twowheelsgood

Lack of consistency is the only constant at the Council, except for the consistent blinkered madness around building and/or charging for car-parking. I am confident that no one in the council could give an explanation as to why red or green.

But wasn't the heritage impact assessment prepared by the council? Hardly independent or impartial.

Jim, once the appeal against non-determination is decided - and it will surely be allowed - then you can continue to ensure 106 monies are spent on the things that will matter. Traffic studies for this application indicated an additional 18% load on the Ledbury Road - proof it were needed that those lights need to go! When are councillors going to realise that without an adopted local plan and a five-year land supply we are largely powerless against these edge of settlement applications? Why ignore planning law and officers advice? It only delays the inevitable and costs the council, ie us, punitive costs when we lose the appeal. If they want to make a point, make it by asking Officers why they are so far behind with the core strategy and the five year housing plan (3 years late and counting).

I fail to see what role the Council have or should have in the winding up of a private company - and why they should take on any of its liabilities. I understand even Neill and Johnson didn't take up their seats on the board so the Council has latterly had no direct input anyway - its an investor in a bad investment, it got stung, end of story. Let Futiles goto the wall like any other badly run business. Oh yes, its political I know, but its also our money, and I'd rather see it spent on failing infrastructure or any number of services currently being slashed because of the folly of the OLM.

Yes, its here http://tinyurl.com/pygamjv with one from Jean O'Donnell as well

Don't think for a moment we'll be allowed any say on what it will look like. New fire stations are the latest buildings to fall into the lair of the PFI con - a standard design will simply be plonked down onto Bath Street without any reference to its surroundings or the people of Hereford. Here's one that just landed in Cheltenham.

Here is a clickable link http://tinyurl.com/mhjydmu No, it hasn't been in the HT. There's nothing untoward about the transfer of the land - it secures it as public space, but that said, the Council don't care for that anymore and are trying to offload parcels left, right and centre. There was if I remember more that £1m on the table from the developers to help concentrate the minds of the planning committee, as well as the sport facilities, and it worked, as they disregarded the advice and recommendation to refuse from their planning officers.

Call me old fashioned, but really, this isn't something to make light of - this is exploitation of women in the worst possible way. Good that's its been stopped here, and it doesn't really matter exactly where.

Cheap. The quality materials originally specified such as stone were abandoned because it was claimed they did not wear as well as macadam ...

Why then does IOC CllrLloyd-Hayes (and member of the Fire Authority committee) say in her letter to the HT today, that 'it is early days yet' and 'a public meeting has been agreed'?

No. We have an out of date UDP, and a half written Core Strategy which has not yet been through public examination and is by Council estimates due to come into force in May 2015, but which in reality will be May 2016. Unsurprisingly, it's all a bit of a mucking fuddle, hence multiple planning applications from developers making hay while Ashcroft fiddles. Conservation Area Consent is required for demolition and will not be granted in isolation ie the applicant has to submit in tandem an application showing what will replace the demolished building and the two permissions, if granted are tied. In reality, any application will have to be judged against saved (ie rolled over) UDP policies and the over arching NPPF, which says 'At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking'. Demolishing serviceable buildings cannot and should not be considered sustainable. Work in a conservation area MUST both preserve AND enhance the area.

Oh, the spelling - hypocrisy.

Stay on your bike, just keep your wits about you - it’s a jungle out there.

That's where it all falls apart - increasing numbers of drivers neither know, understand or even care anymore - red light running is so common place and there's no way they'd comprehend a change in the law.

Given that the good John Venn is buried just yards from where you were sorcering, I would say without a shadow of doubt that’s bobby47's report is truthful and that he is JV reincarnate, without the dog collar, and can be found at the communal baths scrubbing anyone's back for a groat.

dippy - HT link here http://tinyurl.com/ppuf7ac

Timber is a crop like any other - it is planted, grown and harvested. In that respect it is renewable and whilst it is growing it is also pumping out oxygen and filtering the air of things like carbon dioxide. Trees do a load of other good things as well and when their time is up, if they're really unlucky, they end up on the side of a supermarket. There are good and bad timbers for cladding - too often the wrong ones are used (often substituted by cheapskate builders or developers from that specified) and they weather badly and look awful very quickly. Lets hope this hasn't happened here.

Came up Widemarsh St this afternoon - there don't appear to be any lights when approaching Blueschool St - hope against hope it stays that way, because it works brilliantly. There are lights controlling traffic which will be able to turn right off Blueschool St into Widemarsh St.

With no political will to get it sorted, nothing will happen. Until the next elections at least.

Ha, ha, seriously - don't bother Mr Ashcroft, you'll just be wasting your time. He's busy earning his £79k salary working on the 3 years late and counting Core Strategy, which we're now told will be adopted in May 2015, unless it all kicks off at the public enquiry (which it will) and just in time for a general election … You could try his boss, Geoff Hughes ghughes@herefordshire.gov.uk or Ward Councillor Hubbard.

Three trees on the LH side of that image plus what is best described as a 'slip of the pen' I would say, which tries to break up the awfulness of the elevation. No cover planting indicated on the true elevations, but happy to be proved wrong. Of course planting needs maintenance, which costs money, which developers don't like spending so ...

Jacobs Court - here's a thing - we're paying for that scaffold! The developer went bust or wound up the business, not sure which, and, shortly after the properties were occupied, investigation revealed that all of the rear structure was unsafe and in danger of panels falling out with risk to life and limb. On public safety grounds, and with no one else to pay for it, Building Control insisted it was shored up and its been there ever since with you and I footing the bill. You may have seen the developer around - he's partial to pottering about in a Ferrari ...

I would imagine the Councillor is bound by confidentiality issues and doesn't want to be hauled before a kangaroo council court as Cllr Hubbard was a while ago. Please don't take an adversarial stance against someone who contributes greatly to both this forum and the real world, it doesn't achieve anything, in my view.

They have the power to do either - the will however is lacking, for who knows why?

Approved drawings show 10 x 'orchard tree' planting along the Edgar St elevation. NO other planting is shown. High level planting is indicated on the elevation to 'Auctioneers Walk'. It is noticeable that all of the artist's impressions of Newmarket Street do not show ANY traffic lights - when in fact we are to have dozens of the damned things.