Aylestone Voice

Roger I have reported this on the Council's website but as of now it is still full

I think the Council have abandoned any pretence that they do anything else other than adult and children care (essential as that is). The roads are in an appalling condition and the state of the county as evidenced by these photos show that they are not bothered. There is a lot of talk but it is so cheap. We are paying twice for services - our HC tax pays for services that the Council have passed to the City Council and which we now pay them for Whoever negotiated and/or signed the contract with BBLP should really be considering their position How anyone in the Shire Hall can defend all this is beyond me

I do find it a bit sad that some people seem to find pleasure in the fact that businesses and jobs are not coming to/starting up in Hereford. Perhaps that is really what they want - a quiet backwater where the majority of the residents are old and retired?

If they do decide to use drones will there be 10-15 of them hovering about any incident and appearing not to do too much?

I was only drawing a comparison between the exchanges on this thread and on those which ultimately caused him to leave the forum - not that he was in any way involved in this thread.

Shades of Wirral IPC in this thread Close it down is my suggestion

A lane was shut off by Tesco - presumably the cause

Very crazy! Have bought Hereford to Paddington return with FGW (OK on specific trains) for £7.90. (includes Senior discount). Saves some £51 on normal fare.

It says in the booklet that Addaction will be taking over from DASH

I'm not sure if the Council get money for the recycling but there are high fines/taxes for the stuff that goes to the landfill site. So the more that is recycled the less has to be paid for landfill

If only people had not made such a fuss and informed Tesco then this valuable business would just have carried out without the potential for legal action.

Yep - it was not so pleasant beneath the clouds and in the freezing fog1

In my view the canal is a total waste of money. This little pressure group (Hereford & Gloucester Canal Society) has across the County and in Gloucestershire held developers to ransom to contribute towards building something that does not have planning permission and for which the economics are so dodgy that it will never be viable - pretty much like when it was first built. Having a water feature in the city centre (ESG housing area) would be fine but to think that boats will travel to and from Gloucester is utter nonsense. Time this group were shown the door.

Shops or houses? Perhaps both. Let's consider the old Chadds units between the toy shop and the Kerry. Can anyone foresee the whole building being used as a shop? Not in my view. The best use would be to convert the upper floors to flats and leave the retail on the ground floor. Of course this should be happening across the city centre.

Well you can argue that Colin should have perhaps titled his thread "Empty Units in the City Centre" rather than shops? That said :- 14 was to be an amusement arcade, 33 to be a money shop 49 to be Papa Johns takeaway 50 to be a restaurant Some of the units are so tatty (Eign Street) that surely no body would want them? Whilst rates and rents are an issue it seems that there is not a groundswell of local people wanting to open up small businesses I agree that those on the edge of the centre have a better future as residential?

Hardly a proper sory when it was lifted from somewhere else.

And Allpay run "Hereford Live" Does Bill Tanner also have to get his stories vetted first?

What is now needed in the NHS dispute is not politicians making cheap points but the two sides sitting down and talking

The farce of this now gets increases "The Great British Florist" has now opened up a shop on the ground floor of the new building in Blackfriars Street. All that money spent on new buildings for a school where there are now so few pupils that they have to look for alternative uses.

I see that it is reported elsewhere that the work cost £100,000. Someone is making money

One of the biggest problems is that the County has a relatively small population but a very high proportion of old people. As a consequence the vast majority of the income the Council receives is spent on social care. If we had a younger population the money the council gets would increase and there would be a reduced demand for social care. So sadly what assets there are have to be sold.

Denise - the issue raised by TWG was about signs which is a planning enforcement issue and it was that I was commenting on. The Council have enough to do without worrying about a few insignificant (in my opinion) signs. Rather than commenting on here about how wrong the FC are if you have a problem with their charitable status etc. why do you not complain to the Charity Commission. I have little time for the FC but many on here seem to be obsessed.

If you think that complaining about a sign, banners and A boards will have an impact on FC then you are p------ in the wind. I don't recall anyone complaining about the Odeon signs or the banners for Fusion nor about the large number of A boards littered around the city centre. Of course because one very minor complaint has not been responded to it is all part of a great Council conspiracy. I would rather the Council enforcement team spent their time investigating significant breaches rather than on a few signs on a grotty building which if you think about it honestly cause no real harm.

Looks to me that they are just granting a licence to use it not selling it. Perhaps for its use as a sports field.

Farms have nothing to do with Council services but there is still a fuss about selling them and using the money raised for services that they have to provide! If you read the report (although the automatic assumption by many is that it is flawed) you will see that it is not economic. Whether or not there would be a Council subsidy why would the train company go ahead with something that would have a predicted revenue shortfall of £100K per year and with an estimated passenger demand less than half of what would normally be required? Who would pay the shortfall - we would have to. Rotherwas exists - it was designated an EZ to use the benefits that come into force with such a designation. Why moan about accessibility when most moaned about the new access road - it's relatively straightforward from there to the M50