Dear Tenbury Town Council...

On monday 26th September at 7pm in Tenbury's Pump Rooms Tenbury Town Council will debate whether to offer-up their support to the latest Tesco superstore plan on the cattle market site in the town. Tenbury Futures and a number of individuals have submitted a paper for the Councillors and Lady Mayor to consider during the session. The text from this paper is copied below. We'd urge any locals who share our concerns about Tesco supermarket development on the cattle market to come along on the night to offer up support to the many 100's who have already objected to this latest plan. Their concerns must not be swept under the carpet by either town, district or county councils..

[Paper reads]

FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF TENBURY TOWN COUNCIL, Fri, 23rd Sept, 2011
Tenbury Futures has clearly already explained its objections to the latest Tesco planning application with a widely-used pro forma planning objection letter. This letter has [and still is] being used by 100’s of people from across the local community – both parents with young families, residents and businesses from the town and adjacent settlements as well as many of the elderly in the community. We do however feel the need to additionally alert the Town Council to a number of other commonly voiced concerns about Tesco and their mode of business.

1.    Supporters of the Tesco application say that the RBB building should be demolished as it is not worthy of retention. 
This is totally contrary to English Heritage’s views (and they presumably can be seen as knowing something about historic buildings), where they say that the RBB building contributes ‘positively to the character and appearance of the Tenbury Wells Conservation Area and that it should be retained’. In addition, the building is still in good order and could provide a new bespoke site to house a larger, more accessible Tenbury Museum via Heritage Lottery funded re-development.

2.    Those in favour of the application state that it will open up the previously hidden river frontage.
Again, English Heritage has specifically stated that the existing riverside frontage should remain intact and untouched. In fact English Heritage go so far as to reject the apparent widening of an opening celebrated in the new proposals – ie. the very issue that Tesco’s supporters believe is a benefit.

3.    Tesco is said by its supporters to be offering one hundred free parking spaces.  
This is illusory: the spaces are already there and in use on the site. In reality the development offers no extra spaces and – worse – the spaces that are currently free all day will in future be restricted to two hours use. The true figure is then further reduced with Tesco staff using some of these spaces as well as the multiple existing on street spaces that Tesco wish to remove from in front of the Spar building on Teme St.

4.    We are told that Tesco will bring back shoppers who currently go out of town. 
There is no doubt that those who shop out of town may be drawn to the new store. Inevitably though, those who currently support the town’s existing traders will use it as well – meaning a loss of trade to those local businesses.

In its financial forecasts Tesco estimate a weekly income of £280,000. This simply cannot derive from the few more retained shoppers that Tesco believe they will attract back. The clear majority of this figure has to come from the tills of independent high street shops of the town – most of which the Tesco store will now compete directly with for custom. Unfortunately though few of the local shops have Tesco’s buying-power and as such will not be able to compete on a level playing field.

Both the Conservative Think-Tank 'ResPublica' run by Philip Blond and Labour Leader Ed Miliband have expressed concerns over the 'Tesco-isation' of our highstreets, ResPublica says:

"The rise of these vast supermarkets, with the infrastructure needed to sustain them, a bias in the planning system and their enormous purchasing power has crowded out competition. These developments have made it impossible for small retailers to grow. We now have a situation where it is unimaginable that a small family-owned shop could grow into a retailing powerhouse like Tesco, or Sainsbury."
More on ResPublica can be found in the Guardian article 'Ed Miliband Backs Greater Voice for Locals on Spread of Supermarkets', 1 May, 2011

As with Tesco Ludlow, any large supermarket on the Cattle Market site will act as a ‘one stop shop’ which will start to polarize trade in the town to the Teme Bridge end. Once shoppers at Tesco Ludlow have bought all of their groceries, loaded them into their cars and eyed the limited remaining time left in their parking allotment the majority opt to get their goods home to fridges and freezers as quick as possible. Leaving chilled goods and groceries in their car and wandering-off up into town then becomes a very unlikely scenario. This scenario can only be replicated if a supermarket of this size is allowed to be built in Tenbury – independent town shops already unable to compete are unlikely to see much if any associated trade.

Margaret Edwards, of EJ Poyners in Broad Street, said: “... are terrible now. The trade is just finished up this [non Tesco] end of the town.”
Details on trade polarizing to the Tesco/Aldi end of Ludlow and independent retailers losing profits up town can be found in the Shropshire Star Article: “Town Suffering as Trade Evaporates”, Thu 13th May, 2010.

 Tesco is not a Tenbury business: it provides mainly unskilled low-paid jobs, and takes its profits out of the area. Whereas money spent with independent shops circulates within the local economy up to three times longer than when it’s spent with national chains, research by the New Economics Foundation has shown [Quote below].

"This means that every £1 spent with a local supplier is worth £1.76 to the local economy, and only 36 pence if it is spent out of the area. That makes £1 spent locally [in independent shops] worth almost 400 per cent more."   
Sourced from: "Buying local worth 400 per cent more", 7 Mar, 2005 

 We can find many references to Tesco moving in to small towns and their high streets declining [sometimes swiftly] but we could only really find the one reference that suggested Tesco had ‘improved’ a town and this was in Beverley – strangely enough quoted from ex Tesco boss Sir Terry Leahy. However scratch the surface and the town’s locals tell a different story:

 “Beverley didn't need Tesco, it was already a prosperous town. Tesco came to plunder not regenerate. They came to take money out of the economy of an already thriving and wealthy market town.”
Richard Wilson, retired lecturer and Beverley resident [taken from ‘Checkout Chuckout’ – Corporate Watch, 2006].

In this area you only need to look at Llandrindod Wells which is a larger market town with a wider range of shops. No-one there bothered to object when Tesco submitted plans for a supermarket – they all thought that it would ‘benefit’ the town. Within just a few months though the local traders realized their mistake culminating in emergency meetings of their Chamber of Trade trying to address the sharp downturn in both profits and footfall. One local trader and member of their chamber related the story as follows:

 "In the first 3 months they [Tesco] have devastated the local high street to the tune of a 35% to 64% downturn... They are actively targeting the local Boots store [35% to 40% down] and the local Co-Op [formerly Somerfield 65% down]. Most other retail businesses are experiencing between 15% and 30% decline... some 4 months after Tesco opening. The biggest problem has been the reduction in footfall, people are using Tesco as a one-stop shop and not walking or even driving into the old town centre..."
Further details can be found on this story in the Rhyll Journal article of 15th Oct 2010 “Traders Hold Crisis Talks as Tesco Hits Sales”.

5.    It is claimed that the development will enhance the street scene – although this claim is without support.
In fact English Heritage specifically states that the development will have a detrimental effect on the character and distinctiveness of Tenbury Wells’ historic environment.

With the town’s constant desire to try to increase its tourism draw and related incomes from this sector - surely the town council ignores this advice at its peril?

6.     Supporters of Tesco claim that it will provide healthy competition. 
There can be no rational person who believes that a multinational giant that is famous for its maltreatment of suppliers and that has been proven to operate predatory pricing is healthy competition for family-owned shops. What small enterprise is there that chooses to set up next to a Tesco?
 
If the application is accepted, the supermarket’s aggressive discounting capabilities will soon start to affect local shops and supply chains in Tenbury. It won’t just be the shops that suffer but their network of local suppliers who will also start to lose out. Indeed Tesco has a very poor record on stocking local foods and simply just couldn’t offer-up local Tenbury apples from the supplier in the same valley as independent grocery shops could in the town. In fact, due to Tesco’s huge central distribution network, if they wished to stock Tenbury or Teme Valley apples the journey of these apples would be as follows:


1.    Road transport from Teme Valley to UK port on the east coast.
2.    Transport by ship to Eastern Europe where they will be cleaned and packaged + misc transport by road on the continent.
3.    Transport back to the UK again by ship.
4.    Road transport to Coventry distribution hub.
5.    Road transport to cold storage at Avonmouth.


Only after travelling the final 80 miles from Avonmouth to Tenbury will these Teme Valley apples be ready to sit on a Tenbury Tesco shelf. Those apples will have travelled 1000’s of miles when they could have been brought from around the corner. This is food miles gone mad and a PR disaster for Tesco when the unsustainable methods they use are exposed yet again.

Further details on Tesco’s poor record on food miles can be found in articles: "From here to eternity: 340-mile journey for clotted cream made two miles away". Guardian, 3rd Sep 2010 and "Tesco criticised for selling Peruvian asparagus in British home of the vegetable". Daily Telegraph, 11th May, 2010.

7.    Tesco’s supporters have put forward the widening of the bridge as being a reason to accept the development.
In fact there is to be no widening – which presumably means that this is a reason for the application to be rejected. WCC said in their public meeting at the High School that they have their ‘hands tied’ by English Heritage whose duty it is to police the bridge in accordance with its status as a unique Scheduled Ancient Monument. 

We’ve all seen lorries and buses mounting pavements to get around the bend with just one car coming the other direction. This situation just gets amplified at peak times – times that will become much more frequent with the increase in road users and HGV traffic if Tesco are allowed to build on the Cattle Market site. The bridge can’t be improved – it is beyond help. Do not condemn the townspeople to traffic misery by inviting in Tesco and their massive potential traffic increases.

8.    Supporters of the development also state that Tesco is to contribute to the public realm works. 
To date Tesco has made no such statement – and the simple hope that it might contribute money is just that – simple hope.

In this context, Planning Gain = Legitimate Bribery 

For more information on Tesco and the pressure they levy on local council planning services and 'planning gain' please see the Corporate Watch article "Checkout Chuckout: Tesco and the planning system".

9.    Supporters of the development claim that the store is an ‘eco development’. 
On analysis this PR claim clearly doesn’t ring true either. Commercial use of sustainable technologies such as Solar PV, Solar Water Heating, Wind Power, Ground Source Heat Pumps, Heat Exchangers, and Wood Chip Boilers utilising chipped waste or quick growing woods is now widespread in large developments. 

The furniture superstore Ikea runs 52 wind turbines in France and Germany, is presently building a wind farm to power 17 new Swedish stores and has an end goal of running their stores on 100% renewable energy. In contrast, Tesco’s proposal that they use ‘glass and wood’ on this build -utilising the simplest renewable technology, that of ‘solar gain’ - and that this will supposedly constitute an ‘eco build’ is both an example of gross tokenism, PR gloss as well as Tescos’ arrogance. Their plans are about as 'eco' as a Saudi Prince's personal fleet of Hummers.

Ref: http://inhabitat.com/ikea-building-its-own-personal-wind-farm-to-power-17-swedish-stores/

We urge Tenbury Town Council to reject the advances of Tesco in the town and so help safeguard the independent shops in the town’s high street – especially in this time of difficult trading. We also urge you to consider the massive increases in both traffic and congestion that this development will generate now that the Teme Bridge is to remain in its current format. Surely the cattle market site should be sensitively and sustainably developed so that it provides a benefit right across the community and helps with the town's tourism draw? The Future is in your hands.

On behalf of the Tenbury Futures Group.