Jump to content

twowheelsgood

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,658

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    125

 Content Type 

Everything posted by twowheelsgood

  1. twowheelsgood
    Councillor Gemma Davies, Saxon Gate Ward, Cabinet Member - Commissioning, Procurement and Assets, no less. To be fair to her, she was arguing the protocol - it was a badly worded motion that suggested a vote for a discussion, not to then enter into the discussion itself at that point. It was poor chairmanship.
  2. twowheelsgood
    Council meeting - well, that's 3 hours of my life I'll never get back - what tedium. Motion debated by some who even admitted to not knowing Hereford, Central Ward councillor didn't speak and it was ultimately withdrawn.
  3. twowheelsgood
    Yes, I was hoping for a mass storming of the Shire Hall by the proletariat, demanding the heads of the 7 on spikes (metaphorically speaking) for this latest omnishambles, but presumably it will be a zoom meeting and the common sense of the masses will not be given a digital voice.
  4. twowheelsgood
    Shades of the infamous traffic reversal scheme!
  5. twowheelsgood
    I'll bet there's a 100 cyclists going the wrong way up St Owen's St for every 1 you'll see on Newmarket St - as AV says, you have to negotiate the Edgar Street roundabout and not many cyclists with a will to live want to do that - I cycle '000's of miles a year, but will go out of my way to avoid it. There's more of this nonsense to come - cycle lanes in both directions on Commercial Road and one on Ledbury Road ('uphill' it says, presumably eastbound). The full horror is listed in the first post. I know everyone's rightly complaining that this is a Council decision, and it is, but it was designed by BBLP, who should be called to account in no short order, likewise the Officers that signed it off.
  6. twowheelsgood
    Or a bus. From discussions with the Central Ward Councillor, it's pretty obvious that BBLP are now running the show - they weren't interested in any input from anyone. The result is that the Govt considered it such a poorly designed proposal they only offered 50% of the £40k claimed. Guess who's paying the rest?
  7. twowheelsgood
    It beggars belief that we now learn the cost for this minor repair is £2.65m - is any of BBLP's work independently audited and if not why not? Are we really getting 'best value'?
  8. twowheelsgood
    Tremendous gesture - I didn't even know this course existed! Where is it?
  9. twowheelsgood
    BBLP really are the pits. So much for the fundamental review of their contract we were promised at the last election by the present Council.
  10. twowheelsgood
    Very disappointed with the latest Council - promised so much but have yet to deliver anything in over 12 months. They appear to be frozen in the headlights, with Officers leading them a merry dance in the background. Let's commission some more reports to avoid any decisions!!
  11. twowheelsgood
    Yes, we've used them a couple of times - first class service.
  12. twowheelsgood
    But ... Cllr Davies is saying 'we have a vision' in the PR fluff piece above. If that isn't the case, why is she saying the contrary? "The fees of the management company will be covered by rental income" - that's either outrageous management fees or pitiful income. Either way, passing it off as one covering the other is hardly presenting a good business case. She's basically saying it doesn't make any money. What about servicing the cost of the capital borrowing? Is that covered by the rental income? Insurance, rates, cleaning, landlords costs etc? I did have high hopes for this Council but sadly, they are shaping up to be no better than previous incumbents - no coincidence the Officers are still the same perhaps? The ones really running the Council it seems, unelected and unaccountable.
  13. twowheelsgood
    I'm seeing quite a lot dumped onto verges and hedges, along with gloves, when I'm out on my bike. Being mostly blue, they are very obvious. People are disgusting for sure.
  14. twowheelsgood
    Completely baffling that there is no provision made in St Owens St for neither contra-flow cycling or widened footpaths for pedestrians. This despite a long standing desire for a cycle contra-flow, three very expensive consultations and detailed designs over decades and a shovel-ready scheme ready to go for the last two years. Perhaps it isn't baffling, just par for the course. It is disappointing though.
  15. twowheelsgood
    The traffic scheme? No point in even commenting on the detail - I've been increasingly disappointed by this Council - I had high hopes that they were a genuine force for good (and I'm sure they thought that too), but, after over a year in office, I'm just not seeing this being delivered. Officers will do what they want to do and whatever helps them climb the greasy pole - public comments are a necessary evil they have to go through, but we all know they are always ignored.
  16. twowheelsgood
    That 'BID' sign outside Left Bank (in the photo) is an absolute eyesore. Affects the setting of a Listed Building? I should say so! We're supposed to be getting rid of pointless street furniture not adding to it (and blocking a good chunk of pavement at the same time).
  17. twowheelsgood
    Stupid moves are Herefordshire Council's stock-in-trade - equally stupid was the closure of the hugely expensive toilets in East Street and Gaol Street - let's have these re-opened as well, especially as they give direct access off the street.
  18. twowheelsgood
    Very badly written press release (no surprise there) - this is NOT free parking for car park users (contradicting the opening para). Read the small print to say this is for "on street pay and display in Hereford". The Cabinet Members words are written to conveniently omit this. Cue lots of outraged letters by car park users who snaffle a penalty. The photo simply reinforces the error - perhaps change this for an on-street one?
  19. twowheelsgood
    Given that the controversial and universally unpopular on-street charges raise only £275k, less manpower and other costs, is there really a case for keeping it, given the huge financial hit the shops have taken because of it, even before the present crisis. Time to scrap it with immediate effect (I know, this Council do nothing immediately, but hey). Also, why are they paying a lease on the Maylords car park when they own the freehold? Some creative accounting?
  20. twowheelsgood
    Rent and rates have reached the level where many businesses simply cannot make any money and so premises stand empty. Supporting information for this application showed no demand for the shop, with rent and rates of £25k. Bridge St is changing from commercial to residential. This proposal is actually half decent in terms of the space it provides, unlike the others listed above.
  21. twowheelsgood
    Ridiculous, but it does show just how addictive junk food is.
  22. twowheelsgood
    I suspect many saw that moaning on forums was ultimately futile - it hasn't changed the Council, for instance, they are still staggeringly inefficient and incompetent. I foolishly thought this latest bunch would be better than the last bunch, but sadly not.
  23. twowheelsgood
    Was it part of the approved planning drawings? If so, it might be worth a question to Planning (and Keepmoat), although there is not usually a time limit to finish a development once it has started.
  24. twowheelsgood
    Yes, it's not there at 17.28pm. Think of all the ad revenue they're losing. Error 503 Backend fetch failed Backend fetch failed Guru Meditation: XID: 355795525 Varnish cache server
  25. twowheelsgood
    I'm not sure which is more alarming - the sight of Boris at his press call yesterday looking like a terrified rabbit caught in the headlights or our Council taking charge if things get really bad. Remind me, where is the Council nuclear bunker that they'll all be scurrying down into?
×
×
  • Create New...