twowheelsgood

In 1921, John Venn's charity, the Hereford Society for Aiding the Industrious, sold 15 acres of land to the then Hereford City Council at well below market rate (£4750), on the agreement that it would be used for social housing, which was enshrined in the deeds. This became the Portfields estate, which abuts the back of this site, and council housing was built on it. That the Council subsequently allowed some of the houses to be sold on the open market was arguably a breach of the agreement. I am not sure at this point how the Council come to be in ownership of what was once the 'Working Boys Home and Industrial School' (as shown on the indenture), but it is possible that there is a similar clause in the deeds. I'm not sure how we find that out.

In fairness, they do refer to a valuation from the District Valuer, but I imagine this is to protect themselves. The silence from ward Councillor Hubbard is deafening on this, as indeed from IOC itself, formerly 'Its Our City' of course.

Masterpieces of council-speak, riddled with puff and jargon. "I am not accepting of mediocrity" indeed.

Apperas to be a done deal, subject to planning permission - from the report (4 months ago): "Conclusion/Summary 13. The proposed site at Herefordshire Council’s Bath Street offices represents the best opportunity to deliver a much needed new Fire Station in Hereford. In order to progress the scheme further and provide an accurate cost estimate, initial design work is being undertaken which may prove unproductive if the scheme does not ultimately proceed. However, a further paper including a detailed cost feasibility will be brought to the Policy and Resources Committee for final approval to purchase the site and to gain approval to proceed to completion."

The track on the right is to allow cyclists to flow against the one way system on that bit of road. From the railway, turn left into the bus station, left at this junction and then head towards St James avoiding main roads, but not necessarily idiots who race up and down St Guthlac St at dangerous speed.

Once again we have deals done behind closed doors, no consultation, no paperwork, no costs. Although the Council seem hell bent on pushing this through (presumably before the end of this financial year) they conveniently overlook, or disregard, the LAW (not for the first time it has to be said). As the Bath St building sits in the Central Conservation Area, consent is required to demolish, and this will not normally be granted unless the application is accompanied by an application for planning permission for a proposal justifying its demolition. If granted, the two permissions are then legally tied and demolition cannot normally begin until evidence of a building contract has been submitted. In other words, the building cannot just be demolished and the site cleared in the short term. That said, the current council are well known for ignoring both their own policies and planning law, so we must be vigilant. The Fire Station does not have the protection of the conservation area. The arrangement had been that a new fire station was to built on the link road - perhaps this could be viewed as a tact admission that the link road isn't going to happen. That's still no excuse for what is being proposed however.

I was just about to post about this story - I take an RSS feed off the Hereford Times site - this headline popped up and by the time I'd clicked the link to read it, it had been pulled. Not the first time this has happened with Balfour Beatty/Hoople/Council stories - I do believe there is a big red 'delete' button in Brockington Towers, fed direct to Holmer Road ...

I've loved that place for 40 years, without knowing anything about it, and loved watching it slowly decay. Tragic that its owner had to die in those circumstances and I really hope that some Daily Mail reader doesn't get the idea of robbing it of all its fantastic artefacts. I sincerely hope that it isn't 'done up' in a way which robs it of its character - something that will be very hard to do.

I'm sure they were falling over themselves to draw a line over/under it - too may awkward questions to answer otherwise. Disgraceful. Yes, Jarvis was on the board of Marches LEP when he was Chair of the Council. I emailed LEP months ago to point out he was no longer Chair - they replied they were too short staffed to update the site.

Strewth, that gable wall is very precarious with the flank walls removed. I'm sure H&S would have had something to say about the proximity of the demolition to the road - as Rebecca says, closing the road should have been a must (if it wasn't closed).

The issue of houses (or flats) with nowhere for a bin is pertinent - both Bartonsham and Whitecross are largely dense Victorian housing, most close to the pavement, with little or no space for one let alone two bins. I'm in such an area and we are allowed to put out recycling in clear bags, which is fine, but two weeks of black bags certainly will not be. I suspect, as ever, little in depth thought has been given to the proposal. A clip board carrying council clerk had to come and measure the front gardens in our street to confirm they were too small, and that only after much protest when we'd been told we were having 'em.

Sad to see - it has to be said that the Church maintain their buildings in the same way as the council do - ie they don't. The church itself within the building was a very fine space for a contemporary building, something that is very hard to do architecturally.

There was a programme on Radio 4 last week about this pervasive outsourcing - basically its all been taken over one way or another by the big 4 accountancy practices, who in turn work with the likes of Capita, and who freely admitted that the contracts were deliberately impenetrable (one councillor spoke of a 1000 page contract) and the methods to calculate costings so deliberately convoluted that even other accountants couldn't unravel them (there is a hint of the sort of jargon in the answers above). So, a £200 gritting bin for a steep pavement was costed out at £4500, with the result that the council said they couldn't afford it and pedestrians were left to fall over. There was no hint of remorse from the accountants, quite the opposite - they thought they were doing a good job by making their clients so much money. The morals of it seemed to pass them by. Bottom line is we're doomed and will be bled dry and the county's infrastructure decimated unless we get back to direct labour. Of course the council officer who sold us down the river wye left with £250k in his back pocket and went on to a job with ... Capita.

They had email almost from the outset - I had extensive correspondence with the Rights of Way team. The phones thing is very odd, because obviously Amey had phones, there were and are phone lines into the building, they have email but no phones. Guess we won't find out as it’s a private company ...

Then the blame must rest 100% with Cllrs who signed the contract (headed up by Cllr Bramer I believe - Cabinet Member for Contracts and Assets).

Yes, as the site has become more established, it is glaringly obvious that its mostly one-way when councillors pop up. I note we are still waiting for Cllr Kenyon to report back on his meeting with Balfour, despite a follow up request.

Nice shot of the replacement lime trees as well - nowhere near the 6m high ones we were promised. Is it any wonder that no one believes a word anyone in authority says anymore?

What about my suggestion that people can only vote once they reach a certain number of postings (say 50)? This is common on other postings for things such as selling.

No, its gone again, as indeed has the usual summaries from the RH side. I don't doubt the Council were on the phone to Feeona as soon as the article was published.

"I’m moving on to take charge of a new shopping and leisure scheme that will be opening in Hereford, which is commutable from where I live in Gloucestershire. Whilst the scheme may be bigger, I wouldn’t like to say it is better." I'm guessing he didn't say that at interview ...

Excellent letter from Mr Cobbett - the brass inlays are a very nice idea, telling an interesting story, but unfortunately very badly executed. Amey - yes you guessed it - went for the cheapest option which was a nasty poor quality import from China, which started to fail almost immediately. Of course no one in charge did anything about it at the time, Amey stuck two fingers up to the council tax payer and a thumbs up to their shareholders and we are where we are. It’s just one example of the mass failure of our infrastructure right across the County as a result of privatising public services without the client side expertise to ensure value for money - sadly, I don't see how we can ever pull it back.

This story was on the front page of the HT website today for about 15 minutes before it was pulled - the link is here, as are my comments. Bill Tanner is doing some excellent work on the Futiles at the moment - we all suspected (and knew) that we were being stitched up - now we are starting to see by just how much and measures being taken to try and withhold the facts. http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11058417.Hereford_Futures___council_does_not_hold_board_papers/?ref=var_0

Biomech - I think you may be waiting a while for intelligent discourse with the perpertator - I don't like these ridiculous buttons and don't use them. Thye're too easy to abuse. Colin - can you have a rule something like 50 posts before you can use the wretched things? That will at least start to limit the stooges on here.

Don't worry - it'll all come together when Debenhams have put up their 14 MASSIVE internally illuminated signs all over the damned thing.

Shame about the Church - there was some very nice detailing in the church itself and it had a very nice feel to it. Very hard to pull off in a modern building. There is some very high quality and valuable timber in there, which is probably why they are going at it slowly. The Church is nearly as bad as the Council when it comes to maintaining its assets.