twowheelsgood

At last, some common sense spoken. A bridge is never going to happen. It was never in the original scheme and for sure it won't be added as an afterthought. As I've said before, the cost would be huge - £m's - the benefits to the developers marginal at best and it would have to fly over the City Wall, which English Heritage would never allow. The Council lost all control of this site once they handed it over with that ridiculous 250 year lease. Developers only build things that will make them money - the majority of people will arrive and depart in cars - that’s why there is masses of on-site parking. They have no interest in Widemarsh Street or High Town. The connectivity as originally designed was ideal, but is now being compromised by retaining the dual carriageway, due to the Council's inability to progress the link road.

Did they deliver the much delayed letting report? If not, why not?

A 'number of times topic viewed' counter for each topic would be very useful, if this could be added. I know its on the forums page, but I rarely look at that, just jump straight to new content.

Much was made during the selling of this proposal to the masses of 'connectivity' between old and new, with big arrows on drawings to link Eign Gate and Bewell Street with the OLM - and much more as outlined in the 2007 Edgar Street Grid Design Framework Supplementary Planning Document, against which the application should have been determined. Yet, somehow, all we've ended up with is a typically crass highway engineers solution - pedestrian cattle pens to herd pedestrians across a dual carriageway where the subway was, and not much else.

It would need planning permission - given the Council's record of blocking other developments in favour of their own - OLM - I doubt it would be forthcoming. All those fast food joints allocated to the OLM will need every penny to survive.

Bus shelters - I thought these were handled at Deputy Leader level ...

Nominations close tomorrow. I believe the date has yet to be set (but not later than 19 February). www.herefordcitycouncil.gov.uk

The Highways Agency have objected because the illumination level at 600CD/m2 will be in excess of the maximum allowed and will dazzle drivers. Our City Council, bless 'em, have no objection - did they even look at the drawings? Not to late to object - comments close tomorrow - if you can face the horror that is the Council website, start here https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/planningapplicationsearch/details/?id=133004

Ah dippyhippy, patience my friend - they'll be hammered onto the salty walls once the planners have done as they're told and rubber stamped the application. For those not up to speed, Herefordshire Council Planning has a long standing policy, for good reason, of not allowing internally illuminated shop signs and the City looks all the better for it. Debenhams OLM have submitted a planning application for no less than 14 internally illuminated shop signs - most are about 4.2m long, a couple are 6.3m. A couple more are 9m long x 1.3m and there's a real whopper at 14m x 2m - light pollution anyone? As for the dented panels - and mismatched colour as well - there are some good pics of it over on www.facebook.com/esgpics

You'll be lucky getting a response from a Cllr - I doubt if any of them had a clue what they were putting their hands up to - no right minded individual could think the monstrous elevation facing the Tesco roundabout was worth voting for. And its going to get worse - Debenhams are proposing massive illuminated signs - up to 14m x 2m in size, as the crowning glory. The Newmarket pub is a listed building - its shabby and run down because the Council owned it (I assume they've now quietly given it away to Stanhope) and that's how all Council buildings look. Ordinarily, the setting of a listed building should not be compromised, and its an excuse/reason trotted out almost daily by planners to stop development throughout the County. Yet, here, well , you decide … (photo credit to www.facebook.com/esgpics)

Excellent, the toady tories on the back foot and the return of the bizarre love triangle that is b47, Liz and a slab of dough … things are looking up!

John, welcome to the forum and many thanks for this post and the work you and others are doing. I do hope that good things come from it - an initiative by individuals (as a group) carries a deal more credibility in the community than anything the Council might try and foist on us. Key points are that it can be trialled quickly and at next to no cost - as you say, nothing lost if it doesn't work.

Note that the HT report in the printed edition says it will open on Sunday - this is wrong - it it Tuesday. They have now corrected the online version.

Yes this is total bollocks, but it is lifted from the interweb, which is 98% bollocks as we all know, with the rest just made up. To be fair to Biomech, he was quoting it, so not him actually doing the talk. Love the image of labourers carefully scrubbing bricks before they're laid however!

All of those quotes are wrong to a varying extent. Bricks are porous, some more than others. Bricks are delivered shrink wrapped and should be kept dry on site, during and after laying. If they get rained on, for instance, the water evaporates out and takes with it salts which crystallise on the surface. They are harmless, but look dreadful, and can be brushed off. Careful workmanship can avoid the problem almost completely. Depending on how wet the bricks were, it can go on for many months. Fear not however, because Debenhams have applied for permission to plaster the building with 14 internally illuminated signs, the largest of which is 14m x 2m, (30' x 7' for the old 'uns) - that is MASSIVE - and most are 4 to 9m long x 1.5m. This will ensure that the OLM will be visible from space at all times. Herefordshire Council Planning has a long standing policy, for good reason, of not allowing internally illuminated shop signs and the City looks all the better for it. Can we guess which way planning will be told to jump?

Thanks Jim - I've submitted my comments to planning. Let's hope we can get some common sense for a change!

Note that the NFTO team has been set up without the 'lure' of a velodrome. Lets hope that none of them end up in hospital whilst out training on the county's grid of potholes formerly known as roads.

The outline application for this has been submitted - the numbers have been bumped to 'up to 120'. My comments about scrapping the Folly Lane traffic lights still stand, and I hope at least two of the Tupsley Ward councillors will pick up the idea and demand it as part of the planning gain.

Not only Whittern Way, but Pilley Road and Clifton Road is a horrendous rat run now, not to mention all the houses on Ledbury Rd and Folly Lane who are subject to the noise and fumes of 100's of standing cars waiting for the lights to change. I've complained about these lights elsewhere on this site - put there on a whim of one councillor with no consultation, they've blighted 100's of lives ever since. Time to get rid, they do no good for anyone and create issues further into town with long waves of traffic holding up traffic from feeder roads.

I find it staggering, although I'm not surprised, that we've entered into a 10 year £200m contract with a private company, yet councillors do not know even the basic facts of how it will be implemented or what they are expected to do or deliver. The £20m was supposed to have been there on Day 1, yet they've already managed to push it back 8 months. Highways work I've seen so far has been dismal quality, a continuation of the Amey standard, which is not surprising as its largely the same people. Why should we give them a little longer to get organised? They've had 3 months without even telephone lines. It’s a very poor start - is this was what was agreed in the contract? If not, get tough with these people - its our money!

Your animated gif appears to be the continental version, although some Hereford drivers can often be seen doing something similar ...

Three years! Dream on - who writes these ridiculous contracts? Most pothole repairs I see don't last 3 weeks (a recent one in Mill St lasted about 2 weeks, its now back bigger than ever), so they're never going to get on top of it unless they a) start doing it properly and b) start implementing proper planned maintenance instead of waiting until someone complains.

"monitoring the situation" is Council-speak for we can't be bothered to get to grips with the mess we've created, we're off to the next project and hope that everyone gets tired of chasing us to do something. I've heard it a hundred times from Council Officers. They're still "monitoring the situation" they created with the non-sensical traffic lights at the bottom of Foley Lane/Ledbury Road junction, which have blighted all the residents lives for years. Imposed on them on the whim of one councillor, without any consultation, a subsequent meeting with residents, councillors, council officers and MP Keetch, saw the council agreeing to "monitor the situation". They haven't as much as given it a backwards glance since.

04.40am? Good grief are pubs allowed to stay open that late?

According to background info posted today on the Councils very, very slow website, as part of the current 'consultation', looking at borrowing for capital projects, they have borrowed/spent £9.1m on the link road between 2008/9 and 2013/14 inclusive. In addition they state 'Merton Meadow replacement car park – increasing our income - £1m', whatever that means. Other even more alarming costs are Herefordshire Connects – supporting re-organisation £6.6m - what on earth?? Accommodation Strategy – rationalising our office and other accommodation and reducing our on-going costs - £17.9m. Only a public body could spend £17.9m on reducing on-going costs ... I had a grumble about the terrible web site on theCouncil facebook site - they responded by saying 'We have listened to feedback about the design of the website and made some changes this week. In particular it should work better on phones and tablets. We have further changes planned and we would welcome any suggestions of requests. Planning search remains an issue and we are working to improve it by degrees. The council website is not managed by Hoople though Hoople staff do work on the website alongside Council staff.' Frankly, I don't give a monkey's who manages it, but I do expect the damn thing to work, and work well, which it has not done for at least 18 months now. The redesign is appalling - if I thought for a moment they'd take any notice, I'd make helpful suggestions, but tried that before and was ignored.