Here you can discuss local issues that are currently effecting you.
SOME FACTS ABOUT THE
HEREFORD WESTERN BYPASS
It won’t solve congestion in the city: Council surveys and data show 80%+ of current traffic is within, or coming into and out of, the city. Much of this is school traffic: far less congestion in half-terms and holidays. Most HGV traffic is also coming into and out of the city and is not through traffic. 6,500 new homes by 2031 will only mean more local traffic: the project consultants (WSP Group) have admitted, in a public meeting, that city traffic will increase even with a bypass.
It won’t be cost-effective: In 2010 a single carriageway road would have cost £175 million. So the dual carriageway, if built, with a 300-metre span high-level viaduct across the Wye would now cost well over £250m. A49 journey times will be reduced by less than 8 minutes. The city’s congestion problems could be solved for a fraction of this cost.
It will destroy special landscape, high-grade farm land and homes: The River Wye is a Special Area of Conservation, the highest European level of protection, and SSSI. Unspoiled Breinton is a vital ‘green lung’ asset and amenity for city residents. Homes are under threat of demolition or major noise and pollution impacts. Grade 1&2 farmland, the setting of Belmont Abbey, ancient woodlands and historic orchards are all under threat.
…and it’s not even a bypass: All 7 routes pass through the planned 1,500 new homes site at Three Elms, and inside the city boundary. Council needs developers’ money to help fund the road, but also expects the new road to become the ‘trunked’ A49 so it can then ‘own’ the current trunk road in the city. But the Dept for Transport does not normally permit a new trunk road through, or next to, housing.
WHAT WE WOULD DO INSTEAD
Solve city congestion with. . .
- Well-funded and reliable public and schools electric bus transport with real time information
- Light tramways (e.g. on the Great Western Way)
- An eastern distributor road (Rotherwas to A438) and river crossing
- Safe and attractive cycle routes
- ‘Park and choose’ facilities
- Apps for local car sharing schemes
- A city-wide 20mph limit
- More mini roundabouts and fewer traffic lightsAll this would. . .
- Cost less than a western bypass
- Reduce pollution
- Improve mental and physical health & well-being
- Be properly sustainable
Preserve the city’s unique ‘on the doorstep’ countryside amenities
IOC wants the city and market town councils to be consulted and involved more locally.
This is what can be achieved when town councils are allowed to work in partnership with their local authorities and healthcare professionals.
We look at an example taken from this weeks guardian entitled “The town that’s found a potent cure for illness – community”
Give us back our car parks and tell us where you’re spending the money.
It’s Our County’s efforts to return Herefordshire Council-owned car parks in the city & market towns to their parish councils and local communities faced strong opposition at the Full Council budget meeting on Friday.
Last minute changes, forced on the local opposition group’s budget amendment, downgraded the original proposal to transfer ownership of the car parks and the £4.5m income they generate each year to their respective parish councils.
The group was left to argue for a funded feasibility study on the principle of such an asset transfer. This gave Conservative and Independent councillors the opportunity to counter that no money was needed to investigate the idea of asset transfers, while at the same time they also refused to support the plans.
The £4.5m of car parks revenue taken annually from the local economies of the city and the market towns disappears into county council coffers and is untraceable. Government rules and the county’s own policies are each clear that car parking revenue must be spent on transport-related services or projects. But repeated questioning from It’s Our County councillors and from members of the public has failed to identify what services are supported by this money, or that these services satisfy the transport-related legal requirements.
“The council’s position on this is surely untenable” said Cllr Liz Harvey, who had proposed the amendment. What is this money being spent on, and how does it benefit the communities delivering it? Large parish councils are under pressure to take on county services; or worse, to watch services being cut by the county without even the option to deliver them locally. It’s outrageous that the county can’t be clear on how the car park income is spent.”
Cllr Marcelle Lloyd-Hayes commented: “Since residents don’t know where this money is spent, let’s give the car parks to the parishes instead: and let the county say how it proposes to spend the money each year. It’s a simple matter of accountability.”
Cllr Alan Seldon stated: “We’ve already done this in Bromyard. Last year Bromyard Town Council took over a charging car park from Herefordshire Council alongside the cost of running Bromyard’s public toilets: so the principle works. Let’s get on with it in the other market towns and the city. It would be unfair not to offer similar arrangements to everyone.”
Group leader Cllr Anthony Powers said: “When the larger parishes have to take on services without an income-generating asset to contribute towards their delivery costs – especially when residents from outside the parish use and enjoy those services too – it’s wrong to expect city and market towns residents to pay the whole cost through their parish precept. We will press to get these car parks back into local ownership, and to have a business-like conversation with Herefordshire Council about where the parking income gets spent.”
Contacts: Cllr Liz Harvey – 07909 753259 Cllr Anthony Powers – 07710 943313
Cllr Alan Seldon – 07766 662272
Notes for Editors: Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by the Traffic Management Act 2004) requires local authorities to “keep an account of their income and expenditure in respect of designated parking places” and that any surplus income ,where there is no need to provide further off-street parking, be spent on (or carried forward to be spent on):
- “meeting costs incurred in the provision or operation of public passenger transport services”
- “the purposes of a highway or road improvement project in the local authority’s area”
- “the purposes of environmental improvement”. [Includes “the reduction of environmental pollution in the local authority’s area, improving or maintaining the appearance or amenity of a road, land in the vicinity of a road, or open land or water to which the general public has access.”