twowheelsgood

That page is years old - it features the former councillor Nick Vaughan - long gone I'm pleased to say. There were questions about expenses and work for a lobby firm in London without declaring it, with one of the lobby firm's principal clients being Amey. Glossed over as a clerical error ...

Any hope that these will be saved do you think?

I can't but it should be good - Angus is always good entertainment. I don't for one second think that a Design Review Panel would have made much difference to what has been delivered however. There are murmurings from within Planning for the need for a DRP - it would at least allow them abrogate yet more duties to a third party.

The Council don't build social housing (one in a long list of don't's). They will offer it to a 'preferred partner' and beaver away at a secret deal 'to preserve commercial confidentiality'. They still refuse to disclose any information about the Merton Meadows housing which may, or may not, be developed by Sanctuary at some point. The Council say no deal has been done, yet Hereford Futiles claim all manner of the opposite and Sanctuary keep a safe distance.

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.

Never look at the front page - it takes far too long to load. I use 'Navigation - View new content' and keep that as a bookmark. Its whole topics rather than members posts I want to block.

Is there a way to block a topic from loading? For instance, I have a link to 'new content' which takes me straight to a list of updated topics. It overcomes the very slow loading front page. However, I don't want to see again and again a thread I have no interest in eg eating after 1.30am in the morning. I'd like to just hide it - is this possible?

It's others that have to suffer the consequences of what you say you should be mindful of.

I have to agree with Aylestone Voice. I don't agree with Mr Bramer's politics or his handling of the first station debacle, but I really don't think we should be descending to a personal abusive level - not the least because there are laws of libel.

The OLM is private - why should there be? The council could have insisted on them as part of the deal but … I'm sure Waitrose do a nicer class of toilet.

'Cabinet councillor defends fire station land swap deal' - link here - http://tinyurl.com/oegsztr 'Defending the deal, Cllr Bramer said that as the council continued to consolidate its locations to cut costs it was “likely†that further buildings would be sold or transferred.' Presumably ignoring public opinion in the process.

Seems to be deathly quiet in town today - Bath St deserted - everyone is staying away after yesterday perhaps.

Rudhall Manor just east of Ross. Search for housing development in the grounds of Caradoc Court at Sellack to get a flavour of his modus operandi. How did we get here? One person, not local, doesn’t live locally, has the final say, without debate, without the input of the ward councillor, to sweep away our heritage, given by the City's greatest benefactor for the benefit of local people. This isn't democracy by any stretch. This cabinet system is without doubt the worst thing ever to happen to this county - we'd have been better off staying with Worcestershire. At least there are checks and balances in the two tier county system. Now we just have the crony system. I note the HT report doesn't say what is to happen to the fire station and who is to pay for its demise.

East St is signed 'access only'. Periodically the police stop vehicles entering East St to ask what they are accessing and them send them on their way down Broad St ...

Lack of consistency is the only constant at the Council, except for the consistent blinkered madness around building and/or charging for car-parking. I am confident that no one in the council could give an explanation as to why red or green.

But wasn't the heritage impact assessment prepared by the council? Hardly independent or impartial.

Jim, once the appeal against non-determination is decided - and it will surely be allowed - then you can continue to ensure 106 monies are spent on the things that will matter. Traffic studies for this application indicated an additional 18% load on the Ledbury Road - proof it were needed that those lights need to go! When are councillors going to realise that without an adopted local plan and a five-year land supply we are largely powerless against these edge of settlement applications? Why ignore planning law and officers advice? It only delays the inevitable and costs the council, ie us, punitive costs when we lose the appeal. If they want to make a point, make it by asking Officers why they are so far behind with the core strategy and the five year housing plan (3 years late and counting).

I fail to see what role the Council have or should have in the winding up of a private company - and why they should take on any of its liabilities. I understand even Neill and Johnson didn't take up their seats on the board so the Council has latterly had no direct input anyway - its an investor in a bad investment, it got stung, end of story. Let Futiles goto the wall like any other badly run business. Oh yes, its political I know, but its also our money, and I'd rather see it spent on failing infrastructure or any number of services currently being slashed because of the folly of the OLM.

Yes, its here http://tinyurl.com/pygamjv with one from Jean O'Donnell as well

Don't think for a moment we'll be allowed any say on what it will look like. New fire stations are the latest buildings to fall into the lair of the PFI con - a standard design will simply be plonked down onto Bath Street without any reference to its surroundings or the people of Hereford. Here's one that just landed in Cheltenham.

Here is a clickable link http://tinyurl.com/mhjydmu No, it hasn't been in the HT. There's nothing untoward about the transfer of the land - it secures it as public space, but that said, the Council don't care for that anymore and are trying to offload parcels left, right and centre. There was if I remember more that £1m on the table from the developers to help concentrate the minds of the planning committee, as well as the sport facilities, and it worked, as they disregarded the advice and recommendation to refuse from their planning officers.

Call me old fashioned, but really, this isn't something to make light of - this is exploitation of women in the worst possible way. Good that's its been stopped here, and it doesn't really matter exactly where.

Cheap. The quality materials originally specified such as stone were abandoned because it was claimed they did not wear as well as macadam ...

Why then does IOC CllrLloyd-Hayes (and member of the Fire Authority committee) say in her letter to the HT today, that 'it is early days yet' and 'a public meeting has been agreed'?

No. We have an out of date UDP, and a half written Core Strategy which has not yet been through public examination and is by Council estimates due to come into force in May 2015, but which in reality will be May 2016. Unsurprisingly, it's all a bit of a mucking fuddle, hence multiple planning applications from developers making hay while Ashcroft fiddles. Conservation Area Consent is required for demolition and will not be granted in isolation ie the applicant has to submit in tandem an application showing what will replace the demolished building and the two permissions, if granted are tied. In reality, any application will have to be judged against saved (ie rolled over) UDP policies and the over arching NPPF, which says 'At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking'. Demolishing serviceable buildings cannot and should not be considered sustainable. Work in a conservation area MUST both preserve AND enhance the area.