twowheelsgood

Here you go https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=854711917934551 The lady in white is much more attractive than TJ …

On the nomination papers, column 3 says '3. DESCRIPTION (if any)' - most seem to put their political affiliation here (including the Independents with a capital 'I'. Glenda has left hers blank, which I read as truly independent with a small 'i', as megilliland says.

megilleland - great way to lay out the info, thanks. All women standing at Aylestone Hill - unusual!

Love it - thought for a moment there that things were coming good after the relentless tory years …

Compare and contrast this proposal with the £3m the council are to spend on the Three Elms Trading Estate when there is already a massive surplus of commercial land - which will benefit the City more? Not hard is it, unless you're entrenched in Shire Hall/Plough Lane.

Interesting that none of the highly paid consultants and council officers mooted this in the recent Belmont Road 'greening' proposals - the best they could come up with was a bus lane and some trees in a space that couldn't possibly accommodate them. Yes, the tramway is a sound idea - it was when Albert Heijn proposed it, nothing has changed. Extend it up to the Courtyard. Keep it simple and cost effective. Keep the cycling facility.

Her patch at the moment is huge and she's had to deal with all of the various developments at Holmer as part of it (and the fall out from them), a full time job on its own. Burghill will be a lot smaller when boundaries are redrawn in May - new wards created out of it include Queenswood, Racecouse and Holmer.

Deadline for nominating papers is 9 April, so 10 April we should know.

Traffic lights! There's an original solution to traffic management. Dear lord, are this council ever going to step into the 21 century? The canal isn't being reinstated - they are merely not building on the line of it. There were applications here a while ago and I can't remember the outcome - but I do recall a good deal of skullduggery reported in the HT.

Or, closer to home, one 5th of the £0.5m last minute bung to Stanhope when they 'threatened' to walk away from the OLM deal. Or, one senior officer salary ... Or one 170th of the annual payment to Balfour Beatty. Is it hard to say which offers the best value for money?

I have submitted a formal complaint to the Council about the lack of direct contact details for BB and other issues relating to them - "We will acknowledge your complaint within three to five working days."

BB are the absolute pits - they claim to respond in 10 working days - 10 WEEKS later I get this after complaining to the Council about lack of response - "Once a dropped kerb application is passed through to Balfour Beatty Living Places (BBLP), Herefordshire Council no longer have any active involvement in the process and unfortunately we are aware that they have recently been taking longer to process applications." In other words, don't bother us. So, the Council wash their hands of it, BB don't respond, the only way to contact BB is through the Council - they have no phone or email contact - and the Council don't want to know. We all go round in circles, nothing is done. Immensely frustrating. Prior to this ridiculous privatisation, I could have phoned Fred in Highways and sorted it in 10 minutes. How can that not be cost effective?

Having just received my council tax bill for next year of £1408, 2% would be a mere £28, just 54p a week. Yet the Council fear to charge that. Put me down for 4%, its nothing in the scheme of things and I'd happily pay it just to see some basics being addressed. BUT, as my good friends above say, its for services, not overblown salaries, or madcap schemes such as handing out de-icing kit or £8.3m office refits with a dishwasher on every floor or any of the other profligate waste that is STILL endemic in our public services.

A picture is worth etc … I was going to suggest a wall of shame highlighting all these derelictions of duty, but then remembered that BB have no shame, no civic pride, no interest. Like any private business, profit is their sole reason for being. Because of their guaranteed £200m payment, the less work they do, the more profit they make. Councillors got us into this mess and are unwilling or unable to get us out of it. Even if the Tories lose control in May, getting us out of these contracts may simply prove too costly - look at the £40m dispute with Amey that is coming to light and that was when it had run its course.

Presumably the 'old crew' know where the skeletons are buried and have to stay on to make sure they stay buried … whether people will vote for them is another matter.

The Council is employing LESS dog wardens - Hereford no longer has one at all - quietly let go in the name of cost savings. Two suspended prison sentences are hardly a punishment, more like bragging rights. I've had any number of dogs come after me, and bite me, whilst on my bike - there seems to be something about bike's that turns the mildest of canines (and often their owners, if around) into frothing, frenzied killers and I can rarely out-pedal them. Farm dogs are a nightmare but will give up once they've seen you off their territory.

Councillor - did you do this, because it is still all there, now 4 months since I reported it and a month since you said you would follow it up.

Litter picks are all well and good in low trafficked areas - on many roads it can only safely be done by BB, who don't bother because they'll get paid anyway. I've reported the state of the this entrance to the City several times over the last two years - nothing done at all. The badger graffiti has been there at least a year. There's also a road junction sign just out of the picture which is covered in mould.

I think the ad looks fine, bold or not. All caps is harder to read. Given that the HT benefit from some of the threads here, I would think that a discount is the least they could do! Just don't mention mendacious meddling ...

Rents traditionally fall due on quarter days ie at the end of March, June, September and December. Combined with the post Christmas lull, the end of March will see a number of shops closing before they have to commit to a further 3 months rent. Of course, shops not paying rent have no such worries.

Ubique - I'm sure your letter and photo in the HT had nothing to do with BB's uncharacteristic haste! Well done for getting it highlighted in the HT. Council press release here http://tinyurl.com/mb5aeae

If you read the Planning Officer's report, there is no justifiable case for this dwelling in the open countryside - the County Land Agent supported this argument and confirmed that the financial appraisal did not support an agricultural tie either. Ordinarily this would not have even made it to Committee - it would have been refused under delegated powers. It only went to Committee because the applicant was a councillor. It may be legal, but it still appears to be one rule for them and one for the rest of us and it stinks.

Councillors approved the application, not planners - big difference in who and how they can be held accountable for their actions. Unless you're a tory councillor making a planning application ...

The interest could not have been clearer - a tory councillor on the planning committee!

Perhaps the applicant should put a false name and address on the form - he's done it before and got away with it! "Planning permission for an open market house in the open countryside - absolutely no chance, sir, contrary to every policy going - oh, you're a Tory councillor? Well in that case, the permission is in the post!"