Whether the new Tenbury Futures ideas are inspired genius or deluded lunacy, you will have to decide for yourself.
Personally I think many of the ideas are great, no harm in 'blue skies thinking' but the chances of them being implemented are as slim as me retiring on a full pension.
What better, than have our ancient monument of a bridge serve out it's days as a footbridge, but (& I'm only guessing) the Fire Station was built with a yard for a reason, the two houses who will loose their garden would have to be compensated and isn't the turn from the Cattle Market rather tight for that volume of traffic. After all protesters claim it is too tight for the volume of traffic likely to visit Tesco.
I know the graphic is labelled not to scale, and so it might be. The area that is now the Spar loading bay seems to have moved, and the area between Sal's Den and Temeside House increased.
I know the graphic is labelled not to scale, and so it might be. The area that is now the Spar loading bay seems to have moved, and the area between Sal's Den and Temeside House increased.
It is a great shame that these suggestions have come so late in the day. The money and plan to refurbish the bridge is on target, and the money and plan to improve the public realm in nearly in place. I cannot see WCC halting everything at the 11th hour and starting again with years of planning and undertaking all various compulsory purchases necessary for the scheme.
Far better perhaps, to go ahead and repair the bridge. Much of the work would have to be done anyway even to allow its safe operation as a footbridge. Then perhaps, we can start the decades of lobbying required to get a bypass if indeed that is what people want. One word of caution though, a bypass is great for diverting unwanted traffic away from the Town Centre, but the unexpected consequence can often be that the "wanted" traffic also takes the easy option and shoppers go elsewhere. (Yes I know the Futures idea is for the new road to link back into town)
Tenbury Advertiser 28th July 2011
Tenbury Advertiser 28th July 2011
Posts
45 comments:
Great Idea!!!!
Some nice ideas.
I note the paper states that 2 lorries will be able to pass on the bridge, what about when they get to the Spar building??
The route isn't so nice once you take out artistic license;
http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff480/TenburyAccount/BitTight.jpg
IS THE TEME VALLEY NEWS THE NEW BEANO
I thought it was called the Teme Valley "TIMES" .....NEWS ????
Looking at the plan ,does it include the launderette and the adjoining Gift shop?
I believe the "plan" would call for the compulsory purchase of the "Sal and Dens and the laundrette" part of the Spar building to allow for a wider access to the old CM. These businesses could be the first to occupy the new units in the "Plan B" proposed development of at the back of the CM.
Certainly a good idea, and one which would not mean the entire town suffers the potential double whamy of the bridge being closed, the public realm works following - not consecutively done - and then leaving any traders/retail left standing to fight the might of Tesco!
The bigger picture needs to be considered...
OK colour me confused;
Is this idea in addition to those posted on the futures site or instead of?
The idea which 'looked' the best just wouldn't work with the revised road / bridge layout as they'll loose a large percentage of the possible parking, or are the group just floating idea to the press??
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a6KRW4tfr4w/Tdl48SyFm1I/AAAAAAAABCo/XgzFp6N9gBk/s1600/drg01-for-blog.jpg
^Best idea as posted on futures group blog (IMHO)
And where are the futures group at, their not here answering questions and there is nothing on their own blog about this proposal so we can't comment there??
The bridge plan idea came after the futures group had published their ideas, the group had wind of the idea but nothing had been confirmed, therefore the best idea was published to the time scales previously pledged. Therefore the group weren't able to include it in the "Best option" It would reduce some of the parking of the original "Plan B" idea admittedly, but there would still be a net gain to what there currently is in town with the added benefit of a bridge which is fit for purpose!
I beleive the Futures Group web master is on holiday....
Advance apologies for slow moderation this weekend. I'm back to the data desert for the next couple of days armed only with a phone.
i am confused with Tenbury futures
are they really serious or are they a new branch of the raving looney party
I think you are being a little harsh. Many of their ideas are excellent, and given time, money,
political will, & perhaps professional adjustment, they could work. The challenge is that most of the above is in short supply and the land is in private ownership and a well funded mega-corporation has its funding in place, it's plans before the authorities and unless there is some technical planning reason for the plans to be rejected, their scheme will prevail.
i totally agree their ideas are nothing but something out of cloud cuckoo land
the second bridge is a joke maybe if the raving loony party won enough seats at the county council election in 2013 it may become reality god for bid
Why would a second bidge be a joke ? What is funny about it ?
What's cloud cuckoo about building a bridge?
who going to pay to build this loony idea
Same as paid to build the new bridge st Stanford Bridge?
As the bridge is a scheduled monument English Heritage have to give permission for anything to happen to it or its setting. They have previously vetoed the idea of a separate permanent footbridge as it would detract from the historic setting so doubt they would permit a road bridge only a few hundred yards away.
i am right tenbury futures are completely mad
I am right. This Anon who always personally attacks is deluded.
majority of the people of my town think that tenbury futures is deluded
tenbury futures are the laughing stock of tenbury
i have notice something as bumblebee been swatted he is very quiet lately
I think Mr Bumble has been away on holiday. Someone is presenting the Tenbury Futures ideas to the Tenbury Town Council tomorrow evening.
Your town Anon? Since when did you own it?
Surely the 800+ objections compared to the single figures of for the proposal the majority doesn't want tesco.
Anon it's only your town when your given the key to the town by the mayor.
My town....dont you mean OUR town.Anyway you dont even live in the town.
You seem to think planning permission is an election or X-factor gameshow vote. It only takes one valid objection for planning to be refused. Letters for an application carry no weight & are rare in any planning application, letters against carry no weight unless they object on planning grounds. 500 copies of the same letter only clog up the system and cost us money. (and by us, I mean the MHDC council tax payers)
well next time WR15 the MHDC should send you the bill personally. as your so concerned for us MHDC tax payers
It sounds more like you, who should be paying the bill.
why me?
You seem unconcerned about 100s of people wasting Council Tax money to no effect at all.
If people want to object then so be it.
No one stopped the thousands (as you seem to think there are) supporters to write in to agree to it.
There is no reason to write in to support. It's a planning application. The developer or their agents produce the necessary documents to apply for permission. What the public say or don't say has no effect on the process, unless someone brings to the attention of the planning authority a reason to refuse that they may have overlooked.
Letters of objection would have more effect sent to the client (in this case Tesco) because if they saw that an overwhelming majority of the local population were going to refuse to shop there, then they would be wasting their money.
Yes Tesco would decide not to build in a town.
Show me PROOF WHERE TESCO HAS DECIDED TO DO A U-TURN. You won't find no where.
There is a point. Showing Tesco the PEOPLE actually want them, which in this case quite clearly shows THEY DON'T
I'll wait until the future group make an announcement before making a deciding, they need to address several key points;
1 how much
2 how long
3 plan for getting pp
4 plan for English heritage
5 plan to beat Tesco
Tesco can give up - see link above
the majority of people in Tenbury do want a tesco
it is the tenbury futures will be the losers in the end
IF someone speaks out in favour tenbury futures victimised that person
tenbury futures come clean
That's not giving up, they are already there. They have just given up to expand the existing store. Giving up MEANS NOT BOTHERING TO BUILD A STORE WHERE THEY ARE NOT WANTED.
I went into Tenbury today for the first time in 4 months, I spoke to lots of people to catch up on things (e.g. Gwythers and the bank closing ) but this included 3 people who showed me a hard copy of Teme Valley News, who really thought a new bridge was on the cards and that it was an "either or" scenario, i.e. Tesco or a new bridge. Many people obviously believe what they see in the papers!
Thanks for that post Lesley. It backs up what I have been hearing, but as I'm so biased (allegedly) I can't trust what I hear.
I was taken to task for suggesting that Tenbury Futures had misled people, which I corrected to people have been misled by Tenbury Futures.
Yes WR15 you are biased towards the pro-Tesco. You always publish their comments, regardless of what is said in them. But when it comes to the anti Tesco you pick and choose what you want to publish
I was quite shocked really. from my hairdresser it was... "have you seen the newspaper? it looks really good, a new bridge, the photos look really good, I couldn't believe that it was Tenbury... let me go and get you the paper so you can see". Also, it appeared on the page immediately following a full page with details of all the negatives and concerns the bridge closure this winter. Some people are clearly seeing this as an "either or scenario".
I asked "is there a public consultation detailed?" she said "Oh yes, of course". Erm.... I read further....send your comments to the Teme Valley Times and we'll publish in the next edition does not a public consultation make but clearly some people view it as one. This (with the greatest respect) is a freebie advertising publication, and is not in the business of qualitative journalism. It exists to raise advertising revenue and will understandably look to maximise its readership.
I cannot be considered to be a Tesco supporter, but neither am I a supporter of putting fancy plans in a local advertiser, with the (intended or otherwise) result of having the public believe that this is a viable option on the table *now* as an immediate alternative to a supermarket and/or repairing the existing bridge - thereby (intended or otherwise) encouraging them to object to the supermarket application.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so direct, but even if not intended, this is effectively the result, timed to perfection! To be honest, this has made be quite cross. I am of course open for others to put me right if they think that my rationale/assumptions are wide of the mark.
Good to get more posts from Lesley . . . but I'm a little surprised at her consternation about public misunderstanding. One in six people in the UK have a literacy level below that expected of an eleven year old, so what does she expect?.
Ian,
I am sadly well aware of the appalling literacy levels in this country (god, if only that was *just* the problem!). However, much consumer advertising is directed at the ABC social categories, proving that even the literate/educated/intelligent can be hoodwinked into believing what the marketeers want them to believe, or they wouldn't bother, would they?
I am busy reading the revised application docs, so will contribute on the latest thread soon!
Oh Lesley - I think you're being a little unfair. There is a world of difference between slick professional advertising and second-rate journalism!
Hi Ian,
well, I would't class the people I talked to as illiterate by any means. I am constantly amazed by what people can be convinced of thesedays. Also, I guess people often see what they want to hear. So, if they aren't altogether currently sold on the idea of a supermarket.....
Anyway, if I have to pay more council tax so that, in order for the Town Council to attempt determine true local opinion, they have to have a referendum because this publication has distorted the situation by leading people to believe there are other options on the table.....!!
I shall go lie down now! ;)
Lesley seems to have misunderstood things.
1. The Council is not having a referendum
2. It is already approved to spend £2 million on Tenbury during the next 12 months, strengthening the existing bridge to take 44 ton trucks, replacing the brick pavements with paving flags, and on changing the street lights.
3. Alternatively, this £2 million could be spent on a new bridge.
There is nothing pie-in-the-sky about the new bridge idea, the money is already there, it's just a question of how you want it spent.
Lesley, which do you prefer: a new bridge, or new streetlights?
A new bridge, or new pavements?
Trucks using the (strengthened) existing bridge, sometimes on the pavement, or using a proper, straight, modern, wide, fit-for-today bridge?
It's your £2m - how do you want it spent?
On a new bridge - or on lights, paving flags, and altering an ancient monument to take 44 ton trucks?
Come on Lesley - do tell!
£2M just wouldn't come close in paying for a new bridge. With all the necessary compulsory purchases, compensation, infrastructure works, legal agreement, surveying, civil engineering. Remember, just because roads that have been around for hundreds of years are aloud to pass within inches of building and make sharp turns, new roads have to comply with a completely different set of criteria.
Post a Comment