Monday, 6 February 2012

First Windfall Draw Completed

The first TWO4B Windfall draw attracted 3,300 enteries (only 15 of which had been entered with no name).

The winning entry was drawn today by Tenbury Mayor Liz Weston and Chairman of the Tenbury Chamber of Trade, Sarah Thompson.

The lucky winner is Victor Woodford from Tenbury Wells, who will be presented with his cheque and iPod Touch this Saturday.


Anonymous said...

Well done! Brilliant! Now all of us Tenbury Traders can pat the backs of 'our' local council for what exactly?? Ruining what little trade we already have? For giving out an apple every time you shop locally, come on get real, Tebury is dead and no matter how it try's to get fluffed up with the hope of winning 1000 shops have been well and truly ruined by the closure, Bowketts down 25%, the garage down 25,000 in the first week, where are the success stories??

Anonymous said...

The bridge had to be repaired. The Apple scheme may not mend all ills, but its better than nothing.

Only time will tell if your dire predictions about businesses being ruined will come to pass.

Trade across the whole country is down, so some may blame the bridge, but other factors are also at work.

Welsh Wizard said...

The Bridge need not of closed if they the councils had maintained it in the first place.
Lets hope the big "T" will be refused again, as that will be the death of Tenbury.

Bumblebee said...

Mmn. It's a delicate one isn't it?

The bridge was due to be worked-on years back but it kept getting put back.. It was always going to happen and it's finally happened.. We can all say that "there's a better time" but in practice there'll always be pros and cons of any time in the year.

What I do wonder though is 2 things:

1. Having walked back and forth over the bridge for the last few weeks I've noted that there's always about a small car's width of central tarmac remaining while work is done of the pavements. I do wonder if some additional pre-planned joined-up thinking could have allowed light (non HGV) traffic use at night after works had finished for the day (tied-in with some of the many sets of temporary lights that WCC have at their disposal).

2. Also why do WCC insist on telling the local community that a single-lane supporting Bailey Bridge for similar non-HGV light traffic (along with traffic controls) would cost around £4 million? We know that they based their thinking on a double lane Bailey Bridge built in Cumbria for a wider span of river, we also know that a Regional company quoted £200k for 5 months rent (not just 10x weeks) for such a bridge. The Cattle Market is already in use by WCC for HGV turning so this essentially leaves crane hire to put such a bridge in, labour and small grading of adjacent land. In no way can this all add up to £4 million. The community hasn't been told the whole truth by WCC on this matter.

WCC - of the people, by the people for the people.. I'm not so sure.

Anonymous said...

It looks like the bridge could have been fixed in three weeks if they had working 16 hours a day, seven days a week, in summer.

Mr. Longbeard said...

But how much trade would of been lost during a busy summer over 3 weeks compared to the assumed quieter winter 10 weeks.

And whilst I understand your point, it really isn't that simple, there's no point working 16 hour days if half of that time is wasted waiting for materials to cure or go off etc. before you can move on or continue working on that section.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear Mr Longbeard, how little you know about major transport projects! Night-time working is commonplace. The bridge probably only needed to be totally closed to traffic for about 2 weeks, assuming 24/7 working during that time and well-planned logistics.
Three weeks in summer (no school run) or ten weeks in winter (dark evenings and risk of ice and snow)? The answer should have been to ask the people and businesses.
Bumblebee is right - the whole truth hasn't been told.

@WR15 said...

This project has been under discussion for years, & I announced the closure on the blog back in April 2011.

People were asked. The Chamber of Trade and the Town Council both had input into the closure debate.

The choice of the first quarter was the outcome of the discussions.

If "people" want to second guess the decision, where were they in the months/years leading up to the project. Why were so few traders at the Chamber of Trade AGM where the closure was discussed and there was time to amend the dates?

Why wasn't any concern raised during "Public Time" at a Town Council meeting?

Anonymous said...

Please, WR15, can you say exactly what you mean by 'people were asked'.

When Tenbury Futures balloted traders (and I've seen their evidence - they did), not one shopkeeper had been asked their views - and the vast majority who Futures asked for an opinion of the closure were against a winter closure.

Let's see your evidence.

@WR15 said...

I don't have "evidence" but representatives of the Chamber of Trade, the Tourism & Events Groups and the Town Council were all members of the "working group" that made the decisions. Maybe none of them consulted with their committees or other people.

Perhaps if the shop keepers feel that they have been misrepresented by both their Chamber of Trade & Town Council they will make their feelings known at the appropriate AGMs.

I've not seen what questions Tenbury Futures asked and at what point they asked them. Perhaps the Shopkeeper should elect the good people of Tenbury Futures as their representatives and boycott their membership of the Chamber of Trade.

There is also a space on the Town Council so perhaps the "leaders" of Tenbury Futures (whoever they are) should apply to become a Cllr.