Showing posts with label "Tesco". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Tesco". Show all posts
Monday, 7 November 2011
Tesco decision delayed again
Cllr Phillip Grove the Leader of MHDC has confirmed that no decision on the Tesco application to develop the Tenbury Cattle Market site will be made this year. He also couldn't confirm that the planning permission would be ready for the January 2012 planning meeting either.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Tesco decision delayed.
From the MHDC website
Tenbury Tesco application meeting
Planners at Malvern Hills District Council have requested additional information from Tesco for their proposed food retail store on the Cattle Market Site in Tenbury Wells.
The application will therefore not be reported to the November meeting of the Northern Area Development Control Committee on the 2nd November. The next available meeting to consider the application will be Wednesday 7th December 2011.
Amended details are expected to be submitted and once received, people who have expressed an interest in the application will be given the opportunity to comment on the revised details.
Cllr Phil Grove, Leader of MHDC said:
“Some extra work needs to be done on the application before it can be considered by Committee. If the application is ready for the December date, the meeting will be, as previously promised, held in Tenbury. I am conscious of just how important this issue is for the town and that opinion is divided. “
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
The people have spoken.....
It seems that majority of Traders, Towns people and now Town Councillors agree that allowing Tesco to develop a store on the Old Cattle Market, would on balance be beneficial for Tenbury.
Tenbury Town Council have voted 6 to 4 in favour of supporting the application. The previous vote of 5 to 4 against was overturned. The Shropshire Star is carrying a story that the original votes wasn't valid, but I don't know why this should be.
There are of course, traders, people and Cllrs who disagree. At last nights meeting of the Town Council two people were able to put their thoughts before the Council. Neither of the speakers live in the Tenbury Ward.
One spoke of the prior experience of Leicester and Llandrindod Wells, where the arrival of Tesco changed the town. The other spoke of his concerns about traffic and chaos on the bridge.
I'm not convinced that the situation in Tenbury is similar to Leicester, or for that matter Llandrindod. I've not been to Leicester in more than 10 years, so it might have shrunk. I have been to Llandrindod and I'm certainly confused by the comparison.
Llandrindod has a population roughly double that of Tenbury, and the Tesco is quite a way from the Town centre. You have to pass both the Co-op & Aldi on the way.
There was an interesting letter from a Llandrindod resident who felt it was fine for his local populous to drive the 60 mile round trip to Hereford Tesco and so having one in town was an overkill. Sounds like a very "green" option to me. He also felt that people of Tenbury could easily use public transport to access existing Tesco stores. He clearly hasn't tried that!
The question of traffic, is a concern, but anyone who spends time in Tenbury knows that jams occur quickly and then dissipate just as quickly. There are peaks, but equally there are very long troughs.
There is conflict on the bridge, but there has been for decades and one way or another the traffic sorts itself out.
Will there be problems, sure there will, but after an initial period it will settle down.
So now we await the report of the MHDC planner and the vote of the Northern Area Development Committee. Interesting times indeed.
Shropshire Star
Tenbury Town Council have voted 6 to 4 in favour of supporting the application. The previous vote of 5 to 4 against was overturned. The Shropshire Star is carrying a story that the original votes wasn't valid, but I don't know why this should be.
There are of course, traders, people and Cllrs who disagree. At last nights meeting of the Town Council two people were able to put their thoughts before the Council. Neither of the speakers live in the Tenbury Ward.
One spoke of the prior experience of Leicester and Llandrindod Wells, where the arrival of Tesco changed the town. The other spoke of his concerns about traffic and chaos on the bridge.
I'm not convinced that the situation in Tenbury is similar to Leicester, or for that matter Llandrindod. I've not been to Leicester in more than 10 years, so it might have shrunk. I have been to Llandrindod and I'm certainly confused by the comparison.
Llandrindod has a population roughly double that of Tenbury, and the Tesco is quite a way from the Town centre. You have to pass both the Co-op & Aldi on the way.
There was an interesting letter from a Llandrindod resident who felt it was fine for his local populous to drive the 60 mile round trip to Hereford Tesco and so having one in town was an overkill. Sounds like a very "green" option to me. He also felt that people of Tenbury could easily use public transport to access existing Tesco stores. He clearly hasn't tried that!
The question of traffic, is a concern, but anyone who spends time in Tenbury knows that jams occur quickly and then dissipate just as quickly. There are peaks, but equally there are very long troughs.
There is conflict on the bridge, but there has been for decades and one way or another the traffic sorts itself out.
Will there be problems, sure there will, but after an initial period it will settle down.
So now we await the report of the MHDC planner and the vote of the Northern Area Development Committee. Interesting times indeed.
Shropshire Star
Friday, 7 October 2011
Democracy in Action
Last month Tenbury Town Council voted 5 to 4 against supporting the Tesco planning application.
This was, as one commentator put it "as close as you could get to 50/50 without a chain saw"
What was slightly unexpected was that between this meeting and the meeting of the full Town Council, many ordinary (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way but people who don't usually become involved in the ways of the Council or write to the press or join action groups) towns folk and traders sought out and spoke to various Councillors and made their feelings known.
When the original vote was cast 9 Councillors were able to vote, 2 were not permitted as they had personal and prejudicial interests and 2 Councillors were away.
At the next full meeting of the Town Council, Cllrs were asked to (in effect) ratify this motion, but this time the numbers were different.
10 Councillors were able to vote, 2 were not permitted as they had personal and prejudicial interests and 1 Councillor was away. The motion (to ratify) was defeated 6 votes to 4.
This doesn't mean that the Town Council "have done a U turn" and now support the planning proposal, or that they no longer oppose it, but means that pending further discussion they have no official view.
Under "standing order" the rules that govern the Town Council, they are unable to discuss and vote on the same subject more than once in six months, but there is a "get out" which means provided four Councillors submit a written motion, then the subject can be brought back, provided that the written motion is posted for a duration and then voted upon and accepted by a majority.
So next Monday the Council will be able to vote on whether they agree to the motion brought by the four Councillors.
What happens next really depends on who is at the meeting on Monday.
A maximum of 10 Councillors will have a vote. 3 will not be permitted as they had personal and prejudicial interests.
If the written motion succeeds in attracting 6 votes, then the original motion will be brought back for another vote. In theory if the written motion succeeds then the Council will then vote to support the Tesco application. This can not then be overturned. If the written motion fails, then the original motion stands.
I think what we can safely say is that the Town Council are as divided as the Town, and that whilst there is a strong and vocal opposition to the development, there is an equally strong, but much less vocal group in favour.
As I wrote to one of the founders of what became Tenbury Futures nearly a year ago "I'm sure we will get the right result in the end (whatever that may be)"
(PS: This is my understanding of what happened/is happening, but can't guarantee I'm 100% constitutionally correct or have used all the correct terminology)
This was, as one commentator put it "as close as you could get to 50/50 without a chain saw"
What was slightly unexpected was that between this meeting and the meeting of the full Town Council, many ordinary (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way but people who don't usually become involved in the ways of the Council or write to the press or join action groups) towns folk and traders sought out and spoke to various Councillors and made their feelings known.
When the original vote was cast 9 Councillors were able to vote, 2 were not permitted as they had personal and prejudicial interests and 2 Councillors were away.
At the next full meeting of the Town Council, Cllrs were asked to (in effect) ratify this motion, but this time the numbers were different.
10 Councillors were able to vote, 2 were not permitted as they had personal and prejudicial interests and 1 Councillor was away. The motion (to ratify) was defeated 6 votes to 4.
This doesn't mean that the Town Council "have done a U turn" and now support the planning proposal, or that they no longer oppose it, but means that pending further discussion they have no official view.
Under "standing order" the rules that govern the Town Council, they are unable to discuss and vote on the same subject more than once in six months, but there is a "get out" which means provided four Councillors submit a written motion, then the subject can be brought back, provided that the written motion is posted for a duration and then voted upon and accepted by a majority.
So next Monday the Council will be able to vote on whether they agree to the motion brought by the four Councillors.
What happens next really depends on who is at the meeting on Monday.
A maximum of 10 Councillors will have a vote. 3 will not be permitted as they had personal and prejudicial interests.
If the written motion succeeds in attracting 6 votes, then the original motion will be brought back for another vote. In theory if the written motion succeeds then the Council will then vote to support the Tesco application. This can not then be overturned. If the written motion fails, then the original motion stands.
I think what we can safely say is that the Town Council are as divided as the Town, and that whilst there is a strong and vocal opposition to the development, there is an equally strong, but much less vocal group in favour.
As I wrote to one of the founders of what became Tenbury Futures nearly a year ago "I'm sure we will get the right result in the end (whatever that may be)"
(PS: This is my understanding of what happened/is happening, but can't guarantee I'm 100% constitutionally correct or have used all the correct terminology)
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
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
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Tenbury Tesco Plans & Documents
 |
| Click on picture for more images. (Will only work when MHDC planning site is working) |
If you wish to object, then guidance is available on http://tenbury-futures.blogspot.com/ but as they correctly point out, objections can only be on planning grounds.
Although this is a new planning application, the applicants feel (& I believe that they are correct) that the have already met all the necessary planning requirements in their previous applications, and the only hurdle left to jump is that of design.
There is still the matter of the demolition of the old infirmary, but I'm guessing that provided the developers get approval for the development, then the demolition permission will be allowed.
Malvern planners do not appear to have yet set a closing date for consultations, but expect a decision in early November.
Shropshire Star
Friday, 22 July 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Tenbury Tesco - New Plan Validated
Revised Post 21/7/11
It seems that MHDC have not validated the new Tenbury Tesco application. Usually when copies arrive in Town they are validated, but I'm informed by a BBC journalist that Malvern hope to get the plan validated this week.
A copy is available to view in the Town Council's office and at library.
The documents will become available on-line on the MHDC planning site in the next few days.
It seems that MHDC have not validated the new Tenbury Tesco application. Usually when copies arrive in Town they are validated, but I'm informed by a BBC journalist that Malvern hope to get the plan validated this week.
A copy is available to view in the Town Council's office and at library.
The documents will become available on-line on the MHDC planning site in the next few days.
Monday, 11 July 2011
Tesco Tenbury - New Application Expected Soon
Their "Version 3" plan is expected to feature a mostly glazed structure with wooden detailing. The store will sit back slightly further on the site to allow room for a "Market Space" which could be used for market stalls, for instance during the Mistletoe festival. It could also be a mustering place for the various Tenbury Parades.
Some of the glazed panels in the lobby area will feature detailing by a local artist influenced by the Orchards & Hop Gardens of the Teme Valley.
The outline of the Old Infirmary, that will need to be demolished to make way for the store, may be shown in brick set into the tarmac, whilst other glass panels reflect the building that is no longer there.
The plan still only includes about 100 parking spaces.
Tesco hope that the store will open in time for Christmas 2012.
Friday, 6 May 2011
Tenbury Tesco Rumours are untrue,
I can confirm that the rumours that Tesco have submitted a new application for the Tenbury Cattle Market site are untrue.
They are still actively considering the site but have made no final decision, and will undertake additional local consultation before any plan is submitted.
They are still actively considering the site but have made no final decision, and will undertake additional local consultation before any plan is submitted.
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Stand up for the Officers
A curious selection of Anti-Tesco letters have appeared in this weeks Tenbury Advertiser. I do wonder if the people who wrote them attended the Northern area planning meeting and if they did, I wonder if they listened, or perhaps they were too busy hurumphing and heckling!
The Council Officers (and Solicitor) where absolutely correct in stopping Cllrs citing Traffic & Vitality in their rejection.
I'm sure the letter writers are both acknowledged experts as retail analysts and traffic management consultants, but the truth is, the "expert" opinion which the Council has to consider (rather than any amount of armchair experts) say that the development will not cause an undue increase in traffic congestion and will not harm the overall vitality of the town.
The only grounds that could be used for rejection is design, which was poor and doesn't adequately address the issues of the site.
The continued claim that the majority of the town's population is against the development, also does stack up. Yes the majority of the people who wrote to the planning officer are against the scheme, but this is what the process allows. It isn't an X-Factor voting system. It allows people with genuine objections to raise them with the planning officer.
I also do not believe that the majority of the people at the meeting were opposed to Tesco. The attendees fell into three camps.
1. Opposed in principle to Tesco or and major supermarket.
2. Opposed to the scheme as presented.
3. In favour of the scheme as presented.
I would accept that camp 3 had the fewest followers.
If you are going to comment on this blog, please note I'm not going to publish crass comments, abuse or articles where I have reason to believe the copyright is not owned by the person posting.
I welcome reasoned argument and factual corrections.
The Council Officers (and Solicitor) where absolutely correct in stopping Cllrs citing Traffic & Vitality in their rejection.
I'm sure the letter writers are both acknowledged experts as retail analysts and traffic management consultants, but the truth is, the "expert" opinion which the Council has to consider (rather than any amount of armchair experts) say that the development will not cause an undue increase in traffic congestion and will not harm the overall vitality of the town.
The continued claim that the majority of the town's population is against the development, also does stack up. Yes the majority of the people who wrote to the planning officer are against the scheme, but this is what the process allows. It isn't an X-Factor voting system. It allows people with genuine objections to raise them with the planning officer.
I also do not believe that the majority of the people at the meeting were opposed to Tesco. The attendees fell into three camps.
1. Opposed in principle to Tesco or and major supermarket.
2. Opposed to the scheme as presented.
3. In favour of the scheme as presented.
I would accept that camp 3 had the fewest followers.
If you are going to comment on this blog, please note I'm not going to publish crass comments, abuse or articles where I have reason to believe the copyright is not owned by the person posting.
I welcome reasoned argument and factual corrections.
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Tesco Tenbury - Why Permission Was Refused
Yesterday, Tenbury witnessed a lesson in democracy. For many of the "audience" this may have been the first time that they had witnessed their district representatives in action and how they interacted with the paid officers of the Council. I was impressed by the presentations given by both the Tenbury Ward members.
What may have surprised some, is that despite some councillors feeling that they are qualified to sit on such a committee they clearly do not have full understanding of the process.
No wonder the Tesco representatives were smiling at some of the Cllrs comments as they clearly paved the way for any appeal.
Luckily their minders, the paid officers, by due process, managed (just) to keep the final decision on the straight and narrow and hopefully avoid MHDC (and us by virtue of our Council Tax) being hit by a large application for costs at any appeal.
I am not either a planning or legal expert so as always the content of this blog are my opinion and observation. I have been wrong before, and will be wrong again. Additional coverage of last nights meeting is scheduled to run in tonight's Shropshire Star, and will probably also appear in the various Newsquest publications such as the Worcester Evening News.
By the time yesterday's meeting took place, some of the original objections raised in the very comprehensive "Recommend to refuse" report had been overturned by additional information having been made available. The final reasons for rejection are.:
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.
A number of Cllrs had wanted to add Town Vitality and the Bridge/Road Safety into the reasons for rejection, but were wisely advised by the Council Solicitor and Development Control Manager, not to.
Yesterday the Cllrs had a choice to accept the reasons above and refuse planning permission or the defer the decision and work with the applicant to improve the design and agree on the terms of the S106 agreement.
They decided by voting 7 to refuse, 4 not to refuse and 2 abstentions.
So where does that leave Tenbury?
Personally I think Tesco will appeal, and I think they have a good chance of them winning. (but what do I know!) They may also prepare a new application which addresses some of the issues, and use the threat of the appeal to concentrate the minds of the officials. The town is far more likely to benefit from a generous S106 settlement from an application than from a plan passed on appeal.
Why do I think this?
The first reason for refusal is all about size and design. These decisions are subjective. I have felt all along that the design is wrong and the size too large. I'm not architecturally trained, but I know a good design when I see one (although another person looking at the same design may well disagree). When backed into a corner in the past Tesco have appointed "eminent" designers who have come up with stunning designs. Size will still be an issue, Tesco will want to maximise the size of the store to maximise their return on investment, whilst the site demands a smaller store to allow sufficient car parking, access and room for the River side walk.
The second reason is about the interaction with the car park and the River Teme. It has at last been acknowledged that if Tenbury stands any chance of becoming a Tourist destination, it needs to make much better use of its Riverside position. The existing dark, damp and unkempt riverside walk is a disgrace. Much more thought needs to be given how to open up this path and provide an attractive environment and views.
The third reason is both subjective and technical. Temeside house is hardly an attractive or vibrant addition to the town. It continues to deteriorate, and whilst it has some residential and business use these could cynically be termed as cosmetic rather than viable.
The fourth reason is purely technical and a negotiated S106 agreement could be completed without too much effort.
Other Arguments
Vitality : Much has been made of the development damaging the vitality of the Town. This is not an argument that I have agreed with, and it seems that the Independent Retail Consultant employed by the District Council also disagrees. Many articles and studies have been quoted, but they all refer to large out of town superstores. I can find no studies where small (the proposed store is at the larger end of small) in town stores have caused major damage. They do provide competition to other similar food retailers, but that isn't sufficient reason to refuse them. Both Bowketts and Spar have been described as "over-trading" (which means their turnover per square foot is much higher than the expected norm) which means they could reduce their turnover significantly without it fundamentally damaging the business.
The Bridge : We all know that the bridge is "old" and showing signs of wear. The County Council maintain that it is structurally sound and that their monitoring and inspection regime will ensure that it remains operational. Opinions may differ, but in planning terms, you have to defer to the statutory experts.
Safety : In an ideal world you wouldn't mix vehicles and people, but we do not live in an ideal world, and vehicles and people have to mix everyday. The delivery arrangements for most of the business' in town are far from ideal, and Tenbury is not unique in this. Only large, modern and often out of town shopping complexes solve this problem, but of course they also cause many others. I agree that wherever possible we should plan for failure, but again this argument isn't one that holds up in planning terms. Risk management is the duty of the retailer.
Jobs : I was surprised that the Tesco representative was still quoting the 150 jobs figure. This is calculated as the average number of jobs per square foot of retail space. I thought this figure had been down graded due to the slowing economic climate.
Electricity : It is claimed that a company in Burford is unable to expand as Tesco have bought up all the spare capacity in the area. Sorry, but I don't believe this.
The only option : Clearly this isn't the only option for the site. It is probably the most financially rewarding option for the site owner. It is the only application on the table, but it would not be beyond the scope of human ingenuity to come up with alternatives.
Parking : Parking is and always will be a problem. Insufficient parking adds to congestion as cars circulate looking for somewhere to park.
Public transport : Public transport especially in rural areas is a joke, and anyone with a viable alternative is unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. Tesco's have comprehensively misunderstood the existing provision and have not as yet come up with any sensible alternatives. Clearly their "wish" that staff will arrive using methods other than cars is short sighted and unless their opening hours are only 10am to 3pm completely unworkable.
Traffic Congestion : As someone who has lived and worked in London and other major cities, I would say what congestion, but the lack of road congestion is one of the major benefits of living rurally. I do believe that the traffic survey was defective as Tenbury Traffic does not conform to the norm. In most Towns, Saturday afternoon is the busiest time of the week, whilst in Tenbury it is the quietest. This needs to be re-visited, and revised if any new application is submitted. I think that congestion will be more of a problem than acknowledged by the applicant, but less than indicated by the objectors.
So, we live in interesting times. I predict chaos on Teme Street for much of 2011 & 2012 (and perhaps beyond) as work begins on the renovation of the Regal, the repairs to the drains, the resurfacing of the roads & the repairs to the bridge. TesNo or Yesco, the next few years will see additional pressure on the vitality of the town, for reasons other than competition.
What may have surprised some, is that despite some councillors feeling that they are qualified to sit on such a committee they clearly do not have full understanding of the process.
No wonder the Tesco representatives were smiling at some of the Cllrs comments as they clearly paved the way for any appeal.
Luckily their minders, the paid officers, by due process, managed (just) to keep the final decision on the straight and narrow and hopefully avoid MHDC (and us by virtue of our Council Tax) being hit by a large application for costs at any appeal.
I am not either a planning or legal expert so as always the content of this blog are my opinion and observation. I have been wrong before, and will be wrong again. Additional coverage of last nights meeting is scheduled to run in tonight's Shropshire Star, and will probably also appear in the various Newsquest publications such as the Worcester Evening News.
By the time yesterday's meeting took place, some of the original objections raised in the very comprehensive "Recommend to refuse" report had been overturned by additional information having been made available. The final reasons for rejection are.:
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.
A number of Cllrs had wanted to add Town Vitality and the Bridge/Road Safety into the reasons for rejection, but were wisely advised by the Council Solicitor and Development Control Manager, not to.
Yesterday the Cllrs had a choice to accept the reasons above and refuse planning permission or the defer the decision and work with the applicant to improve the design and agree on the terms of the S106 agreement.
They decided by voting 7 to refuse, 4 not to refuse and 2 abstentions.
So where does that leave Tenbury?
Personally I think Tesco will appeal, and I think they have a good chance of them winning. (but what do I know!) They may also prepare a new application which addresses some of the issues, and use the threat of the appeal to concentrate the minds of the officials. The town is far more likely to benefit from a generous S106 settlement from an application than from a plan passed on appeal.
Why do I think this?
The first reason for refusal is all about size and design. These decisions are subjective. I have felt all along that the design is wrong and the size too large. I'm not architecturally trained, but I know a good design when I see one (although another person looking at the same design may well disagree). When backed into a corner in the past Tesco have appointed "eminent" designers who have come up with stunning designs. Size will still be an issue, Tesco will want to maximise the size of the store to maximise their return on investment, whilst the site demands a smaller store to allow sufficient car parking, access and room for the River side walk.
The second reason is about the interaction with the car park and the River Teme. It has at last been acknowledged that if Tenbury stands any chance of becoming a Tourist destination, it needs to make much better use of its Riverside position. The existing dark, damp and unkempt riverside walk is a disgrace. Much more thought needs to be given how to open up this path and provide an attractive environment and views.
The third reason is both subjective and technical. Temeside house is hardly an attractive or vibrant addition to the town. It continues to deteriorate, and whilst it has some residential and business use these could cynically be termed as cosmetic rather than viable.
The fourth reason is purely technical and a negotiated S106 agreement could be completed without too much effort.
Other Arguments
Vitality : Much has been made of the development damaging the vitality of the Town. This is not an argument that I have agreed with, and it seems that the Independent Retail Consultant employed by the District Council also disagrees. Many articles and studies have been quoted, but they all refer to large out of town superstores. I can find no studies where small (the proposed store is at the larger end of small) in town stores have caused major damage. They do provide competition to other similar food retailers, but that isn't sufficient reason to refuse them. Both Bowketts and Spar have been described as "over-trading" (which means their turnover per square foot is much higher than the expected norm) which means they could reduce their turnover significantly without it fundamentally damaging the business.
The Bridge : We all know that the bridge is "old" and showing signs of wear. The County Council maintain that it is structurally sound and that their monitoring and inspection regime will ensure that it remains operational. Opinions may differ, but in planning terms, you have to defer to the statutory experts.
Safety : In an ideal world you wouldn't mix vehicles and people, but we do not live in an ideal world, and vehicles and people have to mix everyday. The delivery arrangements for most of the business' in town are far from ideal, and Tenbury is not unique in this. Only large, modern and often out of town shopping complexes solve this problem, but of course they also cause many others. I agree that wherever possible we should plan for failure, but again this argument isn't one that holds up in planning terms. Risk management is the duty of the retailer.
Jobs : I was surprised that the Tesco representative was still quoting the 150 jobs figure. This is calculated as the average number of jobs per square foot of retail space. I thought this figure had been down graded due to the slowing economic climate.
Electricity : It is claimed that a company in Burford is unable to expand as Tesco have bought up all the spare capacity in the area. Sorry, but I don't believe this.
The only option : Clearly this isn't the only option for the site. It is probably the most financially rewarding option for the site owner. It is the only application on the table, but it would not be beyond the scope of human ingenuity to come up with alternatives.
Parking : Parking is and always will be a problem. Insufficient parking adds to congestion as cars circulate looking for somewhere to park.
Public transport : Public transport especially in rural areas is a joke, and anyone with a viable alternative is unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. Tesco's have comprehensively misunderstood the existing provision and have not as yet come up with any sensible alternatives. Clearly their "wish" that staff will arrive using methods other than cars is short sighted and unless their opening hours are only 10am to 3pm completely unworkable.
Traffic Congestion : As someone who has lived and worked in London and other major cities, I would say what congestion, but the lack of road congestion is one of the major benefits of living rurally. I do believe that the traffic survey was defective as Tenbury Traffic does not conform to the norm. In most Towns, Saturday afternoon is the busiest time of the week, whilst in Tenbury it is the quietest. This needs to be re-visited, and revised if any new application is submitted. I think that congestion will be more of a problem than acknowledged by the applicant, but less than indicated by the objectors.
So, we live in interesting times. I predict chaos on Teme Street for much of 2011 & 2012 (and perhaps beyond) as work begins on the renovation of the Regal, the repairs to the drains, the resurfacing of the roads & the repairs to the bridge. TesNo or Yesco, the next few years will see additional pressure on the vitality of the town, for reasons other than competition.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Tesco Tenbury - Permission Refused
After hours of discussion a final vote of Councillors was 7 for refusal, 4 against refusal and 2 abstentions.
More information to follow tomorrow......
Monday, 20 December 2010
Tescos Planning Meeting POSTPONED
Due to the heavy snowfall over the weekend and the freezing weather conditions expected this evening, the meeting to discuss the resubmitted planning application to build a Tescos foodstore on the Cattle Market site in Tenbury Wells has been postponed until the 5th of January.
The new meeting date will take place at the Tenbury High School from 6pm
Friday, 10 December 2010
Tenbury Tesco : Recommend to refuse
The full text of the refusal can be found here
Tesco "surprised" - Shropshire Star
Store plan hangs in balance - Worcester News
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Tenbury Town Council & Tesco
A few weeks ago Tenbury Town Council voted in favour of the new Tesco development on the Old Cattle Market site, but they have now decided in light of new evidence that they wish to discuss the matter again and re-vote.
A meeting has been scheduled for next Monday, but if the format is the same as the last meeting there will be no opportunity for members of the public to speak.
The Town Council have received a number of letters about the development, including one from a couple who live on the Isle of Man. They wrote to say that in their opinion Tesco shouldn't be allowed to open a store in Tenbury as their local high street had been ruined by competition from Tesco. What they, and many Tesco objectors still don't take into consideration is the proposed store isn't a Superstore (which on average is twice the size of the proposed store) and will therefore carry fewer lines that will compete with local shops. All of the criticism I have seen published refer to Superstores or Larger (most or all of which aren't located directly in the High Street).
I think that there are still defects with the application, but decisions shouldn't be swayed by incorrect comparisons. Many shops have opened and closed in Tenbury through the years and will continue to do so with or without Tesco.
Far better to concentrate on the defects in the application such as their complete misunderstanding of the available public transport which they feel could be used by staff and shoppers alike.
A meeting has been scheduled for next Monday, but if the format is the same as the last meeting there will be no opportunity for members of the public to speak.
The Town Council have received a number of letters about the development, including one from a couple who live on the Isle of Man. They wrote to say that in their opinion Tesco shouldn't be allowed to open a store in Tenbury as their local high street had been ruined by competition from Tesco. What they, and many Tesco objectors still don't take into consideration is the proposed store isn't a Superstore (which on average is twice the size of the proposed store) and will therefore carry fewer lines that will compete with local shops. All of the criticism I have seen published refer to Superstores or Larger (most or all of which aren't located directly in the High Street).
I think that there are still defects with the application, but decisions shouldn't be swayed by incorrect comparisons. Many shops have opened and closed in Tenbury through the years and will continue to do so with or without Tesco.
Far better to concentrate on the defects in the application such as their complete misunderstanding of the available public transport which they feel could be used by staff and shoppers alike.
Friday, 3 December 2010
Tesco Planning Meeting Arranged
Malvern Hills District Council have booked Tenbury High School as the location for the Northern Area Planning meeting on December 20th at 6pm.
Although some documents and reports are still incomplete, Council Leader Phil Grove said tonight "At this stage we have no plans to postpone the meeting"
From my (and other peoples) investigations, a number of questions have been raised.
Although some documents and reports are still incomplete, Council Leader Phil Grove said tonight "At this stage we have no plans to postpone the meeting"
- 1. Who now owns the land and have they been served with the appropriate notice/certificate/documentation that a planning application is in progress.
It appears that the former owners, Chase Tenbury LLP have been struck off for failing to complete statutory returns, and in theory all their assets have passed to the Crown.
- 2. Tesco's have not put in a Conservation Area application to demolish the Old Infirmary.
As far as can be ascertained, they originally planned to make an application that would be considered at the same time as the planning application. It is understood that they have now decided/been advised that they needn't make the application until after the planning application has been decided as the need for the demolition is intrinsic to the scheme. Therefore if the scheme is passed, that automatically grants them permission to demolish.
- 3. Tesco's have not put in a Listed Building Consent Application to demolish the buildings behind the Old Fire Station and to remove some of the railings.
Once again they appear to be relying on the "intrinsic to the scheme" theory.
- 4. The Environment Agency has raised concerns that not enough information has been supplied and therefore at this stage they are objecting to the scheme.
If Tesco's are correct and they can reply on the "intrinsic to" how do MHDC allow agencies such as English Heritage to comment on the demolition as they would not be consulted about the planning application.
I have asked Cllr Grove that "IF" there is a need to defer the decision, this is publicised prior to the meeting (which will need to go ahead as it is considering other planning applications at the same time) and not once everyone has braved the December night and turned up at the school.
Saturday, 30 October 2010
Tesco Tenbury : Make your mind up time
The closing date for commenting on the Tesco Tenbury plan is fast approaching.
I would encourage as many people as possible to read the submission documents before making their submission.
As many regular readers of this blog will know, I have stated all along that I have no objection to Tesco, which is why I don't actively support the TesNO group, but the more I read and understand the planning application, the more I feel there is still a long way to go.
Even individual submitted document such as the Car Park Management Strategy and the Transport Assessment contradict each other.
For instance one states
whilst the other says
Due to the lack of parking provision, apparently Worcester County Council have asked Tesco to limit parking to two hours. This seems to me to be a very short amount of time to do a linked shopping trip. (But perhaps I stop and talk to too many people)
There also seems to be a perhaps understandable but unforgivable misunderstanding of various local circumstances which invalidate their data.
For instance
Tuesday morning, Tenbury's traditional market day is when Tenbury is at its busiest. Yet no traffic survey was undertaken on this day. Instead a survey was carried out on a Saturday afternoon, which may be busy in most towns, but is when Tenbury is at it's quietest.
The report says Tesco will provide a new Bus Shelter on the South bound side of Teme Street. Very worthy, but if my analysis is correct, the majority of buses either terminate here or this is their last but one stop.
They have taken a very naive view of public transport, and have either completely misunderstood what is available or have deliberately misunderstood.
The report lists numerous bus services, but again the vast majority of these would be of no use to either shoppers coming in to Tenbury or potential staff.
There is talk of a freephone to a local Taxi firm. As far a I know there isn't one and the availability of private hire vehicles, especially at short notice is very scarce.
I'm sure that the documents are littered with other inconsistencies, so get reading and make sure you comment.
I would encourage as many people as possible to read the submission documents before making their submission.
As many regular readers of this blog will know, I have stated all along that I have no objection to Tesco, which is why I don't actively support the TesNO group, but the more I read and understand the planning application, the more I feel there is still a long way to go.
Even individual submitted document such as the Car Park Management Strategy and the Transport Assessment contradict each other.
For instance one states
The right for non-patrons to park on the site will be removed.
whilst the other says
Tesco support and encourage linked trips between the store & the town centre.
Due to the lack of parking provision, apparently Worcester County Council have asked Tesco to limit parking to two hours. This seems to me to be a very short amount of time to do a linked shopping trip. (But perhaps I stop and talk to too many people)
There also seems to be a perhaps understandable but unforgivable misunderstanding of various local circumstances which invalidate their data.
For instance
Tuesday morning, Tenbury's traditional market day is when Tenbury is at its busiest. Yet no traffic survey was undertaken on this day. Instead a survey was carried out on a Saturday afternoon, which may be busy in most towns, but is when Tenbury is at it's quietest.
The report says Tesco will provide a new Bus Shelter on the South bound side of Teme Street. Very worthy, but if my analysis is correct, the majority of buses either terminate here or this is their last but one stop.
They have taken a very naive view of public transport, and have either completely misunderstood what is available or have deliberately misunderstood.
The report lists numerous bus services, but again the vast majority of these would be of no use to either shoppers coming in to Tenbury or potential staff.
There is talk of a freephone to a local Taxi firm. As far a I know there isn't one and the availability of private hire vehicles, especially at short notice is very scarce.
I'm sure that the documents are littered with other inconsistencies, so get reading and make sure you comment.
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Tesco unveil their new plan for Tenbury.
Tesco are due to unveil their revised plan for a store to be sited on the Old Cattle Market in Tenbury Wells at a public exhibition at the Pump Rooms tomorrow, (but you can have a sneak preview on the Tenbury Blog)
Click on picture to enlarge. (Use your back button to return to blog)
Click on picture to enlarge. (Use your back button to return to blog)
You can see from this view that the store has been moved back slightly to allow disabled parking spaces at the front of the store. The entrance hall has also been redesigned to provide a visual feature that can been seen from Teme Street.
The car park levels have been altered to allow the storage of flood waters in the event of a flood whilst still protecting the store.
You can also see the full exhibition display by clicking here, or you can visit the exhibition in the Pump Room tomorrow between 11am & 6.30pm.Malvern Hills District Council were due to validate the planning application today and hopefully the full planning documentation should be available online from tomorrow.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
TESCO TO RESUBMIT TENBURY STORE APPLICATION THIS WEEK
Press Release
Tesco has reiterated its commitment to the former cattle market site in Tenbury Wells and intends to resubmit its application to develop a store on the site this week.
Following ongoing consultation between Tesco and planning officials, local residents and key stakeholders, a number of design and landscaping changes have been made to the original scheme. The application, which was withdrawn in July, is expected to be resubmitted to Malvern Hills District Council on September 30th.
The new scheme includes additional landscaping along the River Teme side of the site to alleviate flood risk and changes have also been made to the store approach, store design and site levels to improve the view from Teme Street. Plans to renovate the former fire station building remain in place.
The new store design proposes a circular entrance lobby to reflect the architectural character of the market building in Market Square and to enhance views of the store from the site entrance from Teme Street, a smaller service yard and improved landscaping at the rear of the site.
The delivery area at the back of Spar and the pedestrian link to Teme Street will also see improvements under the new proposals to improve the visual appearance of the proposed development.
Tesco is now inviting local people to view the new plans at an Information Day to be held at the Pump Rooms in Tenbury Wells from 11am to 6.30pm on Friday October 8th.
Sophie Akokhia, Corporate Affairs Manager for Tesco, said: “Since we withdrew our original application, we have continued the discussions that we were already under way and we have revised the scheme in line with feedback we have received.
“We have listened to local people and groups including the Chamber of Trade and Civic Society, and we’ve incorporated feedback to our plans where possible. We have also continued ongoing discussions with key organisations involved in this complex scheme, including the council, Environment Agency and Highways Agency. “As a result we feel we now have the best possible scheme for local people.
The proposed store is about two thirds of the size of our store in Ludlow and has been designed to be sympathetic to the local environment. It will offer choice and value, create new jobs for local people and keep trade within the town by eradicating the need for Tenbury residents to travel outside of the town to do their weekly grocery shop.
“We have already had some positive support from local shoppers and traders in the town but we would encourage people to come and see our new proposals and talk with members of the project team at the Pump Rooms on October 8th.”
Tenbury Advertiser have printed an article in the 30th September 2010 edition under an "exclusive" banner. (Deluded!)
Online version not yet available.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
