twowheelsgood

For £90m, they could have straightened the photo up ...

As we've covered in the posts above, courtesy of info from the HT.

This was forced on them by Planning, who were told to protect the OLM above anything else.

I agree - this could only have been written by someone in the public sector. Incomprehensible. Perhaps that's the idea.

Report says ' parking has been divided into two phases, the first of which is owned by British Land and the second Herefordshire Council. There will be 604 spaces, including the Waitrose multi-storey. Of these, 153 are within the phase two Herefordshire Council area. The council can retain 92.5%of income from phase two ...' I'm guessing that logically the ground level spaces would be the Council ones, as they're talking about 'ownership'. I wish HT would interrogate these press releases a little further rather than just reproducing them.

Well, well, I stand corrected - I've just read in my modestly priced HT that, contrary to what they've been saying for ages now, the Council don't get all the parking revenue. Council telling porkies - who'd have thought it. Apparently, they keep 92.5% of revenue from 153 spaces out of 604. The rest goes to Stanhope. They keep the Garrick house revenue. So, the whole thing an even worse deal than previously thought.

The Council have been boasting for ages of the £1m+ pa car parking revenue they will take from the OLM and Garrick House parking combined 1000 spaces.

The site is private property, so it is in the developers interests to keep it clean (and no doubt they charge the tenants for it) - but they won't go beyond the OLM. Sadly it is surrounded by increasing levels of litter and decay, uncut grass and bare soil where there used to be planting, as it is now obvious that the deal with Balfour is markedly even worse than the previous one with Amey.

Perhaps an own goal? If the traffic flows smoothly, why the need for an expensive inner link? Spend the money on the existing roads instead - there's a novel solution.

I'll moan - they're looking scruffy already - did no one realise that that tyres scrub as they turn a corner? The exits into and out of Widemarsh St are a mass of rubber skidmarks already. That's value engineering for you.

mg - you overlooked the cost of the new Rockfield carpark, which seems to have consumed the county's entire allocation of tarmac. I'll wager that, with demolition, there was no change from £0.25m. That's a mere drop in a pothole compared to the cost of 125 parcels of compulsorily purchased land and all of the legal add-on's £??m. Oh, and how could you overlook the redesign and resubmission for planning permission when it was realised that the whole road was 600mm too low to allow drainage by gravity and had to be redesigned? Consultants fees - £0.1m 'A mile of new motorway costs on average £30m' according to the Highways Agency - and that’s for 6 lanes. We're getting just two lanes at a substantially higher cost! Is something awry?

Yes, my first and subsequent thoughts on reading this news were 'how much has this cost us'? Because, lets face it, the council were over a barrel, as a result of their own stupidity (not for the first time), and the two key players knew it. But weren't Jewson's due to be cleared out anyway? So probably a double pay day for them.

Idiotic own goal by the Council - no way was there ever going to be 20000 people, but no doubt a lot have stayed away as a result. Walked down Bath St a couple of times this morning and its been deserted.

The salty hulk (partly) opens tomorrow - on the Councils website they say 'We expect around 15,000 to 20,000 visitors to Old Market on 1 May. For those planning to travel inside the city, walking and cycling is recommended.' Oh dear lord, the traffic will be stationery for a 10 mile radius. At say 2 to a car, that’s up to 10,000 cars - the council, in a masterly understatement to avoid widespread panic, say 'with large visitor numbers anticipated, car parks on the Old Market site may become full.' For once, they may be right. Never mind the jambs, count the money from the car parks …

Here here. The missus spends more than £10 on a pair of knickers? What a woman!!

Assuming that is what they will be selling and you must buy from there, then yes. Other breakfast burger joints are available however, which further underlines the nonsense of it all. I prefer a nice bowl of muesli ...

It’s a box ticking exercise - the planning application has to have a 'Statement of Community Involvement', so the applicant holds a very short public meeting, displaying the proposals, for as short a period as possible, in a difficult to access location with no parking. Public consulted - highlight vague feel good statements such as 'providing exciting development opportunities for youth in the city' - comments collated - statement to say they've been considered - box ticked - job done. I'll wager the planning application will be submitted within a couple of weeks.

The planning permission that has been implemented is for 'change of use of ground floor restaurant to food take away ...' There is a condition which restricts the sale of hot food between 1.30am and 12 noon to protect the residential amenity of nearby residents. However, the applicant has subsequently stated there is no intention to open as a takeaway, so who knows what is happening.

Their website is here http://www.hereforhereford.co.uk An extremely intelligent and erudite bunch who have consistently shown the Council's approach to theCore Strategy, bypass et al to be deeply flawed and worse.

There are 1000 spaces if you factor in Garrick House car park as well, and don't forget this is 24/7 as well. The council have been boasting about £1m+ pa income from this car parking to deflect opinion from the £30-60m they have had to pay for this development (or, rather, we have had to pay, at the expense of every other service), yet people don't seem to connect the two.

'For an hour of free parking spend £20 or more in Waitrose' it says on the new website. That’s about the only concession. How that’s going to work I've no idea. I can imagine there will be some sort of friction between the developers and stanhope about these charges - they're going to deter shoppers without a doubt. Typically myopic council thinking - grab the money and sod the consequences. http://www.oldmarkethereford.co.uk/neighbourhood What about some innovation? Free electric shuttle bus between the station and the OLM for instance. Concessions for cycling as they do for the Eden project.

Planning will ask for pre-application forms and a fee and then make purchasers wait 4-6 weeks for a reply ...

It’s a great initiative - like so many other things, small and not so small items just not done over a number of years have left the city looking increasingly shabby. I think the money megilleland is referring to is the 20% profit going into private pockets.

It is a service yard for goods deliveries - there is a second one off Newmarket Street. The Edgar St one will have a very narrow slip road - just 2m wide (no one thought to measure the width of a lorry) and the length of one lorry, where deliveries are expected to park up whilst they open the gates or wait for a space in the yard. Alternatively the driver has to hop out, avoiding being run over and ask at the intercom for them to open the Newmarket St gates because there is nowhere for lorries to pull up here. Did someone say not very well thought out? As for exiting, it will entail pulling out across all lanes ...

Well done Jim - the hours that I and so many others have wasted sitting at these lights whilst nothing happens beggars belief, not to mention the impact on the poor souls who live on Ledbury Road. They were never needed in the first place, no one was consulted, it was one councillors ill judged stance that pushed them through, with an uproar once put in, which the council ignored. Not even MP Keetch could get them to rethink, so its about time something was done. In many respects this would be a good test at a minor junction - get rid, see the improvement and use the argument to get rid of more. Mind you, at the rate they're planting the damned things around the OLM we might never catch up! I believe a couple of years ago there was a scheme on the table to remove the lights at the end of St Owens St/Bath St junction - I discussed it with Cllr Hubbard several times and I've seen a drawing. The red light running there is insane. It could still be done - presumably there is 106 money available from the flats currently being built next to The Victory?