ON behalf of Tenbury Town Council, I wish to clarify some of the statements made in your lead story (Advertiser, January 12).

“Tesco: no decision by council”

and “Councillors fail to make up their minds on latest planning application” may have lead your readers to believe a new planning application by Tesco has been submitted.

This is not the case.

At the town council meeting on October 10, 2011, a resolution was passed recommending approval for the retail development of the former cattle market.

The town council, however, had some concerns about traffic movements and pedestrian safety on the proposed development. These concerns were conveyed to Malvern Hills District Council together with the recommendation for approval.

At the last town council meeting, to which your article refers, councillors were asked to consider changes to the plans which sought to resolve their concerns.

Although some of the safety issues they had raised had been addressed, it was considered that others had not been satisfactorily resolved. Councillors therefore agreed to the district council planners of their continuing concerns.

This does not leave the council at an “impasse” nor have "councillors failed to make a decision" as reported in the article.

The article also wrongly states “councillors did a U turn and recommended approval only two weeks after rejecting the supermarket proposal”. Tenbury Town Council has made only one recommendation to the district council with regard to this planning application, and that was a recommendation for approval.

The town council has not at any time recommended this planning application for refusal.

DAWN WORGAN TOWNCLERK TENBURY TOWN COUNCIL **Editor’s note: It is our understanding the town council considered an earlier application in the autumn and after a controversial decision to vote in secret, that application was rejected, as we reported.

Two weeks later the council decided to meet and consider the matter again and this time voted to approve the application albeit expressing some concerns – thus effectively making a U-turn. This is how we reported it at the time and our report was not challenged.

At the last meeting in January a revised application from Tesco was considered by the council and we accurately reported that no decision was made and the matter was deferred.

To this end we feel the matter was reported accurately.