Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Sale of Hibbert Lane Campus to Supermarket Chain => Topic started by: ringi on October 04, 2011, 05:49:44 PM
-
Likewise a shop with poor stock control.
We both work fulltime, and often wish to spend Saturday doing something other than shopping; therefore we expect to be able to do our shopping when we choose after work etc.
We cannot depend on the Co-Op having anything in stock; the stock control is so poor. It is much worse in the evenings then at the start of the day as well. That’s assuming the Co-Op even stocks what we expect to buy.
The staff in the Co-Op are also very unhelpfully, when I asked them for change for the parking meter they just refused to help, giving some excuse about not being able to open the tills. (The fact that the Co-Op cares so little about me as a customer that they wish to waste my time with a parking meter etc. is another issue…)
So we are expected to use the local shops, the local shops don’t open when we wish to shop so are not an option… Likewise it takes too long to visits lots of different shops instead of one.
So I don’t see that there is much of value to saving the local shops…
When I asked the “No” person that was at Rose Hill Station about this, he just said I should drive out of Maple to a supermarket elsewhere. So the “No” people don’t wish to reduce car usage! Likewise they don’t wish me to shop in Maple.
It is clear that not selling the site is not an option for the collage, as the government as no money left to give out!
If houses were built on the site, then a lot more people will be driving to work down Dan Bank and filling up the last remaining parking spaces at the station as well the already overcrowded trains. So houses leads to more traffic at PEAK times.
A good large well managed supermarket may well reduce the total miles driven in Maple, as less people will feel the need to drive out of Marple to shop.
If were able to stop driving down Dan Bank (to reach the modem would) and instead drove into Maple to do our food shopping, you never know we may sometimes also use the other shops in Maple… But as the shops in Marple are all at present making it clear they don't value us as customers (by trying to stop the full size supermarket that will make our lives better), I don’t feel like shopping at any of them.
-
Interesting comments Ringi.
What time is it that you want to shop and where do you work?
-
I totally agree with this - why can't shops be open when we want to shop? Many people who work do not have the option of shopping locally during the week anyway - how great would it be to be able to call at a major supermarket that is 5 minutes from home to pick up provisions during the week that doesn't close at 5 or 5.30. I live and work locally and my only choice on my way home is the Co-op which I try very hard to avoid as much as possible.
On the subject of the Co-op, it doesn't come out very well in all this does it? It has improved slightly over the past few years but it is nowhere near as good as it should be for the area it serves and it has had long enough to sort itself out. I have lived in the area for over 28 years and the Co-op has always been a very last resort. The prices are not competitive with other supermarkets and people like my elderly mother in law have little choice but to shop there.
I have read lots of the opinions of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigners. However, on balance I think it would be a good idea to have a new supermarket in Marple. To the 'no' campaigners.....Is the issue one of a new supermarket in Marple or is it a new supermarket on Hibbert Lane? Some of the opinions from the 'no's' seem to suggest that it would be ok to have a supermarket in Marple but not on Hibbert Lane.
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
-
The staff in the Co-Op are also very unhelpfully, when I asked them for change for the parking meter they just refused to help, giving some excuse about not being able to open the tills.
Similarly, I had to ask for car-park change last weekend. Had to just wait for them to serve another customer, assistant explained that they can't simply ring through a "no sale", it's a security thing.
I rather hope that anyone getting a point-blank refusal for change would speak to the manager.
(The fact that the Co-Op cares so little about me as a customer that they wish to waste my time with a parking meter etc. is another issue…)
As I understand it, the car park simply doesn't belong to the co-op.
-
I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
Yes! It's not just an important factor, it's what it's all about, and it's good to see this recognised at last
-
I have read lots of the opinions of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigners. However, on balance I think it would be a good idea to have a new supermarket in Marple. To the 'no' campaigners.....Is the issue one of a new supermarket in Marple or is it a new supermarket on Hibbert Lane? Some of the opinions from the 'no's' seem to suggest that it would be ok to have a supermarket in Marple but not on Hibbert Lane.
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
MIA's campaign is 'No to supermarket on Hibbert Lane'. There should be no ambiguity about this. MIA would welcome a new supermarket within the district centre of Marple to provide competition for the Co-op and choice for local residents. This would bring more people into Marple which can only be seen as a good thing for the community and local businesses. The issue with Hibbert Lane is that it is not within the retail zone, as laid down by the council and is just far enough away from the centre to draw shoppers away from other shops.
The 'Yes' campaign seems to be confusing people because they just say 'Yes to a new supermarket in Marple' so they are not actually in direct opposition with MIA. This seems to have been in their favour as, some people without all the background may choose to support the 'Yes' campaign believing that MIA must, by the very fact that they are saying 'No' to something, not be 'for' a new supermarket. This simply is not the case. The 'No' is to the location and potential size of store, based on the size of the plot.
As for the college needing to sell the land to improve educational facilities, MIA are not suggesting the site is not sold. The argument is that the college should be selling the site to an alternative developer that would be acceptable within the core planning strategy as developed by the council.
-
I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
Yes! It's not just an important factor, it's what it's all about, and it's good to see this recognised at last
Totally agree, when my sons leave school I would like them to continue their education in Marple. A updated college is what is needed for our future generations
-
I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
Yes! It's not just an important factor, it's what it's all about, and it's good to see this recognised at last
Totally agree, when my sons leave school I would like them to continue their education in Marple. A updated college is what is needed for our future generations
MIA has never suggested that the college does not sell the land. They should not be able to sell for a purpose that is not acceptable to the local planners simply because the proposed buyer has enough money to fight SMBC until they get their way.
-
I have read lots of the opinions of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigners. However, on balance I think it would be a good idea to have a new supermarket in Marple. To the 'no' campaigners.....Is the issue one of a new supermarket in Marple or is it a new supermarket on Hibbert Lane? Some of the opinions from the 'no's' seem to suggest that it would be ok to have a supermarket in Marple but not on Hibbert Lane.
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
MIA's campaign is 'No to supermarket on Hibbert Lane'. There should be no ambiguity about this. MIA would welcome a new supermarket within the district centre of Marple to provide competition for the Co-op and choice for local residents. This would bring more people into Marple which can only be seen as a good thing for the community and local businesses. The issue with Hibbert Lane is that it is not within the retail zone, as laid down by the council and is just far enough away from the centre to draw shoppers away from other shops.
The 'Yes' campaign seems to be confusing people because they just say 'Yes to a new supermarket in Marple' so they are not actually in direct opposition with MIA. This seems to have been in their favour as, some people without all the background may choose to support the 'Yes' campaign believing that MIA must, by the very fact that they are saying 'No' to something, not be 'for' a new supermarket. This simply is not the case. The 'No' is to the location and potential size of store, based on the size of the plot.
As for the college needing to sell the land to improve educational facilities, MIA are not suggesting the site is not sold. The argument is that the college should be selling the site to an alternative developer that would be acceptable within the core planning strategy as developed by the council.
But in reality MIA are suggesting that M&Co move location to accomadate a supermarket or that the sorting office be removed and a supermarket put there. And why are they suggesting this? Because they have to provide a location within the retail boundry for the arguement to stop a development on Hibbert Lane. If they can provide this then the supermarket can not use it to their advantage. But if you read the many post's some no supperters say they dont want the increase in traffic, they dont want the small shops to close down etc etc, so to me personally means they don't want 1 full stop. The yes campaign was set up to say yes to a supermarket in Marple because they would like one.
-
I have read lots of the opinions of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigners. However, on balance I think it would be a good idea to have a new supermarket in Marple. To the 'no' campaigners.....Is the issue one of a new supermarket in Marple or is it a new supermarket on Hibbert Lane? Some of the opinions from the 'no's' seem to suggest that it would be ok to have a supermarket in Marple but not on Hibbert Lane.
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
MIA's campaign is 'No to supermarket on Hibbert Lane'. There should be no ambiguity about this. MIA would welcome a new supermarket within the district centre of Marple to provide competition for the Co-op and choice for local residents. This would bring more people into Marple which can only be seen as a good thing for the community and local businesses. The issue with Hibbert Lane is that it is not within the retail zone, as laid down by the council and is just far enough away from the centre to draw shoppers away from other shops.
The 'Yes' campaign seems to be confusing people because they just say 'Yes to a new supermarket in Marple' so they are not actually in direct opposition with MIA. This seems to have been in their favour as, some people without all the background may choose to support the 'Yes' campaign believing that MIA must, by the very fact that they are saying 'No' to something, not be 'for' a new supermarket. This simply is not the case. The 'No' is to the location and potential size of store, based on the size of the plot.
As for the college needing to sell the land to improve educational facilities, MIA are not suggesting the site is not sold. The argument is that the college should be selling the site to an alternative developer that would be acceptable within the core planning strategy as developed by the council.
But in reality MIA are suggesting that M&Co move location to accomadate a supermarket or that the sorting office be removed and a supermarket put there. And why are they suggesting this? Because they have to provide a location within the retail boundry for the arguement to stop a development on Hibbert Lane. If they can provide this then the supermarket can not use it to their advantage. But if you read the many post's some no supperters say they dont want the increase in traffic, they dont want the small shops to close down etc etc, so to me personally means they don't want 1 full stop. The yes campaign was set up to say yes to a supermarket in Marple because they would like one.
As has been stated before Tina, it was the council who suggested that the sorting office could be seen as a suitable alternative to Hibbert Lane. MIA would support this but did not suggest it themselves. As for M&Co moving, that must just be one person's suggestion. If you read the MIA website, you will see that none of these ideas are quoted. Yet again, people are confusing ideas, suggestions and opinions of individuals who post on this forum, with what it is that MIA are actually saying.
MIA believe that a reasonable sized supermarket within the retail zone will bring more shoppers into the heart of Marple and not draw them away, as a huge supermarket outside the retail zone would. A reasonable sized store would simply improve choice for local residents and not bring more shoppers from the surrounding areas so traffic would not increase on the scale that it would if there was a large, out of town type store.
I really hope that I've made this clear, not just to you, but to anyone else who reads this because so many people don't seem to 'get' what it is that MIA is trying to achieve! It seems to be getting lost in the individual bickering, personal opinions and allegations of scaremongering and exaggeration! ;)
-
I have read lots of the opinions of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigners. However, on balance I think it would be a good idea to have a new supermarket in Marple. To the 'no' campaigners.....Is the issue one of a new supermarket in Marple or is it a new supermarket on Hibbert Lane? Some of the opinions from the 'no's' seem to suggest that it would be ok to have a supermarket in Marple but not on Hibbert Lane.
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
MIA's campaign is 'No to supermarket on Hibbert Lane'. There should be no ambiguity about this. MIA would welcome a new supermarket within the district centre of Marple to provide competition for the Co-op and choice for local residents. This would bring more people into Marple which can only be seen as a good thing for the community and local businesses. The issue with Hibbert Lane is that it is not within the retail zone, as laid down by the council and is just far enough away from the centre to draw shoppers away from other shops.
The 'Yes' campaign seems to be confusing people because they just say 'Yes to a new supermarket in Marple' so they are not actually in direct opposition with MIA. This seems to have been in their favour as, some people without all the background may choose to support the 'Yes' campaign believing that MIA must, by the very fact that they are saying 'No' to something, not be 'for' a new supermarket. This simply is not the case. The 'No' is to the location and potential size of store, based on the size of the plot.
As for the college needing to sell the land to improve educational facilities, MIA are not suggesting the site is not sold. The argument is that the college should be selling the site to an alternative developer that would be acceptable within the core planning strategy as developed by the council.
But in reality MIA are suggesting that M&Co move location to accomadate a supermarket or that the sorting office be removed and a supermarket put there. And why are they suggesting this? Because they have to provide a location within the retail boundry for the arguement to stop a development on Hibbert Lane. If they can provide this then the supermarket can not use it to their advantage. But if you read the many post's some no supperters say they dont want the increase in traffic, they dont want the small shops to close down etc etc, so to me personally means they don't want 1 full stop. The yes campaign was set up to say yes to a supermarket in Marple because they would like one.
As has been stated before Tina, it was the council who suggested that the sorting office could be seen as a suitable alternative to Hibbert Lane. MIA would support this but did not suggest it themselves. As for M&Co moving, that must just be one person's suggestion. If you read the MIA website, you will see that none of these ideas are quoted. Yet again, people are confusing ideas, suggestions and opinions of individuals who post on this forum, with what it is that MIA are actually saying.
MIA believe that a reasonable sized supermarket within the retail zone will bring more shoppers into the heart of Marple and not draw them away, as a huge supermarket outside the retail zone would. A reasonable sized store would simply improve choice for local residents and not bring more shoppers from the surrounding areas so traffic would not increase on the scale that it would if there was a large, out of town type store.
I really hope that I've made this clear, not just to you, but to anyone else who reads this because so many people don't seem to 'get' what it is that MIA is trying to achieve! It seems to be getting lost in the individual bickering, personal opinions and allegations of scaremongering and exaggeration! ;)
Its the contradictions i and many others are confused with. If a supermarket were to build in the 'retail zone' (not like there is anywhere for it) would MIA still argue about increased traffic, shops suffering etc? There is no suitable place in marple up for sale other than hibbert lane.
he growing population of marple need a DECENT sized shop not a tiny express shop where prices are just as bad as co-op as it is classed as a convenience store.
It has also been mentioned somwhere on this site that MIAwould be hppy to have a suoermarket..if it didnt sell (wait for it) newspapers, flowers, clothes etc....
any of you counted the amounf newsagts in marple? They seem to be doing pretty good!!
The reason us 'yes campaigners' say yes to a supermarket in marple is because we beleive nomatter where it could be built MIA would always have something to complain about.
I understand a lot of shops shut at 5-5:30pm...which is fair enough as the people working in them are doing regular job hours like yourselves....but we do need another cheaper than the co-op, decent sized shop that is open for longer to save tired people travelling (dangerous!) and people with little moneget moreaffordable things so ybe theyan afford to splash out on a cafe lunch one in a while
-
I have read lots of the opinions of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigners. However, on balance I think it would be a good idea to have a new supermarket in Marple. To the 'no' campaigners.....Is the issue one of a new supermarket in Marple or is it a new supermarket on Hibbert Lane? Some of the opinions from the 'no's' seem to suggest that it would be ok to have a supermarket in Marple but not on Hibbert Lane.
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
MIA's campaign is 'No to supermarket on Hibbert Lane'. There should be no ambiguity about this. MIA would welcome a new supermarket within the district centre of Marple to provide competition for the Co-op and choice for local residents. This would bring more people into Marple which can only be seen as a good thing for the community and local businesses. The issue with Hibbert Lane is that it is not within the retail zone, as laid down by the council and is just far enough away from the centre to draw shoppers away from other shops.
The 'Yes' campaign seems to be confusing people because they just say 'Yes to a new supermarket in Marple' so they are not actually in direct opposition with MIA. This seems to have been in their favour as, some people without all the background may choose to support the 'Yes' campaign believing that MIA must, by the very fact that they are saying 'No' to something, not be 'for' a new supermarket. This simply is not the case. The 'No' is to the location and potential size of store, based on the size of the plot.
As for the college needing to sell the land to improve educational facilities, MIA are not suggesting the site is not sold. The argument is that the college should be selling the site to an alternative developer that would be acceptable within the core planning strategy as developed by the council.
The Yes campaign is based around this facebook page and is quite categorical on this point. Please read the first sentence of the page Description. http://www.facebook.com/yesmarple#!/yesmarple?sk=info (http://www.facebook.com/yesmarple#!/yesmarple?sk=info)
-
I have read lots of the opinions of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigners. However, on balance I think it would be a good idea to have a new supermarket in Marple. To the 'no' campaigners.....Is the issue one of a new supermarket in Marple or is it a new supermarket on Hibbert Lane? Some of the opinions from the 'no's' seem to suggest that it would be ok to have a supermarket in Marple but not on Hibbert Lane.
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
MIA's campaign is 'No to supermarket on Hibbert Lane'. There should be no ambiguity about this. MIA would welcome a new supermarket within the district centre of Marple to provide competition for the Co-op and choice for local residents. This would bring more people into Marple which can only be seen as a good thing for the community and local businesses. The issue with Hibbert Lane is that it is not within the retail zone, as laid down by the council and is just far enough away from the centre to draw shoppers away from other shops.
The 'Yes' campaign seems to be confusing people because they just say 'Yes to a new supermarket in Marple' so they are not actually in direct opposition with MIA. This seems to have been in their favour as, some people without all the background may choose to support the 'Yes' campaign believing that MIA must, by the very fact that they are saying 'No' to something, not be 'for' a new supermarket. This simply is not the case. The 'No' is to the location and potential size of store, based on the size of the plot.
As for the college needing to sell the land to improve educational facilities, MIA are not suggesting the site is not sold. The argument is that the college should be selling the site to an alternative developer that would be acceptable within the core planning strategy as developed by the council.
The Yes campaign is based around this facebook page and is quite categorical on this. Please read the first sentence of the page Description. http://www.facebook.com/yesmarple#!/yesmarple?sk=info (http://www.facebook.com/yesmarple#!/yesmarple?sk=info)
What about the people that don't use Facebook and have simply seen the posters or read the newspaper article?
-
I have read lots of the opinions of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigners. However, on balance I think it would be a good idea to have a new supermarket in Marple. To the 'no' campaigners.....Is the issue one of a new supermarket in Marple or is it a new supermarket on Hibbert Lane? Some of the opinions from the 'no's' seem to suggest that it would be ok to have a supermarket in Marple but not on Hibbert Lane.
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
MIA's campaign is 'No to supermarket on Hibbert Lane'. There should be no ambiguity about this. MIA would welcome a new supermarket within the district centre of Marple to provide competition for the Co-op and choice for local residents. This would bring more people into Marple which can only be seen as a good thing for the community and local businesses. The issue with Hibbert Lane is that it is not within the retail zone, as laid down by the council and is just far enough away from the centre to draw shoppers away from other shops.
The 'Yes' campaign seems to be confusing people because they just say 'Yes to a new supermarket in Marple' so they are not actually in direct opposition with MIA. This seems to have been in their favour as, some people without all the background may choose to support the 'Yes' campaign believing that MIA must, by the very fact that they are saying 'No' to something, not be 'for' a new supermarket. This simply is not the case. The 'No' is to the location and potential size of store, based on the size of the plot.
As for the college needing to sell the land to improve educational facilities, MIA are not suggesting the site is not sold. The argument is that the college should be selling the site to an alternative developer that would be acceptable within the core planning strategy as developed by the council.
The Yes campaign is based around this facebook page and is quite categorical on this. Please read the first sentence of the page Description. http://www.facebook.com/yesmarple#!/yesmarple?sk=info (http://www.facebook.com/yesmarple#!/yesmarple?sk=info)
What about the people that don't use Facebook and have simply seen the posters or read the newspaper article?
There are people who don't use facebook? :o I've read some pretty mad things on here but that takes the biscuit!
Anyway, I don't think there is any ambiguity in the newspaper article: http://menmedia.co.uk/stockportexpress/news/s/1460023_yes-group-join-battle-over-new-marple-store-plan (http://menmedia.co.uk/stockportexpress/news/s/1460023_yes-group-join-battle-over-new-marple-store-plan) The posters were intentionally short and snappy but I see your point on those. New ones are being worked on. Having said that the 'Save Our Community' slogan on MIA's posters is overly jingoistic and inciting fear in my humble opinion.
-
I have read lots of the opinions of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigners. However, on balance I think it would be a good idea to have a new supermarket in Marple. To the 'no' campaigners.....Is the issue one of a new supermarket in Marple or is it a new supermarket on Hibbert Lane? Some of the opinions from the 'no's' seem to suggest that it would be ok to have a supermarket in Marple but not on Hibbert Lane.
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
MIA's campaign is 'No to supermarket on Hibbert Lane'. There should be no ambiguity about this. MIA would welcome a new supermarket within the district centre of Marple to provide competition for the Co-op and choice for local residents. This would bring more people into Marple which can only be seen as a good thing for the community and local businesses. The issue with Hibbert Lane is that it is not within the retail zone, as laid down by the council and is just far enough away from the centre to draw shoppers away from other shops.
The 'Yes' campaign seems to be confusing people because they just say 'Yes to a new supermarket in Marple' so they are not actually in direct opposition with MIA. This seems to have been in their favour as, some people without all the background may choose to support the 'Yes' campaign believing that MIA must, by the very fact that they are saying 'No' to something, not be 'for' a new supermarket. This simply is not the case. The 'No' is to the location and potential size of store, based on the size of the plot.
As for the college needing to sell the land to improve educational facilities, MIA are not suggesting the site is not sold. The argument is that the college should be selling the site to an alternative developer that would be acceptable within the core planning strategy as developed by the council.
But in reality MIA are suggesting that M&Co move location to accomadate a supermarket or that the sorting office be removed and a supermarket put there. And why are they suggesting this? Because they have to provide a location within the retail boundry for the arguement to stop a development on Hibbert Lane. If they can provide this then the supermarket can not use it to their advantage. But if you read the many post's some no supperters say they dont want the increase in traffic, they dont want the small shops to close down etc etc, so to me personally means they don't want 1 full stop. The yes campaign was set up to say yes to a supermarket in Marple because they would like one.
As has been stated before Tina, it was the council who suggested that the sorting office could be seen as a suitable alternative to Hibbert Lane. MIA would support this but did not suggest it themselves. As for M&Co moving, that must just be one person's suggestion. If you read the MIA website, you will see that none of these ideas are quoted. Yet again, people are confusing ideas, suggestions and opinions of individuals who post on this forum, with what it is that MIA are actually saying.
MIA believe that a reasonable sized supermarket within the retail zone will bring more shoppers into the heart of Marple and not draw them away, as a huge supermarket outside the retail zone would. A reasonable sized store would simply improve choice for local residents and not bring more shoppers from the surrounding areas so traffic would not increase on the scale that it would if there was a large, out of town type store.
I really hope that I've made this clear, not just to you, but to anyone else who reads this because so many people don't seem to 'get' what it is that MIA is trying to achieve! It seems to be getting lost in the individual bickering, personal opinions and allegations of scaremongering and exaggeration! ;)
Without sounding rude I will try to explain myself a little better. When I was at the rally the other Saturday I was told by 2 different MIA members that M & Co should move across the road to the Handburys building and a supermarket take its place and also use the offices upstairs. I've not made it up, it was said by 2 people at different times in the same afternoon.
I really am tired of all the arguing what is going on. Can we not just agree to disagree?
-
I have read or heard it somewhere,don't know if it is true, that the co-op owns the building that houses m&co,travel agent and superdrug.Also the Dolce vita,it is possible as the buildings were all co-op owned.
-
I have read or heard it somewhere,don't know if it is true, that the co-op owns the building that houses m&co,travel agent and superdrug.Also the Dolce vita,it is possible as the buildings were all co-op owned.
The co-op was in the building before it moved over to the Hollins. It was then made into 3 seperate shops and offices upstairs. I 'think' the co-op still owns the building
-
I think what would be nice would be for people to be able to have conversations off the forum that were not used against them on the forum . It would appear that whatever a member of MIA says is turned around and in someway used against them. This really needs to stop on this forum and on face book as it is becoming very childish and proves nothing. The only thing people need to read regarding the MIA campaign is the facts part of the web which is monitored and reported by Admin that is the only way of knowing the true aims and objectives around the MIA campaign What appears to be reported on the general forum is individual peoples views. So let's all gain the facts from the correct source and the continual bun fight will hopefully cease.
-
Without sounding rude I will try to explain myself a little better. When I was at the rally the other Saturday I was told by 2 different MIA members that M & Co should move across the road to the Handburys building and a supermarket take its place and also use the offices upstairs. I've not made it up, it was said by 2 people at different times in the same afternoon.
I really am tired of all the arguing what is going on. Can we not just agree to disagree?
You don't sound rude, why would you think that? I expect somebody asked where else MIA suggested the supermarket could go and Hanbury's was offered as a possible suggestion. Don't forget that members of MIA are still individual people and have their own opinions in all of this. BUT, what MIA as a group believe and stand for is clearly stated on the website. They make no suggestion as to alternative sites for a supermarket, that is down to the council as and when they need to show that alternatives do exist.
I am amazed that you thought we were arguing! Our exchange seems to be one of the least heated of late! ???
-
Without sounding rude I will try to explain myself a little better. When I was at the rally the other Saturday I was told by 2 different MIA members that M & Co should move across the road to the Handburys building and a supermarket take its place and also use the offices upstairs. I've not made it up, it was said by 2 people at different times in the same afternoon.
I really am tired of all the arguing what is going on. Can we not just agree to disagree?
You don't sound rude, why would you think that? I expect somebody asked where else MIA suggested the supermarket could go and Hanbury's was offered as a possible suggestion. Don't forget that members of MIA are still individual people and have their own opinions in all of this. BUT, what MIA as a group believe and stand for is clearly stated on the website. They make no suggestion as to alternative sites for a supermarket, that is down to the council as and when they need to show that alternatives do exist.
I am amazed that you thought we were arguing! Our exchange seems to be one of the least heated of late! ???
I feel everytime I write something I get attacked or told I'm being rude.
I understand people have their own views, I was talking to 2 different MIA members who was representing MIA on the day, and they both said the same thing to me, In 2 different locations and not in the same company as each other. This is what led me to believe it was the MIA view. If I am wrong then I am sorry but you can't help thinking that when it was said the way it was said to me.
-
Tina I have spoken face to face with you and you are not at all rude. Sadly I think you are like myself and come across better on face to face interaction rather than virtual faceless type communication. All I think is that it would be better if you looked on the facts page and then you can be sure what is fact and what is someones opinion MIA is not a totalitarian group we do allow personal views and ideas and this I feel is where the confusion stems from.
-
I totally agree with this - why can't shops be open when we want to shop?
On another point - I am sure that CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money and surely the education of our 16+ children is a pretty important factor in all this..............?
"Why can't shops be open when we want to shop?" Shop assistants are very badly paid and much put-upon (I know, I've been one in my time). They should be made to work even more unsocial hours just to suit you?
"CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money" They might not need the money if they hadn't been totally incapable of managing their finances properly for years out of mind.
-
Without sounding rude I will try to explain myself a little better. When I was at the rally the other Saturday I was told by 2 different MIA members that M & Co should move across the road to the Handburys building and a supermarket take its place and also use the offices upstairs. I've not made it up, it was said by 2 people at different times in the same afternoon.
I really am tired of all the arguing what is going on. Can we not just agree to disagree?
M&Co's premises was formerly the Co-op supermarket. I seem to remember at the time hearing that it was moving because the store was too small.
-
The yes person that was collecting signature at Rose Hill Station make it very clear the main issue was the small shops that I was destroying by even thinking about wanting a reel, modem, full sized supermarket in Marple.
PS, I felt lot of people singed as it was quicker than explaining why they were not signing, but this can never be proved one way or the other
(The only signature for the “No” I consider to be of value is people who live in Maple and never drive outside of Marple do to food shopping (or do an on-line order).
-
"CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money" They might not need the money if they hadn't been totally incapable of managing their finances properly for years out of mind.
The college needs the money in order to replace poor quality 80-year-old buildings which were designed for a different purpose and are expensive to run. AFAIK it has nothing whatsoever to do with any mismanagement of finances. On the contrary, investing in new buildings which are purpose built, environmentally friendly and cheap to run is an example of excellent financial management.
-
Yes I do think shop assistants should work unsocial hours to suit me and everyone else who can't shop between 9 and 5. Many people who are employed in the commercial sector work shifts (not only shop assistants) in order to maximise the profits of whoever employs them and thereby keep them in work and for the world to keep turning. What's the issue with that? I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to work beyond the regulated hours (unless they wanted to do extra overtime and thereby earn extra money)
With regard to the finances of CMSFC, I can't comment as I don't have access to their financial reports and thereby couldn't say how they have been managing them.
-
Yes I do think shop assistants should work unsocial hours to suit me and everyone else who can't shop between 9 and 5. Many people who are employed in the commercial sector work shifts (not only shop assistants) in order to maximise the profits of whoever employs them and thereby keep them in work and for the world to keep turning. What's the issue with that? I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to work beyond the regulated hours (unless they wanted to do extra overtime and thereby earn extra money)
With regard to the finances of CMSFC, I can't comment as I don't have access to their financial reports and thereby couldn't say how they have been managing them.
I think the point is, is that if the local shops want more business, they need to adapt their opening hours to the requirements of the customer they want to attract.
-
With regard to the finances of CMSFC, I can't comment as I don't have access to their financial reports and thereby couldn't say how they have been managing them.
If of interest, we all have access to their financial reports, to a certain extent. See http://skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/providers/finance/financialmanagement/financialmanagement/collegeaccounts/ (http://skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/providers/finance/financialmanagement/financialmanagement/collegeaccounts/), where accounts for the last few years are broken down across a variety of colleges.
-
I think the point is, is that if the local shops want more business, they need to adapt their opening hours to the requirements of the customer they want to attract.
Good point. I often want to pop into Marple for something but then realise it is Wednesday or too near to 5pm. Another thing is that it is hard to get around many shops with a pram or toddler. People can be quite rude if they have to wait or let you past. So going to a big supermarket can seem easier than struggling. In all honesty, too, in these economic times you often have to go where is cheapest. Eg. books at Amazon etc. Competition drives people out of business, and it isn't fair, no. That is the way our free market system works, no feeling in it for people or their livelihoods -not really our fault that it is this way. Some people simply cannot afford to shop local.
-
"CMSFC would not be selling the site if they didn't need the money" They might not need the money if they hadn't been totally incapable of managing their finances properly for years out of mind.
The college needs the money in order to replace poor quality 80-year-old buildings which were designed for a different purpose and are expensive to run. AFAIK it has nothing whatsoever to do with any mismanagement of finances. On the contrary, investing in new buildings which are purpose built, environmentally friendly and cheap to run is an example of excellent financial management.
Yes Dave, the record is stuck. The Hibbert lane site is fit for purpose. As mentioned before, Oxford & Cambridge do ok in older buildings, it's the quality of people that counts.
-
The Hibbert lane site is fit for purpose.
I think people may grow tired of this, Duke! But as you are going over old ground yet again, I suppose I'll have to do the same .... ::)
I guess we've just got to choose who to believe. One the one hand, the college's expensive consultants, Turner & Townsend, Bond Bryant, and Walsingham Planning, have developed for the college an accommodation strategy. As part of that, using tried and tested methods such as space occupancy analysis, and benchmarking of heating, lighting and maintenance costs against other comparable organisations in their databases, the consultants have advised that Hibbert Lane is an inefficient building, and that the college would both save money and improve the facilities by consolidating on to the Buxton Lane site.
On the other hand, we have a guy who drives along Hibbert Lane on his way home from work, and who believes that he therefore knows better
-
I have to agree with the OP. Today I went to Iceland just after 5.30pm only to find it was closed. I was even more surprised to find they don't open til 9.30am! There must be plenty of parents who who like to pop in after dropping their kids off to school. I also don't see why they can't open til at least 6pm!
-
I thought it was interesting to see the comments made about the Co-op and trader opening times but was saddened to see politics on Yes or No taking over yet again a thread discussing a legitimate subject.
For years I have had to put up with the poor service and stocking within the Co-op. I would hate to calculate just how much money I've spent in a store that quite frankly I consider to be an advert for just how not to run a retail operation. Personally, I would never shop there again if I could help it and shop on-line or from outside the area (supported jobs for other regions rather than Marple) whenever possible.
It would be interesting to know just what buildings and car park space is actually owned by the company, rather than just perceiving the detail.
My understanding was that the Co-op bought Hanbury's to stop any other competition from opening, which has ensured that a key retail opportunity has remained pretty much empty since and become a 'blot' on Marple centre. Does anyone actually know just what they own or lease?