megilleland Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 I totally buy into the fact that the Fire Station has to be within the high risk area. I also realise that a new, modern, station will have certain inherent features that would never comfortably fit within a conservation area ... I think that the need to put out fires/respond to other Emergencies might well carry this through as a sort of 'exception' to the rules ... In which case a Secretary of State will have to say so.
twowheelsgood Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 I totally buy into the fact that the Fire Station has to be within the high risk area. I also realise that a new, modern, station will have certain inherent features that would never comfortably fit within a conservation area ... I think that the need to put out fires/respond to other Emergencies might well carry this through as a sort of 'exception' to the rules ... Disagree entirely - if you employ an estate agent to design you a building (which is what they have done) you end up with what we were shown - a shed, and an ugly one at that. That is why planning legislation exists - to ensure that the built environment is the best it can be, to everyone's benefit, within established guidelines. This proposal ignores all those guidelines. The present fire station has some considerable architectural merit - so it can be done. The magistrates court is not a bad building at all - there is no reason why that level of design and quality could not front Bath Street. It is a simple brief after all - 4 large garage doors and some office accommodation. That should not restrict in any way a design of quality that will enhance the conservation area coming forward (my emphasis - this is what the legislation demands). That doesn't overcome the training rig issue though ...
dippyhippy Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 Two Wheels, that is extremely interesting - they WOULD be prepared to wait a couple of years for a better site! The bus station, obviously! Ticks all the boxes...if we could just get them to acknowledge that this would be a preferred position......
Aylestone Voice Posted May 14, 2014 Author Report Posted May 14, 2014 It is pretty much as I expected. A dreadful design that solely aims to meet the functional requirements of the brigade. The designer (if you could call them that) has not given one grain of thought to the role the site plays or could play within the city centre/conservation area. Even discounting the qualities of what is there now what is proposed does not enhance the conservation area in its form, its appearance or its materials. It also appears to have a dangerous access. None of this is surprising. All we can hope for is that the planning application is refused.
Cambo Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 Yes they know its not perfect that's why they want you to let them know your views as they will change things before submitting…so maybe a wall of silence is better used here?
Roger Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 I'm against unsympathetic developments of any sort .... But this is virtually opposite the John Haider (John Venn) Building which is pretty rubbish and dated to be honest ...
Cambo Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 Yes roger one poorly designed building is one to many so it shouldn't be allowed to happen again!!
Roger Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 Yes roger one poorly designed building is one to many so it shouldn't be allowed to happen again!! I've been in the John Haider Building many a time ... I think it should be knocked down ... It is really grim ....
Cambo Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 Apologise for multiple post of same thing had a glitch
twowheelsgood Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 It's not listed - the Civic Society tried a few years ago to get it listed to no avail. I rather like it in a perverse way, but the original John Venn name should be reinitiated - Mrs Haider did a terrible disservice to Rev Venn's memory when she renamed it.
twowheelsgood Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 Sorry, that should say 'John Venn name should be reinstated' - memo to self not to post after midnight!
bobby47 Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 Cambo, why did you do that? Four times you did it. You might say, 'look, I made a mistake. It's nothing to kick off about' and some might say, 'he has a point. It ain't the worst thing that can happen'. But, my view is, it ain't on. If this sort of thing goes unchecked then folk can start pressing the button 'willy nilly' and before too long you get others trying to outdo oneanother. And mark my words, they're out there watching out for the repetitive button pressers. For example, as soon as I saw your four time button hit, I thought, 'right, I can beat that, I'll give it five', but then I thought, 'fool you. This reaction can cause a problem that'll only end in some button presser emerging who'll sit there all bloody night posting the same response over and over again.' Its no different to a bloody Arms Race! Well I for one ain't getting dragged into it. Ive got better ways to spend my time and if you think that by pressing your button four times makes you a better button presser than the rest of us, then you've gotta a surprise coming. You ain't dragging me into this game old friend. Never! Stick to the rules. Press the bloody button once and once only and stop upsetting folk like me who get upset about pointless stuff like this.
Cambo Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 Bobby I would like to say I'm sorry! But I'm not I've always wanted to start a war & now I'm on the verge of starting one? which by the way will be know as the great button pushing war! So I'm afraid I've gone to far down the line now to turn-back! it will be like a posting Armageddon the like of which has never been seem before? The carnage will be vast, damaged keyboards will litter the land & A&E will be overrun with people with sore fingers so much so that they will run out of plasters to treat the victims?! But do I care probably not, although I think this war should take place on the Hereford times website to save any innocent bystanders getting caught up in this fool hard & reckless war of the button pushers??!!
Cambo Posted May 16, 2014 Report Posted May 16, 2014 Ok I've done some scaling of the fire station size across the front it measures roughly 45meters across & down the side it's roughly 47meters this may have no bearing but it's interesting to know all the same that is for those who won't to know? Also there are only 4 doors for the engines where as the current one has 5 so they've factored in the cuts to the purposed new station it would seem??
magicroundabout Posted May 20, 2014 Report Posted May 20, 2014 Having been invited to the "public consultation", I had a sneaky peak and questioned the 3 or 4 nicely turned out boys and the 2 fire officers, one being in charge of the fire station, the other the Herefordshire manager. Notes and plans were posted on the walls of the little building. The information was triplicated over the "exhibition" giving the impression the information supplied was more than it actually was. I was told the displayed Graph, showing a "coloured" map of Hereford was indicative of service incident levels combined with risk assessment areas but I personally was unable to see the "key" to the graphs displayed (maybe the key was absent or very small). It was not at all clear what the Graph displayed. I noticed conclusions were drawn from a survey mentioned on these posters and asked to see the survey. I was told this was not available at the "consultation" day but could be accessed on the Hereford and Worcester fire and rescue service website. The "survey" had no title apart from being mentioned on the posters as the" survey" although it was apparently the vehicle used to come to conclusions for the preferred option shown at the open "consultation". This is extremely poor and confirms to me it's a sham "consultation" only as a box ticking exercise. I couldn't find the survey used to make this important decision on the website, but today the Worcester office emailed a redacted copy to me which I will try to post on this thread. It was a strange and "FUNNY" consultation. There being no actual choices given for the consultation to take part on, only the plans and option chosen by "whoever". I questioned the 5 or 6 people present there but they just backed up and pointed out the components of their choice, rather than giving a real choice or any additional useful information. The fire officers said the current station was not fit for purpose and they had been looking for a new site for years. Training was a problem according to them. I know a little about the fire service in Shropshire where the local fire officers went to Shrewsbury regularly for the more specialist training. The officer said if they went elsewhere for training the engine would not be available for emergencies, so training was needed on the site. It made no sense to me at all. In Shropshire the engines regularly went to be serviced etc. and provision elsewhere was made for these times. Pretty poor management if Hereford can't do it. I asked what the local staff (non managerial) opinions were and was told the staff opinions had been taken into account when the plans were being drawn up - there was no evidence to confirm this on show. Do I believe any one apart from higher managers and some council officers were consulted on this little scheme? - NO, I don't! On the subject of the historical significance and local interest in the Boys Home, I was told the building was not rated by heritage groups, inside had been stripped bare of any original features and the person I spoke to scoffed at my questions. Just a couple of days left to lodge an opinion with the fire service and as said above it will probably make no difference to the plans used to apply for planning permission. Hopefully, when it goes to planning application people will have more of a chance to have opinions taken into account.
dippyhippy Posted May 20, 2014 Report Posted May 20, 2014 Excellent post, Magic! Many thanks for posting this, and if you are able to post this redacted "survey" for us all to have a look at, that would be brilliant!
magicroundabout Posted May 20, 2014 Report Posted May 20, 2014 still looking for the way to pop it on!!
magicroundabout Posted May 20, 2014 Report Posted May 20, 2014 This is the "survey" the fire service emailed - is redacted and messy 16 04 14 Hereford Station Feasibility Study - Whole Document (1).pdf
megilleland Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 I have sent the following comment to H&WFR about the above exhibition: Replacement Fire Station Hereford I attended the exhibition to view the proposed plans for a replacement fire station in Hereford. Realising that there may be a need to replace this fire station, I am sure that the plans are fit for purpose to operate as a fire station, but I am concerned that the plans show a design which woud not be out of place on an industrial estate. This design is not suitable for relocation to a site in a conservation area. The lack of information available to the public and ratepayers regarding the process which the Fire Authority and Herefordshire Council have gone through to arrive at this point, give me no confidence that all reasonable efforts to place this fire station in a location which safeguards Hereford's local heritage have been considered. I note that the agenda for the June 2nd Policy and Resources Committee contains no mention of the progress regarding this replacement Fire Station, and can only assume, that the decision to press ahead, regardless of public concern is of no consequence to the Fire Authority and Herefordshire Council.
megilleland Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 Letter in Hereford Times 22nd May 2014 from John Bothamley, Chairman, Hereford Civic Society
dippyhippy Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 Megilleland, is there any possibility you could also post this on The Boys Home Thread?? I think it would be useful to have it there as well.
Recommended Posts