I did a little homework and found that Tesco had been 'revising' their estimates regards potential HGV deliveries over a period of weeks. So just what is the truth? Let's look at the following details and you can make your own minds up..
Scenario 1:Three resultant questions:
On Wed 15th Sept 2010 the Tenbury Blog article: "Tesco unveil their new plan for Tenbury."said this [this ref seems to have been subsequently deleted]:
"Tesco's say that the store will be serviced by just 9 large lorries a week, plus a number of deliveries by local suppliers, bakery & crisp suppliers."
Allowing for -say- the same amount of third party deliveries that would approximately amount to: 18x HGVs per week of varying sizes. N.B. All coming over the Teme Bridge as stipulated in the revised "Delivery Management Strategy" [date stamped 1st Oct 2010] submitted with the new planning application.
Scenario 2:
The aforementioned Delivery Management Strategy [Fri 1st Oct 2010] stipulates the following:
15x Tesco HGV deliveries over the period of a week [derived from table on page 4].
Plus
"There are expected to be two [Third Party] bread deliveries per day and one milk deliver per day..."* [7 x 3 = 21 HGV's]
Total Approximately: 15 + 21 = 36 large HGV's per week [of varying sizes] over the Teme Bridge.
That's already DOUBLE the original Tesco claim published on the Tenbury Blog on Wed 15th Oct.
Scenario 3:
Tesco resumed their charm offensive on Tenbury on Friday 8th Oct 2010 and hired-out the Pump Rooms. During the day a local businessman asked a Tesco rep how many HGVs would be delivering to the potential store over the Teme Bridge. The answer was as follows:
17x Tesco HGV's per week.
Allowing for Tesco's own statement about 3rd party deliveries again* [21] that now brings us to a total of [17 + 21 = 38 HGVs]:
38 additional LARGE HGVs a week over the Teme Bridge.
Given all the [very valid] concerns about the Teme Bridge's structural integrity and given that we've seen what floods can do to fragile old bridges such as the one in Workington, Cumbria which collapsed into the River Derwent while in spate..
1. Why did Tesco give an original HGV figure [published on the Tenbury blog, wed 15th Sept] half of that quoted in their subsequent plans submitted at the end of September?
2. Given all of the figures quoted above are additional to the HGVs that already rumble over the Teme Bridge [despite their being a Traffic Regulation Order advising them not to]. Why then are we even considering allowing Tesco to bring all of these further large HGVs over our fragile old bridge?
3. After the Workington bridge collapse, Government Advisors said that every bridge in Britain should be assessed. With the Teme Bridge already in a fragile state, already having been closed twice in 2007 due to severe floods and with many more potential large HGVs using it [if Tesco get their way] - when then are we getting our flood structural assessment!?
The Tenbury Blog quotation hasn't been deleted, it was in a different post.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing to remember is that any vehicle over 3.5 tonnes GWV is an HGV. Few if any of the third party suppliers use large articulated lorries, and even Tesco dont use full size articulated lorries for their store deliveries.
ReplyDeleteThe bread & crisp lorries are already delivering to Spar & Bowketts, so by any common sense they will deliver to Tesco whilst in Town.
But the Tesco figures - the 9/15/17 - have been specifically for HGVs.
ReplyDeleteCouple of quick related Q's:
ReplyDelete• Tesco were still clearly telling us porkies originally - why would they do that? Why would they feed you totally different figures to those they were about to publish in their own revised documentation? Having said that I guess we're not a million miles away from Tesco being found out manipulating statistics to try and convince a town it needed a Tesco supermarket.. At least they're consistent[ly dodgy]*?
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209095/Tesco-guilty-of-using-bogus-statistics-convince-town-needed-supermarket.html
• Why would anyone concerned about the overtly fragile state of the Teme bridge willingly cheer-on up to 38 additional HGV loads over that bridge?
• We're due an urgent flooding structural assessment, it's Govt policy now - why haven't WCC delivered this yet? Come to think of it why haven't WCC done anything [apparently] since 2006 before Tenbury's dramatic floods in 2007?
I think I misread what @WR15 was saying about HGVs - apologies for that - but the point is that HGVs are causing the problems with the bridge, and the bridge has been deemed unsuitable for them.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they may not be truly massive HGVs isn't much comfort (and even Tesco isn't making that promise anyway) - 'smaller' HGVs are still disproportionately large compared to the Teme bridge and the roads through Tenbury.
By the way, presumably Tesco's various figures don't include deliveries that are made in lorries that are below the HGV threshold, but which would still add significantly to the load on the bridge?
I would dearly love to hear why there hasn't been a proper report on the bridge since the floods. It's hard not to assume that WCC feel it's better not to know since there is no money to deal with whatever issues might come to light.
Whilst I agree that the Bridge might not be suitable for HGVs, the existing sign by the Swan Garage actually relates to the route through to Leominster, not specifically the bridge.
ReplyDeleteThe latest Tesco figures (official rather than commented) are 15 Articulated lorries.
This number is less than the number of HGVs a week that come across the bridge in error looking for the Burford Business Park or a short cut to Leominster.
The Bridge may or may not be in trouble. It doesn't look good, but WCC seem confident that there is no urgent problem.(They did do interim inspections after each flood before the bridge reopened.)
A weight restriction might slow Tesco's enthusiasm for the site, but it would also cause considerable problems for the business and farming community, so should be a last resort.