twowheelsgood

It's not strange at all that the Council want to keep this as quiet as possible - it is certainly not their finest hour, being delivered some 4 years late and at huge cost, not only in salaries to 'the best' but also fees to top consultants to pull the whole thing together when 'the best' were going round in circles getting nowhere fast, save for churning out thousands of pages of inpenetrable jargon (which is what they do best after all). The Inspector's list of queries is long and deep and could see further delay if the Council are directed to re-consult/redraft sections. Another reason to keep it quiet is of course is that the whole thing is predicated on road building, which in turn is to be funded by house building, which in turn will overload all available services (insufficient water supply for instance) and further log jamb roads with traffic. Here for Hereford have exposed all of the Council's hypocrisy with great skill, and will be a key player at the Inquiry.

Make sure you're sitting down when you ask about the cost ...

Succinct.

I think the kit will take children of all ages, but, dippy, this event is definitely for actual children! I'm sure you could sneak a go if it goes quiet.

Thanks - we did one last October which was very successful and one of the things many children asked for was a climbing wall, so that's what we've done this time. We're planning a third event on 21 March.

So now the Council should buy it from the administrator, put it right and sell it at a modest profit - everyone wins. If they can waste £3m on a bit of scrub land at Three Elms trading estate, they can certainly do this.

Central Park is off Central Avenue, behind the Fire Station (or via Daws Road).

That made me chuckle - was it a long line of envelopes??!!

With Balfour in charge, expect those barriers to be in place for a very long time. Remember the collapsed drain under the Rotherwas bridge last year?

Valued pubs to be protectedMinisters have announced proposals to change the planning regime and provide greater protection for some pubs. This move will stop valued community pubs from being demolished or converted into different uses against the will of local people, ministers said. The additional safeguards will apply to pubs which have been formally listed as Assets of Community Value (ACVs). The initiative, detailed in Parliament this week would mean the removal of permitted development rights for those pubs, now numbering more than 600. Community Pubs Minister Kris Hopkins told the Commons: “We plan to bring forward secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity so that in England the listing of a pub as an asset of community value will trigger a temporary removal of the national permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of those pubs that communities have identified as providing the most community benefit.†He added: “This will mean that in future where a pub is listed as an asset of community value, a planning application will be required for the change of use or demolition of a pub. “This then provides an opportunity for local people to comment, and enables the local planning authority to determine the application in accordance with its local plan, any neighbourhood plan, and national policy. “The local planning authority may take the listing into account as a material consideration when determining any planning application.†Read the news story from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

I'm not happy with your rudeness.

I don't do half cocked - and I'm far from ill informed - you seem to miss the point of my post completely - I'm not interested in what the Government and even less what the EU have to say. This is a local issue - councillors are quite capable of arguing for better than minimum provision should they feel what is being provided is perceived as inadequate to the point that people feel unsafe and are unable to see the uneven surface of our crumbling pavements to pick a safe route.

Its ambiguous in the press release as to whether they charge the parker or the council. As they are effectively a sub-contractor to the council, collecting charges on their behalf, why should the parker carry the additional burden?

Who can say - it's public service speak, meaningless to the great unwashed. Yes, the recommendation is not to proceed - having read the business case, that is an obvious conclusion. I suspect the only ones to really benefit will be 'Innovation Central Ltd' who are only mentioned once in passing in the report but appear to be driving the change. They say 'Innovation Central was established to prove that core beliefs and a passion for performance can and does drive a successful business.' Ha, that’s one for bobby47!!

Had a flyer through the door this morning offering their services - its ambiguous in as much as it does not make clear what the set up is in relation to my GP surgery (not the Hereford one they offer). Can I pitch up there out of my Surgery's hours? Do they have access to my records and if not will they update my Surgery? For something that has NHS stamped large on it, and no contact details for Taurus, it’s less than helpful

The Highways Agency cover the national trunk road network - A49, A40 from Ross-on-Wye and M50. Everything else is Herefordshire Council.

The Council responded in part to that e-petition by saying; "2XL is a charitable organisation delivering a range of projects for young people. The organisation is governed by a Board of Trustees from different professional backgrounds. It has an office based in the Freedom Centre, in Hereford, but it is a separate organisation from the church." And "The Council therefore proposes to take no action at this time in respect of the existing contract with 2XL." That was in 2011. According to the Charity Commission it ceased to exist on 23 October 2013.

Well, there are lies, damned lies and then there are Council figures - the widespread public perception (from reports all over the UK) is that the light spread from led's is poor and that dark areas are left between posts - you don't need a light meter to show this, a plain old pair of eyes does the job. The light meter may say they're up to spec, but I would say the spec is wrong. And that is where the politicians come in, because Balfour Beatty will just point to the rule book, shrug their shoulders and bank the money. If we want something that works, rather than just ticks a box, then the politicians have to ensure we get it, and now, before it is too late. Once the work is done the Council will NEVER review it.

dippy - your memory is sharp as a pin - it was indeed me that said East St is 'access only' - the sign is at the entrance off Broad Street. Occasionally the Police have a bit of blitz but in reality it is used as a west-east relief road, except for when the M & S artic can't get out the other end because some numpty has parked opposite on the yellow lines. Many, many years ago, the previous Hereford City Council paid Arup's a small fortune for a report on what to do with East St - obviously the report was put on a shelf with all of the others and nothing done. With the BID and the Independent Quarter traders working together I believe there is at last hope that this area can be further improved. As long as the Council don't get involved ...

Certainly at one time the Council were putting money into this operation under the guise of youth care - whether they still are I don't know. Even the planning permission went against Policy but had ESG as was making a 'special case' for granting it. I know at least one person in Coningsby Court next door who had to sell her home and move to get away from the very loud late night rock music jams. They've also been targeting the Foley Lane campuses with their sweets for kiddies campaign. Freedom to do whatever they want it seems.

"Fourteen major planning applications brought £747,000 in fees in excess of the income budget …" I'm beginning to wonder if the Council's failure to have a five year housing plan in place, thus opening the door to these huge planning applications (and damn the people affected by them), isn't a covert way to rake in funds.

It's not for you to judge what is unlawful. It's not your forum to dictate to others through. It's not 'your' post - this is a public forum into which you've chosen to bring your version of a situation.

No, it’s a lot more than £207k - it’s a 1.2% levy on businesses which will raise £280k year 1, and so on for 5 years, total £1.4m. Its in the manifest pdf to download. Only businesses will be able to vote. The Church Street/East Street junction has been a long standing safety issue - as I said, the council should have done this - if this and other projects are done by private funding (which I have no objection to at all and at least it will be done) will this be reflected in our council tax going down? I don't think the Council's £2.5m is anything to do with it - it’s a good example of not very joined up thinking ...

And Balfour Beatty are paid £20m A YEAR for this 'service'? Words fail me.

Will Cllr Bramer be flying in from Costa Rica?