Monday, 26 September 2011

Tenbury Business Community back Tesco

The results of the Tenbury Town Council's survey of the business community reveal a majority are in favour of the proposed Cattle Market development.

90 businesses in the Town Centre were given the opportunity to express an opinion in an anonymous survey.

70 surveys were returned, 5 could not be counted as the were not completed correctly.

Of the other 65, 46 (71%) were in favour and 19 (29%) were against.

Full Survey Results

These results seem to be at odds with the Chamber of Trade (members) survey (after the first application) which was 50/50, and Tenbury Futures survey which was against.

This could be because the questions in each survey were different or could be that the wider business community's view differs from the small shop keepers which may have been questioned by Tenbury Futures.

The Town Council discussed various aspects of the plan, but after a paper ballot voted 5 to 4 against supporting the application.

Cllrs questioned whether Tenbury needed a store of this size, and expressed concerns of traffic congestion and the need for delivery vehicles to drive through the car park to get to the loading bay.

One Cllr said "Where ever Tesco go they ruin the town" , "If they come here they will cripple this town" which does seem to be at odds with the opinion of the majority of the business community if no one else!

Shropshire Star


Anonymous said...

Quote "The Town Council discussed various aspects of the plan, but after a paper ballot voted 5 to 4 against supporting the application."

WR15, can you just clarify, did they vote against the application, ie. 5 voted against the idea, or do you mean 5 in favour, 4 against?

Sorry, I'm being a bit thick and not quite sure which way you mean.

Bumblebee said...

Good on TTC.. The applause of approval when they rejected the Tesco plan was very clear from the public gallery.

There are over 400 individual campaigns against Tesco throughout the UK.. They're certainly not doing it for the fun of it - they believe that Tesco in particular are the scourge of many small highstreet shops. As the TTC Clr suggested, you don't have to do much homework online [i.e. or Tesco staff's own site complaining about their workplace -] before you find a whole raft of complaints against Tesco, their working methods and the many local highstreets they've been instrumental in the demise of.

Good on the TTC Clr [Architect] too who drew the distinction in the survey returns you mention between 'local businesses' and 'local highstreet shops'. The former could include pubs, cafe's etc who might not feel so directly threatened as the small shops.

Mr. Longbeard said...

Wow, now that's an interesting return.

Whilst we're waiting for TFs spin on the unreturned / uncounted papers it does make one ponder at the lack of plan B posters up in windows.

Was it a straight forward yes/no ballot or were there degrees of acceptable development?

@WR15 said...

5 against supporting the planning application. 4 for supporting the planning application. 2 cllrs absent, 2 excluded due to personal prejudicial interests.

Tenbury Futures said...

Naturally we're delighted that TTC voted against Tesco's plans again and feel it reflects many people's views locally.

Credit has to be given to those TT Councilors who could see the likely slowdown in our highstreet trade if we were to let Tesco in though - especially so in this challenging financial climate.

Regards the questionnaire: at least one TT Councilor questioned whether it reflected the high street shops' concerns effectively. As it was a generic 'businesses' response it also covered a cross section of businesses who wouldn't be directly competing with Tesco as most of the shops would. And as WR15 correctly mentioned, this didn't tally with either the CofT shopkeepers' perspective or our own when we've spoken to a range of local shops.

Regards PLAN B, we've had to concentrate our recent efforts on countering the latest Tesco threat to the CM site really. The plan hasn't gone away though and indeed has been recently picked up by BBC TV's 'Village SOS' programme as an interesting example of a community trying to ensure sensitive and sustainable development locally. It's also already attracted positive provisional responses from potential funding bodies too which we aim to follow-up once Tesco are rejected at planning again.

RichTea said...

Given that highway and safety matters play a significant part in the consideration of this application, it is a shame that, in the absence of any offical comment so far from either of them, the 2 highway authorities involved were not asked by the TTC to discuss the transport assessment in person and in detail and answer questions before the TTC meeting and vote.

Only 1 TTC Clr present appeared to have done any proper homework and raised legitimate concerns about the impact of HGV mixing with pedestrians and other vehicles on privately-owned land which surely must lie within the remit of the planners and H&S and not, as another TTC Clr suggested, only a matter for (unresponsive) public highways departments.

Apart from this, I thought the standard of debate on such an important issue for the Town was poor.

Click here for list of shops and businesses said...

According to the Chamber of Trade website, Tenbury has around 37 shops plus around 59 non-shop businesses - such as pubs, cafes, hair salons, take-aways, accountants, estate agents, solicitors, doctors, dentists, care and fostering agencies and the launderette.
It's no surprise if many shops feel a Tesco would damage them and it's no surprise if many pubs, hair salons etc feel a Tesco might help them.
So whether 'traders' are in favour probably depends on whether you ask the shops (which is what Futures did) or whether you ask the businesses (which is what Town Council did). However, the usual basis for planning purposes is "retail impact" and for this, only retail shops are relevant. So there would be about 37 businesses to ask, not about 96. Of course, there is nothing wrong with Town Council asking all the businesses in their parish, but businesses such as care or fostering agencies cannot be part of a retail impact assessment.
But even this is not actually the point (indeed, if Town Council had voted simply on that basis, they would have done a bad job).
Tesco's plan has to be judged on its own merits. Key questions include whether buildings in the Concervation Area should be conserved, or whether it is better to demolish them; whether a Superstore should be allowed to have such poor access, or whether it would be better to provide better access; and whether more traffic should be encouraged to use the bridge, or whether it would be better to open up the cattle market site as part of a coherent plan for the future, including a new bridge.
If we are going to have a Tesco, or any Superstore, it needs to be a good plan. A smaller store would fit on the site better, while being big enough for Tenbury.
It would then be easy to keep the old infirmary building. And a new bridge would solve the access problem.
If we don't get a new bridge now, Tenbury will be stuck with the exisiting inadequate bridge for many more years, which will be to everyone's disadvantage.

Click here for list of shops and businesses said...

The link above was incorrect, but hopefully this one will work.

I carried out an analysis on the businesses back in May 2010 which is likely to still be mostly correct.

120 High Street Businesses
16 Empty
13 with partial clash of stock with Tesco
8 with direct clash of stock with Tesco

Anonymous said...

i am just curvious how many people from Tenbury town if self was in the public gallery Bumblebee

Anonymous said...

what a interesting result of the councils survey does this mean that it was Tenbury futures misleading the people of tenbury
Tesco said last time they had the support of the traders but Tenbury FUTURES shouted them down
Will Tenbury Futures do the honorable thing and say sorry.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps thats why tenbury futures are so secretive because none of them live in tenbury they just want to tell us what to do.

Anonymous said...

I think futures members are all secret members of the sas with magical superpowers. But. I havent actually got a clue about what i'm saying or what foundation this claim has in reality now i think abt it tho. i jst like sounding off.

SHOPS - not BUSINESSES! said...

Futures said asked the "Town Centre Shops" - they didn't claim to have asked every local business.
Different question = different answer.
The local shops will be dying by summer anyway, with the council closing the bridge.

Mr. Longbeard said...

So they're not looking happy that all businesses were asked.

One wonders how much revenue these businesses give to local shops?

In my mind its not as simple as business or shop, without business there wouldn't be as many shops, and without shops there may not be as many businesses.

But nevertheless this is gonna be as close as we get to a referendum....

I live in Town said...

In both employment terms and business rates terms the non shop businesses might be more important to the town. Whilst it is the retail shops that attract the tourist, it is the non-retail businesses that might just be more important to the real locals.

Anonymous said...

What a strange view. Assuming you want to eat, you need shops. You can't (shouldn't?) eat a solicitor or a bank manager, however tempting it might be to spit-roast them!
You might WANT to get your hair done, but you NEED to eat!!!

Bumblebee said...

"But nevertheless this is gonna be as close as we get to a referendum."

Sorry Mr Beard, think you're very considered on most things but I disagree with you on this one. This 'businesses' survey is nothing like a referendum of just town residents on the Tesco issue. TTC have seemingly pulled away from the idea of a full referendum as they feel it would be too complexed to administer and potentially too costly. It's shame and a lost opportunity I think but that's their decision.

A couple of TTC Clrs were the first to point out as the stats were being read out on the night that many of these businesses polled weren't highstreet shops and as such didn't have the same level of concern for their livelyhood.

The Chamber of Trade's conclusion in terms of highstreet shop owners was the polar opposite though - they concluded the majority didn't want Tesco and that it would be hugely detrimental to the town's blended highstreet economy and result in a net loss of jobs. This disparity alone shows that the figures can be interpreted in different ways i.e. if you're talking the 35 odd shop owners then the majority clearly don't want Tesco, if you're blending in with that the pubs, the vets, dentist and other non-retail then it blurs and masks the shop owners' heartfelt concerns. The survey should have really have been clearer statistically - making overt the different facets within the final tally. As it is it isn't truly representative unfortunately.

Thinking about it.. I guess the dentist is unlikely to ever have the dilemma of a mega-corporate-chain of dentist's coming in determined to take his business and trade at half his prices though.

Anonymous said...

Bumblebee! I take it you weren't at the Town Council meeting a month or two back when Cllr Price asked for a referendum but other Cllrs talked it down, saying they didn't want a referendum as they might not like the can't beat democracy!

Mr. Longbeard said...

"...Sorry Mr Beard, think you're very considered on most things..."

I've never felt so insulted in all my life, time to up my game me thinks ;)

Bumblebee said...

I guess we'll never really know re a town referendum then mr or mrs anonymous. C'est la vie eh?

A quick look at the MHDC planning site just now reveals many hundreds of planning objections though as opposed to only a few letters of weakly-written generalised support. If anti-big supermarket individuals just wrote "I don't want a Tesco" in letters to MHDC then they'd be pretty much ignored - these few 'pro' letters are mainly that [albeit saying the reverse]. I suspect as such that they'll be treated in the same token terms.

You're right though anonymous, huge numbers of carefully worded planning objections do count [and they certainly did last time] - you can't beat democracy!

Don't tell me.. "It's not a vote"?

RichTea said...

I think the standard 'small' Tesco opening hours are 6am - 11pm Mon-Sat + fewer hours on a Sunday. I guess some 30% of Tesco shoppers would arrive when Tenbury is closed. Taken with the enforced 2-hour parking limit I wonder how any of the Tenbury 'businesses' would see any significant number of extra customers - whatever reply they make in a survey.

@WR15 said...

I have close contacts with three towns where one of the big three supermarkets set up shop (in town) and in each of those locations there was a significant increase in the footfall in the adjoining high street and a general increase in prosperity.

(Yes I know this isn't a scientific study!)

@WR15 said...

If the planners turn down the application just because people "vote" against it, then it will be overturned on appeal.

Anonymous said...

The sky is blue and we think the sea is greeny-blue wr15. Its only an opinion though, my greeny-blue is someone else's turquoise. Your 'i know people who say' comment should be treated in the same way.

Miles Weaver said...

I was at this meeting.

This is a very biased and unjust report.

If I were an estate agent, I would be delighted by a Tesco (possible town enlargement).

If I were a shopkeeper (i.e. veg, meat, chemist) I know that although competition is a good thing this is not the same. They will swallow me up and then we have lots of empty shops. So much evidence of this that can be cited.

If I were a small producer (e.g. apple, real ale, apple juice, local cakes) then I would think, would be OK if Tesco did not source products from a far when there is nothing better than Tenbury finest.

There was also no talk about the resilence of the town.

My view is that a small food supermarket would add to the competitive enviroment. It would shift the likes of Bowketts to a more premium and local brand (like it is now but more focused closer to the Ludlow Food Centre). Leaving Tesco to be the low cost provider with an increased range. An Aldi sized development.

A large Tesco would lead to a number of shops being unable to directly compete. It would see a complete transformation of the High Street.

We have all seem the photo on the Tavern wall. This is how vibrant the town once was. However, this will never come back. With greater mobility and the rise of the supermarket has led to this.

However, what Tenbury does have is both charm and its people. It has fine local products and high-quality producers. We have heritage embedded in our farming community. Why can we not celebrate that?

This is why I am so pleased to see Tenbury Future contribution. They are attempting to grasp what Tenbury needs to become to be a vibrant market town fit for this century.

The debate should not be about a Tesco or no Tesco. It should be about resilence and fitness of the town to move forward. After many options are debated, if Tesco is the way forward then so be it?

But does this development celebrate what Tenbury is all about? or does it continue a trend for the decline of the traditional vibrant market town to one that only .......?

Can we stop the bitterness over a 'Tesco or not Tesco' and put Tenbury first. The place we all 'love'.

We really need to open up this debate before it is too late.

I want to see an appetite for a debate. The Tenbury council meeting was a complete disappointment. It was about the competing interests of one Pro-council who had no substance to his argument only that he was for. While only one other council placed forward actual arguments and another had done some research on google.

This is an important decision for Tenbury. It is not safe in the hands of our lack of evidence and puff councillors.

Before anyone mentions this survey to me. It was flawed, it would not have got through ethical approval. Whom filled them in? How were they distributed? But more importantly, where was the question that broke down type of business.

There are alot of windows in Tenbury, how many of them need to be vacant before we care. Banfields, the bank? Oh dear, at least there will be many estate agents and take away shops.

Let's put some meat on the bone and debate the real issue:

Our Town (plenty to celebrate), not Tesco (Capitalist king or community hero?)

Conservation area facts said...

The planners could take English Heritage's advice and refuse consent to demolish the old infirmary. It is a Conservation Area and "Demolition" is not "Conservation".
It is a criminal offence to demolish a building in a Conservation Area without permission, so no consent for this demolition would mean Tesco having to settle for a smaller store.

Bumblebee said...

Application 11/00887/FUL

But that's just it WR15, people aren't simply 'just voting' against Tesco in their 100's on the MHDC planning site.

The clear majority of objectors are putting their name to a set of very specific planning-related objections in letter form.

This is no straightforward 'yes' or 'no' survey or poll though as they are appropriate in some contexts but not others. In this context they have to be based-on valid planning concerns to be taken seriously by the planners [as you've said yourself previously]..

Whether pro-forma planning objection letter or bespoke, the planners have said that each will be counted as an individual objection.

Click my link to see more.. Then type or copy-in the application number 11/00887/FUL.

Anonymous said...

bumblebee is talking nonsense as usual
Tenbury futures are finish

Anonymous said...

BUMBLEBEE get a job and stop holding tenbury back

Anonymous said...

Re: Bumblebee on 27th September at 22:15
"The Chamber of Trade's conclusion in terms of highstreet shop owners was the polar opposite though - they concluded the majority didn't want Tesco and that it would be hugely detrimental to the town's blended highstreet economy and result in a net loss of jobs."

Where exactly was this data published and when was the survey taken?

My understanding is that it was more of a straw poll conducted when the very first murmurings of Tesco's interest were heard. That is to say - before anyone had seen any plans or heard any of the arguments particular to Tenbury (not just the generic anti- large supermarket ones). I am happy to be corrected if the data and findings of the CoT research are readily available. But if this apocryphal result cannot be well substantiated and was not published, then it can hardly be used in any credible argument.

Do you know anyone who can publish the Chamber of Trade findings? If not the TTC survey has far more credibility in my mind.

@WR15 said...

The Chamber of Trade carried out a paper ballot (returned in blank envelopes) of their members at the time of the first application to decide whether to actively campaign against the application.

The results came back as near to 50/50 as possible. I think there was an odd number of returns.

Approaches were then made to non members (who had shops) but this didn't substantially alter the result.

This was why the Chamber of Trade didn't form a campaign group and the group later know as TesNo was formed. Some individual shop keepers, including the President and Vice President of the Chamber of Trade became active in this group, but not in the name of the Chamber of Trade.

I didn't personally see the ballot papers and wasn't present at the count but I know it was witnessed by the Mayor who is also a member of the Chamber of Trade.

Anonymous said...

Do the CofT publish their meeting minutes anywhere? Maybe they show what their feelings are on the Tesco situation from shop owners?

@WR15 said...

In theory yes, but in practice no.
They have agreed that they should be published, but so far I haven't been able to obtain any copies since Nov 2010.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info on the Chamber of Trade ballot @WR15. The time of the first application was around 18 months ago I think. The Chamber of Trade membership includes all types of businesses so those polled then by the CoT must have been broadly similar to those just polled by TTC. I think it is disingenuous of Mr Bumblebee to claim the older CoT poll has more credence than the more recent TTC one. Plus a result so close that the CoT chose not to form a pressure group does not sound like the " majority didn't want Tesco " as Bumblebee claims. It still seems odd that the CoT findings never seem to have been made properly public. Given the information circulated in the interim, both for and against, I do not find it unlikely that the original 50/50 split has now shifted to show more in favour at this later stage in proceedings. I still think the TTC findings have to be accorded some credibility and not simply swept aside by those who might want to believe otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Take a look at the Chamber of Trade membership list. (Don't know how to do links Tenburyblog -can you help?) Spar are not members. So were they included in the CoT poll? How many more businesses were not polled? At least the TTC seem to have made an effort to ask most of the businesses in Teme St, Market St and Cross St.

@WR15 said...

I don't know how many non-members were also asked by the COT, but enough (as I understand it)for them to form the opinion that they shouldn't head the protest group.

Anonymous said...

Hardly Bumblebees "majority didn't want Tesco" then.

Bumblebee said...

I'm glad that the CofT decided to make their minutes available for public scrutiny. If this is indeed the case, I suggest that either 'anonymous' or WR15 try to get hold of the CofT minutes dated 9th August.

Maybe this might help clarify..

Oh and [disappointing to some no doubt] I'm fully employed.. I just try to make time to look into things that I feel passionately about - especially so as I originate from a town that the supermarkets closed down. I'm waiting for the 'move back then' comment..

@WR15 said...

I'm sure he will correct us later, but perhaps he was referring to the Tenbury Futures questionnaire which only went to targeted retailers.

Sometimes their errors mislead, like a recent email to their supporters which read something along the lines of please see the latest post on the Tenbury Blog and then gave the futures blog address.

@WR15 said...

See, he beat me to it. I've been trying and failing to get the minutes on a regular basis all year!

Anonymous said...

Sorry - where does one get the CoT minutes? Does Bumblebee mean 9th August this year or last? Would need to see minutes that detail the poll results to draw any proper conclusions. How does a member of the public see those?

Anonymous said...

Sorry - where does one get the CoT minutes? Does Bumblebee mean 9th August this year or last? Would need to see minutes that detail the poll results to draw any proper conclusions. How does a member of the public see those?

@WR15 said...

I have written to the Hon Sec of the COT asking for copies.

Anonymous said...

am i think in thinking bumblebee does not live in tenbury and has no right to tell the tenbury people what to do

Anonymous said...

hes seems waffly bt doesnt seem to b telling people to do stuff.

Flirty Thirty said...

Take a look at the Tesco visuals of the anybody in these pictures over 20? Umm are they really going to cater for all the folk in Tenbury.

Anonymous said...

Mr Anon "bumblebee is talking nonsense as usual
Tenbury futures are finish"

I thought they were mostly English! Talk about talking nonsense...

Anonymous said...

Mr Anon "Do you know anyone who can publish the Chamber of Trade findings? If not the TTC survey has far more credibility in my mind."

I bet you a dollar dollar baby WR15 can - he knows everyone he can prob get minutes from other towns also where he has close connections.

Rugby fan 72 said...

Not convinced that the numbers are really worth anything - as we know there have been several differnent surveys by many dfferent bodies "voted, wallies, know nothing'ers, do gooders, do badders, idiots with no idea, large corporates...." all of them come up with a different angle based on what quesions are asked and in what manner....

Even offical polls commissioned to guage support for the political parties are notoriously inaccurate with a built in error factor of 3% or if MORI et al can't get an accurate picture the wonderfully eclectic group above are really going to struggle.....

As @WR15 correctly points out the application will be passed or rejected on planning issues only...
As for critising me old mate bumble @WR15...i know you claim to research everything to ensure there are no errors on your blog - but we know there are buzz of ;-)

Mr. Longbeard said...

"...Not convinced that the numbers are really worth anything - ..."

But TF's have been telling us for months their figures show a majority against the development, are we to now reject those claims ???

It's all smoke and mirrors

Anonymous said...

"Not convinced that the numbers are really worth anything"
RF72 that's a bit like saying that all the complaints to MHDC about Tesco that you have referred to so many times are not worth anything. But as so many of them were pre-printed and just signed this might be right. How many people actually took the time to write their own letter of complaint to MHDC?

Anonymous said...

Tenbury Futures aka The Intimidators!

Anonymous said...

Oh please. Don't tell me you believe everything the local adverliar would tell you? As jim royale would say 'intimidators - my a£se'.

Rugby fan 72 said...

Maybe i should have been clear - the numbers resulting from surveys are all open to interpretation and can be read in many ways depending on your perspective.

The numbers of people who are objecting is fact and can be read in only one way, "the quantity of people whom do not feel that proposed application would benefit the town"

Anonymous said...

The numbers of people who are objecting is fact and can be read in only one way - they have been intimidated.

To Be Or Not To Be said...

I like how WR15 put this blog thread. The fact that the council voted against Tsco but he didn't want to put that by its own because it would stand out more and would show that Tesco is not wanted or needed. He had to put the CoT votes which aint fair because not every store was asked to vote in town so not really a true figure

Anonymous said...

The numbers of people who are supporting the development is fact and can be read in only one way - they have been intimidated.

Bugs Bunny said...

Whos been intimidated? and how?

Anonymous said...

does anyone else think its strange that more than 60% of the objection letters come from people who don't live in tenbury.

Annoyed said...

anon they might not live in tenbury now but they could be FROM tenbury meaning they don't want to see their town where they are born and bred die. will you stop with your same old comments its getting annoying. your like a broken record

@WR15 said...

Let me see if I've got this right "To be....".

The COT survey was flawed because they didn't ask everyone.

The Town Council survey was flawed because they did ask everyone.

Only the Tenbury Futures survey was correct because they chose who to ask?

To Be Or Not To Be said...

Where did I say that the town council vote was flawed? WR15 you need to read more carefully. Did the CoT ask Spar? As I saw on another posy they not even a member of them. But surely they should be asked right?

@WR15 said...

to be or not... Sorry that was someone else. So many surveys, so many flaws (or not)

I don't know who was asked in addition to members, perhaps Dave's view (from Spar) was a given.

Anonymous said...

they might not live in tenbury, but when they visit once or twice a year they want tenbury preserved just how they remember it when they were young and never mind the people who have to live there now

Roger Rabbit said...

Yea preserved and not DESTROYED BY TESCO. They have the right idea and you need that idea yourself

Ian said...

Tenbury doesn't need to be "preserved" it needs to prosper!

The Fat Controller said...

Nice to see the Watchdog comment not entering as it shows how bad Tesco is.

Don't come back saying it is actionable because it is not Watchdog has bought it up and it is all within legal rights.

Tesco Item
(Can't remember what item now but here is the price)
£1 each or
2 for £2.50

What a great offer

Anonymous said...

Where I work is a member of the chamber of trade and they haven't asked what we think so I don't think they have done a survey of their members.
If they claim they have, they need to publish the details - who did they ask, when, and what were the questions, plus what were the results?
What does the chamber of trade actually do? I know they have dinners at the golf club, but I mean what do they do for the traders?
Like - what is the point of joining?

@WR15 said...

Sorry, I don't sit here waiting 24/7.

Sometimes you'll have to wait for your comment to appear.

There are many examples of supermarket mis-labelling appearing on a regular basis on the internet. I've even seen it happen in Bowketts!

Anonymous said...

We no longer need the Chamber of Trade or the Town Council, because we've got Tenbury Futures.

Bumblebee said...


A lot of supposition going on here. If you look back at my comments I do say "The Chamber of Trade's conclusion in terms of highstreet shop owners...". What I don't discuss is a CofT poll as such, I'm talking about conclusion during soundings in various CofT meets.

If you get hold of the Aug 9th 2011 minutes now that the CofT have agreed to public scrutiny then you'll hopefully see what I mean.

Anonymous said...

"We no longer need the Chamber of Trade or the Town Council, because we've got Tenbury Futures."

God bless us and keep us.

Anonymous said...

Ian said "Tenbury doesn't need to be "preserved" it needs to prosper!"

Double standards here mate - from the comments read throughout this blog my interpretation is that most of the TesYes group don't want the businesses in town to prosper. It's just what I have read.

Anonymous said...

What does the chamber of trade actually do? I know they have dinners at the golf club, but I mean what do they do for the traders?

Unfair Anon - These events are fundraisers - have you been to one - clearly not. They fund raise for the town - to help pay for the christmas lights the christmas parade etc - I could go on. They have to do this because financial help does not come from thin air and it will definitely not come from the TTC or MHDC - so without the CoT and their free of charge hard work committment and donations there would be no christmas lights etc - in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

So it's the Xmas lights club then?
If the dinners are fund raisers for the lights, what happens to the membership subscriptions?
100 members at £10 each = £1,000 - so there should be a lot happening!

Mr. Longbeard said...

" interpretation is that most of the TesYes group don't want the businesses in town to prosper..."

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I'd say you were very wide of the mark.

Anonymous said...

So it's the Xmas lights club then?
If the dinners are fund raisers for the lights, what happens to the membership subscriptions?
100 members at £10 each = £1,000 - so there should be a lot happening!

I did say this was my opinion and I didn't say they were fundraisers for the lights full stop - I said they were organised as fundraisers. What are you suggesting happens with the money? Are you suggesting there is something underhand going on? What do you think you can do with £1,000? Do you know how much new lighting, event organising etc costs? Do you help free of charge so that it's nice for the kids in town? Do you think the TTC/MHDC should pay to keep the town looking attractive to tourists or should it all be down to the traders? Not just at christmas but in the summer also?

Tractorfactor said...

If you've got kids then Tenbury without the lights and the parade just ain't Christmas. Well done to the chamber of trade for helping support all of this (every year) and making the town seem appropriately dressed for the season.

It is much appreciated.

@WR15 said...

Whilst we have strayed onto this subject. I would like to thank all the farmers who support the Santa Parade by acting as road marshals, it couldn't be done without them.

Anonymous said...

If you've got kids then Tenbury without the lights and the parade just ain't Christmas. Well done to the chamber of trade for helping support all of this (every year) and making the town seem appropriately dressed for the season.

It is much appreciated.

Thank you Tractorfactor (by the way just to be clear I'm not a member of the chamber of trade and am not speaking for them. It's just my opinion - which is allowed. Common sense at last - lots of effort by lots of caring people in and around the community.

Tenbury Futures said...

We have put our own experiences of events at monday's Tenbury Town Council meeting up in a blog post.

Click the link above to hear the other side of the story.

Lottery pays for Xmas lights said...

The Xmas lights are great, but the chamber of trade needs to do something more than once a year.
There are lots of other organisations that could (and do) help fund the lights, but the chamber of trade should active all year, not just in December.
I don't know where the £1000 goes, I'm sure they don't do anything dodgy with it, but I don't see them doing anything much for the traders. What about a new town guide?
The lights can be funded by the lottery (click on heading) then the chamber of trade can get on with ideas that bring people in all year. At the moment we have to rely on people organising events like Applefest but there is only one applefest a year - the traders need people in the shops every week, not just when there is a big event.

@WR15 said...

Just for the sake of balance, I feel that I should point out that some of the traders are anti Applefest (and the other festivals) as they feel it draws people away from Teme Street.

Tenbury Futures said...

From and published in the Guardian, 26th September 2011 as "Our planning system is authorised blackmail – and it's about to get worse".

"The Wullies – build Whatever You Like, Wherever You Like – have their hand in the glove of government. They have portrayed this as a fight between green and brown, town and country, growth and stagnation. It’s simpler than that. It’s a fight between corporate power and democracy."

More on the link above about the 'new/improved' planning system and it's own unique take on 'democracy'.

Anonymous said...

Does a vote "in favour" mean it is good?
Does a vote "against" mean it is bad?
Should a bad plan go ahead, merely because "most" want it?
Should a good plan fail, merely because "most" don't want it?
Is being "popular" the same as being "good"?
If the will of the businesses matters, what about their view on the bridge being closed? The council said it was a case of EITHER closing, or having a weight limit. Why not ask the businesses which they prefer, and then respect their view?

@WR15 said...

I don't think a weight limit was a realistic option. (The Council did present 3? options at the briefing, but explained why they couldn't do 2 of them)

If my understanding is correct, a temporary weight limit can be applied pending/during emergency repairs (as per Holt Fleet and Stourport) but all bridges on main roads (across Europe) are required to be bought up to standard.

As the Country Council have a statutory duty to maintain the bridge, both as the bridge authority and because it is a scheduled ancient monument, the most they could do is delay a while, at the risk of the eventual work required increasing in complexity and cost.

Anonymous said...

WR15, you've made the mistake of believing what the council said! Bridges don't have to be approved to 44 tons.

@WR15 said...

So doesn't European Community Directive 89/460/EEC apply to Teme Bridge?

Anonymous said...

no we should stop listening to these potty european laws. bloody europe. england needs to get away from them

Anonymous said...

89/460/EEC basically requires bridge to be assessed. It does not require all bridges to cope with 44 tons.
The directive states "bridges which still require strengthening after 31 December 1998 could be covered by local weight restrictions".

@WR15 said...

"89/460/EEC basically requires bridge to be assessed. It does not require all bridges to cope with 44 tons."

Doesn't it go on to talk about suitability of alternate routes and availability of local alternative crossings.

We know Tenbury hasn't got any local alternative crossing points, hence the problem with the closure, so surely that is why the County Council feel they need to maintain the bridge at the full weight limit.

Anonymous said...

It does indeed, but the aim of the directive is to provide a strategic highways layout, so trucks can operate from Greece to Ireland or wherever, without tripping over local weight or height or width restrictions.
The directive doesn't aim to give 44 tonne trucks access to every part on the EU's road system.
Teme Street is not part of a strategic lorry route - indeed the A4112 is already signposted as being unsuitable for HGVs.
Teme Bridge has no signficant strategic through-route value for HGVs, it merely saves them a couple of miles compared to going round the trunk road route (A456 and A49).
The A456 and A49 are the "alternative route" - and they are already the recommended HGV route.
The A4112 is not a useful through route for HGVs and consequently the directive does not require Teme Bridge to be open to 44-tonne trucks.

A.T.Wellsman said...

Could we use your blog to have our own poll.

Question:If the Tescos plan for the development of the market is refused would you be happy to see a similar deveopment take place in Burford. Yes\No

@WR15 said...

I'm not really a fan of polls. As we have seen in recent weeks, you can get different answers from the same group of people, depending on who asks what.

Online polls are far too easy to fix, the results depend on who is the most motivated to get what result.

Christmas light fan..Ho ho ho... said...

I believe Bowkett's donated a couple of grand to the Christmas light fund last year via the "Make a Difference" scheme....

@WR15 said...

Not quite right (unless they did it again).

From Bowkett's website.

"In 2008 our customers raised almost £1700 by simply purchasing every day items. The money raised was donated to the Tenbury Wells Chamber of Trade to help pay for the wonderful display of Christmas lights in the Town."

Anonymous said...

Come on wr15, you really must forgive and forget with this crusade against Bowketts. Even you must have to agree on balance that they're a decent family-owned business serving Tenbury with quality meats etc that also does a lot to support their local community. Please bury the hatchet and let's all get on with the business of working towards making the town and highstreet a vibrant and resilient mix of independent businesses. Please don't give in to being a conduit for corporate spin from Tesco (or read 'the man' maybe?) - I don't believe that's in your DNA.

@WR15 said...

So correcting a fact is a crusade against Bowketts?

Thank You said...

Pretty sure Spar contributed to keeping the Regal alive a little while back (£2,500)
Bowketts & Spar Thank you very much.

@WR15 said...

As you are so well informed about these good deeds, tell us were they company donations from their profits, or money raised by their staff from their customers?

Anonymous said...

Oh come on wr15, where to start.

23 Nov 2010, Tenbury Blog:

@WR15 "I agree on the shopping exercise as submitted Bowketts are cheaper..."

25 Nov 2010, Tenbury blog:

@WR15 "...I'm usually commenting on what I see as inaccuract comments from others.

Such as Bowketts is cheaper than Tesco. I would reply "that's why several staff members choose to shop elsewhere"

Now that's just being spiteful.

@WR15 said...

You think that is "crusade against Bowkett's"?

Tin soldier said...

Does it really matter how monies were raised in support of the good causes mentioned? Whether it be staff and customers or through company profits - the money was raised and pledged in good faith. Would you have it all clawed back if it were the former wr15?

Look at Penrith! said...

Which just leaves us wondering what the chamber of trade does for the rest of the year!
For example, they should have called a meeting to discuss the bridge closure.
Compare with other chambers of trade.....

@WR15 said...

Perhaps with more interest and more volunteers more could be achieved.

@WR15 said...

"Would you have it all clawed back if it were the former wr15?"

I'm quite happy for money to be raised and donated in any way. My only argument is with companies (& people) who claim X company has donated X money, when they haven't.

Bowkett's clearly say the "our customers raised" which is excellent and unambiguous.

£7,000 could do a lot said...

I don't think the chamber of trade wants anything much to happen.
No meetings for members to attend (except the AGM), no social meetings (unless you count golf club dinners), no agendas, no recent minutes, no way for members to know what is happening, no actual membership benefits, no interesting talks - nothing (other than the lights, which are very nice, but could have been funded by the lottery).
And businesses need trade all year, not just in December!
An easy start would be to email members the draft agenda at least a week before each meeting so members could suggest additional items or make comments.
If you write to the chamber of trade, they don't reply.
If you go to the website there are minutes for 2010, but none for 2011. Does the chamber of trade committee still meet?
The minutes for 16 Nov 2010 say the chamber of trade has £7,000 in the bank. What is this money for? Let's use it to make something good happen for Tenbury!

Anonymous said...

As you are so well informed about these good deeds, tell us were they company donations from their profits, or money raised by their staff from their customers?

Company donation A.F.Blakemore

Tesla vs Edison said...

Now it sounds like a Spar moanfest wr15. We have to help get the highstreet's shops back in the black really.

Just Asking said...

Anonymous 13.04
I see the "Spar" donation to the Regal has grown from £2000 when first mentioned on this blog last October to £2500 now. Strange thing is, no one else seems to remember it. Just how many years ago was it?

Martyn Buchwald said...

'Volunteers' are mentioned earlier in the thread. Does the Applefest need any help from willing members of the public?

@WR15 said...

All these sneaky youtube thinks.

Yes, volunteers for Applefest would be most welcome.

I will get details/times/dates and post them later in the week.

Anonymous said...

WR15 "Bowkett's clearly say the "our customers raised" which is excellent and unambiguous.

Yes the customers have raised it by purchasing the products needed to fund the donation from the manufacturers. Excellent and unambiguous as you say... I understand that if the customers didn't purchase the products needed to add to the fund then there would be no money in it.. but it's all good isn't it? money given to local good causes and charities is good unless we look from your cynical(a sneering faultfinder) view because from how you repeatedly come across you have a grudge for some reason