twowheelsgood

To be fair to mark smartieno he doesn't get paid a lot & he doesn't claim a lot of expensive. I've checked out HC website you can find out who gets wot & how much they claim! The thing is mark is fighting against a tidal surge & wot we need is people like him to stand for councillors so that they can fight back against the injustices that go on with local authorities.

So I'm very happy to hear you will be standing in next yrs elections where I'm sure that both you & mark will find your an asset to one another should you not get elected which I hope you both will??!!

I (think I) recall that Cllr Hubbard said a little while ago that he was going to stand down at the next election.

Correct link 

https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/transport-and-highways/transport-schemes/edgar-street-grid-and-hereford-link-road

Guys, just a thought with reference to something both Dippy and Mark mention. It might be an idea to have sight of the originals title deeds of the Working Boys Home or any other docs relating to John Venn's bequest (technically his 'devise' as it relates to real property which includes physical property as opposed to personal items). These would probably be held at the Record's Office and no doubt may at present be packed up awaiting the move to the new premises but I am sure access to them could still be requested (or even demanded).

It may come to nothing but if someone (or a few) had the time to see the deeds and any restrictions concerning the properties use after it passes out of control of the Council may be helpful.  

John Bothamley from the Civic Society says 'Have paid to see the land registry title and there appears to be no restrictive covenant.' I'd still be interested to know how the site came to be in the Council's possession.

Dead link reported to the Council.

Without wishing to give away confidences, there are some very sneaky CO's in this order - small snippets of land (and as such practically worthless) not really required for the link road, being compulsorily purchased to effectively block access to much larger pieces of land, changing them from valuable development land to landlocked worthless land. Dirty tricks? You bet.

 

And also at Herefordshire Housing: Following their new corporate image change more expenditure at HQ.

 

 

 

Compare and contrast with the 'Housing the Homeless' thread - these people, like most senior public sector employees are so far removed from reality that they can no longer see how ridiculous their jargon is or how obscene their profligate spending.

Surely it would have to be a pair of semi-detached houses? Or if it was one, would it still be semi-detached? Suggest a meeting with some blue sky thinking to ensure we're heading in the right direction with bottled water on hand to quench thirst. Followed by manual labour breaking downs silo's.

Tragic. Those giant coat hangers on the cinema are possibly the most ridiculous detail of this project so far.

Dare I say it - there is a massive building on Bath Street, recently vacated - nothing is going to happen there for at least 12 months (at least, if due process is followed). Quite apt that they should use a building founded by the Hereford Society for Aiding the Industrious, don't you think? 

The Council have contributed 12% of £550k ie £66k, which isn't much.

Re Dippy's Q2, a close friend e-mailed Cllr Harry Bramer asking him this very question a week ago.  To date - total silence!

 

Perhaps TwoWheels can shed some light here: if a building in the council's ownership become surplus to requirements (eg: Bath Street Offices), wouldn't you think that that nice rolly-polly Mr Pickles would expect the council's Property Services Division to invite expressions of interest in the said property, thus ensuring that the asset (our asset) is disposed of for the best price possible? 

 

I would be extremely surprised if the developer who converted the old General Hospital (I believe it was Laings) has had a phone call from Cllr Bramer.

Yes, it was Laing Homes (now subsumed into Taylor Wimpey) that did the General Hospital scheme. I would expect it to be incumbent upon the Council to get the 'best value' (their much abused phrase) for any asset that was no longer required. Even a 'swap' as such should pass over the District Valuers desk. The whole thing was being pushed forward with indecent haste, which raises alarm bells - why? who benefits? has the planning department been leaned on during their 'street scape assessment' of the Bath St buildings importance? do the Council really believe they are 'consulting' the great unwashed by saying we can comment when the planning application is made?

There are a lot of mucky people about - look at all the vile specimens spitting in the street. It was drummed into me at school not to spit, drop litter and all manner of simple social mores - no more it seems, we're knee deep in litter and can barely stay upright for all the phlegm lining the pavements. People don't wash their hands, cough and sneeze everywhere and are generally quite disgusting, and that's before we even get to the STD's.

With all respect mr kenyon but have you been reading any of this thread @ all???

Hear, hear! With all due respect to the Cllr, for goodness sake, punctuate your comments. It won't make it any easier to agree with your stance, but it will make it easier to understand!

"… before we start hugging this building let's work out what can be practically done with it going forward." You'll be calling us mendacious meddlers next. Yes, let's practically work out what can be done - this is what Cllr Hubbard is trying to arrange. Unfortunately, the Cabinet have learned nothing  from the mass, and mess, of mistakes all around us and continue being contemptuous of those they are supposed to be serving. They seem intent on doing a quick deal in secrecy, without even a courtesy call to the ward councillor. Its hard to work out what can be done under those circumstances.

I'm completely baffled as to why the fire brigade has to demolish the current building (as part of the deal) - it just makes no sense at all. It is a major cost and seriously devalues the site. As I've said, it’s a valuable building - both architecturally and fiscally - put it on the open market and get the best possible price, but no, once again the council are simply failing to see any sense and are hell bent on demolishing a perfectly good building for a fecking car park! Its Rockfield 2! Its madness!

As building professional, who lives just a few yards from the Fire Station, and having been inside it on several occasions, I can assure everyone that there is very little wrong with it. Whilst it may no longer suit the requirements of the Fire Brigade, it most certainly does not merit demolition. It is actually rather a fine example of 1950's architecture and would convert in flats very nicely. Everyone from the PM downwards bangs on endlessly about sustainability and making best use of our resources - and it is enshrined it in planning law - so where is the sustainability, or logic, in demolishing a sound building (particularly for a bloody car park)?

The bus station would make a good site, no doubt of that - it even has two accesses as the present station. Yes, there is supposed to be a new 'transport hub' at the station, but when? This is the issue - the council are incapable of rational decisions and achieving set timescales, which affects third parties, who have to move on to often less suitable sites because they cannot wait forever.

Why didn't the Council make the Rockfield site into a (temporary) bus station - indeed they still could. Releases the present bus station and the jobs a good 'un - no meetings necessary. Or is that too easy?

I thought bobby47 WAS king!

I note today's HT editorial has another swipe at the 'mendacious meddlers', claiming 'all manner of wider opposition can rally' around a 'totem' ie the Working Boys Home (or Bath St offices as the HT calls them). Perhaps she's sore that the HT story has only attracted 4 comments, yet HV has 130 comments and over 2000 views. Frankly, its an absurd stance and does the HT no favours.

As Colin notes elsewhere, the power of social media knows no bounds and HV reflects that.

I don't see why a public service union is fighting a private company.

The one way starts where the road narrows - just in front of that blue Saxo car. If you cycle the length of the track (which isn't highway and  therefore isn't one way), the road that you join is two way, allowing you to carry on your merry way. As a solution its about as good as it gets (I use it regularly) given the mess of junctions all around it.

We're going a little off-topic here, but the LEP's address is â„… The Shirehall, Shrewsbury, so I'm guessing they have a small room in the basement. The last published minutes are dated June 2011 (!) and record the omni-present Geoff Hughes as being, well, present. Is there nothing that this man is not involved with?

In September of last year I asked the Marches LEP if Jarvis was still on the board as Leader of Herefordshire Council, as indicated on their website, as he had resigned in June 2013. The Executive Co-ordinator replied 'We do need to undertake a number of updates to the website and just lack capacity to do so at present. Cllr Jarvis is no longer on the LEP Board. Cllr Tony Johnson took over when he became Leader. We are hoping to make updates this Autumn when more hands arrive in the Team!' They or may not have those hands, but the website remains unchanged.

Also noted 'Working on behalf of the Marches LEP Board is a subsidiary board for the management of the Enterprise Zone in Herefordshire, at Skylon Park'. From that it seems that Skylon Park has little to do with Herefordshire Council!

How can there be a public enquiry on a bypass when the route has not been (publicly) determined?

I understand one of the key factors in its siting is how quickly retained firemen can get there if there's a 'shout'.

It's going to be a "linear park and vastly improved public realm which will help to unite the (OLM)  with the city centre."  That’s what it said on one of the master plans, so it must be true.

There will be dedicated crossing points, with traffic control, and you also have the option of chicken running to the middle section to lock/unlock your bike.

Obviously what is being built bears no resemblance to the original proposals, having been 'value engineered' by Stanhope, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Beggars belief. So, just what does economic development do these days, given that everything has been outsourced to Hereford Futures, the huge pile of salty bricks is almost done (and has put the local electricians working on it out of business, by the way) and that the council have no money to spend (they say) and are selling/giving away everything in an end of year fiscal frenzy?