LETTERS

When we moved in on October 20, the old free-for-all system was in operation and parking was a nightmare for residents. It was difficult to find any parking during the day, when my wife used the car, because of the spaces being occupied all day by college students and commuting workers. When I returned from work at around 5pm each day there were spaces and then these disappeared as evening classes began. This all changed when the meters were activated.

With the meters operating, Mill Street became a place where parking could be found relatively easily because all-day parking ceased. This situation remained until the charges were suspended. If anything, there were more spaces available for shoppers, with charges in place, than ever before. The charges seemed reasonable, as did the time units of one or two hours. Anyone needing to park for longer could use a longer-stay car park.

I would like to raise a number of other issues: 1. Raven Lane - How can this narrow road be excluded from the scheme altogether? Allowing unrestricted parking in one of the narrowest streets in the town centre has made life impossible for its own residents.

2. Residents' permits - Where did the idea of two cars on a permit but only one parking at a time come from? What a crazy idea. Surely a permit for two cars is not asking too much.

3. Weekend visitors - Why is there no easy system for residents to have visitors staying and parking near their house? In most towns and cities with restricted parking it is possible to buy a scratch card' permit for a day/weekend visit from the local council.

4. Regarding long-term repairs on properties, no sensible provision has been made for trades people to park.

5. On the suspension of charges over Christmas, there appears to be no clearly agreed reason as to why it happened.

Robin Pote, Mill Street, Ludlow.

Temeside House is a cause worth fighting for I NOTED with interest the reports and advertisements in the Advertiser for Thursday, December 21 and Thursday, December 28, regarding the proposed development of Tenbury Library to accommodate the "Worcestershire Hub" resource.

I attended the meeting at the Library in December and in response to my query regarding the cost of this development and, despite some vagueness, nobody present objected to my estimate of £200,000.

Now, a report of the MHDC executive committee, written by the head of legal services and dated October 24, 2006, discusses the future of Temeside House. Temeside House is at present the home of Tenbury Town Council and the Community Resource Centre and is not a listed building, so largely unprotected.

Temeside House is a part of the MHDC program of property disposals. Quite properly the report notes that this historic building is in a poor state of repair and goes on to state that the WCC survey indicates a cost of £150,000 approximately would be incurred to provide "urgent and essential maintenance". It states that there is "no budget for these essential works".

The recommendation of the report is that the building should be sold at the market price or, alternatively, consideration be given to "disposal for community purposes".

Interest in the building has been expressed by Tenbury and District Historical Society, the Extended Schools Co-ordinator for daycare to improve children's services, the Tourist Information Centre, YMCA, CAB, Age Concern and various local developers.

There must be a snag somewhere but I cannot help putting together the Hub budget of £200,000 and the cost of £150,000 for the upgrade to Temeside House.

My personal view is that we need an urgent re-think before we tear apart the Library and commence the new build. It seems to me that if, as it seems, there is money somewhere, we should consider the re-birth of Temeside House to house the Hub and some of those parties mentioned above.

Standing at the entrance to the town and despite its present bedraggled appearance, Temeside House could and should be a landmark building and a suitable home for community services, including the Hub.

Now that it seems that we have rescued the toilets in Market Street, this is another cause worth fighting for.

Bob Martin, Mount Pleasant, Tenbury Wells.

Faults in the planning system are highlighted THERE has been a good deal of coverage recently in the pages of the Advertiser about the idea of building a road bridge across the A49 from the, yet-to-be-built, affordable housing area at Rocks Green, to the area of Kershaw Close/Weyman Road.

This idea seems to be totally ludicrous, and I can't believe that the persons suggesting this plan have given it very much detailed thought or visited the exit' area - let alone talked to any of the residents of Kershaw Close or Weyman Road.

Understanding for the moment that the whole housing project is misconceived, one, nevertheless, should be asking the question where will these yet-to-be residents, with motor vehicles, wish to go?' It would seem highly likely that the vast majority of them will wish to find their way to the adjacent roundabout on the A49. I can't imagine many of them will wish to take their vehicles into Ludlow, particularly now that there are parking restrictions.

This being the case, why use a load of taxpayers money to bring a large amount of additional traffic and noise into a small, quiet area such as this when they will just have to back-track out again to said roundabout?

Would it not be better to find a good method of delivering these vehicles quickly and safely to the roundabout on the A49? By all means let a footbridge be considered so that those pedestrians wishing to walk into Ludlow may do so safely - perhaps the roundabout itself should be redesigned using traffic lights and either a footbridge or light controlled pedestrian crossings - the junction at Church Stretton seems to work very well.

But should all this not have been considered at the planning stage? I find it hard to comprehend a system that allows a developer to build nearly 100 houses without considering the implications of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It shows clearly the faults in our current planning system.

Ian Smith, Potter Close, Ludlow.

No market scheduled REGARDING the letter in the Advertiser on Thursday, January 11.

Mr R Bourne appears to have penned his letter of complaint more in anger than accuracy.

No Farmers Market was scheduled for December 28. They are held on the second Thursday of each month.

The regular market and indeed the Farmers Market comprises a variety of stalls and goods for sale. I doubt if any of the stallholders are extremely wealthy, farmers or not.

However they are hardworking, cheerful and polite. Long may Ludlow Market prosper.

J Candy (Mrs), Old Street, Ludlow.

Regular as clockwork RAY Bourne (Advertiser letters, January 11) complains about lack of a market on December 28.

May I explain that Ludlow's Local Produce Market (not just farmers, but all sorts of producers within 30 miles) is on the second Thursday of every month, as it has been for years. Many of the producers go to other towns' markets on other days too. And our regular market is there on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays throughout the year.

Ian Leslie, Gravel Hill, Ludlow.