twowheelsgood

In view of the above very interesting links provided by flamboyant, I would hazard a guess that it's legal costs in connection with the 100+ CPO's need for the link road. That’s £6m to Rockfield, £3.8m to lawyers (so far, that we know about), which is almost £10m out of the £27m budget gone already. Plus the build cost of the new 'temporary' car park on the Rockfield site, design (and redesign) fees etc - perhaps the £27m is just for the consultants ...

Python - the least funny 'comedy' ever ...

On face value, it appears they have paid £3.8m to 'one of the ten largest law firms in the world' (wikipedia). For legal advice? About what? Even at £1k a day, that’s hell of a lot of lawyer time. Or were they acting as honest broker for third party payments to recipients that the council want to hide the identity of? Whatever, it’s a huge amount and we should know what it is for.

I noticed today that the car park in and around the site was rammed full of cars - 100 or more - even though the building is empty - presumably all council employees on freebie car parking. Where will all these vehicles go to? I also note little mention has been made of the Barrs Court School in Symonds Street, which backs onto the site. This serves young people aged 11-19 all of whom have a range of complex learning difficulties and disabilities, many of which will be exacerbated by noise, such as that from fire drills in the 4 stroey steel training tower which is just yards from their buildings.

Ha, ha, yes, two suited planning officers will call with a packet of biscuits and flowers for the wife (or vice-versa) and will carefully dissect and discuss your objection, whilst sipping Darjeeling from your finest china. Or probably not. No, the sad reality is that it will have the key points picked out and added to a list of all the key points raised by other non-statutory persons, with something like 'there have been 468 letters of objection of which key points raised were ...' in the agenda. Statutory bodies, the councils own departments and societies and groups tend to have larger chunks quoted in the agenda (if it suits the agenda, so to speak, some might say). The Officers report will have taken into account all objections when drafting his report and making a recommendation. The Committee will decide whether to approve or refuse (not disapprove).

Yes, its no harder than posting here - easier actually as no registration is required. So, for those putting it off and risking upsetting b47, get to it today! Doesn't have to be long or technical - just say what you think. It will be effective.

Fair point well made by b47, BUT note the council's usual slack approach 'We are currently publishing representations received on 3 September 2014', so let's assume there's a big sack load waiting to be scanned. That said, I haven't done mine yet as I haven't had a moment but will do it tomorrow.

Scratch n' sniff - presumably this was post-coitus?!

Important to look at the graph with the notes; • Population forecasts are highly dependent on assumed levels of future housing: the 2006-based forecasts were based on a planned 16,600 new homes between 2006 and 2026, whilst the 2010-based and 2011-based forecasts are based on an anticipated supply of 16,500 between 2011 and 2031. •The 2010-based forecasts were based on indicative population estimates that ONS published before the results of the 2011 Census became available. They suggested that immigration to Herefordshire had been significantly underestimated since 2006. This demographic trend could not have been built into the 2006-based population forecasts as there was no evidence available at the time. Also worth noting that dramatic rise in the top line is for 85+ year olds - sure as anything they won’t be buying new houses but they will be one massive demand on the Council's resources. It's a ticking bomb.

This has happened to a few important topics - not good.

Be very interesting to know how many hours of real work that equates to ...

Another one now claims to know nothing, from todays web HT - 'Cllr Bob Matthews, leader of the Independent group, told the Hereford Times that he had “no recollection of this issue being raised with me as a group leader over the past few years.â€'

The present housing boom means we've run out of materials already - bricks are on a minimum 30 week delivery and at least one manufacturer has closed their order books, bricklayers can demand £200 a day and all that has to be added into the selling price, fuelling the boom further, until the balloon pops.

Who was the chair? Pay to be humiliated - could be this council's byline.

From today's HT website- "Hushing up" row goes to the heart of who runs Herefordshire council and how. "Lib Dem group leader Cllr Terry James said the way in which the allegations and their resolution was handled went to the heart of the who ran the council and how. Where the council now gave every appearance of being run “by officers for officers†there was, said Cllr James, scope for a no confidence motion in the current leadership. At the very least, he said, external auditors should be invited in to examine how the allegations and resolution were handled. As a group leader, Coun James said he, too, had no hint of what was going on."

Well he would do, as he's vice chair of the Hereford & Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority!

At the other end of the process, some very serious questions need to be asked by councillors about the whole vetting and recruitment process of council staff, because, by crikey, we seem to employ anyone who comes calling, bully or no, and if they're in the upper echelons, no matter how bad their previous form, they'll be handed an £80k salary with perks. If councillors are now publicly acknowledging that the council is run by officers for officers, then they damn well need to get a grip and get it sorted out. 'I know nothing' simply is not acceptable (or believable) - you know it and we know you know it.

Presumably these payments and many others are hidden within the numerous 'redacted' figures in the sometime monthly spend figures?

At the bottom of the scale, a mere £2040 on bottled water … perhaps it was for when the £3.88m lawyers were visiting.

It never ceases to amaze how badly informed councillors are about their own council - Mr Ashcroft is not 'Head of Planning Services' and never has been. At best I think he was an assistant director (albeit with an £80k salary). When last seen he was heading for the naughty step, making way for very expensive consultants brought in to sort out the core strategy his department dismally failed to. Marc Willimont is Head of Development Management and Environmental Health, which is planning and environmental health merged, and has been since the start of the year.

And of course Herefordshire Council staff have undergone CP 'training' in the past, at a cost to us of some £63k, although the Council lied in a FOI response and denied it, despite copies of invoices saying the opposite. The late CEO Chris Bull was a CP 'graduate'.

I returned to check on this yesterday, 10 weeks on from reporting, sad to say it is still there. My formal letter of complaint submitted two weeks ago has not been answered or acknowledged. This is the reality of outsourcing - nobody gives a damn about the service, just take the money. I shall now write to Leader Johnson.

Yes, its shaping up to be a team to take note of - and a big investment as well. Such a shame our roads are in an appalling state - I cycled 40 miles around the County yesterday and I estimate about 4 miles of that was on good new surface. The rest frankly was a disgrace, an embarrassment and a danger, and I was doing half the speed that pro or semi pro cyclists need to do. Its no coincidence that the Tour avoided Herefordshire, looping around the western edge on the Wales side for the best part, where they know how to maintain their investments. Newtown, Abergavenny, Monmouth all benefitted - Hereford didn't.

I guess the bottom line is that no one in public service gets punished for rank stupidity, because, ultimately, no one within the system cares or is responsible. If they're lucky, they'll get promoted! The policy of promoting idiots upwards, out of harms way, has prevailed for decades, except that the idiots now also benefit from massive salaries. If they're unlucky, they'll be encouraged to leave with a massive pay off to keep quiet and a glowing reference to move to the next authority and repeat the same thing all over again. Or, if you've messed up in Children's Service, you get moved to a Headship just down the road ...

Very disappointing stance by Hereford City Council - 'We have no objection in principle and appreciate the need for new Fire Station in Hereford; however, we regret the loss of Bath Street building and think it’s unfortunate to locate the Fire Station on such prominent site in the City.' I think that’s akin to almost sitting on the fence.