twowheelsgood

Marc - thank you for the update and background. Good to see authorities working together for everyone's benefit. Now, can you tell me why I can't get a response from Environmental Health about the state of an H.M.O near me - emails with photos have not been replied to. You can pm me to take it out of the public domain.

Excellent idea! Sell Barrs Court site for housing and reduce the traffic issues there as well. How much do we pay senior officers - the 'going rate for the best' - so why haven't they come up with this?

Yes, bin space sharing is a good idea - we're already doing it with our neighbour. Neither of use produce very much - less than 4 bags in total - but it keeps the bags out of harms way.

Cllr Price is on record as saying at a public meeting that he doesn't give a f*** what local people think, so its odd, or convenient, that he is now quoting their support. In reality, this really is not the one Herefordians have been talking about for 40 years - that has focused on a new river crossing.

The road isn't meant to be an answer to traffic problems (indeed it will make them worse) - that is a front, merely a means to unlock house building land, as now admitted by Cllr Price (who has already said he's standing down next May). The eastern route is the sensible economic option, but house building will be limited. Hereford's status as a grid locked backwater is safe in this council's hands.

Still needs planning permission ...

Just two months ago, the council issued a press release saying 'every councillor has been told they have a duty to downplay what can be expected from the council's £200 million 10-year public realm contract with Balfour Beatty'. Now we really know where the money is going to be spent.

Its not clear that those costs include consultants, in which case they probably don't, in which case add a further 20% - £1.66m. How 'significant' can those revenue savings generated by moving operations from Brockington be? Smells like bs to me, something we're very familiar with where council costs are concerned.

This is the worst route in my opinion. Furthermore, the consultation was a complete sham and all of the 'sustainable' measures such as dedicated bus routes no longer feature. Here For Hereford have it in detail.

From the Planning Portal today; "Combined Midlands authority proposed A group of five West Midland and Black Country councils has written to Chancellor George Osborne announcing their intention to form a combined authority in line with the pioneering Greater Manchester initiative. The five local authorities initially involved - Birmingham City Council, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council City Council, Walsall Council and Wolverhampton City Council – have revealed they are in “ongoing discussions" with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and Coventry City Council "as well as a number of the neighbouring district councils" . They are hoping to build an alliance with "direct influence over the economic fortunes of more than 3.4 million people in the wider midlands area. The councils said they hoped to agree the devolution of powers from central Government to the combined authority which was expected to "focus on strategic planning and delivery for economic development and transport"." Its coming - Herefordshire will inevitably join with Shropshire and others - those in charge simply won't be able resist the lure of more power, more money, more expenses.

This path was a disgraceful squandering of our money - cycle groups were not consulted, it is dangerous and simply does not work. It was thrown down simply as a box ticking exercise. I rode it once when it was new just for a laugh. Pedestrian refuges like the one pictured (and on the other side of Aylestone HIll) always cause a problem for cyclists because vehicles won't slow and attempt to squeeze past, pushing you into the verge/railings/pavement. I always take the dominant position ie the middle of the lane to stop that happening. Preferable to being squashed by an impatient 4 x 4 mum on the school run.

You only have to look at Worcester's southern 'relief road' which has been chocka since the day it opened and which they're now widening to accommodate yet more stationery traffic to see that this sort of approach simply does not work. In that respect IOC are absolutely correct.

The Council use of the word 'mandatory' (cycle lane) is confusing - it doesn't mean cyclists HAVE to use them. It does mean that traffic attendants can enforce a mandatory cycle lane ie ticket any vehicle blocking it (other than allowed exceptions). Whether there was a need for a cycle lane there is debatable - particularly as it abruptly stops just before the roundabout with Venns Lane. I fear it was a handy way to achieve another half a mile of 'cycle path' at no cost and draw down some Government money rather than add real value - double yellows would have achieved much the same thing. A side point - why don't the council follow their own policy of 'conservation' yellow lines in conservation areas? I've raised this before with councillors to little avail.

The Cathedral is owned by the Church, so that is fortunately out of reach of the liquidators, but I've no doubt that the Old House already has a value on it (notwithstanding the godawful mess that it looks onto) and its only a matter of time ...

Covenants haven't stopped the council in the past disposing of property left to the people of Hereford in perpetuity. This bunch will stop at nothing.

It's shaping up to make the grass cutting fiasco look like a walk in the (overgrown) park.

It’s the 'up to' which is the let off clause isn't it? Can we make it a mandatory £20k fine (per person), not 'up to' £20k, a straight, on the nail, no ifs, no buts, £20k or immediate jail for the employer. Blunt, but we’re being taken for a ride and I, for one, am sick to death of the authorities pussyfooting around this and many other immigrant issues.

Yes, H_M_O's have to be registered with the council (and meet minimum standards), so, left hand meet right hand - Sulo type bins to H_M_O's - not so hard to arrange surely? Better still just put a skip in every street and we all chuck in as many bags as we want - bound to be cheaper and will accelerate that 'third world' look the council has been trying to achieve for some while now. I suspect licensing of H_M_O's has gone the way of everything else, council wise, take the license money and do little in exchange.

This is the crux of the problem - people are either stupid or don't care or both - if they'd read the information, assuming they can read, they'd know that these bags will be left behind. What are they going to do with them? In 2 weeks time the problem will be twice as worse, ad infinitum. They will have to either drive to the tip - bad for the environment - or fly tip - ditto plus we have to pay to have it cleaned up. This is a House in Multiple Occupancy nearby - these bags have been out for 10 days - our collection is tomorrow, so the pile will double in size tonight. It already has raw sewage running through it from the broken soil pipe. Yes it has been reported to Environmental Health. No they haven't responded. How do the bins work for Houses in Multiple Occupancy* anyone? I've read all the council stuff and can't find any mention. *censor won't let me abbreviate

The SLR will also have to bridge two minor roads and the main line railway - massive on costs I would imagine. Still, it should all be done in a couple of weeks - when the M1 was built in the late 1950s, it was constructed at an average speed of a mile every eight days and a bridge every three days. Things just gone done in those days.

Shame I hadn't seen this publicised or I would have joined you.

Equally, where do all the businesses that lost money because of this casual incompetence send the bill to?

So did Tudors pay for the fireworks?

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

I believe Amey now have the contract for the utilities. Oh, the irony. Little or no liaison with the Council is the norm, indeed they have the authority to dig up the roads and pavements when and wherever they like.