Saving The Working Boys Home *UPDATE*

[Cambo]

On a positive note it could play into our hands? after all if they had put in a design which was stunningly beautiful there would be nothing to say? But with this design my ammunitions dump is looking pretty stocked?!

[Cambo]

Managed to obtain a drawing of the elevations too!!

[dippyhippy]

Cambo.....you are a star!

 

Now....check your messages please!!

[Aylestone Voice]

Cambo - yes

What we need to do is that when the planning applications are submitted is to focus our comments on how bad the design is. We must convince the Planning Committee that the design is just so bad for our conservation area that they must say no and refuse. It is a poor design which does not enhance the area.

To a degree arguments about it being the wrong site whilst true will confuse the issue at this stage. The politicians have to be convinced that notwithstanding the alleged need for a new building and that this might be the only opportunity for a long time this is not an excuse to accept a poor designed building.

[dippyhippy]

Absolutely Aylestone Voice!

 

And as we know from Two Wheels post on another thread, the Fire Service ARE prepared to wait!

 

We need to all be singing from the same hymn sheet.....object on the grounds of poor design in a conservation area.

( Whilst crossing our fingers, and silently praying that the Bus Station site may get pushed to the fore!)

[Cambo]

They have said they've looked @ the bus station today when I asked them & agree its a good location however they think there big engines won't be able to turn out because they want a roadside frontage but I think that's more than achievable on union walk we need to convince HWFRS of that?… maybe we could get someone to do a drawing?

[Cambo]

Yes totally agree Aylestone voice no point in confusing the planners. As the design is that bad & certainly not wot I'd like to see in place of the old boys home!!

[twowheelsgood]

Planning's role is to determine what is submitted and only that. Everything else is politics. Objections must refer only to the application - subjective views on where it should be sited, for instance, are pointless and detract from the point.

[Cambo]

I spoke with a nice lady from the Victorian society today afterwards she sent me this email

 

Dear Michael

 

Thank you for your call this afternoon. I would be grateful if you could send on any further information as you suggested, and I will look into this case; this appears to be something we would want to object to.

 

Many thanks,

 

Kathy

 

Kathy Clark

Conservation Adviser (South West England, South East England, North and East London)The Victorian Society

1 Priory Gardens

London W4 1TT

Telephone 020 8994 1019

Direct Line 020 8747 5894

www.victoriansociety.org.uk

Sign up for our newsletter!

 

The Victorian Society is the national charity campaigning for the Victorian and Edwardian historic environment. Registered Charity No. 1081435. Company

[dippyhippy]

Brilliant Cambo!

 

It's great to hear some positive news!

 

You get today's "Dippy's Favourite Poster" award!!

[megilleland]

Cambo. I sent an email to their West Midlands Chairman a few days ago.

 

I have just come across the Victorian Society and would welcome your comments on the proposed demolition of The Working Boys Home within a Conservation Area (at present used as offices by Herefordshire Council). The council in discussion with Hereford & Worcester Fire Service intend to transfer the existing Fire Station a short distance to this site. There is a lot of opposition to this wanton demolition that the Council intend to carry out to pursue their aim. 

 

I have put a link for you to this topic on "Hereford Voice" which has attracted 510 replies and 11,551 views to date. The Working Boys Home was founded in 1875, as the Hereford and District Working Boys’ Home and Industrial School supported by city benefactor John Venn.

 

Links:

 

Saving The Working Boys Home *UPDATE*

 

Working Boys' Home, Hereford

 

Fire Station Public Meeting

 

Do you think there is a case  for saving these buildings for future use or improvement?

 

No reply so far. I will send a copy to Kathy Clark.

[Cambo]

Megilleland I spoke with him today as i'd rang him the same day as you had email him & he was returning the call but he did say that he needed to send you an email also. he also explained to me that although they deal in the West Midlands they don't cover Hereford? So he gave me there London office number as apparently we are in there area???

[Cambo]

Ok no worries megilleland & yes deffo the more info she has the better.

[megilleland]

Agenda

Council

Friday 23 May 2014 9.00 am

 

Appendix 1 

 

PUBLIC QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL – 7 MARCH 2014 

 

Question from Mrs Protherough, Clehonger, Herefordshire 

 

Question 6 

Selling of Bath Street Site 

With an urgent need for sustainable housing developments in the City Centre, why does this Council feel that it can achieve best value for the local taxpayer by selling the Bath Street site to the Hereford & Worcester Fire Authority, rather than as a prime residential development site, which could include sensitive redevelopment of a building of historical significance in the City? 

 

Answer from Councillor H Bramer Cabinet Member Contracts & Assets 

 

Answer to question 6 

A decision on this matter is scheduled for later in March. The council has to consider how best to use its assets in the public interest; the options for achieving best value will inform any disposal decisionto be made. 

 

The Local Development Framework, scheduled for public examination later this year, identifies a number of strategic sites which together would provide sufficient capacity tomeet projected housing need in the city. As with any site, the future use will be determined through the usual planning process, as would the impact of any development on the character and appearance of the conservation area; the building itself is not listed. 

 

Supplementary Question 

In its Core Strategy is proposing 2,500 houses are built in greenfield sites around Hereford City and 800 in the city centre ‘urban village’. Yesterday Nick Boles, Planning Minister, announced new planning practice guidance which emphasised the need to redevelop brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites, protection of countryside and environment and taking account of infrastructure constraints e.g. road and sewage systems. There are as yet unconfirmed rumours of changes in Community Infrastructure Levy to encourage developers to develop brownfield sites. In view of this will the Council consider changes to its Core Strategy housing, and reconsider the practical advantages of using Bath Street site for housing which also has the environmental and social advantages of accessibility to the city centre on foot and proximity to essential services? 

 

Response: Council Price, Cabinet Member Infrastructure 

The Core Strategy is a live document. If something is announced from government we will look at it, but we need to take the Core Strategy forward. In response to the remainder of your question on Bath Street I would refer you to the written response provided. 

[Colin James]

I received this email today and the person wishes to remain anonymous for various reasons, however, please read:

 

 

Hi Colin

 

I am aware of the campaign to save the Old Boys Home and want to help. Please see the document attached which is a joint submission by WMP & HWFRS. If you read the document Herefordshire Council have not been particularly helpful in helping to relocate the police and HWFRS never even mention that they need a new Fire Station urgently.  In fact WMP excoriating about HC.

 

Please also see this link to how we could have a joint Fire & police station that saves  the emergency services and therefore taxpayers money.http://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/news-articles/building-starts-at-site-of-bromsgrove-joint-emergency-services-station.html?accept_cookies=1

 

Does Hereford always have to lag behind creative, innovative and cost effective solutions? Massive brownfield site in centre of Hereford (Merton Meadow) which Fire station could move to immediately but Herefordshire Council won’t allow and then some urban housing could be moved to the Old Boys Home. Urban village isn’t even in the 5 year housing land supply calculations so land available now.

 

Hope this helps the campaign. Please keep my name out of any posts on this matter.

WMP and HWFRS Response Nov 2011.doc

 

 

[dippyhippy]

Thanks for posting this Colin, and thanks to the anonymous supporter!

[Cambo]

Thanks for posting this Colin, and thanks to the anonymous supporter!

Yes thank you anonymous support all help is very much appreciated!

 

Not sure but I think this was done on a much smaller scale in Peterchurch? A combined site shared by HWFRS & WMP?

 

Merton meadow is a big site also the council have given compulsory order notifies to arrow plant hire crw carpets the beds place next to football ground & poss bp filling station on my understanding maybe someone can confirm?

[Cambo]

Just a thought has HWFRS really done the design for the new fire station to go over on Merton meadow? As crazy as this sounds it wouldn't look out of place sited over there next to the football ground?

[dippyhippy]

Just a thought has HWFRS really done the design for the new fire station to go over on Merton meadow? As crazy as this sounds it wouldn't look out of place sited over there next to the football ground?

Absolutely agree Cambo!

 

Put this ugly beast in Merton Meadow, Rotherwas.....anywhere - except slap bang in the middle of a conservation area!

[Denise Lloyd]

 Peterchurch Police station is one end of the village and Peterchurch Fire Station is at the other end

[Cambo]

Dennis I heard that the police station in Peterchurch opposite the community/primary school was being closed any truth in this?

[Denise Lloyd]

Yes there were rumblings a little while ago but it has gone quiet lately - should I hear anything I will keep you posted

[SON OF GRIDKNOCKER]

@ Dippy@ 'Ugly Beast' absolutely sums up this item of non-designed dross.  Even in isolation - say 'parked' somewhere inconspicuous out at Rotherwas - it would be offensive.  Now just imagine it being brought in by a couple of Chinooks and dropped down on the cleared site of the boys home? Two doors down from Venns Close?

 

I have the very greatest respect for all Britain's firefighters.  I've collected for them; I've even stood on their picket lines.  And I've a sneaking admiration for the notion that the public facade - the 'shop window', if you like - of a fire station should be bold and assertive.  A reminder that they're in there, ready to rescue us when needed.  I even get a buzz when I drive along St Owen Street on a Saturday morning and they're washing down their huge red monsters!

 

But, please, not in Bath Street.  Never. 

[John Harrington]

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

[John Harrington]

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

.  

[dippyhippy]

Evening John!

 

Thanks so, so much for this!

 

A few of us have been discussing this, and one of our main concerns is the lack of any independent report on the Fire Station, and if it could actually be modernised and made "fit for purpose".

 

Cambo has noted from the proposed plans that the new frontage, has less doors than the original. He wryly commented that they seem to have factored in the proposed cuts to the county fire service cover already.

Handy......

 

Absolutely beyond ridiculous, that in one breath they speak of "promoting transparency" yet in the next, they are using any excuse under the sun not to divulge the reports full content.

[John Harrington]

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.

[dippyhippy]

Good Grief John??

 

A Mel Gibson movie??

 

On a Sunday??

 

Things can't be that bad, surely??

 

Seriously though, thanks for this and your kind words of encouragement. They mean a lot!

[SON OF GRIDKNOCKER]

An absolutely brilliant bit of sleuthing, John!  And doesn't it just show you that with FoI requests (as I think Bill 'Scoop' Tanner will confirm) you've just got to be persistent.

 

The excuse about 'commercially benefitial information' is just laughable (always a popular ploy of the late and unamented Brother Bretherton).

 

By his own admission, Cllr Bramer wants the St Owen Street building demolished for housing, so why in Heaven's name can't HWFR tell us just how little their current building is worth?

[John Harrington]

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.