Tesco Tenbury - Why Permission Was Refused

Click here for the full text of the original post from January 2010

I have relisted below the reasons why the last application was refused. Remember, permission can only be refused on planning grounds and NOT because you don't like Tesco or would prefer plan B.

If I have understood the situation correctly Tesco agreed with these reasons, which is why they decided to reapply and not appeal.

1. The detailed design, general massing and site layout of the proposed store would not make a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the Tenbury Wells Conservation Area, and would result in the demolition of a valuable building of local interest in the conservation area, contrary to Policy HE7.5 of PPS5, Policy CTC19 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and Policies QL7 and QL8 of the Malvern Hills District Local Plan.


2. The design of the proposed car park and its relationship to the River Teme does not sustain and enhance the significance of the Tenbury Wells Conservation Area, the River Teme and the Riverside walk and does not constitute a positive role in place shaping contrary to Policy HE7.4 of PPS5, Policy CTC19 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and policy QL7 and QL9 of the Malvern Hills District Local Plan.


3. The proposed car parking area adjacent to the boundary of the Old Firestation and Temeside House is harmfull to the setting of the grade II listed buildings, detracting from their significance as heritage assetts, and is likely to damage the buildings economic vitality now, or in the future contrary to Policy HE10 of PPS5, Policy CTC19 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and Policy QL13 of the Malvern Hills District Local Plan.


4. In the absence of a Section 106 Agreement in respect of highway and sustainability measures which include the provision of a local bus service, a contribution to public realm works and monitoring of the junction of the A4112/A456, the level of car parking proposed on the site and traffic generated by the proposal would result in vehicles associated with the development parking within the public highway, which would restrict the free flow of traffic to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to Policy DS3 of the Malvern Hills District Plan.