Tenbury's Last Chance...

Dear Planning Committee Members,

You have a critically important decision to make on
7th March.

Just over a year ago, after a long and careful discussion, your committee refused permission for a large supermarket to be built on the cattle market site in Tenbury. You have now been asked to change that decision: please, please don’t. There have been no real changes to the application and the decision should be the same – a refusal. 

To do otherwise, would be inconsistent and unjustified. We are very lucky to have a diverse and vital high street in Tenbury; but make no mistake, it is very fragile and would not survive the effects of a large supermarket being built in the town.

• The current bridge closure, a minor event in comparison, has cost traders up to 50% of their turnover during the closure.

• Your own local plan says that we need only 18 sq M of additional food retail space – the application is for nearly 80 times that amount – far more than all of the current food retail space in Tenbury

• The Council for the Protection of Rural England has concluded that “it will have a strong adverse impact on the traders in the town and duplicate services offered”.

In these difficult times jobs are precious and any jobs lost are difficult, if not impossible, to replace.

• The British Retail Planning Forum, which is financed by the supermarkets themselves, has found that every time a large supermarket opens, on average, 276 jobs are lost.

• These figures suggest that if the development goes ahead we will lose about 100 jobs in Tenbury – that is a net loss of about 100 jobs.

The development will have a catastrophic effect on the conservation area and the historical setting.

• This committee thought so last year and refused permission

• The council’s own Conservation Officer describes it as a “large, single span, semi- industrial building” that will “certainly impact upon the Conservation Area”.

• English Heritage recommend that permission be refused

• The Council for British Archaeology is against the development

• The Civic Society has said, a “supermarket of this size ……. cannot be made to fit visually in a historic setting, particularly as this proposal requires the demolition of an important historic building”

• The Victorian Society is against the demolition of the Old Infirmary and so against the development


• Your own planning officers say that it would be “regrettable” to demolish the RBB building for this development – avoid those regrets and refuse permission, we will never be able to get it back

There are many other concerns...

• There are many, very real concerns about safety on the roads and pavements around the development – there has been an accident on the site in the last few weeks involving a car and a supermarket lorry

• A recent traffic survey has shown that more than 1,600 traffic movements already take place between 5pm and 7pm at this end of Teme Street

• The development does not provide anything like enough parking – the proposal is well below the national minimum standards


• There is not even room for a trolley to be placed behind a shopper's car whilst the shopping is being loaded into the car’s boot without impeding the traffic on the proposed access road

• There is no answer to how the bridge, a scheduled ancient monument, will cope with the extra traffic (estimated at up to 2,000 crossings per day by cars and many more by large delivery lorries) – when it fails to cope, as it frequently must, Tenbury will be regularly gridlocked

• Have no doubt about the strength of feeling in and around Tenbury. There have been many hundreds of written objections and only a handful of letters in support of this unnecessary and damaging development.

And finally...

Tesco has no interest in or understanding of Tenbury as a place in its own right, and, it would seem, has little respect for our local authorities.

Please refuse permission for this wholly unnecessary development that would do so much damage, in so many ways, to Tenbury. Make no mistake, the damage would be permanent.

The future vitality of the town's highstreet is in your hands. It is your decision.

Tenbury Town Council Rejects Tesco Plans [Again]

A delighted public gallery rang with applause on monday night after Tenbury Town Council voted to reject Tesco's superstore plans for the town's cattle market site [again]. In addition, the Town Council revealed the results of a recent 'local businesses' survey related to the Tesco plans.

Tesco Rejection.
The Council voted to reject Tesco's latest plans after a vote of Councilors ended at 5-4 against the plans. There were mixed opinions voiced from the Councilors on the Tesco issue during debate with some citing the local business survey which appeared to show a majority support for a Tesco. One Councillor, an architect by trade, argued that the consequences of additional traffic from a store of the proposed size would cause substantial traffic congestion around the entrance to the site and the site itself - which would have clearances of only 50cm when Tesco delivery HGVs drove through the store's car park. Another Councilor countered that deliveries would only happen between key time windows. Sadly though, we know from the experiences of many staff at Tesco Ludlow that these delivery windows are routinely flouted by both Tesco and their 3rd party HGV deliveries. Also mentioned was that the bridge would now remain in it's present format so existing Teme bridge queues would be exacerbated substantially too by potential store traffic and deliveries.

Feedback from the local community on the decision.
The decision by Tenbury Town Council was commended by many locals in later correspondence with our group. Examples of these include:

"Fantastic news – well done!" from Mrs H, Nash, Tenbury Wells.

"Was a pleasure to be there yesterday evening and see democracy in action.  I had little experience of how these things work. Yes for sure the size is way over what is needed in tenbury and my main argument has always been why can't we get a sensible scaled down tender from a different superstore (eg, Sainsburys or Waitrose)..?" Brigid O'Hea-Eakins.

"Just wanted you to know how thrilled and delighted I am after reading your email. I know just how strongly you all feel about the 'Tesco issue' as my sister and nephew... live and work in Tenbury and it means so much to them to keep Tenbury unspoilt and the delightful place that it is." Gail Cooke.

"This is a good result. I was interested at the meeting in the Mary Portas comment - when people were asked to describe their ideal small town they basically described Tenbury! Sometimes people don't recognise what they've got until they lose it - at which point it is too late and there is no going back." Mrs Averil Opperman

"Tenbury Town Council have clearly realised the scale of the threat from Tesco to the town's independent shops. I'm pleased that they've made an informed and considered decision on this issue..". Mrs S, mother with young family, Tenbury Wells.

Local Businesses Survey.

Regarding the local business vote, there has been much subsequent discussion about whether it accurately reflects the views of general businesses or local shopkeepers. If you were to think about how many shopkeepers there are - numbering in the region of 35, and focussed a poll just on them we believe that the results would have been very different and either much nearer a 50/50 vote or possibly majority against the Tesco plans. Consider too that the shopkeepers in the main feel directly threatened by Tesco and their plans as opposed to many of the other businesses such as the vets, the dentist and the pubs who won't feel the same threat to their livelyhoods from the plans. This was very much a perspective reflected by Clr Eric Hudson who claimed that the poll didn't really reflect the views of the local shops.

Kibbler's Cobblers.

Having attended the TTC meet on monday 26th Sept ourselves, we have to take issue with Adrian Kibbler's 29th September Tenbury Wells Advertiser account of the proceedings in which he claims that the Lady Mayor 'told the audience ...to be quiet'. We don't recall this at all, the mayor may have reminded all at the start that the audience couldn't speak as this was an extraordinary meeting but we recall no such overt reprimands once the meeting was underway.

Intimidation?

The Tenbury Advertiser's thu Sept 29th article seems to centre on alleged 'intimidation' towards Councilors. If you read it through though - there is no actual evidence or details of 'intimidation' discussed, it's purely only suggested or implied. In reality no one in that audience either: ran up to a Councilor during session and physically or verbally heckled them, stood over them while they voted in a secret ballot or cornered them outside the meet before the vote [or anything of that nature].. Indeed if anyone had acted in such a manner they would have been ejected from the chamber - but no-one was.

Instead of the so-called 'intimidation' splashed across the Advertiser's front page, the audience merely clapped after Clrs pointed-out concerns about the plan themselves followed by clapping and cheers towards the meet's end when it became clear the the secret ballot was against Tesco's plans. Hardly the 'intimidation' as painted by the Advertiser.

It strikes us that these claims are just tabloid creative writing though to try and beef-up a thinly-veiled pro Tesco article masquerading as (supposedly) impartial journalism.

And finally.

We'll end on the view of another Councilor who passionately aired his worries towards the end of the meet and said:

"...if they [Tesco] come here then it'll cripple this town".

Please Object to The Latest Tesco Supermarket Plan

OR WELCOME IN...

• Closures of highstreet shops and businesses & overall loss of local jobs*. [* National Retailer Planning Forum [NRPF] 1998 study].

• Massive increases in local traffic congestion in the highstreet & on the old Teme bridge. Over 2000 additional journeys per day (with HGV deliveries to store and potential home van deliveries on top of this number)**. [** Based on Tesco’s latest published retail and traffic figures].

• Parking chaos as present town parking levels are reduced & existing Teme St parking is removed by Tesco***. [*** 150 parking spaces required for a development of this size, Tesco claim they will put in 100 spaces which is already well short of the required number, then they wish to remove Spar's parking spaces off Teme St. This results in less than 100 spaces associated with the development].

PLEASE VOICE YOUR PLANNING OBJECTION..

Want to object against the new Tesco application but don’t understand all the planning criteria and wording? If ‘yes’ then get our pre-formatted objection letter for free:

1. You can then change it and add your own additional comments or just print, add your address to it.






Which you can download and print/sign if you'd prefer.









• Letter Return by Post to:

Ms R Kirby
Planning Services
Malvern Hills District Council
Council House
Avenue Road
Malvern
Worcs WR14 3AF

or

• Letter Return in Tenbury: Please drop your signed and addressed letter back into one of the following shops in Tenbury:

Bowketts, Spar, or the Little Sweetshop

or

2. Pick Up a Pre-Printed Letter. Alternatively, you can pick up a pre-printed letter from one of the following shops in Tenbury:

Bowketts, Spar, or the Little Sweetshop

3. Sign & Address It. All you then need do is sign and address your letter [you can add to the MS Word file if you wish to before printing out].

4. Letter Drop Off. Then just drop off your signed and addressed objection letter into one of the shops mentioned [above] by 12 Midday Mon 5th September.

5. We’ll do the rest!

In Response to Worcestershire County Council - Tenbury Bridge Refurbishment

View 01

View 02

Proposed New Bridge - Views:
[Click each to enlarge]

Clr Pollock and WCC have issued a statement that responds to Tenbury Futures' suggestions for an additional new, modern alternate bridge which would help secure the town's vitality well into the future... Having given consideration to this our response as a group reads as follows:

Much speculation is developing about the prospect for a new second bridge for Tenbury, apparently to save a million pounds expenditure on restoring the existing bridge. However, there are a number of key considerations that bring a reality to the approach being proposed by the County Council.

The key reason for a new bridge is simply that Tenbury needs a bridge that is fit for 21st Century conditions; a bridge that is wide enough and straight enough for today's traffic, allowing two trucks to pass without driving on the pavement, causing traffic chaos and endangering pedestrians. A second bridge would obviate the need to strengthen the existing bridge, avoid needless interference with a Scheduled Ancient Monument and allow some funds to be transferred to the new bridge programme - although this saving is not the key factor.

Worcestershire County Council as custodian of a Scheduled Monument is obliged to keep the structure in good order and along with other structures included Teme Bridge in the five year major maintenance programme of strategic river crossings which will be drawing to a close next year.

It is one thing '"to keep the structure in good order", it is a different matter to alter a Scheduled Ancient Monument so that thousands of heavy lorries can pour across it each year.

Furthermore, as Highway Authority the County Council is bound by the national code of practice for the management of highway structures and compliance therewith ensures that important infrastructure remains available and safe to use.

Tenbury Futures has never proposed that highway infrastructure should be unavailable or unsafe. It is the Council that is proposing to make the bridge unavailable while strengthening it for 44 tonne trucks – and it is the Council that is proposing removing one of the footways, forcing pedestrians to cross moving traffic. Proposals for a new bridge will ensure that the County Council abide by the national code of practice – as opposed to making do with the current bridge where the safety of pedestrians is endangered.

County Councillor Ken Pollock – Local Member for Tenbury said; "Refurbishing the existing bridge is not only an obligation, in terms of both heritage and good housekeeping, but is also the most cost effective and will give the best return on expenditure in these difficult financial times"

Can Cllr Pollock provide evidence that the Council's plan is, overall, the most cost-effective? How much trade would Tenbury lose while the bridge is closed? Driving round the diversion routes would add a substantial mileage and every mile costs money. What is the Council's proposed total cost to people and businesses affected by the closure: not just loss of business and extra mileage, but also including a reasonable allowance for the extra time and extra accidents?

Knightwick and Stanford Bridges, both of which have been bypassed were literally single lane roads. Engineers are looking to ease the pinch-point at Tenbury as part of the refurbishment which will improve traffic flows."

For large trucks the Teme Bridge is effectively a single lane road. When two large trucks pass, one or both drives on the pavement. This is unsafe and unacceptable. If the Council is improving traffic flows elsewhere in Tenbury, a new bridge will become even more appropriate.

The concern about the proposed temporary closure of the existing bridge to vehicular traffic at the start of 2012 and the effect that this might have on the businesses in the town is recognised by the County Council who are working hard to put measures in place to keep the town as vibrant as it can throughout the essential works. There will always be access for disability scooters, pedestrians, and cyclists throughout the works.

We do not believe that it will be possible to keep Tenbury vibrant while Teme Bridge is closed. Will the Council please provide details of the measures it will introduce to keep the town vibrant – and the costs involved (for use in comparing the overall costs of building a new bridge against repairing the old one).

Richard Attwood – Worcestershire's Engineering Project Manager said; "We are working hard to ensure that the essential repairs to the bridge are undertaken in the most efficient way possible to reduce the impact on the town. The invasive structural investigations undertaken in May this year have provided valuable data from the fabric of the bridge which is being used to design the refurbishment.

The bridge works are not mere "essential repairs". The works are partly to strengthen the bridge, to make it able to bear 44 tonne trucks on an ongoing basis. We do not think 44 tonne trucks should be encouraged to drive over a Scheduled Ancient Monument – and we note that no reference of the views of English Heritage on the matter have been sought by the Council.

The costs of providing a second bridge need to be put into perspective and refurbishment costs will pale into relative insignificance when the cost of a new construction over a river enjoying SSSI [Site of Special Scientific Interest] status and land purchase costs are taken into account.

The costs of a new bridge do need to be put in perspective; that is to say, they need to be compared to other major capital projects in Worcestershire. A new bridge would cost more than the planned work on Teme Bridge, but a 'solution' should not be selected simply because it is the cheapest. The Council's plan would not provide Tenbury with a bridge that is fit for today's traffic; Futures' plan would. As Mr Attwood knows, our cost investigation specifically used the example of a recently-constructed bridge across a river that is an SSSI. Mr Attwood has been provided with the costs of a comparable bridge; we challenge him to disclose the overall costs of the proposed work on the existing bridge so that the public can decide which is the cheaper option overall.

The diagrammatic plan accompanying the Tenbury Futures proposals is simply that and it is unlikely that highway standards could be achieved without the demolition of at least one building to provide an acceptable junction with Teme Street.

The launderette is not shown on the visualisation because the proposal allows for its demolition, providing an easy turn and wide clearance, for traffic to flow from the existing Teme Street onto the link route to the new bridge. We are concerned that Mr Attwood may have dismissed the details of the proposal without even understanding it.

The cost of the bridge and the approaches will run into several millions of pounds.

Mr Attwood needs to provide details of the costs of the current proposals for the existing bridge, the measures being taken to support the town during its closure, the costs to businesses in the town and the costs to residents and visitors in terms of additional travel time and costs. He also needs to quantify the costs for the communities on the proposed alternative routes during the closure – and the costs of resulting road repairs to those routes – including routes paid for by other Councils. Overall we believe that a new bridge is a relatively cheap scheme with huge benefits. The cost has been considered and detailed; details of how the money can be found from within the budgets of both the County Councils affected, as well as the District Council, will be released in due course.

The final consideration is whether the County Council can justify adding a further bridge to its structural maintenance obligations for years to come."

Maintaining a medieval bridge in modern traffic conditions is costly; adding one purpose-built may actually reduce the overall future maintenance obligations – not increase them. Again, Mr Attwood needs to provide the figures so that Council Tax payers can judge his statement here on the basis of facts.

It is the Council's duty to provide a highways network that is fit for the 21st century. The Council cannot shirk its responsibilities simply by claiming that meeting them costs money – particularly when they have provided no support for that claim. There have been many major investments elsewhere in the County and it is time that the Council invested in Tenbury.

Tenbury Futures' PLAN B

Thanks to all those who sent back People's Plan/Cattle Market development ideas for consideration & discussion on the Tenbury Futures blog. There were some great ideas returned and we didn't publish all of them on here but selected a few that we felt we could visualise and which would prompt further discussion. On the back of these ideas and along with the earlier 'Community Questionnaire' results, we've produced our vision of how we'd like to persue re-development of the Cattle Market site with our 'Plan B'.   

Central to this plan are the range of values that we possess within the Futures group - these include those of developing and enhancing facilities for the local community, improving Tenbury's tourism appeal and creating a sustainable, healthy and vibrant environment in the town for people to live, work and visit.

[Download "Plan B" as a multi-page .pdf file by clicking on the link below]

[Click to download PLAN B]

Mary Portas' New Review of High Streets

Mary has been asked by central government to do a review of our highstreets and look into what makes them vibrant places for people to shop and on the flip side the challenges to them [such as out of town and large supermarket competition].

You can see her website and the initial discussions on this [here].

Channel 4 Documentary on Tesco's Working Methods:

Final Tenbury Futures Community Feedback Results

Based on a total of 289 Respondents.
Including  the final 49 additional returns - final week of February 2011:
[Click to enlarge] 

* Surrounding settlements include [but not limited to]:
Boraston, Kyrewood, Oldwood, St Michaels, Stoke Bliss, Rochford, Bickley, Nash, Leysters, Eardiston, Little Hereford, Brimfield, Hanley Broadheath, Clifton-upon Teme, Upper Sapey, Clee Hill and Ludlow.

[Click to enlarge]

Graphs that fed into the final overview graph:

[Click to enlarge]

Interim Analysis: 19th February, 2011

50 Additional Returns From The Following Areas:
[Mostly] Tenbury, [then] Burford followed by individuals from: Boraston, Kyrewood, Oldwood, Stoke Bliss, Rochford, Bickley, Nash, Leysters, Eardiston, Little Hereford, Brimfield, Hanley Broadheath, Clifton-upon Teme, Upper Sapey and Ludlow. Also with individual visitors from: Stourbridge, Caerphilly, Woodsetton nr Dudley and Chaddlewood nr Plymouth

 [Click to enlarge]

Individual Graphs That Fed Into The Overview Graph Above:

[Click to enlarge]

Interim Analysis: 13th February, 2011

25 Additional Returns From The Following Areas:
[Mostly] Tenbury, [then] Burford followed by individuals from: Broadheath, Boraston, Kyrewood, Stoke Bliss, Newnham Bridge, Clifton on Teme, Knighton on Teme, Clee Hill, Kimbolton and Stanford Bridge. Also with individual visitors from: Bayston Hill nr Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton and Bilton nr Rugby

[Click to enlarge]

Individual Graphs That Fed Into The Overview Graph Above:
[Click to enlarge]

Interim Analysis: 5th February, 2011

45 Additional Responses collected from the following settlements:

Approx 80% from Tenbury Wells and also individuals from: Burford, Boraston, Rochford, Kyrewood, Stoke Bliss, St Michaels, Angel Bank, Clee Hill, Cleobury, Little Hereford, Eardiston, Stanford Bridge, Newnham Bridge, Knighton On Teme, Ludlow, Stourport, and individual visitors from: Whitton, Kidderminster, Halesowen, Newtown, Knighton, Willenhall Warks and Exhall Coventry.

[Click to enlarge]

Supporting Graphs Related to the 6x Suggestions on the Questionnaire [total 165 responses, 5th Feb, 2011]:
[Click to enlarge]