Jump to content

Mark Hubbard

Members
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Mark Hubbard

  1. We could learn a lot from different cultures about how we treat public space. This plaque says it all on how we should prioritise public space and its usage.
  2. Have just found this topic - many thanks for all the kind words. I've never been any good at keeping secrets - always think it is best to be open and honest about things. There are lots of reasons for me moving on at the next election - yes money has got something to do with it. I don't seem able to be a councillor without throwing 100% at it! which generally means a 40-60hr week, not leaving much time for earning extra money. On an allowance of £7k it doesn't leave much spare. With no pension I don't want to have to sell my house to get through old age as I quite like living here! I also think 8 years as a councillor is enough. It is a very combative situation to continually go through (well, the way I do it seems to be). I won't stand by and not speak out and there is so much to speak out about. So it's time I gave it a rest and did something more positive with my energy - something that will let me put a bit by for my old age! It's been fun.... And I am not going anywhere...... I will still be an active citizen! I also still have a year to go and I intend to make it count!
  3. Have just read Jean O'Donnell's letter to the Times and I cannot disagree with what she says. Our city would be a better place if we valued and planned for our historic buildings in the way she describes.
  4. Apologies for not answering the Scrutiny question - which you are all right is yes. Any key decision once made can be called in, but only on very narrow grounds as stated in the constitution: 4.5.16.5 Call-in should only be used in exceptional circumstances including but not limited to; a where there is evidence which suggests that issues have not been handled in accordance with the decision-making principles set out in this Constitution b where a key decision has been taken of which was notice was not given in accordance with the requirements in the Access to Information Rules (Part 4 Section 2), and is not subject to the urgency procedures set out in this Constitution; or c where a decision is outside the Budget and Policy Framework. All along the way we have needed something to hang the argument on - if the Heritage Impact Assessment had given cause for concern or had English Heritage listed the building or had the Council not adhered to its own rules on decision making - something to make the issue stick. BUT the process has been followed correctly (we may not agree with the process, but that is not the issue here), the heritage impact assessment said very clearly that Bath St was not worth saving and English Heritage agreed with this assessment. Any legal challenge would take all of this into account and it isn't looking hopeful. Sorry guys, I've spent the last 7 years being tied in knots by the system, a large part of which I don't agree with, but you cannot change it from the outside - "in it to win it", as they say. And there are many battles along the way that you don't win and have to be content with "having an influence" only. Just trying to be realistic........
  5. The Cabinet of Herefordshire Council met today to agree the terms of the dissolution of the company known as Hereford Futures (formerly known as ESG Ltd). The following were the recommendations of the report: Recommendations THAT: (a) the transfer of HFL obligations to Herefordshire Council (as outlined at paragraph 6 below) be approved; (b) delegated authority be given to the Director for Economy, Communities and Corporate, in consultation with the Solicitor to the Council, to finalise and sign the necessary documentation to effect the transfer of obligations arising from recommendation a) above, including any necessary variation to the joint venture agreement with Homes and Communities Agency; and © the role and efforts of HFL board members throughout the board’s period of operation is recognised and thanks be extended to the board. So let's be clear about what is going on here. Having only completed part of its remit - getting the shopping sheds and the flood alleviation scheme built - since it inception in 2004. The link road and the urban village - two thirds of the site! - have yet to break ground and responsibility for these "obligations" will now be transferred back to the council. Let us also remember that this company was set up by the council and was entirely funded by public money - in recent years exclusively funded by our council funds.We are told that it cost HFL over £350k in staff and running costs last year, but the council will be able to take over all of the remaining obligations and do it for a mere £50k. And even having closed the company down, it will still cost another £150k in the coming year, post demise! You could have heard a pin drop when Cllr Alan Seldon (Chair of Overview and Scrutiny and a recent addition to the IOC team) asked when would the documentation be transferred over to council control - after all, if obligations were being transferred so surely would the paperwork. We have all been dying to take a look at since HFL declared publicly that it did not need to respond to Freedom of Information requests as it was a private company. A light dusting of frost settled on every horizontal surface in the silence, which was broken by the announcement that actually the paperwork was being shredded as they spoke. Cllr Liz Harvery (standing in as deputy for IOC Leader) played a blinder following this announcement, displaying an incandescent level of incredulity at the blatant cover up with Alan Seldon growling in support. Just when we thought we might get some answers with the closing down of a company that has operated as a closed shop, we discover that the shredders are at work. Board minutes promised to be made public by Cllr Roger Phillips back in November 2012 "they wlll be published on the website" he said, but they never were. And now they are on their way to the document heaven in the sky - never to reveal their dirty little secrets. Publicly funded and privately destroyed. The evidence trail has closed down! You heard it here first.......
  6. Aylestone Voice - there has been no debate in a public council meeting you are right, but neither was there any debate in a public council meeting when they decided to hand over the Pavilion to the Friends of Castle Green free of charge - it just happened. There is a strong argument to say that the Pavilion and Bath street are very similar examples. Both assets will continue to serve a public benefit (although the glaring difference is they intend to knock one of them down). Managing buildings does not always go to a full meeting of council. To say there has been no Councillor opposition would not be accurate, but you don't necessarily get to see it all. I repeat what I said earlier in this topic - where is the reduce reuse recycle approach we should all be taking to asset management? To me it makes no sense to eradicate a building with history simply because it is no longer fit for the use it was built for. The economy is wider than just that and the grain of our city deserves better. But, this deal has been on the table since at least last September and probably before. For a development to come off the site, the finances and the timing all have to be right. I agree that the bus station site would be better, but if there ain't no money to make the new transport hub right now (which there isn't) it is just a great idea that won't happen. The city is losing a building we would all rather keep so let's make sure that what they replace it with looks nothing like the monstrosity they are just finishing off on the other side of town! The public meeting will be the beginning of that process - and if you don't want to lose the building you should absolutely make that clear. After all, that is your democratic right! Just try not to swear! Night night all!
  7. We have managed to get ALL parties to agree to attend a public meeting when the Fire Service are ready to launch their public consultation on what they intend to build on the site. This will include a presentation on why after 10 years of looking for a suitable site the only one they could find is the one they are now discussing. I recognise this is not what you will want to hear, because many of you would like to have the decision changed, but there is still a huge amount to influence. It is not about individual battles, but continuous engagement...............
  8. Hi Everyone, Just popping by to clarify and avoid crushing disappointments in situ - the cabinet agenda this afternoon does not have anything about the Fire Station land deal on it at all, so there will be no discussion of the deal. It is a Cabinet Member decision not a Cabinet decision, so will be done without reference to a public meeting. Sorry if this disappoints, but I needed to explain why I will not be going to the meeting at all. No point!
  9. Dear All, 6000 visits is a colossal number, have all of those visits been generated by the 33 users as listed below? Or are people able to view without being listed below? Confirmation of the way these statistics work would give me a clearer picture.
  10. Sorry Dippy was it my post that disappointed you? there is more I have to say about my meeting with the Leader, my conversation with the Chief Fire Officer and a report back from the Policy & Resources Committee of the Fire Service. But I just do not have time just now - I have a meeting of the Friends of Castle Green in 15 minutes and I need to prepare. Will try and post before the night is out.
  11. Further cogitations on "strategic asset management" (goodness I have come over all reflective!): It does my head in that large organisations seem to have completely lost sight of the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra. Indeed I think we as a society have lost touch with that way of living. It is perhaps one of the reasons behind the really significant challenges our civilisation faces. Our use of resources is far outstripping what the world can provide. So in my head it doesn't make sense that two buildings that form part of our street scape in Hereford should be completely razed to the ground. But this is the approach the whole world is taking at the moment. Is it the fault of the officers of the council and fire service that this appears to be the most economic and sensible way forward, when this is the approach being taken across the world? I too try to take a practical, "role my sleeves up" & "get my hands dirty" sort of approach to life. I have tried to turn juggernauts and have been run over (memories of the battle over ESG), but by doing so you significantly influence the bigger agenda. There are small victories on the way, which you have to make do with. The most important thing is not to give up. Keep up the pressure!
  12. Hi Guys, I have been following your discussions and agree that you have come up with some very good and creative ideas! Not quite sure who pays for them all or how you turn them into projects with a sustainable future - after all, bills all need paying and I am fast learning it is an uphill struggle with the work I am doing on the Castle Green. You need a small group of people with a real commitment and with the time & energy to plough into making things actually happen. I have also been reflecting on John Venn, the man who founded the working boys home and gave the land behind it to Hereford City Council to build "quality houses for the poor" - what is now known as the Portfields Estate. I am always very impressed with how lovely the Portfields Estate is and think John Venn would have been pleased with his donation. Whilst many of the houses have now been sold to their occupants (thanks to Maggie T), there are still a significant number of houses in social housing management - continuing to provide social housing for people in challenging circumstances. So what would he have thought about the site of his working boys home in 2014? He was quite a radical in his time - standing up for the poor and dispossessed, but he was also a pragmatist. He was a practical christian of his day - rolled his sleeves up and got on with delivering services to those that needed them, famous for his soup kitchens and providing hope for orphaned children from poor backgrounds. So I pose a question - would John Venn have wanted his building to be sold to a private developer to be converted to private houses for people who could afford them? Or would he have wanted his asset to continue to serve the public in whatever way could be found?
  13. Hi Guys, Just dropping in to answer dippy's question about the public meeting and to re-interpret some of the posts! At this stage I am only suggesting a public meeting as a way forward - this is to try and open up the decision making process to further public scrutiny. The format of the meeting is as yet completely undecided as this needs to be discussed with the various representatives of the organisations that may want to take part, but public meetings usually have the format of one or two presentations followed by a question and answer session. As ward member I would try and organise a brief to all parties attending identifying the issues that have been brought up in this blog along with other concerns that have been expressed elsewhere. Hopefully this would help focus the presenters on the issues of concern. I hope this anwers your questions about the public meeting - of course if either the Fire Service or the Council do not wish to come to a public meeting, there is little point in having one. I am meeting with the Leader of the Council tomorrow morning and expect to speak with the Head of the Fire Service when he gets back from holiday on Wednesday. After both of these conversations, I should be able to feedback more information. Previous bloggers have correctly identified the meeting of the H&W Fire Authority Policy & Resources Committee on Wednesday night this week as being the next important stage of the process of the decision. I am meeting with the IOC representative on the authority this evening to ensure your views are taken into the heart of that meeting. Cllr Lloyd-Hayes is quite capable of speaking out on this issue and she is expecting to attend on Wednesday. You must remember that when appointed to the Fire Authority, members are expected to take decisions and advise about what is in the best interests for the Fire Service, taking account of the areas they represent. If there is a pressing need to replace the Hereford Fire station and if there is only one site on offer, there is little that can be done at that meeting to change things. What we can make sure of is that views as yet unexpressed are made clear. I do not think, as the Ward Member, that I have been "deliberately excluded", as Grid Knocker asserts above. I think the communication around this issue has been extremely poor, but to call it deliberate exclusion is going too far and I would not put my name to that. Having the Fire Authority in place should ordinarily allow for communications to be better than they have been, but both Marcelle and myself have recently been ill which took us both out of circulation for a while, which has compounded the situation. We are now both up to full speed and will do our best to get things opened up. Hopefully everyone will feel this is a useful role to play.
  14. Megilleland - I am not aware of an alternative scheme at all. Grid Knocker - Your statement above "4) H&WFA had been told that it could expect planning approval in April 2014." is inaccurate, the papers for the meeting on the 26th do not state this. Indeed they state very specifically "if planning permission is granted" - IF not WHEN. I am firmly of the opinion that we need to air these concerns publicly. Forums on websites are useful to get a flavour of concerns, but there are a lot of assumptions and misinterpretations that can be made without challenge. Not everyone joins the platform and the major players are significantly absent. I shall pursue a public meeting with the Head of the Fire Service.
  15. Hello Everyone, I have just had a very useful discussion with the Fire Service. I think there has been a lot of assumptions made around how communication happens in Herefordshire or not as the case may be. I am yet to speak to the Chief Fire Officer (he is on annual leave until mid next week), but I am going to propose that we hold a public meeting so that all of the issues around this land swap deal can be aired. As a community, we need to fully understand why the Bath Street site has been chosen; why there is not another suitable site; what happens if this deal does not go through now and how that will affect our fire safety in the future and whether sacrificing a building like the Working Boys Home is one that we would chose to make given all of the facts of the matter. Please watch this space.
  16. Ok so here is what I know..... The Fire Service works on risk zones when considering siting their facilities. Looking at the county as a whole, I would guess that the biggest risk there is in the whole county is our medieval city centre. Why? Because it is one of the biggest economic drivers in the county and it is medieval in design - ie. everything touches everything else, with loads of wooden framed ancient buildings, with lots of ancient lathe and plaster just waiting for that spark to go whoosh! They need to be really close to this risk. Secondly, thinking about very large organisations and their investment programme in fixed assets - like fire stations. Somewhere, not anywhere in Herefordshire, let alone Hereford city itself, is an asset manager for the H&W Regional Fire Service. It may be that the asset manager is actually part of a national team that works with all of the different regions, I don't know. They will be running a programme of asset replacement. When a facility gets to a certain age it is simply more cost effective to build a new one and get rid of the old one. I might not necessarily agree with all of this, but that is just the way they work. We are not going to change that asset management strategy (just being realistic here). They also work out of an office somewhere else and have no knowledge of what our city is really like whatsoever - and that is not their fault, they are just doing their job and I am very glad they are doing it. After all I want them to be there if my house goes up in smoke. There is a pot of money within the H&W Fire Service for the replacement of their fire station. I expect some bright spark has done their sums and has realised that they cannot quite afford an all new singing and dancing fire station for Hereford, so they need to work with a partner to add value. This would seem a very reasonable role for the local authority to play. The county owns parcels of land and buildings around the city and one the the Council's biggest priorities is to keep the public safe, so again it is not unreasonable for the council to take less value for a parcel of land or a property to ensure the Fire Service can protect our city, So 3 things sorted. 1) The new station needs to be very close to the city centre. As we all know the traffic in Hereford means just being the other side of the A49 in Whitecross (for example) could cause an unwarranted delay when trying to get to an emergency in the medieval core. 2) The Hereford Fire Station is way past its sell by date. Refurbishment is probably not an option as they need to remain fully operational throughout the build period. They simply would never be forgiven if an emergency happened which they could not respond to effectively because they had the builders in! 3) They absolutely need to partner the council in order to be able to afford their new station, and it is not wrong for the council to prioritise the public's safety in this way, or spend my council tax in doing so. What I am furious about: 1) No meaningful consultation with me, the duly elected ward member. (please see cut & paste of letter to council leader posted previously). 2) That 3/4 men in major positions of power in two publicly funded organisations providing services to the people who fund them, think they can all sit in a room a decide the fate of a piece of MY CITY'S history, when they do not even live here and have not sought to understand what that might mean for local people. This is a disgrace! 3) The Fire Service have still not bothered to ask the people who live in the area what they think about the idea, let alone talk to me the elected member. 4) There is a huge amount of land that is going through a publicly funded CPO process (yes that means funded by you & me) between Edgar Street and Aylestone Hill and they have not bothered to explain to ANYONE why this land is not suitable, 5) No meaningful conversation with the people of Hereford at all. Who knows they might have the discussion with us all and we all turn around as say "Yes, we see your problem now, and yes we agree that we need to sacrifice the Bath Street site to keep our city safe". But none of them have even bothered to try. There rant over......... Goodnight all!
  17. I understand that the decision has been delayed for 3-4 weeks for a valuation of the site to be ascertained. Please keep up the pressure to have this decision examined. the historic streetscape of the city is slowly being denuded. Nobody is saying that the working boys home is a marvel of architectural perfection, but it gives our city grain and history - very personal for some. New sheds do nothing to enhance the central conservation area. A better site can surely be found.
  18. Many thanks to dippyhippy for letting me know about this thread - I don't always have time to surf and keep abreast of developing discussions on the various forums around the county. I have not been silent on the subject, but I have learnt from bitter experience that when you speak out, especially if you are not entirely supportive of something, things can get polarised very quickly. This then leads to a determination to see things through on behalf of the decision makers and a proper discussion never surfaces, so much of what I have been trying to do has been behind the scenes. Unfortunately, I am not getting very far with this approach either, so for everyone to see, here are excerpts from an email I sent to the Leader of the Council - discussions are on going and I am yet to get any real answers. As ward member for Central Ward, I am extremely disappointed to discover that you met with the Chair of the Fire Authority and the Head of the Fire Service some time ago, when the land swap between the Bath St & St Owen St sites was discussed at length. At no time since that initial discussion have you approached me as the ward member to discuss the proposals, which is in direct contradiction to all of the assurances you gave to me personally when you took over the leadership of the council. This has not been a collective or a collaborative approach whatsoever. I cannot fault the officers overseeing the preparation of the report. I had an early briefing to say that an initial discussion had been held, but no timetable or indication as to the outcome was given. I was given a further briefing a couple of days before I became ill, although I am yet to be taken through the confidential aspects of the report. I anticipated some sort of consultation process before the disposal of a building that is a significant part of the city's history, but sadly again I have been disappointed. I am now faced with a number of angry residents (one has actually turned up on my doorstep and shouted at my partner) and I am unable to reassure them that as their elected representative that I both understand why this deal has to go forward or that I have been in any way involved with the process of the decision. I am quite willing to accept the following: 1) The existing Fire Station is beyond its sell by date. 2) The new site for the Fire Station has to be within easy striking distance of the city centre - it being the biggest risk zone in the county. 3) The Fire Service does not really have sufficient resources to "go it alone". What I find difficult to understand: 1) Out of all the potential sites within easy distance of the city centre, the ONLY one that will do is Bath Street. 2) That to protect our city centre it is necessary to demolish part of its historic street scape. 3) That neither you nor the representatives of the fire service thought it appropriate to include the ward member in such a momentous decision. 4) That to ease the passage of this decision, early inclusion of the ward member who is relatively well respected in the ward, was not thought to be appropriate. 5) That 3 non-residents of Hereford City can make the decision, with a fourth non-resident enacting it without any local consultation WHATSOEVER. 6) That the sequential testing of other sites has not be made publicly available. So, as you can see we have some way to go. I shall try & keep you posted.......
  19. Ragwert don't put words into my mouth I'm quite capable of doing that for myself! I said the REAL priority NOW is congestion reduction to make our roads work better. Very interested in the lights out idea, but remember there is NO golden bullet to solve our traffic problems in Hereford. The lights out idea will only ever be part of an answer. We know the by-pass wont work - the council's own research proves that. Let's get on with the things that WILL work and stop pretending a by pass is the only thing we can do.
  20. Sorry Alex - council figures are what I was quoting (and they are desperate to prove the case for their politicking) the breakdown is as follows: 45% internal traffic 15% through traffic remaining 40% is either IN to Hereford or OUT of Hereford (figures here vary from morning to evening). This means people driving from outside of Hereford IN to the town or starting their journey in Hereford and driving OUT of town. For your information you would have been designated as an "out of Hereford" driver.
  21. Let me be very clear about the priority that is needed for Hereford's road network - congestion reduction is absolutely essential if we are to get the traffic moving. To deliver a by-pass will take a minimum of 20-30 years at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. The by-pass would facilitate 15% of the current traffic on the new bridge that is through traffic - the remaining 85% of the traffic would still remain. What is more to deliver the by-pass, Herefordshire as a whole would need to build an absolute minimum of 16,500 houses (IOC believes that this figure would need to be well over 25,000 houses in reality) with at least 40% of these houses in and around Hereford City. Let's be clear, the houses would come first and so would their cars. And guess what? They would all be driving into Hereford too! So the houses that are needed to deliver a by-pass are the reason the by pass will not relieve the congestion experienced on a daily basis - and it would take decades to do it with a deteriorating congestion problem during that period. There is no easy answer. The mantra of "let's build a by-pass" actually distracts from the real problem. 45% of the vehicles EVERY morning and EVERY evening are travelling less than 2 miles. They start their journeys in Hereford and they end their journeys in Hereford - and at the moment who can blame them? Walking and cycling around Hereford every day is depressing!!!! The public realm is depressing! Pedestrians and cyclists are treated like second class citizens - shunted around huge junctions that have been designed ONLY for vehicles. The trees that might make things look a bit better are all being cut down and the routes don't connect with anything. No one has prioritised safer routes to school to maximise the chances that children can get there safely without the use of a car. An integrated transport system would tackle this problem at a tenth of the cost of a by-pass and would not necessitate us building vast numbers of houses for people from the south east to come and retire to (because in reality that is what will happen if we go down that route). This policy is NOT about saying cycle in from Kingstone! That would just be silly! It is about making options other than car use safe, clean, easy and quick to use for all of those journeys that can be done in 10-15 minutes and creating a culture where people are happy to chose to do it that way. Plenty of towns do it, we just need to focus our extremely limited resources in the right way. And to all of those who insist that a by-pass will work for them, I suggest you will reach retirement age before it is delivered. Sorry - plain speaking from a plain speaking councillor.
  22. It is my pleasure dippy. Glad you found it helpful. As you say.... Onwards & upwards!
  23. Hello to all you good people! I have found reading this thread very interesting with a bit of hindsight re: Pontrilas. I need to correct a few factual inaccuracies and try and explain why IOC is the way that it is. Firstly and I need to be very clear about this, the It's Our City campaign was just that - a completely separate organisation set up to highlight the problems with the proposals around the ESG retail quarter. Now that it is being built, we are seeing a complete dearth of any financial investment in the city centre. Many of the things we predicted are now coming to pass. No-one will take a lease in the historic core of our city centre now. Take the burnt out buildings for example. The owners are a property company based in London. They have received a very good insurance payout for the damage done to their building, but it no longer makes any financial sense for them to re-invest this capital in a site that they cannot get a tenant for. WHY? because the ESG site still has vacancies and the way that it will change the footfall in town makes the prospect of taking a lease in High Town far far too risky. Most of the other national operators in High Town have been in discussions with the developers of the ESG with a view to trying to do a deal to leave High Town and move over the road. The developers have got agreement from the council that they have up to 40 years to build a second phase of this development, which my guess will happen when the remaining big names that are still trading in our historic city centre give up and want to move over. Whilst the campaign brought many like minded people together and may have provided the impetus to look at more of a political answer, when It's Our County was born it was a completely new organisation with new members and a completely different structure to the campaign. So Cllr V-P is not correct when she says we just changed our name - it just is not that simple. So why set up a political party in the first place? In short, you do not have a choice. If you want to develop an identity with a set of cohesive policies that are based in Herefordshire for the good of the county, you can ONLY do this within the system by forming a political party or you are classed as an independent. When I first discussed the idea, the 3 founding councillors of IOC were ALL Independent councillors arguing from the inside that the independent group should develop policies that we could all agree on so we could fight a proper campaign on the doorstep and not just rely on individual candidates being known. To be effective against national political parties with their election machines on the ground we believe you HAVE to be organised. You don't have to play the game by their rules - and we really try not to, but if you are not organised they will walk all over you, time and time again. So there you have it - the birth of IOC back in 2010. Up until this recent by-election, we have made regular attempts to work with the independent group. We supported them in the Ross by-election, when there was a completely open goal for their candidate to win. We did not put up a candidate and we were out canvassing for their candidate on the doorstep and did far more hours tramping round Ross than the independents did themselves. What did we get for it? The blame when he did not win. Cllr V-P went of record in the local press to say it was our fault. That hurts when you have put yourselves out to support another group. For Pontrilas we asked them to consider a joint selection panel - picking the best candidate between the two we had between the two groups, but they refused to engage, barely replying to our requests for more co-operation between the groups. So Jon Norris gave us the confidence to go for it - and I am very glad we did. The people on the doorstep in Pontrilas really got what we are trying to do - they understood. The rest is history. I hope this goes some way to explain a little further about things from our perspective.
  24. Bit more information for you - the turnout was 32% which, sad though it may seem, is quite a high turnout for a by-election. Jon Norris for IOC took 46% of the votes cast - virtually exactly the same percentage as the Tory took last time round. Independent candidate wobbled around on their share going down slightly from 32% last time to 28% this time. Despite all of the mud slinging, both in the press and on the doorstep, IOC canvassers kept their nerve and did not fight back. We kept it absolutely clean, which is really tough when the nastiness is turned on you, but you bite your lip and try to give the positive reasons why people should vote for us - and it obviously worked. WELL DONE TO JON!
×
×
  • Create New...