Tuesday 24 January 2012

Tenbury on the Radio

Tenbury has featured today on a couple of local radio stations.


BBC Hereford & Worcester  (at 2:06 & 2:34)


and 


BBC Shropshire (at 1:43)

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

So if Swan Garage is down £20k on turnover that is about £50 a day on profit if the margin is really only 2p a litre that is so often quoted.

They are still more than 9p a gallon dearer than Tuffins.

Anonymous said...

Margin is more than 2p!
Price support isn't given to independent local petrol stations unless then have nearby competitors. A branded (e.g. Texaco) local independent (e.g. Swan) with no nearby competition (only petrol station for five miles) will pay a lot more per litre than someone like Tuffins.
And don't overlook impact on cashflow.

Click on me said...

More than 2p, are you sure?

Ian said...

Interesting commentary . . . but I thought the town looked very very very very (worryingly) quiet today at 1000 and 1300.

Anonymous said...

WR15 commented "As nice as it has been to have a much quieter shopping experience in town"

so.. don't you worry yourself Ian because this is what "some" people want, not all - but I can tell you a lot of people are very very worried about their livelihoods and jobs - they haven't all got jobs that they can drive off into the sunset to in a company car or work from home with a laptop. I can feel an air of depression looming.

@WR15 said...

Quieter as in less traffic noise. Of course shops need footfall, which is why Tenbury needs to attract more people to shop in town and not drive to Ludlow & Leominster to do their supermarket & associated shopping.

Anonymous said...

"Quieter as in less traffic noise. Of course shops need footfall, which is why Tenbury needs to attract more people to shop in town and not drive to Ludlow & Leominster to do their supermarket & associated shopping."

You should have been more specific when you wrote your article but "less traffic noise" has caused "less footfall" whichever way you describe it and you described it as "nice", which I took to mean you liked it.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't bother replying to "Anon @ 08:15, WR15.

I think we all know what you were trying to say,(traffic noise) it's just pathetic people nit-picking at words.

I think we all know that Tenbury needs shoppers!

Anonymous said...

"I wouldn't bother replying to "Anon @ 08:15, WR15.

I think we all know what you were trying to say,(traffic noise) it's just pathetic people nit-picking at words.

I think we all know that Tenbury needs shoppers!"
BUT you've missed the point too. It's all about attitude not nit picking at words. Lots of people look at this blog and many are influenced by it. WR15 should be specific about what he says because often he is conveniently misinterpreted. I wish I was so lucky as to read minds. Also reading the para from WR15 saying he thinks it is nice now it is quiet has upset people who are being directly affected by it being "quiet" for whatever reason -which I hope you will agree is not pathetic.

@WR15 said...

Perhaps I should remind everyone that the Blog records my thoughts, I don't pretend to talk on behalf of anyone else.

Several people have commented to me that it is nice to shop without the traffic noise, and I agree. I'm sure they all realise that there is a difference between what is nice and what is realistic long term.

It's nice to have a meal out, but most realise that it isn't something many can afford too often.

I do think that some retailers might be blaming the bridge for everything, as some will blame Tesco or whoever builds on the Cattle Market, or that the drains are being repaired or the pavements resurfaced. The truth is the general economic situation is bad, and many businesses that aren't effected by the bridge have a marked downturn in turnover this year.

Anonymous said...

The store owners seem to think it fine to tell the townsfolk to drive out of town to do their shopping with all of the costs and time involved to do so, but are not willing to accept the argument in reverse when their customers have to go out of their way to get into their stores due to the short term bridge closure, bad form.

RichTea said...

I think that whoever decided to close the bridge in the middle of a recession needs his/her/their head(s) looking at. In the absence of one of the proposed alternative solutions a weight limit would have sufficed until business picked up and the town retailers were in a better position to take the hit.

Anonymous said...

No time is a good time. We've waited 10 years for our turn and the money to be put in place. If it wasn't done now, who knows how long we would have waited.

Bumblebee said...

It's a difficult one - WCC [I'm not defending btw] were due to do these bridge works years back due to the bridge's poor state of repair but they kept putting it off.

As such it was going to happen at some point as I could see.. Exactly 'when' that point should have been is clearly the topic of some hot debate!

The present financial crisis isn't helping with any of this though. As WR15 says - everyone's suffering.

To me though that would suggest that the combination of Councils [who take some of our taxes] do everything in their power to help the town prosper in this tough time AND into the years ahead.

Surely then this makes it even more important that the CM site is developed appropriately and sensitively in the circumstances. There's no magic bullet I'm sure but with some forward planning the small and family-owned shops [that help make the community here too] might continue to trade on as level a playing field as possible. And 'no' I'm not suggesting susidising shops before someone gets back to that end.

Think Local said...

"The store owners seem to think it fine to tell the townsfolk to drive out of town to do their shopping"

Can't be right! They said Think Local, Shop Local!

I don't remember Tenbury's store owners telling people to drive out of town to do their shopping!

@WR15 said...

Bumble. Is it within the Council's gift to ensure the Cattle Market is "appropriately and sensitively" developed?

If the planning application before them is valid, then whatever their (or your) feeling about the colour of the companies logo, surely they must grant permission or risk censure in the courts?

Anonymous said...

Think Local

It may not have been said by a store owner, but many anti Tesco protesters have said things similar to this...

"If it's high priced then there is no problem for you to go to Ludlow or Leominster or Kidderminster. Don't bring it to Tenbury to ruin our town"

Bumblebee said...

WR15 surely it's within the council planners' and committee's role to consider the fact that the Tesco plan is grossly disproportionate in the context of the MHDC Local Plan. It's over 76 times their own forcasted new retail needs for Tenbury.

Shorthand: It's too big.

They also need to consider the words in their own Town Centres and Retail Study which states their intention that: "new retail development as part of mixed-use sites in those centres should be encouraged".

Shorthand: It doesn't encourage a proper blended site use.

They're also bound to think bearing in mind their own policies EP9 and EP18 in terms of parking. It's obvious to many parties that Tesco's parking plans are woefully inadequate. Many of the town Councillors now think so too and are additionally frustrated that Tesco seem to be paying their concerns over this no heed at all. You yourself raise concerns about the plan's limited parking and Tesco employees in a recent post too.

Shorthand: Tesco's parking plans are substantially flawed.

So I'd argue that MHDC have a duty to honour their own rules and policies properly, the town council need to be up front about their growing concerns and we all should be quizzing Tesco on what their plans are for s106 this time [or whether they think they'll waltz-in without spending a penny to benefit the town]. They've built schools, roads and bridges in other towns so why aren't they up front about their commitment to Tenbury?

These are but just a few challenges within many that Malvern and TTC are no doubt chewing on.. I think they're involved and consulted in the decision-making process.

Anonymous said...

BUMBLEBEE...

The last thread about the Teme Bridge was killed off by anti-tesco posts, now you're starting on this one about the loss of income from the bridge closure!

These Tesco comments which are taking over the blog are ruining it.

Anonymous said...

Well it seems not all local stores are actively promoting the windfall scheme..

I'm not the main shopper within the household and so had totally forgotten about the scheme, for these purposes I could be considered an outsider coming into town to do a bit of shopping..

Stopped in (& purchased)from 3 stores, received a sticker from one, which I hadn't realised until I was home emptying my bag, so 40 quids worth of shopping did not earn me a single sticker from teh other 2 stores..

Where's the incentive for folk to come back in a bid to win if they aren't being given out freely, where is the incentive to collect stickers if the stores are not pro actively pushing them and the idea on shoppers?

I'd have been better off not shopping locally and going to a superstore at the weekend and collecting my usual loyalty points..

Anonymous said...

Most seem to offer but one place has never offered me a sticker. A few need to be a bit more proactive.

Ian said...

In my view the "sticker" scheme is flawed. Where was the evidence that it would increase loyalty to Tenbury stores? And, as has just been pointed out, the stickers bear no relationship to the value of the shopping. In my view, it's just another example of tax payers money being used irresponsibly and thoughtlessly. I'd much rather the equivalent amount of money had been used to mitigate business rates where appropriate.

Anonymous said...

I always ask for my stickers

Anonymous said...

I noticed a member of a shops staff pocketing the apple stickers when the customer didnt have them i have voiced my complaint to the manager but i think shop owners and employers shoule be expemt of the draw a few people have said the same and are of the same thinking thats a little bit of sticker nicking must be going on.

Anonymous said...

That's quite shocking....it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the pie.

Bumblebee said...

That the Tesco issue keeps coming back is surely testimony to the worry and uncertainty that the plan brings to many in the town and surrounds.

In terms of my comments, if you look above, "Tesco" was mentioned previous to my points raised.

Additionally, it must be a theme that WR15 is willing to have debated or he wouldn't allow those comments to be published on this and other posts on this blog.

Anonymous said...

i would like to say why do most shops are closing early that is doing no good for the shops that stay open.no wonder no one is coming into town.

Anonymous said...

there is no traffic or people.

Anonymous said...

the bridge had to be repaired no matter what time off year.

Anonymous said...

No need to close it, that's a fact. The bridge isn't being repaired it's being strengthened. It's very old and was never designed for trucks.
They could have kept it open with a weight limit.

BridgeMan said...

"No need to close it, that's a fact."

No, that's your opinion, not a fact.

Weight limits are only temporary solutions. The bridge needed repairing. It is being strengthened whilst being repaired.

A weight limit sign said...

Don't blame me - it was the Council that said it EITHER needed a weight limit OR it needed to be closed for strengthening.
Some bridges have had weight limits for decades. Indeed, some have been built with them - many canal bridges, for example.

Anonymous said...

repaired or strenghted it at to be done .and lorries will carry on coming over it .it is 2012

Anonymous said...

why put a 3 hour limit in the car park when there is no shops open .what as people got to do.

Unlimited parking in Burford! said...

Full car park yet again today - so Tesco tomorrow.