In a shock move, Tenbury Cllr Grove moved to have the application refused shortly after proceedings begun, but when this was finally voted upon, it only gained support from 3 Cllrs, with 12 voting against and 1 abstention.
Tenbury Futures have already promised that they will be referring the decision for judicial review.
Shropshire Star
Tenbury Advertiser (Now showing correct graphic)
Posts
123 comments:
Can anyone explain how a Councillor could propose a motion to refuse permission to Tescos and then, when that motion had been defeated and a further vote for approval was taken the same councillor abstained? Surely if you put forward a motion to refuse that would mean you would want to vote against approval!
This is good new for families on a low income and for the elderly that are unable to get out of the town and have no choice but to shop in tenbury they will have more choice now
It will also be good to see the site developed as it is a eye sore to the entrance of the town
Good news for the town, But I'll wait until ground is broken to celebrate, there are still to many opportunities for it to go south.
But all in all a step in the right direction :)
Good news.
Perhaps someone should now go round and remove all the flyposting that is littering our Town on every available surface.
Who is going to pay for their judicial review? The process doesn’t cost a fortune but it will be expensive. And the only thing to be reviewed is the legality of the decision. I must say that I was impressed by the measured, thoughtful and informed contributions of the officers. These didn’t sound like people who will have made serious procedural errors. By contrast, the contribution of most of the councillors was woeful. If they had done their homework before the meeting its length could have been reduced very considerably. Not a very good advertisement for ‘democracy’ I’m afraid. I think Tesco is coming . . .
So far as Cllr Grove is concerned - he didn’t do himself any favours tonight with his convoluted contribution (made, he said, very patronisingly and condescendingly, for the sake of the public!). And I agree, how could he explicitly state his opposition, propose a motion of opposition and then abstain on a vote of approval? I’m afraid the rationale of the mental and political gymnastics eludes me!
Who is going to pay for their judicial review? The process doesn’t cost a fortune but it will be expensive. And the only thing to be reviewed is the legality of the decision. I must say that I was impressed by the measured, thoughtful and informed contributions of the officers. These didn’t sound like people who will have made serious procedural errors. By contrast, the contribution of most of the councillors was woeful. If they had done their homework before the meeting its length could have been reduced very considerably. Not a very good advertisement for ‘democracy’ I’m afraid. I think Tesco is coming . . .
So far as Cllr Grove is concerned - he didn’t do himself any favours tonight with his convoluted contribution (made, he said, very patronisingly and condescendingly, for the sake of the public!). And I agree, how could he explicitly state his opposition, propose a motion of opposition and then abstain on a vote of approval? I’m afraid the rationale of the mental and political gymnastics eludes me!
The wrong decision for the town in my view - but then you'd expect that I guess.
I take consolation though that the audible support every time someone spoke 'against' the Tesco plan was considerably louder than the few claps 'for'.
A number of people had a good giggle latterly too when Sophie Akokia (sp?) tried to suggest that 'supermarkets just wouldn't be feasible smaller than the current Tesco plan on the table'. Someone pointed-out that the success of medium-sized budget supermarkets like Aldi and Lidl must be some kind of mirage then (I've pre-edited-out the inline expletives I heard in the last bit for you WR15)..
this is not good news in my opinion...im a newcomer to tenbury and i love the fact that its a quiet market town. i share my monthly shopping between the local shop and TRAVELLING (not too far) to a supermarket. i would hate to see local shops destroyed by tesco's but i do think it will. if you desire a very local supermarket why do you live in tenbury??
Yes, the contributions from most of the Councillors were pathetic.
It is a shame that none of the officers or the Councillors have seen fit to question in detail the inadequate transport assessment with regard to traffic flow volumes throught the A456 junction and over the bridge.
I remember market day on Tuesdays and the resultant traffic congestion in the town.
Never mind, this is local democracy in action.
A few years from now, drivers waiting in the traffic light controlled queues trying to get down Teme Street or in/out of Tenbury over the bridge will have plenty of time to reflect on all of this.
I tend to agree with Rich Tea..
Tenbury's Future?
I've got a nagging feeling in respect of traffic, highstreet shop diversity or maybe tourism draw (to name but some) that we may be in the regrettable position of saying "we told you so".. Let's hope not..
Tesco say it's a "One Stop Shop"
I still can't square the comment by (the now sacked as I understand?) Daffyd Williams of Tesco's 'DPP' developers though. In a freedom of information request output he clearly describes their Tenbury plans in terms of a "One Stop Shop" in meet minutes at MHDC on 24th May 2011. So (inevitably) just how does this encourage their shoppers into the highstreet if they themselves anticipate punters parking, (doing all their) shopping and driving off full of Tesco goods?
As always quotes depend on the context.
He could have simply meant that the store as proposed is of a sufficient size that someone could complete their weekly food shop there.
When Bowketts looked at the site years ago they concluded (as told by Roger Bowkett) that the store would have to be of a size that required the demolition of the old infirmary, to enable sufficient ROI and to allow a full range of goods. (presumably making it a one stop shop)
Their advise at that time is that they wouldn't get permission to demolish the building, but this was never tested with a planning application.
It makes it more surprising that his Grandson, Matt Crawford should be the person to address the planners and ask that the building should be saved.
This is publicly available..
Job Name:
Former Cattle Market Site, Teme St Tenbury Wells.
Author:
Daffyd Williams
Date:
24 May 2011
Venue:
MHDC, Brunel House, Malvern
Job Number:
07964
Item 6: "Retail"
'6.1 DW (Daffyd Williams) explained that Tenbury Wells lacked a main "one stop" food shopping destination, defined by the Competition Commission as a store of 15,000 sq ft net minimum.'
@WR15 - a couple of points:
Matt is Roger's son in law.
If Bowkett's were told by MHDC that that they wouldn't be allowed to demolish the building 11 years ago then hwy are Tesco allowed to do it now - surely it should eb the same for everyone - an injustice.
O i however forget that Bowkett's would be unlikely to be able to pledge the s106 monies in the scale being offered by Tesco...
But of course the site would have been developed 10 years ago....
Does anyone know when the new store is planned to be open? Or is this another land bank site - we may still have the CM in its current configuration for another 10 years if the Tesco share price keeps falling!
Bumble. I think that confirms my point.
Rugby. Sorry, You look younger. Must be my old age.
I guess 10 years ago it might have failed the re-use test. Now it has been underused/unused commercially for so long its easier to prove.
I think it's clearly a matter of interpretation WR15.
To me, the Tesco/DPP minutes clearly describes the Tenbury store plan as a "one stop shop". This definition would seem to contrast with their glossy sales spin about attracting people back into the town's highstreet.
Maybe Tesco's Sophie Ak. could have clarified this definition last night - as it was mentioned before her segment. She did say that she would try to 'respond to points raised' after all, but she chose not to.
Wait till they start stinging customers with parking fines .It happens everytime they build a new store .
We feel that last night's decision was very much the wrong one for the town. We're also aware that it will have left those many hundreds who wrote to Malvern Hills to object to Tesco's plans bitterly disappointed. Our specific position is explained on the Tenbury Futures blog [click link above].
I think Ian is being polite describing Councillor Groves contribution as convoluted. A more accurate description would be incoherent and rambling.Shouldn't our councillor at least be able to string a sentence together?! We really do deserve better than this!
I grew up Tenbury but live in a city now, our Tesco doesn't sell any of the cheaper ranges or have much variety. Everything is in the small sizes rather than the economy ones. For anyone thinking they'll do their main shop there and it will save them lots of money they will be disappointed. It'll be slightly cheaper but worse quality and will ruin the great independent shops in town.
well done tesco at last u r coming
"I think Ian is being polite describing Councillor Groves contribution as convoluted."
Well, convoluted means - labyrinthine, tortuous, tangled, Byzantine; confused, confusing, bewildering, baffling - does't 'convoluted' fit the bill?
If Tenbury Futures are going to insist on a judicial review how long will that delay development?
I wos in that room. I dont care wot tony pen says. the deal was done before they all got in the room. the town has been stiched up like a kipper on this
In theory a minimum of three to four month.
To a certain extent you are correct in saying "the deal was done before they all got in the room".
Once the planning application is valid and meets all the criteria, which this one appears to (subject to a review) then it will be passed.
Some elements are subjective, but enough experts have been consulted over these elements to be reasonably assured they are correct.
Judicial Review - I think you'll find that the chances of success are pretty low.
Even if the appellant got past the first stage (demonstrating that there is something to review) at an actual hearing s/he would have to show that the council had made an error in law, or that it had taken into
account matters that should not have been considered or not considered matters that it should have considered. Anyway, I'd be surprised if
TF put up the money! It's not massively expensive but it will cost quite a bit.
I must say that I was very impressed by the quality of the two planning officers. These people don't look remotely like chancers to me. I’m sure they will have got all their crosses and dots in the right place.
“Done deal”? This is being used in the pejorative sense. WR15 is right. And I am completely confident that nothing underhand will have taken place.
Can someone please explain why Councillor Groves tried- unsuccessfully-to get the Tesco plans refused, and then abstained when the vote was taken to approve it. I'm confused!
Judicial review.
WR15 and Ian, thank you for the info.
"Can someone please explain why Councillor Groves tried- unsuccessfully-to get the Tesco plans refused, and then abstained when the vote was taken to approve it. I'm confused!" - has it not occurred to you that Cllr Grove may be too!
if there were any councillors at the meeting who were undecided about which way to vote,i'm b****dy certain that by the time councillor groves had finished wafflin he'd convinced them to vote yes! i don't agree with councillor penn but at least he was articulate
As far as a judicial review is concerned perhaps the fact that the Officers and the Councillors have apparently accepted the traffic flow volumes in the Transport assessment based on a single set of assumptions without question and then concluded that the traffic associated with the development would not affect the A4112/A456 junction capacity (Officer Appraisal Section 6.77) would indicate a flawed decision requiring a re-appraisal.
Is it the planners that consider the traffic flow data or the Highways Authority(ies)? If both the Shropshire & Worcester Highways departments have accepted the report, then wouldn't the planners automatically accept their acceptance. (I think that makes sense)
I wanted to hear a tenbury person stand up for tesco at the school but no one could be bothered. All we had instead was tesco telling us how nice tesco was. A textbook example of rolling a stool in glitter I thought
As you were at the meeting you would have heard the chairman say that there were three, five minute slots available. "One for the Town Council, One for those against the development and one for the developer". Whether or not YOU wanted to hear from someone supporting the development, is immaterial. This was a planning meeting and they do not recognise "supporters" of planning applications, just the three categories above.
Rotten Boroughs
Remember, its the "Silent Majority"
you are talking about, and as usual they stayed silent.
What we need now is a Wetherspoons pub plopped as close to the Rose &Crown as possible.
might the rose and crown pub do well out of a new nearby tesco then? could that mean that anyone with linksto it might be keen for tesco to go ahead then too?
Strange how people think the Rose & Crown will do well, yet don't comment on the other pubs much nearer.
Likelihood is many businesses local to the site will do well from increased footfall.
Bit rum of the TF lot to question the letter of the law through a judicial review when they are quite happy to break the law to further their campaign.
Fly posting is illegal, unsightly and disrespectful to those whose property has been defaced.
So is failing to maintain a building in a conservation area....and disturbing bat roosting sites....
think it only applies to unoccupied listed buildings, not all buildings in a conservation area.
Um your words not so long ago WR15 .....whats changed ? NOTHING !!!
@WR15 said...
The more I think about it the more I think that the Tesco plan will fail on highways issues.
Simply the access is a problem, the interaction between Tesco shoppers, Tesco deliveries, Spar Shoppers & Spar deliveries just doesn't work (and the possibility of additional traffic once Temeside House has been redeveloped as a Commercial property).
The car park just isn't big enough.
100 Parking Spaces sounds a lot, but take away 6 for Temeside House, 15 for staff (assuming many walk to work), another 10 because you will have to reduce the on-street parking at that end of town. Then work out how long a shop takes, (getting out of the car, finding a trolley, shopping, checkout, unloading the trolley, returning the trolley etc and allow for the fact that the Car Park will be available for some shoppers to also shop in Town. The result. Gridlock!
19 May 2010 17:00
They kept saying in the meeting last week that we have no supermarkets, why isn't Bowketts considered a supermarket? I very successfully do my weekly shop there. There's nothing I need that I can't buy there, I've no need to go anywhere else.
A supermarket is defined by size. I believe Bowketts falls under the definition of convenience store.
If you are happy shopping there, then that's fantastic. You (& others) will be able to continue to do so.
Others who are not, but want to shop without having to travel to another town will now have a choice.
Welsh Wizard - That was two years ago. A lot more information and several changes in the plan have been submitted. Unlike some others, I listen & learn rather than sticking rigidly to my point of view. My opinions are just that, opinions. Some people mistake their opinions for facts.
DaisyJayne - I'm not going to publish your other comment.
If that is your view - fine, but if I had the time and inclination I could challenge you with evidence on nearly every point. I simply don't have the time, but if (like Welsh Wizard) you read back through the blog for the last two years all the points have been previously covered.
DaisyJayne either has a big budget or a small shopping list. A weekly shop at Bowkett's is very costly compared with other supermarkets.
WR15 answer this
You have continually said that both SPAR and BOWKETTS are overtrading but then go on to say that 2 thirds of the town go elsewhere to shop
How can 2 stores be overtrading if 2 thirds go elsewhere to shop.
What's the population of Tenbury? 5000?
So that would mean around 3333 people going elsewhere to shop and leaving 1667 to help spar and bowketts in overtrading? This doesn't add up.
Also WR15
Work your head around this
Tesco Ludlow
Staff - 102
Turnover - 5000,000pw
Tesco Tenbury
Staff - 150
Turnover - Estimating around 200,000pw
And the size of Tenbury Tesco is going to be smaller. How can they justify employing 150 staff in Tenbury when they only employ 102 in Ludlow and take double the amount they are expecting in Tenbury
I don't think it is, or ever was 150 full time staff.
Just because 60% of people do their main shop elsewhere, they might still do top up shopping (Mile Bread etc) in Town.
Overtrading - It's only my opinion based on the figures I have. No one says they are correct (except me)
Where did I say FULL TIME? I don't think I did. I'm pretty sure i said STAFF not full or part time.
And yes TESCO THEMSELVES SAID 150 staff. Look at their figures look at their own press releases their own reps saying so. All said 150 staff.
Show some facts that they are overtrading. You always tell us to back up with facts so why don't you for a change?
I don't think Tesco said 150 full time staff.
My overtrading calculations have previously been published.
YET again your only reading what you want to read. I NEVER SAID FULL TIME i said STAFF in general. And they have said 150 STAFF (NOTICE AGAIN NO FULL TIME IN FRONT)
No because your previous posts about overtrading are flawed in the fact that you also say 2 thirds shop outside of town so. Show some proper proof
OK. My understanding is that when Tesco refer to 150 jobs, some are part time and some are full time. (and some may not be in Tenbury, but are in the supply chain & distribution network) Note: My
The data about where people shop is in one of the documents attached to the planning application.
"So that would mean around 3333 people going elsewhere to shop and leaving 1667 to help spar and bowketts in overtrading? This doesn't add up." . . . I think it might be your maths No Beard. There are (I believe) as bout 2000 households in Burford and Tenbury (babes-in-arms don't shop so it's better to use households for the shopping calculation). So that would mean approximately 1300 households doing their main shopping out of town (whilst still, presumably, doing other smaller-scale shopping in Tenbury) leaving the remaining 700 households dong their main shopping in Tenbury.
@WR15, unless you have compelted an exercise of due diligence on any company, one normally done by a qualified accountant, or are fully aware of all of the business interest encompassed under a trading name that you do not post what could be mis-leading statements. "Over trading" is very subjective and is disingenuous if all of the facts are not borne out - the freely available details from Companies house are not sufficient to make such a statement - If and when you have completed such an exercise, would you be in position to make such statements.
OK. No one is over-trading.
Happy?
I also believe
Dr Kelly & Princess Diana were assassinated.
The moon is made of cheese.
Aliens exist and live amongst us.
In response to:
Ian said...
DaisyJayne either has a big budget or a small shopping list. A weekly shop at Bowkett's is very costly compared with other supermarkets.
There's no disputing that Bowketts are more expensive on some products than Tescos, but if you take advantage of the offers they have and buy alot of their own brand products (which in my opinion are of a very high quality, their sweetcorn is an good example of this, which incidentally I believe is cheaper than Tescos own equivalent, 55p Bowketts v 59p Tescos!)then your bill comes down.
I've come to this conversation late unfortunately, so apologies if am re-hashing previous comments, but do we have any examples of similar sized towns which have had a similar sized tescos built in their centre that have thrived afterwards? I hope so, as I've only heard of those that have died.
Steady on WR15. Aliens to exist and live among us - this blog proves it!
Can anyone give an example of a similar sized town that has had a similar sized Tesco store built in its midst that has thrived? Surely there must be at least one. I would have thought Tescos would have been supplying examples to show us how having them in our midst can help us. Has this not been the case?
You've landed on something there DaisyJane.
The stock 'success story' that Tesco like to roll-out for an in-town Tesco is Beverley from memory.. Even then we only have Tesco's word for it and the local Council who they've chucked some money at in the process. I don't know of any others though and this is no doubt why Tesco are keeping quiet on the issue and hoping that related discussions of aggrieved locals, 'appeals' and 'Judicial Reviews' will all quieten down now they think they've bought their way into Tenbury.
We're now also seeing a rash of "it's an amazing one-off design" stories coming from the glitzy Tesco PR machine. What they're trying to do is put some gloss on what has become a PR debacle for them in the media (especially so some of the Shropshire Star coverage). Even Malvern Hill's officers couldn't bring themselves to praise the look and feel of the potential build though 3rd time around - clearly describing it in recent documentation as a 'semi industrial building'.
That's just what the town needs next to one of it's key tourist sites surely?
If Tesco believe their own figures in the Transport Assessment and expect to have loads of satisfied customers then I think they are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
Their assumption for base traffic growth excluding the effect of their development over 12 years is (only) 6.6%. On this unrealistic basis they still forecast that on some weekday afternoons in 2016 the Teme street Tesco junction will accommodate 1070 vehicles per hour including 272 vehicles turning in and out of the Tesco access mingling with pedestrians walking between the bridge and the town centre and competing for the 80 or so car parking spaces provided.
The result is likely to be frustrated drivers, pedestrians and customers. This does not make sense to me. Also, when an accident occurs which temporarily blocks Teme Street, the emergency vehicles would not be able to cross the bridge because in the 10 minutes it takes for them to arrive another 94 vehicles would have 'arrived' from the A456 and another 74 from the Market Street direction.
Who in their right mind is going to want to shop at Tesco or visit Tenbury in these circumstances ?
Tesco have announced 20,000 new jobs in the UK ...........Poland's Prime Minister has welcomed the news :)
When the Tesco lady revealed their plan to mark the outline of the RBB Building as a different coloured tarmac within the carpark surface, "so fututre generations can remember what had once stood there", did anyone else have the image of a white outline around a dead body at a murder scene rushing around their heads?!
But Rich Tea, we'll be able to buy cheap beans!!!!
Hey Bumblebee, is that Beverley in West Yorkshire? The same Beverley that, according to the 'Information about Britain' website (http://www.information-britain.co.uk/shops.cfm?id=3098) which lists all the other shops in the town, makes no mention of a baker, butcher, fruit & veg shop, fish mongers? Infact, looking at the list there's not a single shop there that sells food!!!!! Arghhhhhh, is this their only success story???? I thought those in favour of the store, that claimed it would help our independent shops because of increased footfall(some of whom I believe own those independent shops) would have looked into Tesco's claim! I hope this isn't a comprehensive list of shops....I'll dig deeper and find out.
Talk about flogging a dead horse! Tesco got their consent . . . now let's move on.
Ian - might this mean that many in the town and surrounds still feel very strongly about this issue? You've already made it clear your support for Tesco's plan so anyone still discussing it must be really irritating for you as you (beleive) it's adone deal don't you? Well just maybe there are moves afoot to challenge the last decision. You might not like that but it may become reality.
Hey Ian, as soon as it becomes a dead horse ofcourse we'll stop flogging; probably continue muttering a little to ourselves under our breath, but on the whole stop flogging. But whilst there's a little life in it, because we feel so sure that it will have such a devastating affect on the town, which we will NEVER be able to come back from, we will continue to flog.
I genuinely wish someone would be able to convince me that having Tesco in our midst will be good for the town. I am open to be converted. I'd love Tesco to be able to back up their claims of their presence being good for our town through increased footfall, more tourists visiting, etc etc, with examples of where this has happened before or with independent figures that show this, so that I can see in black & white that our situation should follow suit. But, as far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened.
Those 'against' are able to reel off example after example of towns which have been permanently damaged by the presence of Tesco, but, other than Bumblebee's suggestion of Beverley in Yorkshire this morning, which from first glance doesn't look too promising, I haven't heard of any towns which have thrived with them in their midst.
If anyone out there knows of any please put them forwards.
It appears one of my comments has gone astray! Mr Moderator, have you lost my query about Beverley in Yorkshire? At first glance it doesn't look like much of a success story, though I do plan to dig a little deeper.
I'm mostly "moderating" from a mobile phone so if a number of comments come in together I don't always spot them until I can access a PC.
Beverley has at least 5 Bakers & 4 Butchers, but is a much larger town than Tenbury. The numerous shopping streets have many nationally recognisable stores.
Government planning policy changed a while back in recognition that in town supermarkets bring benefits whereas out of town supermarkets can cause problems. Many of the "facts" promoted by Tenbury Futures related to out of town superstores. Even a quote used at the planning meeting was suitably abridged to exclude the fact it related to out of town stores.
It has always been difficult to point at definitive studies showing the benefits of a development, because few studies have been done.
I named two places where I had seen major improvements, but was shouted down by the anti group as I didn't have properly documented and pier reviewed evidence.
Of course as with all thing opinions vary and the same "evidence" can be read more than one way.
Bumble reads the statement "one stop shop" as people will shop there exclusively and not make linked trips. I read it as a supermarket that is big enough so you can do you main supermarket shop. I would still do linked trips as I prefer bread from a bakers and don't like some supermarket meats, bacon or sausages.
If you look locally at Ledbury, Ludlow & now Leominster, they have in many peoples opinions benefited from in town supermarkets. Last time I looked there were no empty shops in Ledbury. Other people will tell you otherwise.
Remember we have been through a two year planning exercise. With planning it is not about whether you like one brand or another. Every major development attracts opposition. Even the Waitrose development in Malvern met with major opposition, but now all but a hard core feel it is a success and beneficial to the town.
Tesco, meets the greatest opposition, but then they are the biggest supermarket. They are also very successful. (less so in the last 12 months)
If anyone is persistent (and can afford to) then unless they are trying to go against planning policy, eventually their plan will be passed. If it is legal, and meets all the necessary local and national policies it will be passed. Even if Tenbury Futures persuaded every single person in town to write a letter it would still be passed.
Daisy Jayne . . . Where is the incontrovertible evidence to substantiate your claim?
Hey Ian, I have no incontrovertible evidence, as I'm not able to ask the shopkeepers why they closed, but where I used to live, Thatcham in Berskshire, we had a butcher, fruit & veg shop and health food shop before Tesco's came. Now they're a Subway, tattoo place and an empty shop (at least they were when I left last year). I know the health food shop closed because they couldn't make it work, but perhaps the other two simply came up to retiring age, I just don't know. But I'm afraid I fear the worse.
WR15 - are you confident that your baker will still be able to make ends meet when Tesco come in with their wide range of breads and cakes...all baked fresh on the premises? Fingers crossed eh.
@WR15 is that you talking or are you acting as tescos mouthpiece? You always go to great pains to defend them I see
I just don't see them the way some members of Tenbury Futures do. It would be a very boring & unrealistic blog if I didn't challenge some of the opinions that some people present as facts.
In a letter replying to local resident Norman Wanstall, Tenbury Town Councillor Price claims in the Tenbury Advertiser, Mar 15th, 2012:
"...I repeat what was said in the letter already referred to that Tenbury Town Council has never voted to recommend refusal of this [Tesco] planning application."
But the Shropshire Star on 11th Oct, 2011 runs an article:"Tenbury Wells councillors in Tesco backing U-turn" in which they say:
"[Tenbury] Town councillors previously decided not to support the supermarket giant’s proposals after a secret ballot at an extraordinary council meeting on September 26.
But after fears were raised over the legal validity of the vote, a group of councillors tabled a motion calling for the decision to be rescinded."
The Tenbury Advertiser runs an article on 18th Jan 2012 titled: "Town councillors fail to reach decision on Tesco in Tenbury". In this they say:
"TOWN councillors in Tenbury have failed to make up their minds on the latest planning application by Tesco.
The impasse comes just three months after councillors did a Uturn and recommended approval for a previous supermarket plan only two weeks after rejecting the proposal."
Something doesn't add up, on the one hand Cllr Price claims there was no decision 'against' the plan. On the other hand, both the Shropshire Star and the Tenbury Advertiser both clearly acknowledge the Town Council's original September 2011 vote 'against' the Tesco planning application. Some of our members formed part of a packed public gallery who enthusiastically applauded the town council's original vote 'against' that September 2011 evening too.
Hey Ian, I've another two examples for you....Mill Road, Cambridge and Cradley Heath in the West Midlands. I was chatting to a Tenbury resident yesterday who had first hand experience of how devastating for each of these places the new Tesco was.
Has anyone got any examples of where it hasn't been so bad?
As far as I can see there was a decision against (in what was effectively a committee meeting), but when this was put before the next full council meeting, it was not carried.
This is usual procedure for the Town Council. Decisions are made in Committee and then are put forward to the Monthly full meeting (if you like the statutory meeting) where there is a vote to accept the committees recommendation (or not).
This might be where the confusion lies.
Daisy Jane - I'm confused about how you measure "devastation" In Mill Road (which is a very small Tesco) there is also a Co-Op, a Spar and an independent grocers. In Cradley Heath there is a very large Tesco, yet there are more than six retail bakers, five butchers and several grocery stores within a mile.
I guess if you don't like Tesco then it is "devastating" to have one in your post code area, but they don't appear to be creating retail deserts.
[Publicly-available] Minutes of the EXTRA ORDINARY Meeting of the TOWN COUNCIL held on Monday 26th September 2011 at 7.15 pm
This doesn't sound like a little satellite committee meet called on a whim WR15 - instead it seems very formal. There are only 2x apologies from Town Cllrs and it is noted that 18 members of the public witnessed the event as well as WCC Cllr Pollock.
Item 6.5, Planning Application
[Motion to support the latest A1 Tesco Superstore plan]
[Discussions of the debate and mention of the resultant paper ballot].
Conclusion
"5 Members voted against the motion, 4 Members voted in favour.
The motion [to support the superstore] was DEFEATED."
So who's kidding who?
Now look at the minutes of the next Full meeting of the Town Council.
We know that the town council did a very public 'U turn' after this point on the Tesco issue. The Shropshire Star suggest it was due to legal/proceedural irregularities.
But we still don't understand why Town Cllr Price claims this week in the local media "..that Tenbury Town Council has never voted to recommend refusal of this [Tesco] planning application."
All the evidence appears to go against what Cllr Price claims.
Not being Cllr Price, I can only guess he means that as the vote wasn't ratified by the full Council it wasn't carried.
Not sure why people are making such a fuss. The vote (by the committee) was a close as it could be (without a chain saw ) If a different Cllr had been absent the vote may have been different.
The Town Council aren't the planning authority, MHDC are & their vote was unequivocal.
It all seems part of the wider uncertainty and bitter arguments still ongoing within the town over this plan. Tesco's present from this process has been an acrimonious community split.
Which no doubt Tenbury Futures are continuing to fuel, using their selective quotes & dodgy data.
So Cllr Price's saying there was "no rejection" of the Tesco plan via TTC - when the evidence overtly says otherwise - is that fair and accurate?
So Tesco's claim via the Shropshire Star 8th Mar, 2012 that they'll "create 150 jobs" when even other Tesco workers say only a small proportion will be in Tenbury, some only short term contract and some on other sites - is that fair and accurate?
So Tesco's plan stating that the sales floorspace in their Tenbury plan was for 'food retail' - when we all know they like changing the format once bedded-in [most commonly to include a cut-price cafe, cut-price chemist and/or a scaled-down 'Tesco value' post office] - is that fair and accurate of them?
MHDC's planning committee's Cllrs were especially concerned about the latter possibility, with one stating that it could "bring about the death of Tenbury".
According to the lady I was chatting to, both had devastating effects on the local independent shops, many of whom, I believe, could not sustain their businesses any longer due to the competition of Tesco, and had to close. This was a number of years ago I believe, so whether more have sprung up in their places I don't know.
She also mentioned that in the Mill Road area, there was a very noticeable increase in, not sure how to delicately put it, but daytime drunks hanging around Tesco. Don't know if this was due to cheap booze or what, but that was something else she mentioned. Might have nothing to do with Tesco, but she said the two seemed to coincide.
What dodgy data are you referring to WR15? - please enlighten us.
Read back, you'll find them soon enough.
Has Ludlow's Tesco. bedded in yet?
Tesco in Ludlow now want to open a clothes section instore. They also want to open 24 hours and want to open a garage with a Tesco Express just across the road. So yes Tesco in Ludlow is currently setting up to destroy Ludlow as well as Tenbury
Two weeks ago you said Ludlow Tesco wasn't overtrading & had lost a lot of business to Aldi. Why would they want to increase their costs by opening 24 hours?
They have lost alot of trade to Aldi but that doens't mean they can't open 24 hours. They are trying to do something to gain the custom back.
Ludlow Tesco's growth ambitions are clear then.
Once Tesco have a toehold they'll try to do whatever they can to increase their presence and market share in the vacinity.
Not long ago Ludlow Tesco made Aldi an offer for their store as they wanted to expand and didn't like the competition. Awkward when the boot's on the other foot and you're being undercut isn't it?
Aldi roundly rejected the offer.
(from a VERY, VERY dead horse) . . . please, please, stop beating me!
As for "bitter arguments still ongoing within the town over this plan" . . . it's rather worrying that TFs are beginning to believe their own misinformation. It's verging on the delusional.
Ian
If you don't like it don't read or comment
The reason I feel a little hard done by is that I live in Boraston, which is by all intents and purposes part of Tenbury, I only shop in Tenbury or if I can't buy something there (such as clothes (bar the charity shops, which I love!) I get it online, yet I've never been asked by any survey where I shop or if I'd like the Tesco here.
I don't imagine that the Tenbury shopkeepers/cllrs believe that their only clientele is Tenbury residents, though I appreciate they'd probably make up the majority (or not as the surveys seem to have shown!), so I really feel the out-lying villages should also have been taken into account and included on the surveys.
'...Delusional'
Ok, lets take a look..
Tenbury Advertiser, 16th Mar, 2012.
"Is Tenbury a town divided after Tesco decision?"
Leader of Malvern Hills DC and District Cllr Phil Grove is quoted as saying at the recent planning committee:
"There are no winners tonight because this town is split. If we approve this there will be people who will be delighted and others will be very disappointed...”.
Are you calling Cllr Grove 'delusional' Ian?
Teme Valley Times, 6th Nov, 2011,
"Tesco Latest"
"The plan to build a new Tesco in Tenbury has split the town and the Town Council seem to share this sentiment. At one meeting the vote was 'against' by a narrow margin (4-5) but a couple of weeks later the vote went the other way (6-4)."
Are you calling the editor of the Teme Valley Times 'delusional' Ian?
Daisy Jayne - To which 'surveys' do you refer? I live in Tenbury and don't recall ever having been asked by anyone to express a view. And what difference do you suppose it would have made?
I had presumed, because people keep bandying around figures of how many people shop away from Tenbury or are in favour of the store - I'm sure the cllrs said at the meeting last week that 70% of Tenbury shopkeepers are in favour of Tesco and I've heard that, something like, 65% of Tenbury residents don't shop in Tenbury - that these were official figures established from proper surveys. Is that not the case?
The "70%" figure is from a survey of Businesses carried out by the Town Council (see their website for details - or an earlier blog article)
The other figure is in a very detailed survey which is part of the Planning Application and available to view on the MHDC website.
Tenbury Futures . . . It's the difference between "bitter arguments " and differences of opinion. I spent most of yesterday in town and can't recall Tesco being mention anywhere. I actually don't think the town is split in the way you suggest. There are diehard (almost idealogical) opponents as generally represented by TF. There may be diehard supporters ( for all I know). And there is the rest of us who are tired of ridiculous scaremongering and unsupported assertions. And beware . . . don't believe everything you read in newspapers!
Ian.
For a more balanced view you might try looking through some of the many hundreds of written objections to the Tesco plan on the MHDC planning website - some local, some regional and some part of the town's tourist draw from wider in the UK. For examples of passionate local objectors you might try AW Whitby of Burford's letter or maybe Mrs Bevis of Berrington Rd or maybe Dr J Lendrun of Bromyard Rd? These are just a few at the top of the long list of many, many strong local objectors who have publicly lodged their opposition.
You might also want to get perspectives from local shops that have opposed the plan such as The Little Sweet Shop, Spar, Bowketts, The Pet store opp Caldicotts, the Wool Shop opp the Market Tavern, Tenbury News, Banfields or one of the various others who opposed it but were concerned about putting posters in their windows.
Regards the unsupported assertions - where to start. Maybe you might want to hear-out some of the other 450 UK campaigns mentioned on Tescopoly.com's homepage. These exist to specifically oppose Tesco builds. Why not tell them to stop their 'ridiculous scaremongering' too as they all have similar concerns?
the town split?..... can't agree with you more ian. just because people have strong views about tescos doesn't mean a civil war is breaking out!
"For a more balanced view you might try looking through some of the many hundreds of written objections to the Tesco plan on the MHDC planning website" . . . I assume this was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I read almost all of the letters and 'balanced' isn't a word that occurred to me.
Ian it seems what you're confirming is clear examples of passion [and in some cases fury] at the Tenbury Tesco plans on the MHDC site from locals, regional people etc..
Doesn't this suggest after all then there clearly is an acrimonious split on this issue locally?
What does seem clear is that some people still don't understand how the planning system works. If a plan is valid, it's passed. It's not about voting (with the exception of the planning committee), or numbers of objections, or whether you like Tesco or not.
The planners have made their initial decision WR15. It may well reach judicial review yet of course.
It's a shame that the present planning system doesn't take a little more notice of the people's concerns in the locale and surrounds though. This may of course change with time.
If this plan had happened in the future then it may well have come under the new Localism Act [passed Nov 2011] for community debate. This of course encourages people to come together and make decisions about their future with 'responsible, careful and sustainable' developments that best serve their community. It would also allow discussions and a better input into planning processes to ensure that plans could best support local businesses and communities.
This Tesco plan has sneaked-in under the wire in this respect as it was ongoing when the act was passed. There could have been much to discuss locally in terms of whether the plan is 'responsible, careful and sustainable' just for starters..
I don't fully understand the localism bill. How near do people need to live for them to have a say. Same Postcode area, same Town Council area, Same District County Area, Same County Council area?
One assumes there is a time limit to raise or petition for a judicial review?
Tenbury Futures - you can't have it both ways. In one post you describe the objectors' views as 'balanced' and in a later one as passionate and furious. Which is it?
If Tenbury Futures TRULY wanted to know the state of local public opinion why didn't they arrange a referendum. Much cheaper than Judicial Review!
With the geographical spread of their supporters it would have to be a national one, & it would still have had no effect of the planning process.
No it wouldn't, but a Tenbury based poll would probably have given the lie to their extravagant claims.
A judicial review needs to be lodged within 12 weeks from permission being given, I believe.
We did ask the town council to undertake a referendum lat year but I think they were hesitant to do so. As WR15 says though it's not really a measure that holds any real weight whatever the outcome though..
We did run our own poll though if you recall in Mar 2011. All returned papers were copied [long job] to both TTC and MHDC for their ref and so it could be verified by third parties.
In summary over 300 mainly local people eventually sent in replies. On the subject of the CM and large supermarket devts - over 200 of the returned papers overtly said 'no' and that they'd prefer a more blended solution instead and to re-use the Old Infirmary.
Referendums don't come cheap. The Town Council couldn't afford to waste money on an exercise that would carry no legal weight.
I analysed all the replies to TFs survey. TFs definition of local is far different to mine! Also the handwriting on many forms was identical. Curious.
There were a small proportion that appeared in the same handwriting. We ourselves voluntarily alerted the Councils to these on handover of the duplicate sheets. We were unclear as to why they should be so at that point. We did some looking into it though and did eventually find out that there was a simple explanation - and one that had no sinister implications either.
Post a Comment