twowheelsgood

Don't see this working in Herefordshire. Councils have to bid to set up new housing zones across the country. There are hopes this scheme will help build up to 200,000 new homes. To receive funding, councils need to consult on a local development order on the land. We've got lots of very small parcels of brownfield land - petrol stations for instance - but none that would merit a 'housing zone' - I guess that is aimed at huge abandoned industrial complexes, such as Longworth was. If the Inco Alloys site ever fell empty, that would probably qualify. But what would these zones achieve that the planning system doesn't already? Unsurprisingly, the government's announcement doesn't say. If it means Council's push developers to brownfield sites and refuse greenfield sites, their Section 106 income stream will plummet, and they won't like that. Remember, our Council think they can build an entire bypass from developer contributions from allowing building on greenfield, grade 1 agricultural land ... What is really needed is not yet more hand outs to Councils to waste on meetings, but tax breaks and incentives directly to the developers willing to take on these sites. On-costs on contaminated sites are both massive and time consuming to deal with. The whole VAT issue on construction is a complete mess - this is what the government should be looking at. Take it off works to existing buildings (extensions, listed buildings, conversion to dwellings) and put it on new houses, which themselves could then be exempt if on a brownfield site. Mmm, not that hard to work that one up ...

You would have thought that a well-known (to whom? Not me) global brand (really? Like Nike for instance?) would be able to type the correct web address for its sister company www.herefordshirerrecruitment.co.uk. Perhaps they're too busy 'adding value' and the such like to bother with the basics. Big mistake.

The West Mercia local area boundaries are bonkers - it splits Hereford City Northside and Southside - but south side covers some of the north and vice-versa and St James is covered by both! How is Joe Public supposed to know who to call - if there's an affray in Nelson St, for instance, it could be north or south, depending on which side of the road! And what if they cross over before the Police arrive?

Do the minimum, badly, seems to be BB's maxim. I wonder how much damage the roots have done to the drains below - judging by the weeds vigorous growth I suspect they broke into the drains and have wreaked havoc. I bet no one bothered to lift that inspection cover.

This is current advice relative to green wheelie bins - it doesn't relate to the forthcoming black wheelie bins, where you will indeed be able to stuff them full of black bagged rubbish. It is confusing though, but confusion is something that the council excel at.

Saw a Police Officer and a CSO riding bikes together down Central Avenue today - said hello as I was so surprised to see them out and about!

Wow - in the particulars is a link to a site where someone has put together a fantastic history of this property and the occupiers. It's here - http://www.jlb2011.co.uk/specials/index.htm

Cute little Mexican midget … yeah, I saw one of those talking to the fisherman down by the Wye one day ...

David Bennett, CE of Sanctuary (our 'preferred partner' for housing within the ESG and a 'not for profit social enterprise') picked up £308k in 2012/13, up from £287k the previous year.

I've said before that it is well within the Council's remit to rectify this situation - they have the legal obligation to protect listed buildings. They have the right to either implement the work and recharge it to the owners or to compulsorily purchase the site, do the work and then sell on when complete - another council has done just this and made a profit to put back into the coffers. That our council won't do either, indeed consider the matter 'resolved' is a disgrace and merely reinforces their contempt for High Town and the people of Hereford. They dance only to the tune of the money men. They will have to account for this next May. Oh, and that 'statement' issued last June was June 2013 by the way, 14 months ago ...

Just had a holiday in Gwynedd - guess what - their fortnightly collections are to be extended to every three weeks. I fully expect Herefordshire Council to follow on with that in due course. I also noted in the local press that Gwynedd Council spent £118k in the last year replacing broken, stolen or lost bins - has this been factored into our councils alleged 'savings' this scheme will bring?

Local Authorities should be doing this anyway - it's part of the statutory requirement for a 5 year housing plan. Herefordshire Council doesn't have one (yet). They do have lots of highly paid planning officers responsible for failing to produce one in a timely manner. In addition, they are now paying expensive consultants to do the work the highly paid officers have failed to do, whilst the highly paid officers continue in their highly paid jobs. In the meantime, developers are grabbing greenfield sites and there is nothing we can do.

Of course, what Johnson & Co really want is for the HT to read like the risible 'Herefordshire Munters' that we were forced to pay for, until it was laughed out of town. That is never going to happen, and Bill Tanner's reports seem to me to be very balanced - they're just reporting the facts, albeit ones which take some digging to find, but facts nonetheless, and ones which I am sure are checked by the HT's lawyers before going to press. Keep it up Bill - they don't like it up 'em.

Do we even have CSO's any more? I know they generally came in for a lot of stick, but we built a good relationship with the ones covering St James and Bartonsham and they sorted out a number of longstanding issues (under age drinking, anti-social behaviour etc) in a professional manner.

40% for me in Central Ward - in my defence it does cover the City Centre, which does skew the number of dwellings, but I should have done better ...

Why would you want to eat any later?

That junction at present is at something like 95% capacity, the proposal would push it to 105%. Their highways consultant spun it every which way in their report - by changing the timing of the lights to allow pedestrians to cross every third change - like schoolkids are going to wait THAT long - they maintained there would be no change. On that basis, the council's highway officer said it'll be all absolutely fine and dandy. I know Jim was on the case for the previous application, so lets hope his common sense can get these damned things changed/removed with planning obligation monies.

In a similar vein, Balfour Beatty are consulted by Planning about Highway and associated matters - with clearly no skill base of their own, BB subcontract the questions to Parsons Brinckerhoff, a 'global consulting firm' and one of the most expensive infrastruture consultants in the UK, to which BB add 20% mark up - again, how much money is this saving or, rather, costing us? Conservatively, I would guess the operation as a whole must come in at about 50% more than if it was done in-house. Well done councillors, you've really shafted us with this one.

Because it conveniently wipes out the open market value of the site. It is then compulsorily purchased for peanuts and passed to, or just bought by, a 'preferred partner' such as a Housing Association, who build rental and a proportion of of open market housing, sold at huge profit because of next to nothing land cost - bonuses and new cars all round for the management structure. The management car park at Sanctuary headquarters is a sea of expensive German cars I'm told.

We did, it seems to have gone, like others.

It will have been (or should have been) a condition on the planning permission that site management details, inc vehicle parking, were submitted - if these are not being adhered to, it is an enforcement issue by the Council.

All of the 'historic core' of the City now has a 20mph limit, as well as all of St James & Bartonsham - drivers take not a blind bit of notice, many seeing it as their right to drive as fast as they want to at any time and s-d anyone else. Some of the worst offenders are mums on the 4x 4 school run through St James to and from Cathedral School.

dippy - your memory is functioning well - the east route is the only sensible and logical solution to encourage more business into the city. Without business the city is doomed. It is also substantially shorter and cheaper. Jesse has gone into it in some detail. That the council have already discounted the east route will be their undoing at the core strategy public enquiry, methinks. They are putting all their cards on builders being cash cows - a dangerous and uncertain game to play - certainly one they lost at the OLM. With thousands more houses, the city will simply choke to death.

dippy - my thoughts exactly! Madness to be spending millions at Plough Lane for Hoopla to luxuriate in and to then pay rent for office space elsewhere! Here's a thought - there is an empty building on Bath Street the council own and which owes them nothing - why not use that free of charge??!! The rent they will be paying could be invested into the building - too simple? I don't know who is in charge of their building strategy but some serious questions need asking by councillors as to what is going on - but then there are lots of questions need asking, but are not. Hoople are in Plough Lane, Franklin Barnes and the old Thorn offices at Rotherwas - all council owned buildings - that should be generating a sizable rental income. As we've said and asked before - are they paying the market rate?

It was only in September of last year that the Council restructured, and yet they're off again playing musical chairs. Was there a power struggle between Geoff Hughes and Mr Norman, who won and now has his own directorate (and presumably yet more money)? Even their own web site can't keep up with it - so much for transparency … https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/government-citizens-and-rights/democracy/transparency-senior-management-salaries-and-roles