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.

Have WCC Done Their Bailey Bridge Homework?

Artist's impression of how a Bailey Bridge might look across the Teme.

Tenbury Futures have been double-checking some sums offered-up by Richard Attwood, Worcester County Council's Engineering Project Manager in charge of the Teme Bridge closure and works. Mr Attwood recently confirmed that the idea of a temporary supporting Bailey Bridge for the duration of the Teme bridge closure [a period of months] was effectively more than WCC were prepared to pay. Adding salt to the wound though, WCC have provided a full report explaining their logic with new bridge works in Evesham but not for our town. It would seem on the surface that Tenbury doesn't warrant the same treatment or attention to detail with 6 months of Teme bridge closure visited upon us as a  fait accompli.

Mr Richard Attwood said:

"I believe there is an assertion that a Bailey Bridge could be provided economically [across the River Teme] based upon the experiences of 2009 in Cumbria. The reality of this is that the Cumbrian site was more rural and the hinterland around was reasonably flat with a shallower river channel which made the provision much easier. Nevertheless, the cost I am led to believe was in the order of £4M..."

 Some Quick Homework...
And yet a quick check on Bailey Bridge suppliers reveals the company 'Beaver Bridges' based 40 minutes drive north of Tenbury in Church Stretton. We took the liberty of contacting Beaver Bridges and asked them for a quote on a temporary Bailey-type bridge of a length suitable for a Teme crossing. To our surprise, a Bailey Bridge of this scale cost a fraction of Mr Attwood's £4 million estimate. A bridge of this nature would not only provide vehicle access to the town while Teme bridge closure and works were ongoing but also provide full access to the town for fire engines based in Burford and alternatively full police cover for Burford.

In fact for a period of 7 months [much longer than Mr Attwood expects the Teme Bridge to be closed] the cost of installation, hire, maintenance and deconstruction was £210,000.

Extract from Beaver Bridges Quote, Monday Sept 5th 2011:

Required on site:..................... December 2011

1)      Specifications

a)      45.8m long x 4.2m Wide x 40/44te capacity modular bridge
b)      All steel construction c/w steel Durbar deck plate.
c)      Simple (non-compliant) pedestrian parapet restraints.
d)      Bridge unit weighs (undecked) –           39 tonnes
e)      Bridge unit weighs (decked) –               65 tonnes

2)      Financials

a)      Weekly Hire rate –       £5,550+VAT
b)      Transport to site -         £9,000 + VAT
c)      Erection on site –          £12,000 + VAT
d)      Dismantle on site –        £12,000 + VAT
e)      Return to depot –         £9,000 + VAT

3)      Client to provide

a)      Suitable crane to unload and install the bridge and to carry out the reverse operation
b)      Suitable access equipment – as necessary to carry out the bridge installation.

[We are awaiting an additional quote to cover these latter areas which we will add when one is sent].

Evesham's Temporary Bailey Bridge
Evesham is currently having similar issues with one of their bridges (note that their bridge, although a major route for the town, does not provide the only crossing of the river in the way that the Teme Bridge does for Tenbury).  There is a full report on the Worcestershire County Council website about the problems with the Evesham bridge, the options that have been considered, the pros and cons of each option, and information about consultation with the local community.  
 

http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/cms/transport-and-highways/transport-schemes/evesham-abbey-bridge.aspx
 

There is no such information concerning the Teme Bridge, and if any report exists it has not been made public. Indeed.. could it be said that there is no documentation for Tenbury because WCC hasn't really carried-out an effective consultation on this locally? Is there simply little or no content to create such a document? In terms of local shop keepers, all they have apparently had is questions and short conversations about deliveries AFTER the bridge closes. It would seem from the Tenbury Futures questionnaire in the previous post that discussion of what options are available to keep the high street as vibrant as possible during this closure - [or even whether the bridge needs to fully close as per the traffic lights and 7.5tonne weight limit on the 'A' road over the Holt Bridge] have clearly not been explored in consultation locally.
 

In summary:
Evesham gets a Bailey Bridge to ensure full traffic flow during it's bridge works and a full report justifying this work. Tenbury to date has been told the bridge closure will last for 'a number of months'. No exact figures have been provided and no report has been made public.
 
WCC claim:
Temporary Teme Bailey Bridge for 3 or so months to cost in the region of:
£4 Million

Tenbury Futures' Bailey Bridge Quote for 7 months:
£210,000

That's a difference of nearly £3.8 million pounds.

Come on Mr Attwood, please give Tenbury the time of day, we're taking this seriously even if you're not..