John Harrington

It is almost always the owners and not the dog's fault dippy, I agree.A year ago my landlord's dog bit the postie (take note megilliland) and I warned him that he could now face prosecution and he decided somehow it was the postman's fault! His delivery was stopped for a week until he came up with the idea of a postbox on the other side of the gate (something I had suggested a year or two before). He's a very decent considerate guy but where his dogs are involved they can do no wrong. I told him that he was condemning his dogs (big Borzoi's at 10 stone a piece) to an eventual potential death sentence if he did not control them because one day they would attack a child and be put down. It's a balance always, everything we do in life but having a dog brings responsibility as well as joy and companionship.

The lady I spoke to dippy was a Polish lady who lives four doors down from where the dogs attacked. She said the drinkers across the road did nothing but watch while her boyfriend and his friend grabbed the dog. Not sure if they were the members of the public mentioned in the Mirror report restraining the dog.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-airlifted-hospital-following-savage-3632462

Bridge St.

Just came across this cordon in Bridge St. Apparently a young girl was attacked by a dog. She had serious injuries to her upper leg and torso. The dog has reportedly been destroyed.

Hi megilleland, superb research and links as usual! Obviously by 2011 the Records Office had come into the equation but it wasn't included in the HWFS's feasibility report in 2010 though?

Razor eyes Cambo, I didn't notice the mention of the 4b site having 'prior use as a bus station'. I wonder if they mean the old depot in Friar St or even the hub at Tesco? More likely they do mean the bus station off Commercial Rd. In which case that site is still an ideal site but only the timing is slightly out, due to the slow development, which means the bus station is not free yet as a new hub has not been built down by the railway station or the new development. So, as the report states the current building is not dangerous and the structure is sound why not put the new station on hold for a couple of more years. Time for our councillors to refer this for scrutiny.

Yes GD, the commercially sensitive excuse for redaction seems to applied to everything when it suits the powers that be. What I love is that in some of the annex docs every single bit of information has been redacted so why even bother including them in the reply. What I found most fascinating is that the 'do nothing' and refurb options seem much more viable on paper than we were led to believe. Plenty here for Scrutiny to look at I'm sure.

Hi dippy. The info, overly redacted as it is, may be of interest to the Scrutiny Committee if someone can get them to review Brammer's decision. If he and the Council used reasoning no longer relevant to the decision making process it may be of interest to the Overview members. And where were the original proposed sites? If they were deemed viable back in 2010, why are they not being considered now. About to watch ropey Mel Gibson movie (he's already done his anguished grief routine) so will sign off. I do admire all your efforts not to roll over gently for the Cabinet, who seem to be doing their level best to guarantee the end of their tenure in May 2015.

Col, save us, the bold text was in a grid/spreadsheet type pattern so people could see questions and the answers. Now it's all melded together .

Afternoon all. I had almost forgotten I sent a FOI off the offices of HWFS some weeks ago and I got their response to my request a few days ago. It's no surprise that most of the financial information has been redacted on commercial competition grounds and getting best value etc. Now, from what I can work out, there is a report that explains why the current fire station is 'not fit for purpose' but they can't let us see that for fear of giving an 'enemy' commercially beneficial information. I am challenging this redaction as, if it is the Council's and HWFS's stated ambition to build a new station, a report detailing why the old building is not fit for purpose is not something, I believe, that should be classed as sensitive information as it's public knowledge that a new station is the ambition of the Council and HWFS. Any current contractors interested in tendering (if that hasn't already been done on the quiet) know that the Council and HWFS want to move, so there is no need to protect that information, so why can't we see report backing up the Councillor's and HWFS's oft quoted definitive statement, that the current building is 'not fit for purpose'? What the FOI Officer has provided us with is a feasibility report (which is very difficult to read having been scanned on a very low resolution) which makes very interesting reading. Partly because it's four years out of date and presumably does not take into account the Council and HWFS's desire to reduce full time tenders in Hereford to a single engine. That last point is important because one of the reasons why the feasibility report of 2010 claims refurbishment of the current site is not viable is the stated requirement for 8 bays. I am assuming (as even the proposed plans for the new station on Bath St have only 4-5 bays) that the need for 8 bays is no longer something which should be factored into consideration. As this was a major factor for consideration against refurbishment (and if 8 bays are no longer required or planned) I am assuming that the case for refurbishment of the original site is now stronger? There also seems to be no mention of the Working Boys Home in Bath St as a potential site (I can't be sure as the site's locations are redacted). Instead there seem to have been two sites under consideration for the new build options. One appears to be on open ground of some sort (Merton Meadows, Bus Station perhaps) and the other seems to be on a site that does have buildings (Bath St site maybe but as no mention is made of any consideration of public protest it seems unlikely they mean the Working Boys Home). Also, there is no mention of 'swapping' land but of buying it, which again leads me to believe the Working Boys Home was never in the original running despite the impression given by Brammer and Price and Co to the contrary. What seems to have happened, in my opinion, is that at some stage in the last 18 months or so the Council and HWFS effectively disregarded the feasibility report and came up with a deal to swap land. I will let more forensic brains than mine pick at other details contained in the reply but a few other things to note quickly are A. There is no mention of the actual structure of the current station being unsafe at all. Simply that the water pipes and electrics, etc are becoming outdated and will need investment. B. Apparently HWFS can't tell me the cost, approximate or otherwise, of a full time tender for a year at Hereford's fires station because 'they don't hold that information' (is that code for 'the Council does though'). C. Even the feasibility report's Option A (DO NOTHING) seems to me to be something the Council could and should consider in the current financial climate. The building is NOT FALLING DOWN and whilst there is a sensible fear that services in the building may soon start to fail, surely the current fire station can carry on and sit there for a couple of years more until a sensible option is found which does not involve the destruction of a perfectly good building with a strong social and historical legacy for Herefordshire. Keep fighting dippy and cambo, the devil is in the detail, always. Dear Mr Harrington Thank you for your request for information concerning the land swap between HWFS and Herefordshire Council, which was received by Hereford & Worcester Fire and Rescue Service (the Service) on 16 April 2014. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides a right of access to already recorded information and under FOIA Section 1 (1)(a), the Authority has a duty to confirm or deny whether it holds the information applied for, unless a relevant exemption applies. Please refer to the table below for the response to your enquiry: Query Response 1 Can I see the report on the current viability of the present St.Owen's St station. I presume there must be one because it is oft quoted that this station is not fit for purpose. And please, I do not want a summary, I want to see the actual report carried out by those qualified, which specifically explains why the current site is not fit for purpose. The Service can confirm that the requested information is held and whilst it is accepted that there could be a valid public interest in any proposed new build of Fire Service premises and in accounting for any Public Authority spending, in promoting transparency and potentially encouraging competitive tendering on contracts, the Service considers that as a Category 1 Responder and part of the Critical national infrastructure, disclosing specific information relating to possible premises could potentially assist or be likely to assist an enemy or a potential enemy, as in accordance with Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance:, Specialist Guides - Defence and. Specialist Guides - National Security Additionally at this point in build programme and as work has yet to be tendered, there are concerns that disclosing detailed information could have an adverse impact on the tendering process as in accordance with Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance: Specialist Guides - Commercial Interests Therefore owing to the above considerations certain data has been redacted (withdrawn) in the enclosed report under National Security (FOIA Section 24(1)(b)), Defence (FOIA Section 26(1)(a)(b) and Commercial interests (Exemption Section 43(2)). Please note that owing to the document size, the report has been divided into the following sections and will be on 4 separate emails: 1. Feasibility Study 2. Annex A – Cost Plans – Part 1 3. Annex A – Cost Plans – Part 2 4. Annex B – Whole Life Costs 5. Annex C – Sensitivity Analysis Should you prefer a hard copy to be sent to you, please provide a postal address. 2a Can you tell me how much it will cost to demolish the buildings on the Bath St site and build a new station? Information not held 2b Where will funding come for this new build? Will it be from HWFS/local authority funds or central goverment. Fire and Rescue Authority’s Capital Building Programme 3 How much does it cost to keep a tender for one year at the St.Owens' St station. Information not held If you have any questions regarding your request or if you have difficulty in opening any attached documents and would prefer a hard copy to be sent to you, please do not hesitate to contact the Service's Data Management Compliance Administrator on 0845 12 24454 or by e-mail to Informationrequests@hwfire.org.uk. In any such communication, please include the FOIA number assigned. Should you have any queries regarding the management of your request and wish to make a complaint, in the first instance please do so using Hereford & Worcester Fire and Rescue Service's complaints system http://www.hwfire.org.uk/right_to_know/freedom_info.html. Your complaint will be acknowledged within 3 working days and replied to, in writing, within 10 working days of receipt of your concern. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to appeal directly to the Information Commissioner for resolution. The Information Commissioner may be contacted at the following address: Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF 16 04 14 Feasibility Study (1).pdf 16 04 14 Annex A - Part 1.pdf 16 04 14 Annex A - Part 2.pdf 16 04 14 Annex B.pdf 16 04 14 Annex C.pdf

Perhaps, the Council knocking down the Working Boys School for a car park would look bad for them but the Fire Service doing it and swapping land makes it look a slightly less mercenary raid.

Entirely and utterly the pertinent point Aylestone Voice! Lets see the HWFS report claiming current station is not fit for purpose.

P.S. Mark, how does a constituent go about requesting for Scrutiny to be called in? The decision to swap the land has been made so presumably Scrutiny can be called in at anytime to consider whether it should proceed?

Aylestone Voice, naughty boy! Mark, thanks for the detailed explanation, much appreciated. I think it could be argued that both points A and B have been breached in this case. The guidelines/regs for calling in Scrutiny you give, are the purely relating to Herefordshire Council or are you quoting from a national code. My point being that Scrutiny may be restricted to action only in certain circumstances but legal action would be based on broad principles which the Council would have to be prepared to fight.

Yes, that would be one angle combined with the legality of the Cabinet disposing of public assets without a genuine consultation process. The problem with a lot of decisions made by this cabinet is that they are made in isolation and with a baffling degree of secrecy. If they are not challenged at some point they become 'legitimate' by default. I know an exceptionally good lawyer if dippy and gang want his details please PM me.

Aylestone Voice, like you, I notice a change in the narrative from saving the buildings to 'making their sacrifice' count. I too smell politics. All I can urge the good dippy and Cambo and others who are fed up of a Council who tell us what is good for us and why it is best for us, is keep fighting. I would demand the report which prompted the move to look at a new site so that it can be properly scrutinized. And I would approach the Scrutiny committee asap to ask them to review the cabinet member decision, Liz Harvey will soon put a hot poker up from when Cllr Brammer speaks. Also, do not exclude the possibility of a legal challenge. Yes it will cost but if you care about John Venn and his legacy and feel helpless because your council is failing you, it will be worth the cost. Nothing that is worth doing is easy but done together the burden is made easier.

Incidentally has anyone asked HWFS for a copy (FOI if necessary) for a detailed report explaining precisely why the current station is not fit for use or beyond economical repair. Cambo, you're the man with the inside track here, anything you can do?

Aylestone Voice, although noticeable by it's absence in a lengthy reply, I would say the answer to you question is yes and the scrutiny route is one for dippy, cambo and others to now push asap.

That is at least of some reassurance Grid Knocker, very true. I have heard they are a tough and honest bunch, although I was disappointed that their grilling of HF didn't amount in the end to any sanctions or reprimands against Cllrs and members of the Hereford Futures board for failing to keep adequate notes/records of their activities. Still, that may have been beyond their remit.

And as you and Colin allude to, the Land Registry may state ownership of the property but may not include the details of the bequest.

Thanks twowheels. Registration of the property, at some point in the past, would have been done by a Council/Corporation employee so it may still be worth seeking out the original deeds if someone was able to, to ensure all the relevant information was recorded.It is very possible something was missed or not included in the submission to the Land Registry.

God God Biomech, you startled me, I thought I was the only one awake! Put down that bottle and go to bed! I agree entirely with your point though. I think it is time we perhaps looked at a group being formed to start examining Council activity at every level, with a mind to reporting irregularities to the relevant authority for further examination. The problem is this takes time and effort. Nothing worth doing is easy.

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.

Love the Bus Stop Cafe. Looks a bit dodgy from the outside, spartan inside but one of the cleanest place I have eaten in Hereford and the service is lightening! They even do a veggie full monty for when I go through my veggie phases (which is not that often).