megilleland

Nice to see a smart new cast iron notice board erected at The Oval, just past Subway on the way round to the fish and chip shop. Who is responsible for this board and placing notices within it? At the moment only general notices on view. What about putting the City of Hereford Parish Council minutes and agendas on display. We may then find out what issues in Newton Farm and Hunderton are being considered, before decisions are made.

Not quite true. Specified categories of minor or insignificant development are granted an automatic planning permission by law, and therefore do not require any application for planning permission. These categories are referred to as permitted development. In the case of any proposal for development there is therefore a two stage test: "is the proposal development at all?" and, if the proposal is development, "is it permitted development?" Only if a development is not permitted development would an application for planning permission be required. Herefordshire Council by advertising the car park planning application on the lamp post and in a local newspaper would suggest that it is not permitted development. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 allows local authorities to carry out certain developments specified in schedule 2 of the order. PART 12 - DEVELOPMENT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES in schedule 2 states: Class A Permitted development A. The erection or construction and the maintenance, improvement or other alteration by a local authority or by an urban development corporation of (a) any small ancillary building, works or equipment on land belonging to or maintained by them required for the purposes of any function exercised by them on that land otherwise than as statutory undertakers; (b) lamp standards, information kiosks, passenger shelters, public shelters and seats, telephone boxes, fire alarms, public drinking fountains, horse troughs, refuse bins or baskets, barriers for the control of people waiting to enter public service vehicles, and similar structures or works required in connection with the operation of any public service administered by them. Interpretation of Class A A.1 For the purposes of Class A “urban development corporation†has the same meaning as in Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980(4) (urban development). A.2 The reference in Class A to any small ancillary building, works or equipment is a reference to any ancillary building, works or equipment not exceeding 4 metres in height or 200 cubic metres in capacity. Car parks are not specifically listed. The omission of car parks above is supported in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for open space, sport and recreation which states: Developments within Open Spaces 16. The recreational quality of open spaces can be eroded by insensitive development or incremental loss of the site. In considering planning applications - either within or adjoining open space - local authorities should weigh any benefits being offered to the community against the loss of open space that will occur. Planning authorities may wish to allow small scale structures where these would support the existing recreational uses (for example, interpretation centres, toilets, and refreshment facilities), or would provide facilities for new recreational uses. They should seek to ensure that all proposed development takes account of, and is sensitive to, the local context. 17. Local authorities should: i. avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance the character of open spaces; ii. ensure that open spaces do not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic flows or other encroachment; iii. protect and enhance those parts of the rights of way network that might benefit open space; and iv. consider the impact of any development on biodiversity and nature conservation. Having asked some questions and made some comments in my representation concerning this planning application, it would be polite if the council could respond to these items as I have heard nothing to date.

Representations concerning the construction of the above car park can be read on Herefordshire Council website at http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/housing/planning/58286.aspx?ID=113513. Click on Representations to open documents. Interesting to note that several residents affected by this development have raised various concerns. Not surprising that the council departments consulted have no objections, but give no reasons how they arrive at their decision. Also Hereford City Parish Council which represents Newton Farm has no objection to the car park construction. There is also some debate that this car park does not need planning permission - is this true?

While out today I came across this planning notice on Waterfield Road proposing the construction of a car park. When I attended the public meeting at Eastholme before Christmas I got the impression that most of the gathering were against the car park being situated here, especially the anglers, as it was too far from the Belmont Ponds. The anglers would have liked a car park off Haywood Lane closer to the ponds. Has this application being advertised in the local press as you can easily miss the notice on the lamp post. The letters in the box on the planning application state the application is a planning application and affects a public right of way, agreed. However at the bottom of the application are further letters and D catches my eye as this would state that the proposed development does not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan. Is the development plan the same as the Unitary Development Plan? In which case because this land is protected public open space I would have assumed that any development would not be allowed. Has anyone else been consulted about this proposal? Any comments to the council by 3rd February 2012.

From the Hereford Times 19th January 2012 County ward in Herefordshire among UK's worst child poverty spot MORE than 4,000 children and young people in the county are now categorised as growing up within the worst indicators of child poverty in the UK. A report for Herefordshire Council's health and wellbeing board says child poverty is a significant issue for many local communities. One ward - Golden Post- Newton Farm in south Hereford is confirmed as among the worst in the UK for unemployment or limited opportunities for work. And two of the worst wards for child poverty in the county are in Leominster. The board was told of strategies being drawn up between the county's economic, health and education sectors to tackle issues raised within five years. All told, about 4,500 children in the county & the majority of them under 16 & are said by the report to be growing up in poverty. The worst ward for overall deprivation is Golden Post- Newton Farm, which is also in the UK top 10 for employment deprivation. Hereford's South Wye wards as a whole are said to have the highest level of young people not in education, employment or training. The city's Central ward has an under-18 pregnancy rate running at nearly three times the county average. Leominster's Ridgemoor and Gateway wards also feature in child poverty lists. The report makes a direct link between child poverty, historically low wages in the county and the number of part-time workers, particularly women. Poor housing conditions & especially in the private rented sector and rural communities are identified as an issue too, the latter particularly lacking mains service infrastructure such as water, gas, and drainage. The report cites the county's most recent housing condition survey that, in 2006, showed more than nine per cent of homes had serious hazards and more than 40 per cent failed the decent homes standard. The waiting list for social housing in the county now tops 5,000. In schools, the report finds a 30 per cent attainment gap emerging between pupils eligible for free school meals and those who aren't while one in 10 children in reception classes is categorised as obese. Anyone got any idea why this is? Have these estates been neglected by the authorities for too many years? Many of the cities estates built over 40/50 years ago have had little in the way of facilities to improve the quality of life ie Youth club closed, church closed, and threat of loss of open space.

Argyll Rise Open Space nomination appears to have been removed from the Queen Elizabeth 2012 Fields website. We are checking up to find out why this is - it may be just a glitch or someone may have asked for it to be removed! Over 30 votes registered so far - way more than the other two Council nominations.

Voting for Argyll Rise Open Space commenced today 18th October 2011 and lasts for only one month. Go to QE2 Fields Challenge and save this open space for prosperity.

I delayed posting this comment due to the Christmas and New Year Break, but feel that attention should be raised to the piles of litter which I see, not only on my estate, but also around the city generally and in particular along the A465 verges between Wormbridge and the city. Is anyone going to pick it up or is it just a case of waiting until spring/early summer and hope it gets hidden in the long grass. One particular bad part of the city which I walk through every day is the lane joining Canal Road and the back of Morrisons. I know it is a private road, but it is public litter that has been dropped and together with the graffiti overlooking the burial ground, the complete scene is an eyesore. I have yet to see a human road sweeper in the city with a brush and shovel keeping on top of this problem. If it can't be reached from the comfort of a mechanical sweeper no one bothers. Also the debris that was reported at the back of Charles Witts Avenue and bordering the Great Western Way is still there after one year. How does everyone else feel about this constant problem?

Does anyone know what the three large containers on the Vortex site are for? Is something happening on the land?

This website provides you with helpful information about crime and policing in your area. Updated each month. Covers the whole country. Makes an interesting read.

Hasn't this been approved by the council on 6th January? See here.

Following on from the rejection of the application to turn Argyll Rise into a town green it does not look very positive for future open space applications. Nicola Hodgson of the Open Spaces Society has been looking at the proposed government's "Localism Bill" and this is what she is concerned about: Localism Bill is a muddle for open spaces 13 January 2011 We today roundly condemn the Localism Bill, the government’s flagship measure for giving people power to run their own lives and neighbourhoods. The bill is due for second reading in the House of Commons on Monday 17 January. Our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook, says: ‘One of the bill’s most important aspects-the care and future of open spaces-lacks any clear idea of what is needed and is a muddle of conflicting provisions’. Our case officer, solicitor Nicola Hodgson, has analysed the bill as follows. ‘The bill requires every local authority to compile and maintain a list of land of community value in its area, to remain on the list for up to five years, but inclusion on the list appears to offer little protection to the land. If the owner of such land wishes to dispose of it, a community interest group must be given an opportunity to bid. We cannot see how the bill provides any new protection for open spaces which local people enjoy for informal recreation. Indeed, once land is on the list, the owner may be encouraged to consider selling it for development. The purpose of the list of land of community value is not clear. Why does land only remain on the list for five years, and what happens to it after that time? What protection is offered to land on the list?’ Land may be nominated for the list by others but it is for the local authority to decide whether it is included. Since much of the nominated land is likely to be owned by the local authority, how can we be sure the authority will be sufficiently impartial? If the owner of the listed land wishes to dispose of it, a community interest group must be given the opportunity to bid for it, but there is little chance that the group can raise sufficient funds to buy the land, especially if it is at market value based on any obtainable planning permission. We fear that the bill’s provision for payment of compensation to landowners will encourage them to put land of community value on the market. And this bill does not mention the government’s proposed “new designation ….. to protect green areas of particular importance to local communities†heralded in the business plans for the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. How does the bill fit in with those plans? We have called on MPs to ask these and other questions at the second reading debate on Monday 17 January. This bill needs to be rewritten if it is to offer any protection to open spaces which are loved and enjoyed by local people, and if it is to enable and empower those people to play a part in their protection,’ Nicola concludes.

NEWS RELEASE IMMEDIATE Thursday 14th January 2011 Contact: Martin Gilleland, NFTGAG chairman Tel: 01432 353971 Email: "Martin Gilleland" <megilleland@hotmail.com> Christopher Whitmey Tel: 01432 860449 Email: "Christopher Whitmey" <cj@whitmey.nildram.co.uk> HEREFORDSHIRE COUNCIL REJECTS TOWN GREEN APPLICATION AT ARGYLL RISE, NEWTON FARM, HEREFORD Newton Farm Town Green Action Group's Argyll Rise town green application was rejected by Herefordshire Council's Regulatory Committee on Tuesday 11 January 2011. Mr Vivian Chapman QC advised the committee it had four options: reject the application, seek a court ruling on the true meaning of a section of the Housing Act 1957, defer or accept the application. Mr Chapman told the committee there was no court ruling on the part of the Housing Act and barristers varied in saying what it meant. On balance Mr Chapman recommended rejection as argued for by Miss Morag Ellis QC on behalf of Herefordshire Housing Ltd. Two councillors urged the Council to get a court ruling on the Housing Act 1957 and voted against rejection. The Council's solicitor had recommended acceptance. "We are extremely disappointed after four and half years of hard work by local residents to protect this open space for prosperity. To see the council's regulatory committee dismiss this application without any real interest and knowledge on the evidence put forward, only adds to the distrust that communities have with local politics" said Martin Gilleland, NFTGAG chairman. "We feel the Council took the cheap way out. NFTGAG can't afford to start a court application." "I much regret the Council's decision not to seek a court ruling", said Christopher Whitmey who assisted NFTGAG. "Whilst the point of law remains uncertain there will be further town green applications up and down the country. A few thousand pounds, spent on a court application now, would save councils and housing associations nationwide many thousands in the future." - ends - NOTES TO EDITORS See the lost Argyll Rise Town Green: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=52.037874,-2.737741

Just returned from the Regulatory Committee where it was voted to reject the application for a Town Green at Argyll Rise. A disappointing outcome, but the council were far more concerned about extra costs been incurred in seeking advice in the higher courts concerning points of law, rather than supporting the community in its application to save this open space for future use. More detailed information to follow about the proceedings.

The Regulatory Committee is meeting as a tribunal to decided a legal dispute between two parties. NFTGAG who claim the land has become a town or village green and Herefordshire Housing, the landowner, who claims it has not become a green. The task of all committee members is to come with an open mind, listen to the evidence and submissions from both parties. Then to decide on legal principles which claim is the more probable.

Tuesday 11th January 2011 hopefully all day at the Council Chamber, Brockington, 35 Hafod Road, Hereford. The agenda is here.

Sorry 8000 houses is the number to be built within Herefordshire. The number linked to a western bypass is 4500 houses. As 29 per cent of households now own two or more cars compared with 24 per cent ten years ago. (Census 2001) this would produce a minimum figure of 5850 cars potentially heading for the centre of town. Where are they going to park them? Most of the city centre is covered by car parking already - just GoogleEarth Hereford and have a look. Some more interesting car facts from 2001 census: In England 27 per cent of households do not own a car or van while 44 per cent of households own just one, 24 per cent own two, 4 per cent own three and 1 per cent own four or more. The patterns and proportions are similar in Wales where 26 per cent do not own a car, 45 per cent own one, 23 per cent own two, 4 per cent own three and 1 per cent own four or more. In Inner London over half of households have no car. Outside London, 48 per cent of households in Liverpool and Manchester do not own cars and 45 per cent in Newcastle do not. In contrast, 6.3 per cent of the South East region own three cars and 2.1 per cent own four or more while in the local authority area of South Bucks one in ten households own three cars and one in 25 own four or more. The proportion of households owning one car is almost unchanged between 1991 and 2001 at about 44 per cent. However the proportion not owning a car has declined since 1991 from 32 per cent to 27 per cent and the proportion owning two cars has increased from 20 per cent to 23 per cent and three cars and more from 4 per cent to 6 per cent.

That's why I cycle in Hereford. I gave up my car 10 years ago and use public transport and hire a car when I need one. Not only does it save me time, but also money. Ok you have to organise yourself a bit, but this hasn't affected my life a great deal. I cycle from Newton Farm to Royal Mail in 14 minutes and can carry a large amount of shopping in my panniers. The problem is too many people in Hereford use their car to go a few miles and spend time driving around the city centre looking for a parking place, when they could easily take public transport or cycle if fit. Just look at the reduction in traffic during school holidays. Everyone was agreed at the parish meeting that if a bypass is built it will not reduce traffic going into the centre. Plus the thousands of houses to be built, to pay for the road, will only put another 12000 cars back into the city. So it does not look like it is going to cure the problem. So rather than wait for something to happen which may take until 2026 the council should make the city more accessible and open to pedestrians and cyclists. A park and ride could be used for city workers as well as shoppers. I went to Leominster to see my dentist on Monday and it took me an hour and ten minutes to cycle - just a bit longer than driving down Belmont Road. I came back on the train with the bike for £3.50 and had a stress free day.

Hello Victor. Did you go to the parish meeting tonight about the bypass?

The reason the council want a bypass is so that they can build more houses up to the road and get more council tax. These households will be using their cars to come into the town centre and we are back where we started jammed up for a few hours a day. The council needs to remove cars from the centre and build more housing on the car parks. Put the cars underground or up in the air and save space.

Wouldn't life be great if the street outside your front door felt like your own space? Somewhere to chat with your neighbors, kick a ball with the kids, get about by foot and bike? Somewhere to give us all a better quality of life - a quality street. For many of us the street outside our front door has become a place of speeding traffic, rat-running, noise and pollution. Its a place for others to travel through rather than for communities to claim as their own. That's why we want local Councillors to invest more of their local transport budgets to create quality streets. The first step is 20mph speed limits across whole villages, towns and cities. The second is residents being involved in designing their streets for living, playing, and getting out and about more. The result is better quality lives, quality chat and play, and safer more attractive places outside our front doors. Quality Streets is a campaign to say we want our streets back, and the first step is to slow traffic. Let your local Councillor know that you want quality streets. Sign up here.

Returned from the Herefordshire Council Regulatory Committee this afternoon where councillors were to consider changing the open space at Argyll Rise into a Town Green. However the meeting has been deferred, as the question of whether Cllr Phil Cutter (vice chairman) could take part in the proceedings, brought the meeting to an immediate halt! It was brought to the council's attention by Mr Whitmey acting for NFTGAG that Cllr Cutter was up until recently a director of Hereford Housing and because the proceedings would be of legal nature it would be prudent for Cllr Cutter to not take part. This was endorsed by Herefordshire Housing's Morag Ellis QC and Committee's legal adviser Vivian Chapman QC. The committee went into private session and after 45 mins decided that the meeting be deferred for a later date. Possibly late November, December or early next year. The saga continues.

Thanks for your support

People may remember that a meeting was called four years ago (February 2006) to highlight the threat to open space at Argyll Rise by development from Herefordshire Housing. At that time it was agreed to pursue an application to turn this piece of land into a town green and protect it for future generations. Newton Farm Town Green Action Group made an initial application to create this green and following a public inquiry in July 2007, it transpired that we met all the criteria (4 points), except one, which was that the residents were using the land "by right" and not “as of right". Herefordshire Housing was delighted with this result and urged Herefordshire Council to refuse the application for town green status. Surprisingly, ignoring the inquiry inspector's report, Herefordshire Council's lawyer recommended that the Council registered it as a town green. However, Hereford Housing's QC at the council meeting (November 2007) argued that Herefordshire Council would be wrong in going against the inspector's report. The Council followed the inspector's advice and rejected the application. It would appear that the saving of this piece of land would be lost, except that NFTGAG had a second application in hand, due to a change in the law, and this was submitted to Herefordshire Council for consideration (October 2007). Herefordshire Housing is again opposing the second application and NFTGAG are submitting new evidence that we hope will overturn the original decision to not create the green. Due to the protracted delay in dealing with this second application, a complaint was made against Herefordshire Council through the Local Government Ombudsman. This has resulted in the Council ensuring it gets advice on the law of town and village greens from one of the country's most experienced barristers in this field, Mr Vivian Chapman QC. The hearing is to be held before the Regulatory Committee at Brockington, Hafod Road on Tuesday 2nd November 2010 at 2.00pm. Mr Vivian Chapman QC will advise the Committee with Miss Morag Ellis QC for Herefordshire Housing and Christopher Whitmey for Newton Farm Town Green Action Group. Any public support for this cause on the day would be extremely welcome.