It's official - Tenbury and it's Teme Bridge are "Unsuitable for HGV's" - it says so on numerous road signs approaching the bridge on the A456 - so it must be unsuitable [right]? Apparently it's not quite as straightforward as that.. After a lengthy traffic study [these commonly last up to 9 months], Tenbury's Teme Bridge would have been considered "Unsuitable for HGV's" when the Council finally gave legal backing to a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) formalising this. Although this is an advisory sign only the Council did clearly agree that it was required across the Teme Bridge which is one of only a couple of important Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the area.A quick internet search reveals tens of stories about hauliers allowing their sat navs to dictate their journey in country areas - only to get trapped under low bridges or down narrow lanes. Tenbury too suffers from HGV drivers relying on sat nav technology - the result being large articulated lorries picking their way awkwardly through town creating traffic jams and frustration. So against this background one has to wonder at the logic of potentially agreeing to yet another swathe of HGV's related to a potential Tesco development into Tenbury coming over our protected ancient bridge.
In Tesco's recent charm offensive with Malvern Hills District Council and [impendingly] local people again, the figure of "9 lorries.. per week" [plus assorted others] has been put about as fact. The likelihood is though that this will be a starting figure only [if really adhered to at all]. Much in the same way, a certain level of HGV deliveries were promised to the local people before the Ludlow Tesco was built in order to help get them 'on side' too with that development. The reality at Ludlow however is that [according to a source at Ludlow Tesco] deliveries actually "arrive at all times". So Tesco have apparently already flouted promises made both about frequency of deliveries and constraining deliveries outside to of school pick up times etc too.
It's also worth noting Conservative County Councillor Ken Pollock in his 'Feb 09 - Tenbury Matters' leaflet, commented on the demise of the ill-fated Tenbury Biomass plant plans: “Stopping more big lorries running through the town was one of the main reasons for opposition to the biomass plant in the Business Park”. He accompanies his article with an image of an articulated HGV squeezing in between Tenbury's Market Tavern and Caldicott's yard titled 'A lorry from Penrith dominates in Market Street'. So there is a clear precedent for the voice of concerned locals to hold sway in decision-making and planning issues in relation to HGV traffic. Logic would suggest then that this heightened level of concern regarding increasing HGV traffic will overcome then in a similar way with Tesco's plans as they did the Biomass plant? The answer to that is that I guess we'll have to wait and see when Tesco present their revised plans for the Cattle Market site.
So the question arises - is the multi month consultation period and resultant Traffic Regulation Order to deter HGV Traffic over Tenbury's Teme Bridge really worth the sign it's printed on? If Tesco get their way with local developments it would make a further mockery of the order with substantially increased HGV traffic - rendering it totally irrelevant and impotent. If that's the case then maybe the monies and time spent on bridge assessment could have been better used on something locally that clearly -is- taken seriously by local councils?
It's very difficult to restrict lorries from an A road, much the same as Cllrs are finding it difficult to get a 20mph zone outside the school.
ReplyDeleteThe sign was installed (I believe) to indicate that the route to Leominster which is favoured by Sat Navs is unsuitable for HGVs.
If a formal weight restriction was put on the Tenbury Teme bridge it would have a devastating effect of the local farmers, particularly the potato growers, as their tractor trailer units, used to haul large loads of potatoes to processing plants as far away as Wales wouldn't be able to use the bridge.
The biggest problem with HGVs in Tenbury is the ones using the through route to Leominster, and the lost (mostly foreign) lorries looking for Burford Business Park.
Even if Tesco's estimate of 9 lorries a week is 100% out, the percentage increase in HGV's coming into town will hardly be measurable.
And the fact that they are unlikely to have to negotiate the pinch points of the Teme Street/Market Street turn or pass the Market Tavern, means their presence will hardly be noticed
Wr15 are you naive. The estimated 9 lorries will be noticed and it will be considerably more than 9 lorries a week. So please start thinking about the towns impact.
ReplyDeleteIf the anti-Tesco doom-mongers are correct, the coming of Tesco will kill off all the other shops, so the additional lorries going to Tesco will be off-set by the lack of lorries going to Bowketts, Spar etc.
ReplyDeleteYou can't have it both ways!
As I understand there need not be an affect on local farmers if a weight limit were requested/suggested.
ReplyDeleteAfter checking out the spud trailer and tractor combos the majority of them come in substantially less in metric tons than the standard 44 ton artic HGVs that Tesco will want to use [for max efficiency]. The Severn Bridge at Holt has a temporary 7.5 ton weight restriction on it - something akin to that would limit HGV traffic on the Teme bridge while still allowing the spud trailers access.
In addition, I understand that a 2005 major structural survey found that there were "ongoing problems with stonework and the concrete forming the bridge. The Southeast wall [adjacent to the Workhouse] was also showing signs of movement indicated by a number of cracks in the structure." The subsequent report by structural specialists Fugro Aperio recommended that WCC undertake a £1 million process of masonry repairs and concrete strengthening. According to Ludlow Advertiser reports in Feb 2010 WCC hadn't even got the monies to paint the bridge [never mind repair it as recommended by the structural surveys]. The bridge's structural fragility won't be improved by the numerous Tesco artics [I don't think many folk really believe it'll be 9 lorries per week] potentially thundering across it.
So it seems Tenbury's Teme Bridge is a very fragile Scheduled Ancient Monument which is well overdue much needed structural repairs.
Still considerably more even if the other stores close. Tesco won't stick to their 9 lorry promise they never stick to their promises.
ReplyDeleteI'll concede that the GTW of the potato tractor trailer sets are less than an artic, but they are almost physically as big an can have higher axle weights. You also have to remember that the lorries delivering the 'inputs' to farms such as fertilisers are 40 tonne HGVs as are the grain lorries that collect the wheat and rape seed.
ReplyDeleteThe lorry count both to Spar & Bowketts would still be the same ,the only difference would be there would be less volume of items going into the stores .
ReplyDeleteThen it's also an issue of frequency WR15..
ReplyDeleteAs discussed earlier in the thread - the 44 tonne artics for Tesco could be nine a week [ahem] or at least double that. This isn't the same frequency as occasional fertiliser and seed HGV's.
A further TRO would seek to limit HGV traffic over the bridge [SAM] further albeit in different ways. It could be weight-related or otherwise in this respect.
WCC clearly haven't been able to react to the structural engineer's recommendations on the bridge though. This could be finances [as suggested in Advertiser reports] or could be issues of not wanting to compromise the scheduled status of the bridge with new concrete formers etc. If the latter then it seems like check mate - the bridge must be secured/updated but WCC are unable or unwilling to do so.
Letting Tesco thunder 9 [or ninety] additional 44-tonne articulated HGV's over it given that background can't be seen as attractive or logical in a town planning context.
Well 90 seems a little high. Lets say Tesco are 100% out and its 18. That's probably an increase of less than 5% in the current HGV traffic. So in planning terms would be discounted as negligible.
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world with good modern service routes/access I'd agree with your last point.
ReplyDeleteGiven that we're talking about a site [Cattle Market] that [you've] suggested will only be accessed across a fragile Scheduled Ancient Monument that's in dire need of substantial structural repairs already.. I'd imagine that this does change things from a planning perspective.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
ReplyDeleteTeme Street Bridge Destroyed.
This is not a headline anyone wants to write, but as the Mayor & other Cllrs have expressed this week, it is a real concern. It is years since engineers identified that the bridge required repairs, yet there is still no firm date, or funding available to carryout those repairs.
With alternate routes either via very long diversions or very minor roads, the prospect of loosing the main access route out of town is very unwelcome.
It will be bad enough having to close the bridge for weeks when repairs are carried out, but the prospect of loosing the bridge for several years is something out of a nightmare. (If it takes 3 years to replace the toilets, think how long a bridge might take!)
Posted by @WR15 at 17:26 3 comments
----------------------------------------------
Why are you not concerned about the bridge now WR15???
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
ReplyDelete"only a blow in"
I have been asked, why am I so staunch in my support for Tenbury, after all, I am only a blow in.
The simple answer is that I live here through choice, not by accident of birth.
Tenbury may or may not be unique, but it is certainly different from the other places that I have lived and worked.
I like Tenbury because:
1.The natives are (mostly) friendly.
2.I can walk (easily) to the Bank, Post Office, Cinema, Dentist, Doctor, Swimming Pool, Primary School, Secondary School, a great range of shops, (the list could go on....)
3.I can walk down the high street in overalls & boots and I don't look out of place.
4.I have Owls, Buzzards and other wildlife in my garden, yet I live in the town centre.
5.My daughter knows nearly everyone in her school, yet the school is of a reasonable size.
6.I know most of the local councillors, I may not always agreed with them, but I know who they are and not just their names.
7.Most of the shops are independents, yet their prices are (mostly) competitive.
8.We have proper, oily rag garages that understand vehicles and are not just component changers.
9.Our local press is just that, local.
10.We have a great Postal Service.
11.The weekly market maybe small but is well balanced.
The main key to this is the town centre and its traders. We must support them, and they must be allowed to survive and thrive.
Posted by @WR15 at 22:51
------------------------------------------------
You do confuse me sometimes wr15!!!
In Feb 2010 WCC Cllr Pollock told Tenbury Town Council that there is "no significant damage to the bridge" and that it needs "just remedial repairs" which will be carried out "in 2011/12"
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading my archive.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference now is that in my opinion, Bowketts is no longer as competitive as it was in 2007. I still think the Traders should be supported, and I believe that this will (with a few notable exceptions) be achieved by bringing a major supermarket to town.
I know you won't accept this, but the majority of the shop keepers do.
What shopkeepers wr15? Pubs don't count.
ReplyDeleteRef Cllr Pollock comment..
ReplyDeleteCheck out structural surveying company Fugro Aperio's Teme Bridge report: "Fugro Aperio's 'Inner Vision' Averts Traffic Chaos". It's a .pdf file. Look at the bottom right and it says:
"The level of details provided by Fugro Aperio's surveys has helped in designing the most appropriate, most cost-effective and least disruptive scheme of repair works for the Tenbury Wells bridge, which is to undergo a £1 million scheme of masonry repairs and concrete strengthening at a future date."
This seems to contrast with Pollock's comments. Maybe the £1 million estimate to secure the bridge and 'traffic chaos' as mentioned was seen as an inconvenient truth though - hence the revised statement for public consumption.
I do admit that I was surprised by his comments.
ReplyDeleteI'll ask again wr15 as you seem to avoid my question.
ReplyDeleteWhat shopkeepers? and pub owners don't count
I'm not going to put a list on here, but if you do a walk about and look in the windows you get a rough idea.
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason the Chamber of Trade are not backing the anti-Tesco campaign.
So your just saying then? Only because they don't have the no tesco posters doesn't mean they are for it.
ReplyDeleteLike you say back up your facts. I asked you to and you couldn't
I'm not prepared to put a list on a public forum, in answer to an anonymous person.
ReplyDeleteIf you are so certain of your facts you publish a list of all the businesses that are opposed!
Worth also remembering..
ReplyDeleteThere was a point where Tesco were submitting their plans first time round that many more of the shops had the posters of support in them as the threat was imminent. The likes of Spotty Dog Cafe, bakers, Bowketts, Banfields, Post Office, newsagents etc were public in their desire not to let Tesco in to Tenbury..
Naturally though as Tesco eventually withdrew their plans the need to overtly show support lessened. I'd imagine that these impending revised plans will no doubt ignite a fresh round of opposition from various parties who simply feel [on balance] Tesco's view of Tenbury's retail future isn't one they can subscribe to.