a £120k job - £380k to fund a poxy council employee position (plus pensions, NI contributions, 'benefits' etc) - lets see what OFSTED has to say about her performance.

I've seen verbal diarrhoea like that before - over at our old friends Hoople! I went to their site to double check and - would you believe - the website is not responding - it’s the weekend, it probably fell over on Friday night and will be down until someone can be bothered next week. Good to know our IT services are in such (in)competent hands ...

Would this apply to the Fire Brigade - a public body - and the procurement of a new building? I would say yes ...

Advantage West Midlands is no longer - tories got rid as soon as they came into power. So, yes, one of many hidden bonuses the council have received which they were keen to sell a little while ago. There were other buildings and sites paid for by AWM, can't remember them all off hand, but I believe the hideously ugly Blueschool House (Planing Office) is another.

West Midlands Advantage paid for it.

Ah, I use petrol - no problem with those. Eye contact not really needed. It can get insanely busy there - really the site is too small. People who leave their car in front of a pump for 20 minutes whilst they do their shopping don't help. They are pretty good about opening more tills when its busy when I've been there - cashier rings a bell, more staff emerge. However, I'm sure that’s not always the case ... there's always Texaco down the road, which is always dearer and usually deserted as a result!

That’s my local - whats wrong with the pumps? I'm more concerned and annoyed by the idiots who queue on the highway, an offence, blocking both through traffic and visibility to all drivers.

% mark up on supplied services is redacted - there's a surprise - under Amey it was 20% for the Greenway bridge - yes 20% markup to manage themselves as contractors to build the bridge, which in itself would have a 20-25% profit. Councils must be the easiest of cons for these people. This is where all the money goes to. Best value? Is this REALLY cheaper than doing it in-house?

and paying twice the market rate for it.

Cheap way to add miles to the total of cycling facilities provided to draw down bonus monies from government to fritter on office refurb's and paying consultants for expensive reports stating the bleeding' obvious.

Says it all doesn't it - add a 'd' into herefordshire in the link - they can't even type that properly - and you'll be taken to 'Page cannot be found'. Now what was I saying about 'just do the basics, but do them well'? The email address by the way is to Parsons Brinckerhoff, one of the most expensive highways consultants in the country, used by Balfour Beatty, who've subbed it to them and no doubt added a 20% management fee. And we wonder where all the money goes?