Aylestone Voice

Mark.

Please ask the Council's Historic Buildings Officer if the building has architectural or historic merit. It may not be worthy of being a Listed Building but it certainly has qualities that add to the character of the Conservation Area.

That said even it has no merit and can be demolished I certainly feel that the best use of the site is for housing and not a fire station. Where is the best value for us taxpayers when the site is disposed I assume for nothing?

Of course you may be privy to information we are not! (even if is marked confidential - sorry!!!!)

I guess a legal challenge would be on the basis of the Council not properly securing the best financial return when disposing of an asset?

Of course the answer is "yes". I had guessed that.

So the fight is effectively over. All this talk of a public meeting is fine but there will be no point raising the question of a different use other than a fire station. Don't let Cllr Hubbard raise your expectations that there can be a serious debate now about keeping the building because the meeting will be all about the fire station on a clear site.The discussion moves on to what a fire station would look like.

I am not convinced that a new building is required. The existing building houses fire engines - it is a garage. There is accommodation above - surely that could be brought up to standard. What else is required? But that does not matter. The politicians have decided that we are to have a new fire station on Bath Street. The only issue is what it looks like. As 2WG implies it will be designed by computer - a box for a garage, some offices and a fancy roof.

I smell politics here

Mark

If what you imply above is correct the land deal is to go through without Councillor opposition or debate? Presumably Overview and Scrutiny Committee can call in the cabinet member decision?

Is it not about time that something was finally done. A short time ago the owners did some tidying up but this included taking off the temporary roof thus opening up the building to the elements.
Is there nothing really that can be done?
Do the Council not have the powers either to require the site to be developed or to CPO it?

That is all very good but is it actually on the printed agenda for the Cabinet?

The silence from the Councillors is deafening is it not?

Why would the Council need an excuse?

Jim

And the Council will probably have to pay the costs of the appeal

I am sure that Grid Knocker can eat popcorn at the cinema today - he just won't see any film!!!!

I am sure there are a few on here who will love this - if true. Another few weeks for Glenda not to visit something she is never going to visit!!

However it was not in any event all going to open at the same time and if I recall correctly the original opening date was set for late summer

Is it possible for one of the many Councillors who read this to comment?

Agenda published

http://councillors.herefordshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=4732

I cannot see anything specific on Bath Street Offices but it may be buried in the 14/15 Delivery Plan

Item 8 is in relation to a new audit service and the South West Audit Partnership is recommended.

If any Councillors see this thread I guess a question I would like asked on this is are there any ex Herefordshire Council staff employed by this organisation and is there any connection between the Chief Financial Officer Peter Robinson who moved here from somewhere south (Bristol?) and SW Audit Partnership? Just so we know who is or is not involved!!!!

As to the other decisions there will be a list on the Council's website probably by this time tomorrow

An appeal against non-determination has been lodged. Probably after the agenda was put together. See the Committee Update papers on the Council website. The Committee will have been asked what their decision would have been. Silly I know but those are the rules. The developer will look a bit stupid if the Committee would have approved it as they will now have to wait for the appeal and it could be dismissed!!

But the Council won't be making a decision as an appeal has been lodged

Don't you mean Thursday 10 April?

I appear to have upset some of you - it was not my intention.

To make progress in Hereford takes time. If you want to really change this then you need to change the policy of the Council and the Police but this takes reviews and goes on forever.

Alternatively another approach I think is to encourage one of the hot food take aways to apply to vary the hours on their licence. This would be publicised and then you will be able to comment making your points that it is unfair etc. Also you can lobby your councillors and those that make the decision. Be aware that (the sainted!) Glenda won't help.

It may succeed.

For example before the take away next to Yates opened their licence came up before the Council Regulatory Committee and both the officers and the police objected (because that is what they do!). It is open now so sometimes sense does prevail. The officers and particularly police cannot see beyond their policy which sees disorder etc from late night opening. Well as I live in the area the fact that the hot food shops are not open late makes little difference. Walking into town now I have to dodge the blood, litter and vomit.

Commenting on here that it is all unfair makes you feel good but it needs more that that to make change happen.

What I suggest is needed is for one of the take away's to apply to vary its licence. Then you can all write and support it and lobby Glenda and other councillors

Its about as much use as a square wheel you all chuntering to yourselves on this thread.

Blockbuster is empty

John

In my limited experience the answer is yes. In the Kingstone case I believe the comments by the ward member did play a significant part in swaying members when they voted. You just have to look at other cases such as at Bartestree. There the planning officer recommended approval and the local member will have persuaded by using planning arguments the committee to chuck it out. In Kingstone as I am told the ward member concentrated on issues that were not relevant to planning thus seriously weakening his position.

As to your other point I don't know but surely as you suggest why shouldn't a public sector employee move to the private sector. What is important is that planning policy is followed when decisions are made

Apologies to Dippy/Colin as I am well off the thread here!

Jim

If HUFC goes into liquidation and lose their leases on Edgar Street would there be a case for trying to get the velodrome with other sports in there?

Oh Denise!

I do not expect I would ever let it go either, but if only your Ward Councillor had not annoyed so many members of the planning committee by personally attacking the integrity of the officers and the applicants it may have been refused.

Personally I have got involved in this because I think there are greater benefits to the people of Hereford if the site (whether you keep the building or not) is used for housing. I don't know what is inherently wrong with the existing fire station building and why other locations have been ruled out. Is there evidence that the fire station cannot be brought up to whatever standard is required?

As expected this is turning into a debate covering a number of related issues which confuse the issue from my point of view:-

=Fire service cuts

=Who gets the old fire station

=What happens to the old fire station

=The Council "stitching up" the fire brigade

Purely in the context of my involvement these are of little interest

I do know that not all of the site would be sold in any event as some 25% at the rear is to be retained for Children's Services.