Although the planning is in it's very early stages, the hope is that a total of 40 houses will be built. 12 will be similar to those in the adjoining development and 28 will be smaller in nature. 40% of the houses will need to be "low cost social housing" to meet national planning rules.
The site, which is outside the Tenbury settlement boundary is classed as a "windfall" site so doesn't currently appear on the South Worcestershire Development Plan.
Posts
81 comments:
Will be interesting to see more detailed plans when they become available, but first thoughts are "There goes the neighbourhood :("
Purely money-driven speculative development. There is no demonstrable need for more houses. Can't see them being built for quite a while.
Of course its money driven, who in right mind does this to make a loss?
I know I wouldn't
Of course more houses are needed, the Tesco workers will need somewhere to live!
As time goes on you can see that this site is more about bashing the Bowkett family than anything else. Is it necessary to use words like 'famous' in the article? Just keep to the facts and do us all a favour. I don't suppose this will be published as I'm not having a go at a well respected local family that have provided many hundreds of people with stable, well paid jobs for many, many years.
I have removed the word famous as it offends you so much.
My reason for using it was that I guess there is hardly a person living with 10 miles of Tenbury who haven't heard the name.
Try and be impartial- yud ave more to worry about if he said imfamous.
I really don’t understand the sanctification of the Bowkett family. They are a local family made good. Good for them! But please don’t get carried away with sentimental ideas that they do it for anyone’s benefit but their own. That’s what capitalism is all about.
"I really don’t understand the sanctification of the Bowkett family. They are a local family made good. Good for them!"
Thats your problem you don't understand and never will. People are allowed to make money and they do it in a fair and respectful way and always have. You seem to have a grudge against them because of this so saying "Good for them" is hollow to say the least. You should not take out your own business short comings on them.
I think you rather over-react. My "good for them" is wholly sincere. I have no grudge against them whatsoever. I do not run a business so do not have any shortcomings to confess! My income is derived partly through pensions and partly through professional fees - I'm not at all anti-pBowjett, just trying to to be impartial.
" I'm not at all anti-pBowjett, just trying to to be impartial."
Well you aint doing a very good job!
Some people are never (and never can be) satisfied!
"Some people are never (and never can be) satisfied!"
Some people are never and never can be impartial!
Ian - have you ever run your own business?
"Ian - have you ever run your own business?"
He's a "professional fee earner" by his own admission. Nothing wrong with this I here you say - double standards though isn't it? Surely "purely money driven" otherwise seemingly you wouldn't have bothered to study for so long to strive for a better career with better pay.
As for there being "no demonstrable need for more houses" bet you've got one and a nice one - being a "professional fee earner". Just plain selfish thinking and what about the building trade - building means business means money for builders glazers roofers plasterers plumbers scaffolders architects (fee earners) utility engineers builders merchants estate agents (fee earners) solicitors (fee earners)the local authority HMRC local traders etc etc - spot the ones likely to earn the most and not to mention most importantly a roof over one's head which in my mind is a basic human right - in this country at least - whether you have money or not.
Does it matter who's planning to build it?
Not to me!!!
When I said there was no demonstrable need for more houses in Tenbury I simply meant that existing new-builds in Tenbury have remained unsold for a very long time. I would be glad if that were not the case since a buoyant housing market probably means a buoyant economy - which is not the case at the moment nor likely to be in the foreseeable future.
And I'm afraid I simply don't understand why many contributors to this blog appear to be so angry and vitriolic?
"And I'm afraid I simply don't understand why many contributors to this blog appear to be so angry and vitriolic?"
It's just how you make people feel, sorry.
"And I'm afraid I simply don't understand why many contributors to this blog appear to be so angry and vitriolic?"
Try and be impartial said "It's just how you make people feel, sorry."
Don't apologise - anyone who makes personal remarks and comments and gets pertinent replies that they perhaps don't want to hear should keep it zipped.. imho People in glass houses and all that.
You won't get an apology from opinionated people because they think they are right and they don't care about your feelings - this is a fact. So don't you worry and don't be sorry.
While I'm on it can someone tell me why there is such interest in a field being sold for development. It doesn't matter by who. I know many people who have sold land around here for development but none have made it on this blog or in the news... strange but then the "Bowketts sell houses" was prompted by WR15. I rest my case. The headline looks pretty foolish to me.
"It's just how you make people feel, sorry." . . . i think you mean how it makes you feel, and it demonstrates a rather worrying lack of self-control and sense of proportion.
That is how the Planning Consultant presented it and Ben was in attendance.
Usually the owner of the land isn't mentioned.
"...While I'm on it can someone tell me why there is such interest in a field being sold for development..."
For me, because The Oaklands is a nice small development, community minded, children can play in the road.
The thought of an additional 40 houses with of all of the associated additional traffic (80 cars??) would ruin it, and depending on the access point to the new development would be bloody dangerous (imho)
The thought of an additional 40 houses with of all of the associated additional traffic (80 cars??) would ruin it, and depending on the access point to the new development would be bloody dangerous (imho)
so it's a case of not in my back yard then? good job you don't live by the CM you might have had a different opinion. I expect the neighbours on The Crescent felt that way before the Oaklands was built. However you missed my point. The point is the "Bowketts sell houses" title would most likely not have appeared on this blog had it been Mr Longbeard from the Oaklands who owned the land.
"It's just how you make people feel, sorry." . . . i think you mean how it makes you feel, and it demonstrates a rather worrying lack of self-control and sense of proportion
Now Ian I'm really curious what you earn your professional fees for - perhaps it's as a psychotherapist !! or maybe not ..
Perhaps the planning consultant decided to introduce the scheme as a housing development on land owned by the Bowkett family because she thought that would encourage the Town Council to support the idea.
If the land had been owned by Mr Longbeard, (who is not as far as I know from a well known local family) she may have said something different.
When other housing developments have been presented, the developer & possibly their consultants give a presentation. I have never seen the landowner present.
So your worried by additional traffic from new houses but not a large tesco store hmm double standards Mr Longbeard.
" and it demonstrates a rather worrying lack of self-control and sense of proportion."
Are you refering to yourself, because it fits pretty well.
WR15 your comments are noted.
"...so it's a case of not in my back yard then? good job you don't live by the CM you might have had a different opinion..."
Not a case of NIMBYism at all, for a couple of reasons you are very wide of the mark
"I expect the neighbours on The Crescent felt that way before the Oaklands was built."
Maybe, and I hope they had a suitable forum for rasing their concerns.
However you missed my point. The point is the "Bowketts sell houses" title would most likely not have appeared on this blog had it been Mr Longbeard from the Oaklands who owned the land.
Nope, didn't miss it, I sidestepped it to avoid the blowback anyone who mentions the family gets,
But as you've raised it again I think it is blog worthy, it is an interesting piece on a local family famed for serving the community for 100 years in retail taking their business potentially in a new direction, and a bit more on another reason for the interest below..
"...So your worried by additional traffic from new houses but not a large tesco store hmm double standards Mr Longbeard..."
Yes I am worried about access and traffic for this proposal, but until more is known it's all throetical.
And who says I support a large tesco store?
I clearly and have stated on here that I do support a store, I have never commented on the current plans which have been submitted.
Either way traffic concerns in a residential area as per this development are completly different to traffic concerns in a primarliy business area with a few flats as per the CM.
"it is an interesting piece on a local family famed for serving the community for 100 years in retail taking their business potentially in a new direction, and a bit more on another reason for the interest below.."
errmm
"taking business potentially in a new direction" - all I see is a field being sold - what is the potentially new direction? All sorts of people in Tenbury sell land even if they are in other business eg the land on the Bromyard Road was sold for development by a local family who have a business and houses were built on it and eventually sold but it didn't make the headline "local skip hire family to sell houses" - so why such an interest?" - I just don't get it? It just sounds so ridiculous. Do you have more information we don't know about such as: is a new estate agents going to be opened for when "Bowketts sell houses?" I believe there is more to these comments than meets the eye. You have read this headline and believe it which is even more ridiculous.
I still think you are a NIMBY (without a beard) and I don't think you sidestepped the point at all - I wonder if you would ever admit that this headline has some other purpose but I doubt it.
"I really don’t understand the sanctification of the Bowkett family"
That is because it does not fit in to your slightly unusual cynical world. They are not sanctified just well respected, a hard concept for you to grasp but the truth nonetheless. Do you secretly want to take over their mantle is that why you are on their case all the time?
"... all I see is a field being sold..."
All I see is a field not being sold and the Bowkett's teaming up to develop the land.
That's my take from the article, it may be as simple as a field being sold, I wasn't there but that's not how it reads to me.
If it is how you suggest, then yes bit of a non event, if however they are going into property development then, to me at least, it has an interest.
"...I still think you are a NIMBY (without a beard) and I don't think you sidestepped the point at all - I wonder if you would ever admit that this headline has some other purpose but I doubt it..."
How can I be a NIMBY when I'm not, as far as I know, going to be living there?
And sorry to burst another bubble but I do most definitely sport a beard.
Other purpose to the headline? I have nothing to admit, I didn't write it, I wasn't present, I don;t know the blog owner ?!?!?!
"And sorry to burst another bubble but I do most definitely sport a beard."
I'm gutted to hear this - bubble well and truly popped - but at least that narrows it down!!
"... all I see is a field being sold..."
All I see is a field not being sold and the Bowkett's teaming up to develop the land.
That's my take from the article, it may be as simple as a field being sold, I wasn't there but that's not how it reads to me.
That is the point - "that's my take from the article". It's misleading.. The heading to the article clearly says "Bowketts to sell houses" - it's not quite the same.
Tenbury does not need any more houses on top of the required number that been set by the government
"Tenbury does not need any more houses on top of the required number that been set by the government"
Response: I know nothing about the politics of how many houses a town is limited to and if it is the case that the proposed plan is above this nothing will go ahead will it? I don't profess to "know everything". What is the "required amount that has been set by the Government"? Seeing as you know the answers. This however is not the point about the blog article. Again the point is "Bowketts to sell houses". Are you saying that the reason this article has been highlighted is because you and/or WR15 doesn't agree with the amount of houses being built in the town? If that is so then that is what should have been written. The headline is misleading and unfortunately some people believe everything they read. Again I feel there are other reasons only known to WR15 for his statement. Although after having written the above I do feel it's like banging your head against a block of flats and completely useless because this site is created and run by WR15.
I wonder how @WR15 would like the same sort of scrutiny that has been placed upon the Bowkett's both personally and business. Without resorting to the usual 'it's all in the public domain' and 'I don't write this I only publish it' tell us a bit about yourself.
How much do you earn/turnover, have you ever run a business, do you give money to charity, do you consider yourself to be sanctified, do you or have you ever ran a cartel, or engaged in tax avoidance, are you a wallie, is your reason for doing your job only to make money, are you a capitalist, have you ever ripped any one off, are you famous within 10 miles, do you want to be, are you impartial, does anything make you angry, have you ever been vitriolic?
If you publish this, which I doubt very much, you certainly won't answer.
Ian your silence speaks volumes.
Sorry for the delay, I do have work to do you know!
How much do you earn/turnover,
My turnover is in the same reporting band as a certain local grocers whom I'm not aloud to mention.
have you ever run a business,
Yes
do you give money to charity,
Yes & time
do you consider yourself to be sanctified,
I'm not Catholic
do you or have you ever ran a cartel,
No
or engaged in tax avoidance,
No
are you a wallie,
Not according the the Urban Dictionary
is your reason for doing your job only to make money,
No
are you a capitalist,
I'm not a communist so what are the other options?
have you ever ripped any one off,
No
are you famous within 10 miles,
No
do you want to be,
No
are you impartial,
No
does anything make you angry,
Yes
have you ever been vitriolic?
I hope so
So my anonymous non friend, perhaps you had better come clean and reveal yourself.
Ian, would you at all mind anyone saying that you did rip people off, ran a cartel, engaged in tax 'dodging' ? ( I am absolutely not suggesting that you ever have - for the record)
Identity - not yet my friend.
Better still you can call me Roy
I fear there is some confusion here between Ian (not WR15) and WR15! It’s happened before!
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It's an old saying, but one I agree with.
For the record, I don't think I said any of those things but believe if that is what people think they have a right to say it.
If Dave Powell (Manager of Spar) & Roger Bowkett want to be actively engaged in fighting the proposed Tesco development, then they will have to accept that some people will disagree with them.
"For the record, I don't think I said any of those things but believe if that is what people think they have a right to say it."
You didn't say any of them, I guess but you didn't answer the question
" would you at all mind anyone saying that you did........."?
"If Dave Powell (Manager of Spar) & Roger Bowkett want to be actively engaged in fighting the proposed Tesco development, then they will have to accept that some people will disagree with them."
Im sure they do but that does not mean that you should promote or publicise personal attacks on them or their business.
"have you ever ripped any one off, "
No
mmmmmm - are you sure?
"are you a capitalist",
I'm not a communist so what are the other options?
dodging - you are a capitalist.
"are you a wallie",
Not according the the Urban Dictionary
Urban Dictionary - "A wally is infact someone who is very intelligent in some areas but very stupid (almost unbelievably) in others, eg such as clumsiness."
So you are not intelligent and not very stupid.
mmmmmmm...
"are you famous within 10 miles,
No "
The Urban Dictionary knows about you - it's only a fingertip away....
"are you famous within 10 miles,
No "
"do you want to be,
No "
you are getting there - hope you enjoy it.
"do you consider yourself to be sanctified,
I'm not Catholic"
Don't you like catholics? Your answer hints you feel they are all sanctified... or was it a joke?
Strange how the awkward questions/statements seem to get dodged. Again the silence speaks volumes.
I am trying to catergorise Ian or his imaginary friend WR15 (or whoever runs this blog) and I think I'm pretty close now. Charlatan fits well, unless anyone has any better.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Lets see how far we can go when comments refer to you personally.
WR15 "For the record, I don't think I said any of those things but believe if that is what people think they have a right to say it."
You did answer "those things" even so - didn't you? and I disagree that all the time people have a right to say what they are thinking particularly if it is offensive or hurtful or personal or racist or discriminatory (Anti catholicism) for example - certain thoughts you should keep to yourself. Not everyone is good natured are they? You could start a war with your thoughts - not very diplomatic or "christian" of you.
Again "Bowketts to sell houses".
Roy, Busy day so you'll have to wait for my replies.
Re Ian
Ian that is Ian
suave, sophisticated, well educated, well travelled,
Ian that is WR15 is the antithesis of the above.
I didn't know what sanctified meant so I looked it up and what I read said only Catholics can be sanctified.
I also looked up Wallie as spelt rather than Wally as per your reply.
How kind!
I think WR15 needs a better dictionary. Sanctified simply means "sacred" or "set apart" - it is not used exclusively of any particular denomination or religion.
You just can't trust everything you read on the internet!
"also looked up Wallie as spelt rather than Wally as per your reply."
Couldn't repeat any of the descriptions under the term wallie - too disgusting so thought it must have been mispelt in the first place - hope I'm right.
WR15 "I didn't know what sanctified meant so I looked it up and what I read said only Catholics can be sanctified."
Not quite right ""sanctification ~ consecrate, make holy, purify from sin" but this description was used in your blog by Ian (not you). He said he didn't understand the sanctification of the Bowkett family. None of us are completely holy, consecrated, holy or pure of sin. Sounds pretty foolish now.
Ian : How kind!
I don't understand the sanctification of Ian?
WR15 "You just can't trust everything you read on the internet!"
Hallelujah!!
Some of the best things in life are free, including politeness and mutual respect.
"suave, sophisticated, well educated, well travelled,
Ian that is WR15 is the antithesis of the above."
Try deeply flawed and intellectually inferior to many.
By the way is the Ian,Ian and WR15 thing a smokescreen or a condition because its hard to tell.
Yippee ki-yay........
"Couldn't repeat any of the descriptions under the term wallie - too disgusting so thought it must have been mispelt in the first place - hope I'm right."
It was quoted from a remark aimed at Tenbury Futures back a while and yes it was a typo on my part. Wally not wallie.
Yippee ki-yay .....
"...Some of the best things in life are free, including politeness and mutual respect..."
Shame there appears to be so little of either to be found within 90% of the comment in this blog post....
"Shame there appears to be so little of either to be found within 90% of the comment in this blog post...."
When in Rome.
Yippee ki-yay.....
Mr Anon said "...Some of the best things in life are free, including politeness and mutual respect..."
Mr LB said Shame there appears to be so little of either to be found within 90% of the comment in this blog post....
I say: you have to gain respect a lot of the comments are made in response to lack of respect in the first place.
"Bowketts to sell houses"
"...I say: you have to gain respect a lot of the comments are made in response to lack of respect in the first place..."
Now I hate to talk religion, as I'm not one who believes in sky pixies, but I'm sure somewhere along the line in one religious text or another someone once scribed...
"Let him without sin cast the first stone"
"as I'm not one who believes in sky pixies"
Are these the gremlins that live in my satellite box.
Yippee ki-yay......
Mr LB: Now I hate to talk religion, as I'm not one who believes in sky pixies, but I'm sure somewhere along the line in one religious text or another someone once scribed...
"Let him without sin cast the first stone"
I am completely lost about what you mean - I don't believe in "sky" pixies whatever these are (probably pixies in the sky) fairies or ghosts and I am not without sin in some form or another (for example - I'm trying hard to think of something naughty I've done) nope can't find anything.. but comments are often made in retaliation to disrespectful remarks made in the first place. If you can't take it back don't dish it out. I do believe in dishes - a little difficult if you haven't got one and you like soup.
WR15 et al....wrong on so many levels....have you heard of the South Worcestershire Development plan? Currently under consultation...
Of greater concern should be the fact that MHDC has insufficient land identified for housing across the entire patch - there could well be 93 houses built opposite the school if the current appeal is upheld the knock on impact would be far reaching - including the lack of general infrastructure in the twon - including school sizes etc...Worst case could be 93 houses in the next 3-4 years as opposed to a smaller devlopment to be built within the next 20 years...In the interest of balance and to show he is not "bias" or "anti-Bowkett" i am sure WR15 will now demonise the owner of the land the proposed for the 93 houses.
As for The Oaklands - can anyone recall what the site was before the houses were built?? - An abatoir and associaed factory - which was unfortunatley forced to close down. The field being "promoted" by the family was the holding area for the anilmals before slaughter....unfortunatley the field is not suitable for long term grazing or taking a "crop" of hay / sliage etc - partly due to the neighbouring properties using the field as a dump.....
With regards access to the proposed site - please refer to the deeds of the properties concerned before making inaccurate statements.
As always there is another side to the story, in this case one which should probably have been researched in a little more detail.
I hardly think this article demonises Bowketts. I reported what was presented to the Town Council. There were no mention of deeds in that presentation.
Interestingly the developers wishing to develop the 93 houses didn't as far as I recall make a presentation to the Town Council. If they had I would have reported it.
There is a public enquiry soon and I will report on that if I can find the time, but it is being held during the working day and not in the evening.
I still can't remember if it was Roger or Ben Bowkett who said that building additional houses would be a great way to revitalise the town (or something very similar). I agree provided additional employment can be created by (for instance) developing the business park.
We wil agree to disagree on your "attitude" tot he Bowkett family. for instance the development of the CM could be headlined as "Will Chase to open a supermarket"....
Tenbury certainly does need affordable homes so that young families and the lower paid can afford to remian in the town instead of having to move away.
If you do a search, you will see that I have mentioned Will Chase on the blog a number of times.
The difference with this development was it was presented to the Town Council as a Bowkett family development so that is how I reported it.
Usually it's X developer on behalf of Y client and the landowner is never mentioned.
rugby fan is talking a load of rubbish [moderated] how are these families going to buy these houses you dont care [moderated]we will fight you and stop [moderated] from destroying green belt land
If this land is developed then a percentage will have to be low cost housing. The land in question, isn't green belt.
"rugby fan is talking a load of rubbish [moderated] how are these families going to buy these houses you dont care [moderated]we will fight you and stop [moderated] from destroying green belt land"
I life long grudge against the Bowkett family that manifests its self in another thinly disguised rant. Perhaps the poster, we all know who you are but you seem to have some special deal with the owner of this blog to protect your identity, should take a long look at himself and ask himself what good he has ever done for anybody and how he treats anyone who tries to move on in life. Do us all a favour and stop with the anonymous ranting and stand up, be a man and openly say what think. Spineless.
Yippee ki-yay.....
Roy said: I life long grudge against the Bowkett family that manifests its self in another thinly disguised rant. Perhaps the poster, we all know who you are but you seem to have some special deal with the owner of this blog to protect your identity, should take a long look at himself and ask himself what good he has ever done for anybody and how he treats anyone who tries to move on in life. Do us all a favour and stop with the anonymous ranting and stand up, be a man and openly say what think. Spineless.
I do hope this person is not someone with any authority!
"I do hope this person is not someone with any authority!"
Yes sadly he is but whereas the blog owner (BO from now on) will let anything go about certain people if I was to post the name it would surely not be published.
Yippee ki-yay....
Post a Comment