Saving The Working Boys Home *UPDATE*

[dippyhippy]

Next May, Cambo...all of this has got to change.

 

Come the elections, this cabinet have got to go. People are sick and tired of the deceit and the excuses. The people of Hereford deserve so much better than this.

I have said for ages, that difficult decisions will still have to be made, but for crying out loud, let's at least have some folks at the top table who will actually engage with those who voted them in.

 

This is where I make another heartfelt plea to Mark Hubbard ........we need to keep hold of the good guys!

[dippyhippy]

Oooh!! A protest!

 

Sounds like my kind of plan Bobby!

[Cambo]

I totally agree dippy next May we need to keep hold of the good guys & get sum young fresh blood into help those good guys fight back in a positive way for the better good of the county & the city!

[dippyhippy]

Amen to that!

As the Mighty Grid Knocker would say!

[Cambo]

Lets get bobby's barmy army on the march!

[SON OF GRIDKNOCKER]

Like Cambo, I too have had a response from Mr Featherstone.  In reply to an earlier enquiry, he had given me the locations of the three (unacceptable) sites which HC had offered H&WFA.  So I wrote back why he had offered them the land behind the Odeon.  This is part of his reply:-

 

"Because it houses the Country Bus Station which we are some years away from declaring surplus to need." (my italics)

 

I find this an absolutely fascinating example of the moronic thinking which permeates every level of HC's bureaucracy.  "some years away" could be translated as, "yes, we know it's woefully under-used (in fact between you and me, Mr Grid Knocker, it isn't even a proper bus station; more a series of halts where folk get on and off), and yes, in the fullness of time, when we've got nothing more pressing to do (like polish Geof Hughes black shoes for a Cabinet meeting), we'll probably declare it 'surplus to need'.

 

Hereford Country Bus Station, Mr Featherstone, is a misnomer, a sham, a confidence trick.  Go to Worcester or Walsall if you want to experience a fully-operational bus station: they have heated waiting rooms; and information screens of all arrival and departure times; and real blokes in uniforms - helpful blokes - who'll tell you anything you need to know about buses; and a nice cafeteria; and shops.

 

Mr Johnson could do a lot worse tomorrow (Thursday) if he opened the discussion on the land swap by announcing that he had instructed his officials to look into the minimum timeframe required to re-locate the County Bus Station's (sic) stands to Hereford Station's forecourt.  Given the active co-operation of Network Rail and Arriva, I reckon it could be done in 12 weeks.

[Ubique]

Bobby said ..". We'll do it. Me and the older members haven't got jobs, we've little or no responsibility so we'll pick up the slack and take on the burden "

Guess that includes me and the rest of the Old and Bold . I can picture Bobby bunking me and Gridknocker up onto the roof of the Working Boys Home after Cambo has inspected it for H and S .

[gdj]

From Mr Featherstone

 

 

 

This has not been kept quiet, the Cabinet Member report, the Fire service resolution and any planning application are public documents. The first 2 are already in the public domain.

 

 

From Vogon Commander Jeltz in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

 

 

• People of Earth, your attention, please. This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system. And regrettably, your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.
• There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.
• I don't know, apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all.

 

Surely our cabinet having been taking lessons from this model of transparency.

 

Tried to paste an image of Vogon Jeltz - couldn't do it - you will have to google him yourself.

[megilleland]

Tried to paste an image of Vogon Jeltz - couldn't do it - you will have to google him yourself.

 

Let me oblige gdj:

 

 

 

[megilleland]

From the National Planning Policy Framework

March 2012 

Department for Communities and Local Government

 

12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 

126. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account:

 

* the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

 

* the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;

 

* the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and

 

* opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.

 

127. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest.

 

128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a 

minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. 

 

129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

 

130. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.

 

131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

 

* the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

 

* the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

 

* the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 

 

132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly 

exceptional.

 

133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

 

* the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

 

* no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

 

* conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and

 

* the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

 

134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. 

 

135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

 

136. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.

 

137. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. 

 

138. Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole.

 

139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.

 

140. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.

 

141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance 

and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

 

Do we have a Local Plan for the City Centre?

[twowheelsgood]

No. We have an out of date UDP, and a half written Core Strategy which has not yet been through public examination and is by Council estimates due to come into force in May 2015, but which in reality will be May 2016. Unsurprisingly, it's all a bit of a mucking fuddle, hence multiple planning applications from developers making hay while Ashcroft fiddles.

 

Conservation Area Consent is required for demolition and will not be granted in isolation ie the applicant has to submit in tandem an application showing what will replace the demolished building and the two permissions, if granted are tied.

 

In reality, any application will have to be judged  against saved (ie rolled over) UDP policies and the over arching NPPF, which says 'At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking'.

 

Demolishing serviceable buildings cannot and should not be considered sustainable.

 

Work in a conservation area MUST both preserve AND enhance the area.

[megilleland]

Hereford Times 8:00am Saturday 5th April 2014 in Letters in case people have not read this:

 

Hereford Civic Society says the Bath Street buildings do have heritage value

 

In need of real debate on historic sites’ future

 

THE former Working Boys’ Home and fire station play a significant part in the historic landscape of Hereford, contributing to what makes it unique.

 

Members of Hereford Civic Society have been asking for more information about the proposed land swap between Herefordshire Council and the Hereford and Worcester Fire Service for several months now, and we are concerned about the council’s plans to raze the 50’s fire station and Bath Street buildings to allow the building of a new fire station on the former Working Boys’ Home site.

 

We believe the city should be given an opportunity to comment on their future before it is too late.

 

Councillor Harry Bramer’s letter to the Hereford Times, March 27, stated ‘English Heritage has confirmed the Former Working Boys’ Home site has no architectural or heritage value’.

 

In fact EH wrote in its report of February 11: ‘The local architectural and historic interest of the former Working Boys’ Home in Hereford is recognised by its inclusion in a conservation area’.

 

Further, we had been told the existing 1950’s fire station was to become a car park. Cllr Bramer is now suggesting a use such as affordable housing.

 

Shouldn’t the council know why it wants the site before setting up a deal?

 

At our HCS public consultation meeting in February there was broad consensus that only partial demolition and retention of the two Working Boys’ Home principal buildings would be a pragmatic way forward, creating greater value for this large site from residential development. Not everybody agreed, but it is difficult to have a constructive debate without the full facts.

 

Instead of its current passive role the council’s role should be an active and imaginative one in which it consults with the community and seeks innovative uses for these historically important buildings.

 

The first decision to be made should be “what is best for Hereford?†and that debate needs to be had in an open manner.

 

John Bothamley Chairman, HCS

 

[dippyhippy]

GDJ!

What a fabulous post! I almost fell off the sofa laughing when I saw the image Megilleland so kindly supplied!

 

A really interesting read,"conserving and enhancing the historic environment."

Sadly, our council seem to fall at the first point. It was they who have allowed The Boys Home to fall into a state of disrepair. It is their own negligence.

They bend the rules to suit themselves. I am mightily cheesed off with this cabinet of ours. Whatever the outcome, they quite simply have to go. They need to be put on a "surplus" list themselves.

[dippyhippy]

Actually, now I think about it, would somebody be able to post a link to the HT update?

It only went online yesterday, but is already in danger of being bumped off the page - ridiculous situation! HT actually have a news story, and it will disappear from view in favour of a piece about mutant daisies!

I am so glad I asked for a link to be put up to this HT story, and so pleased that both Two Wheels and Megilleland obliged, as a little over 48 hours after this article went up, it has now disappeared from online.

Beyond ridiculous. And it never got onto the most commented list, even though two other "stories" had less comments. What is the thinking behind churning out rubbish, that bumps genuine news??

[SON OF GRIDKNOCKER]

@ Dippy (re your 374 post).  I too was utterly baffled that the protest about the boys home slid into obscurity after only being on the HT's (alleged) 'Most Read Stories' for barely 48hrs.  Let's hope Scoop Tanner is in the Brockington Chamber this afternoon.

 

Thanks too to TwoWheels for his excellent 371 post.  If push comes to shove, and a formal objection to an application to build a fire station has to be lodged, would the objectors not hold an extremely strong card if they quoted Mr Featherstone's ludicrous assertion (see Cambo's 355 post above) that the buildings are "...beyond economic repair / refurbishment."?

 

And I LOVE the new portrait of Councillor Johnson (post 369)!  Are there any plans to have it hung on the back wall of the Brockington debating chamber?

[Mark Hubbard]

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!

[twowheelsgood]

Why then does IOC CllrLloyd-Hayes (and member of the Fire Authority committee) say in her letter to the HT today, that 'it is early days yet' and 'a public meeting has been agreed'?

[Mark Hubbard]

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...............

[Aylestone Voice]

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?

[dippyhippy]

I am.........speechless.

 

Where, precisely, does this leave us now?

[Cambo]

Well @ lest that is something good anyway Mark & i shall look forward to it!! as with a public consultation we will get a chance to ask a lot, of serious question & hopefully get some answers to this whole sorry affair?

Especially when I believe a more practical & workable solution could have been achived,where all parties involved, would have been satisfied with the outcome?!…instead of the sense of bad taste in one's mouth,which is being felt @ present!!

[Cambo]

Evening dippy well the fat lady still ain't sing yet!

We still have one game left to play & it will be the deciding factor in the battle for middle earth & the shire?…it commonly goes by the name of planning!!! As mark says its a public consultation for when the fire service are ready to show us all, wot they plan to build. so I take it they won't be putting in for planning, until after the public consultation? I'm sure mark will correct me on that if I'm reading it wrong?

[dippyhippy]

Evening Cambo, no I can't hear her dulcet tones yet either!!

 

Things are never straight forward are they??

 

Roll on Friday night.....its been a VERY long week!!

[Cambo]

Amen to that!!

[dippyhippy]

Hi Two Wheels, the letter from Marcelle Lloyd Hayes, you mention above, is this on line?

I have spent a silly amount of time trying to find it, with no success!

[Mark Hubbard]

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! 

[twowheelsgood]

Don't think for a moment we'll be allowed any say on what it will look like. New fire stations are the latest buildings to fall into the lair of the PFI con - a standard design will simply be plonked down onto Bath Street without any reference to its surroundings or the people of Hereford. Here's one that just landed in Cheltenham.

[John Harrington]

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.

[John Harrington]

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?

[twowheelsgood]

Hi Two Wheels, the letter from Marcelle Lloyd Hayes, you mention above, is this on line?

I have spent a silly amount of time trying to find it, with no success!

 

Yes, its here http://tinyurl.com/pygamjv with one from Jean O'Donnell as well