Marple Community Forum & Noticeboard

Local Community => Local Issues => Sale of Hibbert Lane Campus to Supermarket Chain => Topic started by: My login is Henrietta on October 15, 2011, 01:09:24 AM

Title: Alternative site
Post by: My login is Henrietta on October 15, 2011, 01:09:24 AM
I've seen a discussion on here about an alternative site for a supermarket but can't find it again.

The suggestion was that the area of the car park behind Market Street and the sorting office building (assuming that RM was in agreement) would be a suitable place. In fact there is scope for enlarging this area.

The buildings on Market Street, built in 1805, between the Pineapple and the Bulls Head (not sure if the Bulls Head was included) have had a "slum clearance" order on them since before the war and as far as I am aware this has never been rescinded. It certainly hadn't in 1983 when my father retired and sold the shop premises as there was a minor kerfuffle about it in the conveyancing. As a child we lived "over the shop" on this part of the street and I remember being appalled that a row of shops and (at that time) houses which was built in the year of the Battle of Trafalgar should be marked for demolition! (I think I still would but that's another story!)

Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: marveld on October 15, 2011, 02:00:20 AM
1805 .... 1805 .... TESCO!

Oh no!


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: amazon on October 15, 2011, 06:51:15 PM
1805 .... 1805 .... TESCO!

Oh no!

  The Humour on this site is briliant ,
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: sleepless on October 18, 2011, 05:48:06 PM
The site of the sorting office and car park have been identified by Stockport Council as an area for development - see www.stockport.gov.uk/allocationsdpd and go to the section for Marple.  Suggestions for development of Hibbert Lane site are also covered on there and you can contribute your views.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Jay on October 20, 2011, 02:28:19 PM
 ??? As a Marple Postie, nothing has been said nor can I find anything on the council web site about it. Please clarify.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Tina on October 20, 2011, 02:51:15 PM
??? As a Marple Postie, nothing has been said nor can I find anything on the council web site about it. Please clarify.

The council have to say they have a site available for a supermarket within the retail zone. Unfortunately for you posties it means they would sacrifice the sorting office instead of letting the college go ahead and refurbish the Buxton Lane site.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Miss Marple on October 20, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
??? As a Marple Postie, nothing has been said nor can I find anything on the council web site about it. Please clarify.

The council have to say they have a site available for a supermarket within the retail zone. Unfortunately for you posties it means they would sacrifice the sorting office instead of letting the college go ahead and refurbish the Buxton Lane site.

I think you will find that all sorting offices are going to be centralised some have already gone
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: rsh on October 20, 2011, 07:08:08 PM
This is never going to be a realistic option for a supermarket. You'd barely be able to fit something the size of a small M&S there and even then you'd lose Marple's main car park, doubly crippling local businesses.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Harry on October 20, 2011, 08:05:17 PM
I think its obvious that, with the increasing population, they need to look at expanding the District Centre.

Its been done before. Look how it carefully includes the Co-op site. I'm sure it didn't do that before the Co-op built the Ridgedale Centre.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: marpleexile on October 20, 2011, 08:40:10 PM
I think its obvious that, with the increasing population, they need to look at expanding the District Centre.

Its been done before. Look how it carefully includes the Co-op site. I'm sure it didn't do that before the Co-op built the Ridgedale Centre.

Quite. And the thing is, whilst everyone rightly points out that the Hibbert Lane site is outside the District Centre, it's only just outside the district centre. The way some people talk, you'd think it was being built 1/2 a mile away in Rose Hill, or a mile away in Hawk Green. Any new supermarket on HL would be closer to the shops at that end of the DC such as Littlewoods, Harrods, etc, than the Co-Op is.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: amazon on October 20, 2011, 08:47:20 PM
??? As a Marple Postie, nothing has been said nor can I find anything on the council web site about it. Please clarify.

The council have to say they have a site available for a supermarket within the retail zone. Unfortunately for you posties it means they would sacrifice the sorting office instead of letting the college go ahead and refurbish the Buxton Lane site.

I think you will find that all sorting offices are going to be centralised some have already gone

                But not marple .

Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Jay on October 22, 2011, 02:36:11 PM
Apparently Marple's sorting office has been earmarked for a supermarket for over 15 years I heard today, just no room down at Stockports Green Lane site for us at the moment. You never know, we may get moved to Warrington and follow the same round route as the mail every day! So soon we'll be fighting to save that as well I guess!  :(
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Tina on October 23, 2011, 12:23:10 AM
Apparently Marple's sorting office has been earmarked for a supermarket for over 15 years I heard today, just no room down at Stockports Green Lane site for us at the moment. You never know, we may get moved to Warrington and follow the same round route as the mail every day! So soon we'll be fighting to save that as well I guess!  :(

my fear is that certain people will look the other way and not fight for the sorting office! which is a shame! :(
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Steptoe and Son on October 23, 2011, 11:05:46 AM
Quote
my fear is that certain people will look the other way and not fight for the sorting office! which is a shame! :(

I'm sure, if it is marked for closure, we all look forward to you leading the campaign to save the sorting office then.  How easy it seems to be to belittle others...the sorting office will be an opportunity for you to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: JMC on October 23, 2011, 12:14:07 PM

I'm sure, if it is marked for closure, we all look forward to you leading the campaign to save the sorting office then.  How easy it seems to be to belittle others...the sorting office will be an opportunity for you to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

That is abit over the top, I thought Tina made a good point. Didn't see it as belittling anybody.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Steptoe and Son on October 23, 2011, 01:27:54 PM
Quote
That is abit over the top, I thought Tina made a good point. Didn't see it as belittling anybody.

That's your opinion JMC.  I don't see Tina making any point apart from using the possible closure of the sorting office as a way of attempting to belittle the efforts of those she happens to disagree with.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Tina on October 23, 2011, 02:56:39 PM
Quote
That is abit over the top, I thought Tina made a good point. Didn't see it as belittling anybody.

That's your opinion JMC.  I don't see Tina making any point apart from using the possible closure of the sorting office as a way of attempting to belittle the efforts of those she happens to disagree with.


I'm not trying to belittle anyone!
I can just see that there will be job losses there and don't see that site as a suitable alternative to Hibbert Lane.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Steptoe and Son on October 23, 2011, 08:23:28 PM
Quote
my fear is that certain people will look the other way and not fight for the sorting office! which is a shame! :(

Why the comment about 'certain people' then? I just don't see any need to cast aspersions
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: danny on October 23, 2011, 09:37:55 PM
I'm not trying to belittle anyone!
I can just see that there will be job losses there and don't see that site as a suitable alternative to Hibbert Lane.
Just like there will be job losses at the marple campus, and Alot of people see the sorting office as a suitable alternative.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Tina on October 23, 2011, 10:33:59 PM
I'm not trying to belittle anyone!
I can just see that there will be job losses there and don't see that site as a suitable alternative to Hibbert Lane.
Just like there will be job losses at the marple campus, and Alot of people see the sorting office as a suitable alternative.


is it really suitable though? what about the traffic to get onto the site? chadwick street can't take the traffic, the service rd behind the shops is not suitable, all the traffic would then be sent out towards the round about at littlewoods, so the traffic arguement you all have for Hibbert Lane will be worse from the sorting office site. its like 1 rule for 1 and 1 for another, give a valued arguement for it and I will gladly listen to it.

I don't belittle people steptoe, stop trying to stir trouble because I'm not playing!
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Steptoe and Son on October 25, 2011, 06:35:10 AM
Quote
my fear is that certain people will look the other way and not fight for the sorting office! which is a shame! :(

I'm trying nothing of the sort Tina, but I think you are playing with your comment about 'certain people'.  I do agree with your comments about the sorting office site.  The problem is that I don't see SMBC giving up the new carpark so I just don't see a major retailer being that interested in that location unless it's for an 'express' type store which I think most agree, sell goods at inflated prices.  My opinion is that MIA/those against should have stuck to opposing the Hibbert Lane proposal...getting drawn in to offering up alternative sites just confuses issues.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: admin on October 25, 2011, 07:18:02 AM
My opinion is that MIA/those against should have stuck to opposing the Hibbert Lane proposal...getting drawn in to offering up alternative sites just confuses issues.

That is exactly what MIA is doing - you are confusing the discussions on here with the MIA position. It is actually the council who are putting forward the Chadwick Street site a sequential alternative (which appears to have been bubbling away for many years). Marple in Action are simply opposed to a Supermarket on the Hibbert Lane site, and that's it as I understand it. People should read the Marple in Action web site for the MIA position, not the forum.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Belly on October 25, 2011, 08:08:24 AM
Quote
my fear is that certain people will look the other way and not fight for the sorting office! which is a shame! :(
...getting drawn in to offering up alternative sites just confuses issues.

Yes but the problem is that any planning inquiry will focus strongly on the alternative site issue. If the supermarket developer can demonstrate that there is no realistic alternative site in Marple for a supermarket, then this will put the Hibbert Lane sit in the box seat. Especially if both sides effectively agree that there is a demand / need for a new supermarket within the town.

MIA do need to understand this. The campaign line of "no new supermarket at Hibbert Lane, but somewhere else is potentially ok", is fine, but will be rigorously tested at planning appeal. There will need to be an answer to the question,  "if not at Hibbert Lane then where?". If the answer is not realistic then the case could well be lost.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: hollins on October 25, 2011, 12:25:40 PM
I find nowhere on the MIA website where they state where else they would countenance a supermarket. Please could they state very precisely and clearly exactly where in Marple they would build another suitably-sized supermarket.

Please note that with Marple having a population bigger than Buxton, Hazel Grove or Bredbury and with a very substantial proportion of that population driving outside the town with the primary purpose (i.e. not on the way back from work) of supermarket shopping we do not want yet another "convenience" store.

At the moment Marple appears to be fast becoming a town of coffee shops, fast-food restaurants and charity shops.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Howard on October 25, 2011, 01:58:12 PM
I find nowhere on the MIA website where they state where else they would countenance a supermarket. Please could they state very precisely and clearly exactly where in Marple they would build another suitably-sized supermarket.

The only information on their page (http://www.marple-uk.com/marple-in-action/index.htm (http://www.marple-uk.com/marple-in-action/index.htm)) that I can find reads:

Quote
Marple in Action is NOT against another supermarket opening in Marple, but think that it should:

    Be of a suitable size to serve the population of Marple.

    Be located in the town centre, where it would be more appropriate and benefit our local shops.

    We feel that there must be better uses of the land that would benefit the whole community of Marple, such as affordable housing for young families or retired people, a community centre and/or health centre, more facilities for the youth of Marple.

They do not offer an alternative location. The only location which has been floated at all, and that was by Stockport Council in an email to the College, is Chadwick Street which is next on their list for any development in the town centre.

I do think this is a weak point in MIA's campaign. There is definitely a demand in the town for another supermarket but currently they are not offering any alternative. They may argue that it is not their place to offer alternatives but I think it is. Just saying "no" leaves them open to the accusations of NIMBYism which are so often thrown at them.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: amazon on October 25, 2011, 03:46:51 PM
I find nowhere on the MIA website where they state where else they would countenance a supermarket. Please could they state very precisely and clearly exactly where in Marple they would build another suitably-sized supermarket.

Please note that with Marple having a population bigger than Buxton, Hazel Grove or Bredbury and with a very substantial proportion of that population driving outside the town with the primary purpose (i.e. not on the way back from work) of supermarket shopping we do not want yet another "convenience" store.

At the moment Marple appears to be fast becoming a town of coffee shops, fast-food restaurants and charity shops.
  five charity shops when the one opens next to coop travel three banks one is closing .no wonder people go out of the area to shop .
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: JMC on October 25, 2011, 08:07:04 PM

I do think this is a weak point in MIA's campaign. There is definitely a demand in the town for another supermarket but currently they are not offering any alternative. They may argue that it is not their place to offer alternatives but I think it is. Just saying "no" leaves them open to the accusations of NIMBYism which are so often thrown at them.

Very good point.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: JMC on October 25, 2011, 08:12:54 PM

I think it's important to note that this (decline of local shops) seems to be happening even without another supermarket. I think it's due to the wider societal changes such as more people at work in the daytime and internet shopping. Big out of town stores suit the needs to get it all quick and in one place at a time that suits. Local shops cannot really compete with that unless they are certain types of shops. The nature of our economy is that competition means some thrive where others fail and many cannot compete with the big players. You cannot really blame people for going where it is cheapest, particularly in a recession.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Lisa Oldham on October 26, 2011, 09:30:58 AM
In my opinion it is not MIA s job to find a suitable site within the retail development area.. thats what the supermarket developer should have done in the first place and pays their agents top whack to do.  The fact is they've gone outside the area, knowing full well that it is against stockport council planning policy and will certainly get refused but still pushed forward with the plan.   Personally I think lots of us are playing in to the hands of the supermarket here....
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Belly on October 26, 2011, 09:56:01 AM
In my opinion it is not MIA s job to find a suitable site within the retail development area.. thats what the supermarket developer should have done in the first place and pays their agents top whack to do.  The fact is they've gone outside the area, knowing full well that it is against stockport council planning policy and will certainly get refused but still pushed forward with the plan.   Personally I think lots of us are playing in to the hands of the supermarket here....

Yes but the problem is Lisa, is that MIA have to some extent already 'appear' to be conceding that there is the demand / need for a new store, so the argument moves on to where? If SMBC have drawn such a tight cordon round the main retail area that there is no realistic site for a new store within it, the developers can make the case that the lines should be redrawn or that there are special circumstancs to ignore SMBC's own policy and allow an 'out of centre' store. Such an approach is very common.

My problem is that if SMBC are actively sugesting that Chadwick Street is the alternative, there is a lot about that site that struggles to stack up. Its impact's would be very, very similar to Hibbert Lane and in many cases worse.

I'm not suggesting that MIA need to actively promote an alternative site for a store, but at the very least they will need to work with SMBC be confident that there are other relaistic options, when all things are considered, that makes them more attractive than Hibbert Lane. Of course there is no need to reveal this on this message board, keeping your powder dry is all part of the planning game!  ;)
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Howard on October 26, 2011, 11:11:07 AM
In my opinion it is not MIA s job to find a suitable site within the retail development area.. thats what the supermarket developer should have done in the first place and pays their agents top whack to do.  The fact is they've gone outside the area, knowing full well that it is against stockport council planning policy and will certainly get refused but still pushed forward with the plan.   Personally I think lots of us are playing in to the hands of the supermarket here....

Lisa, there is clearly a demand for another supermarket. Even if we weren't aware of that demand prior to the exposure of the college's plans and their dealings with their consultants their actions have brought this demand to light. This issue led directly to the forming of MIA and the rather fragmented "yes" campaign.

With MIA saying "no" to Hibbert Lane then the obvious question of "where else" automatically comes up. Just saying "no" and not offering an alternative is what plays into the hands of developers. They are just seen as NIMBYs and opens them to all the criticisms we have seen.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Miss Marple on October 26, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
What we need to be thinking is ,

1.   Where  would a supermarket be built if Hibbert Lane was not for sale

2.   Why was there not a need for another supermarket before June 2011

3.    We would still be non the wiser to the proposed sale of the land if the proposals had not leaked out 4 months ago

4. Why has there suddenly become such a need

5. Why are some people in favour of selling educational land to ANYONE. statistics are there to show that there will be a need for additional college / school places in a few years

6. People are saying that Marple needs another supermarket because we are a growing town, so doesn't that mean we still need the additional education facilities Marple already has.  Only a fool would sell an asset of this size and location, One  can only assume that CAMSFC do not have our children's best future educational needs in mind.

Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: JMC on October 26, 2011, 05:47:40 PM
Lisa, there is clearly a demand for another supermarket. Even if we weren't aware of that demand prior to the exposure of the college's plans and their dealings with their consultants their actions have brought this demand to light. This issue led directly to the forming of MIA and the rather fragmented "yes" campaign.

With MIA saying "no" to Hibbert Lane then the obvious question of "where else" automatically comes up. Just saying "no" and not offering an alternative is what plays into the hands of developers. They are just seen as NIMBYs and opens them to all the criticisms we have seen.

I agree on both points.

I personally think that many NO supporters wouldn't be happy with a large supermarket anywhere because in their opinion Marple doesn't need another one (and some have said as such). But is that is because they have the means to go out of Marple themselves?

 
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Belly on October 26, 2011, 06:42:21 PM
What we need to be thinking is ,

1.   Where  would a supermarket be built if Hibbert Lane was not for sale

2.   Why was there not a need for another supermarket before June 2011

3.    We would still be non the wiser to the proposed sale of the land if the proposals had not leaked out 4 months ago

4. Why has there suddenly become such a need

5. Why are some people in favour of selling educational land to ANYONE. statistics are there to show that there will be a need for additional college / school places in a few years

6. People are saying that Marple needs another supermarket because we are a growing town, so doesn't that mean we still need the additional education facilities Marple already has.  Only a fool would sell an asset of this size and location, One  can only assume that CAMSFC do not have our children's best future educational needs in mind.

My answers to your questions Miss M are:

1. Don't know. Probably nowhere, as I'm yet to be convinced another site is available. This is potentially a key point which the superstore developer will seek to exploit. Is there an alternative? If there is, why has it never come forward before? Does this lack of previous supermarket proposals at other sites demonstrate that no other sites are actually available / practical?

2. In my view there always was. There just wasn't a suitable site available before that could be developed succesfully to satisfy the demand (see point 1).

3. True, but this isn't relevant to the planning process or ultimately any planning application. The leak has at least allowed the opposition to be mobilised quicker.

4. There hasn't sudenly become a need, IMHO it's always been there - see point 2.

5. I'll take your word for that - I'm not au fait with such statistics, so have no reason not to believe you.

6. Most of this statement is opinion and not relevant to the planning application if CAMSFC can demonstrate that the re-development at Buxton Lane can cater for properly forcast future need.

I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, only seeking to add to the debate. Having attended a number of public inquiry's, planning inspectors take no truck with 'opinion' and seek only to understand the 'factual' position. They can be quite terse and dismissive of campaigining if not backed up by facts and figures relevant to planning. I think many of the points you raise go towards the eventual heart of this process and I will be interested to see how the 'for' and 'against' cases progress.


Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Lisa Oldham on October 27, 2011, 12:38:31 AM
Sadly I agree with Belly s points.. in particular i think MIA should read point one over and over again! This constant slagging off of the college and going on and on about the fact they dont care is  a waste of effort now... it was expected as I'm sure the supermarkets advised them long and hard that that would be MIA or any groups tack, and theyve weathered the storm.

To Howard and Belly I'd say.. its interesting the use of the words "need"and "demand" and when the realisation of such came into play.. we didnt know what we needed/demanded until we were told?  ;)

MIA.. presume you have to prove to an inspector that marple and its few thousand inhabitants dont NEED/DEMAND a store... regardless of the pressure to provide an alternative.. and i reckon you have a chance!
However if you go down the line of finding an alternative site that is not 100% suitable, you'll fail simply because there is no where in the retail development zone that will fit the bill then.... concentrate on the arguments you can win...
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Miss Marple on October 27, 2011, 08:51:35 AM
These points are my points even though I am a member of MIA I do have my own views, I am just entering into a debate.   I hope people do not think that it's me and a mate who are MIA lol !   MIA is an very organised group of people with experence in all areas, so take what I say on here  as my views which I hope I am entitled to ?   As Admin says if you are interested in facts refer to the MIA facts page.  In future I will make a point of mentioning that I am posting as MM
Miss MARPLE  :-*
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Belly on October 27, 2011, 09:04:46 AM
Sadly I agree with Belly s points.. in particular i think MIA should read point one over and over again! This constant slagging off of the college and going on and on about the fact they dont care is  a waste of effort now... it was expected as I'm sure the supermarkets advised them long and hard that that would be MIA or any groups tack, and theyve weathered the storm.

To Howard and Belly I'd say.. its interesting the use of the words "need"and "demand" and when the realisation of such came into play.. we didnt know what we needed/demanded until we were told?  ;)

MIA.. presume you have to prove to an inspector that marple and its few thousand inhabitants dont NEED/DEMAND a store... regardless of the pressure to provide an alternative.. and i reckon you have a chance!
However if you go down the line of finding an alternative site that is not 100% suitable, you'll fail simply because there is no where in the retail development zone that will fit the bill then.... concentrate on the arguments you can win...

Lisa - I think your point re: demand / need is well made. I'm sure many would like the convenience / competition of a new store in Marple, but do we need it?

I suspect the answer depends on whether a 7 mile round car trip to the nearest large supermarket that isn't the Co-op is 'acceptable'. Not something that I have a strong view on either way as I have a car and can make the journey, but again this is an issue that is likley to be a key debating point at any inquiry and at the crux of an Inspector's final decision.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Dave on October 27, 2011, 09:18:42 AM
Belly deals well with Miss M's list of questions. Re her suggestion that 'we still need the additional education facilities Marple already has.  Only a fool would sell an asset of this size and location', it's important to understand that a modern purpose-built building at Buxton Lane will be much more space-efficient and economical to run than the 80-year-old former school at Hibbert Lane. There's nothing at all 'foolish' about that.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Lisa Oldham on October 27, 2011, 09:33:11 AM
I agree with you miss Marple..and am well aware that you write as yourself.. however.. i dont know anyone else who is part of MIA who is 1 obviously on here 2 so outspoken.

Its unfortunate in some ways, but shows the power of this fantastic forum, that you have via your comments on here  become the "face"/"voice" /"persona" of MIA and whether you post as yourself or as MIA sadly wont make a blind bit of difference to many... maybe another person on MIA should get on here and post AS MIA?

Belly.. I agree.. that was my point :)  Must say.. i  didnt realise that Hazel Grove and back was 7 miles! Any one fighting this.. in particular the legal eagles MIA say they have.. should be concentrating on fighting that issue!
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Miss Marple on October 27, 2011, 01:39:48 PM
Belly deals well with Miss M's list of questions. Re her suggestion that 'we still need the additional education facilities Marple already has.  Only a fool would sell an asset of this size and location', it's important to understand that a modern purpose-built building at Buxton Lane will be much more space-efficient and economical to run than the 80-year-old former school at Hibbert Lane. There's nothing at all 'foolish' about that.
Oh hello ! Have you got a warning buzzer to alert you when I post !  Lol  :D
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: bat man on October 28, 2011, 09:33:18 PM
Why not build a supermarket in the middle of Marple and re develop the town centre. :o
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: ringi on November 11, 2011, 10:28:59 PM
Why not build a supermarket in the middle of Marple and re develop the town centre. :o

Because a lot of the locals (and the MP) have made it clear that they don't wish Marple to move into the 21st century.  Therefore any development money is more likely to be spent elsewhere.

There is also a lack of space, so a multi story car park may be needed, these are not cheap.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Steptoe and Son on November 13, 2011, 09:29:17 AM
Why not build a supermarket in the middle of Marple and re develop the town centre. :o

Because a lot of the locals (and the MP) have made it clear that they don't wish Marple to move into the 21st century.  Therefore any development money is more likely to be spent elsewhere.

There is also a lack of space, so a multi story car park may be needed, these are not cheap.


Deary me, the 'if you don't want a supermarket in Marple then your backward looking' argument, poor...very poor.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: danny on November 13, 2011, 01:59:26 PM
So, having a CO-OP supermarket is pre-historic? I really don't get how that makes sense personally.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: admin on January 12, 2012, 05:46:34 PM
The details of the alternative Supermarket site are now published and Stockport MBC is seeking expressions of interest from purchasers for the site indentified.

Quote
At this stage the Council is not specifying a particular use but Retail A1 is the preferred use for the site, given its proximity to the District Centre. Uses which would contribute to the range and quality of Marple’s retail offer enhancing consumer choice and the vitality of the District Centre are encouraged.

Any redevelopment proposals will need to incorporate sufficient car parking provision.

It is expected that any comprehensive development of the Chadwick Street site will incorporate the Royal Mail Sorting Office site, subject to an alternative site being found for the Sorting Office to which it can relocate.

Expressions of interest should be made in writing/emailed no later than Friday 17th February 2012 and addressed to Ian Keyte, Estates & Asset Management, NPS Stockport Ltd.

www.marple-uk.com/misc/Marple-Chadwick-st-web-details0112.pdf

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Dave on January 12, 2012, 09:05:58 PM
Interesting stuff.  But isn't 'alternative site' a bit of a misnomer?  At 0.5 hectares, the Chadwick Street site is small, and not really an alternative to the Hibbert Lane site, which is (I think) about 3.5 hectares. 

if so, it wouldn't interest any of the major supermarket chains.  It might be OK for an Aldi or a Netto, however? 
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Barbara on January 12, 2012, 09:56:23 PM
I hope the red outlining is slightly inaccurate as it looks as if it demolishes part of the back of the Carver!
And the loss of the car parking is going to affect the theatre too.

Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Belly on January 12, 2012, 11:54:39 PM
I like the description of 'gentle slope' - really????  ???
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Howard on January 13, 2012, 08:22:02 AM
It might be OK for an Aldi or a Netto, however? 

I believe that all the Netto stores were sold to Asda recently. The "cut-price" supermarkets are Aldi and Lidl. If there is going to be a supermarket on that site then I'd definitely prefer an Aldi.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Dave on January 13, 2012, 09:41:28 AM
And the loss of the car parking is going to affect the theatre too.

I think the council's requirement that 'any redevelopment proposals will need to incorporate sufficient car parking provision' should take care of that. 

If a supermarket isn't interested, the council document lists a number of other possible uses:

A1     Shops
A2     Financial and Professional Services
A3     Restaurants and Cafes
A4     Drinking Establishments
A5     Hot Food Take Away
B1     Business
D1     Non Residential Institution
D2     Assembly and Leisure
C1     Hotel
C2     Residential Institution
C3     Dwelling Houses
Some types of Sui Generis use e.g. Night Club, Casino   :o
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Henry_ on January 13, 2012, 10:11:52 AM
A McDonalds or KFC would definitely be interested in a plot of that size
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Harry on January 13, 2012, 10:44:37 AM
I would expect anybody who acquires this land, for whatever purpose, to make any parking for the use of customers only.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: JMC on January 13, 2012, 11:12:54 AM

I suspect the answer depends on whether a 7 mile round car trip to the nearest large supermarket that isn't the Co-op is 'acceptable'. Not something that I have a strong view on either way as I have a car and can make the journey, but again this is an issue that is likley to be a key debating point at any inquiry and at the crux of an Inspector's final decision.
Excellent point. I fully agree.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Dave on January 13, 2012, 12:25:44 PM
I would expect anybody who acquires this land, for whatever purpose, to make any parking for the use of customers only.

Good point.  But if the Carver Theatre and anyone else with an interest in this makes representations to the council at the consultation stage of the planning application, they may be able to get public parking made a condition of planning consent. 
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Howard on January 13, 2012, 02:31:33 PM
I would expect anybody who acquires this land, for whatever purpose, to make any parking for the use of customers only.

Good point.  But if the Carver Theatre and anyone else with an interest in this makes representations to the council at the consultation stage of the planning application, they may be able to get public parking made a condition of planning consent. 

And in addition, apart from the odd matinee (Gang Show and Pantomime), the Carver performances are in the evening when the car park may be used less than in the daytime, especially if it's a retail establishment.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Harry on January 13, 2012, 03:01:43 PM
IF its retail.

Retail is not a good business at the moment. Even Tesco has just had £5b knocked off its value.

What if its:
housing
care home (look at the size of the one at Barrack Hill)
hotel
leisure centre
hot food takeaway (such as McDonalds or KFC)
drinking establishment
restaurant
night club

All uses that the council would consider and all ones that wouldn't want to have their car park for public use.

But this is all conjecture, just like the hysteria about Hibbert Lane. We'll all just have to wait and see what happens.





Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: sleepless on January 13, 2012, 07:33:08 PM
Wasn't there a rumour that the garden centre on Dooley Lane was going to be developed into a large supermarket?  This would be an ideal site for a large store with plenty of car park space, on a bus route and a main road, and would not intrude on a residential area.  If the garden centre were thinking of selling to a supermarket they had better get a move on.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Barbara on January 13, 2012, 09:05:11 PM
Which bus route would that be then? ???
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Duke Fame on January 14, 2012, 05:01:36 PM
It might be OK for an Aldi or a Netto, however? 

I believe that all the Netto stores were sold to Asda recently. The "cut-price" supermarkets are Aldi and Lidl. If there is going to be a supermarket on that site then I'd definitely prefer an Aldi.

Quitte right, Sadly Netto UK was bought by Asdas as an immediate small store network. I'd much prefer an Aldi / Lidl to a Waitrose as mooted before. It wouldbe cheaper to dine out every day than shop at Waitrose
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Dave on January 15, 2012, 10:03:05 AM
The site might also be big enough for an M&S Simply Food, like the one in Hazel Grove?   (A bit too pricy for a cheapskate like me, tho!   ;))
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: JMC on January 15, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
I would love to have an Aldi there. However, there is already an Aldi in 2 neighbouring towns and Stockport, so am not sure they would want another so close? It would be great for those on a budget and also as you can't get everything at Aldi then people would still use the other shops including Co-op. Not as handy as Asda for things like cheap clothes and electrical though.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Duke Fame on January 15, 2012, 05:47:57 PM
I would love to have an Aldi there. However, there is already an Aldi in 2 neighbouring towns and Stockport, so am not sure they would want another so close? It would be great for those on a budget and also as you can't get everything at Aldi then people would still use the other shops including Co-op. Not as handy as Asda for things like cheap clothes and electrical though.

You're right, Aldi wouldn't open here when they have a place in Romily,  The point is that we don't need a big store, a Lidl sized place will do
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Dave on January 15, 2012, 06:17:59 PM
The point is that we don't need a big store, a Lidl sized place will do

 :D
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: amazon on January 15, 2012, 07:01:30 PM
The point is that we don't need a big store, a Lidl sized place will do

 :D
We don't need anything only asda or tesco .leave the carparks alone get rid of the parking marple will die .
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Harry on January 15, 2012, 07:53:54 PM
I'm inclined to agree with amazon.

If we lose the Chadwick Street car park, the largest public car park in Marple, that is the death knell for the small shops of Marple. They're finished.

The Co-op will be alright as it has its own car park, as will the new supermarket on Hibbert Lane, but the rest are finished.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Henry_ on January 15, 2012, 08:49:36 PM
I'm inclined to agree with amazon.

If we lose the Chadwick Street car park, the largest public car park in Marple, that is the death knell for the small shops of Marple. They're finished.

The Co-op will be alright as it has its own car park, as will the new supermarket on Hibbert Lane, but the rest are finished.
I agree. I don't understand the motivation behind it. If it is part of some anti supermarket on Hibbert Lane masterplan then it has been very badly thought through.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Duke Fame on January 15, 2012, 10:59:28 PM
I'm inclined to agree with amazon.

If we lose the Chadwick Street car park, the largest public car park in Marple, that is the death knell for the small shops of Marple. They're finished.

The Co-op will be alright as it has its own car park, as will the new supermarket on Hibbert Lane, but the rest are finished.
I agree. I don't understand the motivation behind it. If it is part of some anti supermarket on Hibbert Lane masterplan then it has been very badly thought through.

Apparently they've invented this new-fangled car parking system where space is a bit limited. It's called multi-storey, it's new and it might just work
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Dave on January 16, 2012, 09:29:48 AM
I don't understand the motivation behind it. If it is part of some anti supermarket on Hibbert Lane masterplan then it has been very badly thought through.

Surely it's just that the council wants to sell the land in order to raise some money. Why look for anything more complicated than that? 
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: sleepless on January 16, 2012, 04:59:13 PM
Duke is right - Marple does not need a big store.  A large supermarket (and it wouldn't just sell food) would close many independent shops in the town and reduce choice for shoppers.  It would also be out of proportion for the needs of Marple residents and would therefore draw in traffic and shoppers from outside the area, causing congestion, pollution and accidents.  It would not benefit the local economy as studies have shown that over 50% of money spent in independent shops is returned to the local economy, as compared with as little as 5% from supermarkets whose money goes to shareholders and corporations.  Jobs would also be lost as a study by the National Retailer Planning Forum found that 276 local jobs were lost for each supermarket which opened, due to loss of local shops and businesses.  Food miles would increase as independent shops tend to source supplies locally, whereas supermarket supplies travel great distances from supply depots.  And if we want to consider the environment, 35% to 40% of all household waste which ends up in landfilll is generated by the big five supermarkets.  If we must have another store there is no justification for a big supermarket on Hibbert Lane.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Cyberman on January 16, 2012, 06:28:51 PM
Well said Sleepless - couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: marveld on January 16, 2012, 06:42:55 PM
Apparently they've invented this new-fangled car parking system where space is a bit limited. It's called multi-storey, it's new and it might just work

I agree with Duke on the idea of multi-storey parking. If the land is to be sold, then I wouldn't object to an ALDI with adequate 2 storey parking (ground and one additional level). That would give the Co-op a run for its money. The council should ensure any planning permission is dependent on parking spaces not being lost.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: rsh on January 17, 2012, 10:42:29 PM
So it could go wildly either way towards Lidl/Aldi or M&S/Waitrose... But if multistory parking were required, couldn't that knock out the budget retailers who'll be looking for a cheap build?

Any ideas where the sorting office would relocate to?
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Dave on January 18, 2012, 09:24:30 AM
So it could go wildly either way towards Lidl/Aldi or M&S/Waitrose... But if multistory parking were required, couldn't that knock out the budget retailers who'll be looking for a cheap build?

I suspect a multi-storey car park could be a non-starter on that site, and not just for economic reasons.  The land is slightly elevated, and anything higher then two floors could be quite an eyesore. 
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: amazon on January 18, 2012, 01:33:31 PM
So it could go wildly either way towards Lidl/Aldi or M&S/Waitrose... But if multistory parking were required, couldn't that knock out the budget retailers who'll be looking for a cheap build?

Any ideas where the sorting office would relocate to?

 The sorting office still have along lease .why  move something that's convenient for most people this post now is going fantasy land way .
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Dave on January 18, 2012, 03:41:56 PM
The sorting office still have along lease .why  move something that's convenient for most people this post now is going fantasy land way .

It's no fantasy - the council's sale document makes it clear that the sorting office will definitely be relocated, 'subject to an alternative site being found.'  Which should not be too difficult.  If the Royal Mail have a long lease then the council must have reached an agreement with them. 
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: rsh on January 18, 2012, 05:07:13 PM
So it could go wildly either way towards Lidl/Aldi or M&S/Waitrose... But if multistory parking were required, couldn't that knock out the budget retailers who'll be looking for a cheap build?

I suspect a multi-storey car park could be a non-starter on that site, and not just for economic reasons.  The land is slightly elevated, and anything higher then two floors could be quite an eyesore. 

The only way I can see it working would be for a supermarket to be built level with Trinity Street, into the slope, then a single flat storey of parking built across its roof, level with Chadwick Street above. No eyesore and more parking spaces, but surely too expensive for what Marple demands.

Just the sorting office site itself could be the perfect size for a "local" type chain (like one of these new Morrisons (http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/public/assets/press/2011/07/1311149978_longcoss---morrisons-1.jpg)), and then the council wouldn't potentially lose control of the parking.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: hollins on February 21, 2012, 01:43:28 PM
So, the deadline was 17th February. Did the council get any "expressions of interest" in the Chadwick Street site ... and is it going to tell us?
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: amazon on February 21, 2012, 02:50:33 PM
So it could go wildly either way towards Lidl/Aldi or M&S/Waitrose... But if multistory parking were required, couldn't that knock out the budget retailers who'll be looking for a cheap build?

I suspect a multi-storey car park could be a non-starter on that site, and not just for economic reasons.  The land is slightly elevated, and anything higher then two floors could be quite an eyesore. 

The only way I can see it working would be for a supermarket to be built level with Trinity Street, into the slope, then a single flat storey of parking built across its roof, level with Chadwick Street above. No eyesore and more parking spaces, but surely too expensive for what Marple demands.

Just the sorting office site itself could be the perfect size for a "local" type chain (like one of these new Morrisons (http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/public/assets/press/2011/07/1311149978_longcoss---morrisons-1.jpg)), and then the council wouldn't potentially lose control of the parking.

Why has the sorting office got to move ,they have a long lease .left .
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: amazon on February 21, 2012, 02:59:03 PM
So, the deadline was 17th February. Did the council get any "expressions of interest" in the Chadwick Street site ... and is it going to tell us?

How do we find out . Miss marples your help is needed .i won't be nasty to you any more .promise   ;) ;)
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Mrs O on February 21, 2012, 04:58:11 PM
To date there has been some informal interest in the site and further progress after the deadline will be reported back to the area committee.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Djmell on July 24, 2012, 06:23:06 PM
To date there has been some informal interest in the site and further progress after the deadline will be reported back to the area committee.

it is my understanding that the site has now been sold for a very large sum to a development company that has been working with the supermarket chain Lidl.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: wheels on July 24, 2012, 09:27:52 PM
To date there has been some informal interest in the site and further progress after the deadline will be reported back to the area committee.

it is my understanding that the site has now been sold for a very large sum to a development company that has been working with the supermarket chain Lidl.


Totally incorrect
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Duke Fame on July 24, 2012, 10:12:29 PM
To date there has been some informal interest in the site and further progress after the deadline will be reported back to the area committee.

it is my understanding that the site has now been sold for a very large sum to a development company that has been working with the supermarket chain Lidl.


Thats good, I think it will work quite well.

Ideally, m&co could move next to Costa & a supermarket could take two floors of that shop but I'm told coop own the m&co building so no incentive for them.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Franz on July 25, 2012, 06:30:07 AM
SMBC have appointed Kirkland Development as their preferred developer for the Chadwick Street site. They were the developers for the new retail centre at Middleton which includes an Aldi supermarket
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Duke Fame on July 25, 2012, 10:32:42 AM
A medium sized supermarket opening until 8pm in the centre would complement the town centre but aldi is already in Romily, I'd have thought Llidl may be more likely. I think the retailers that are there really need to look at extending their opening hours. OK, the travel agent is not going to open til 10, nor perhaps the bag shop but the small retailer I'm involved with takes a good 30% of her turnover 5-7pm on a weekday.
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: wheels on July 25, 2012, 11:17:24 AM
A more sensible and European opening times of say mid day till 8    or  9-12    3-8 would certainly be an improvement
Title: Re: Alternative site
Post by: Duke Fame on July 25, 2012, 06:05:43 PM
A more sensible and European opening times of say mid day till 8    or  9-12    3-8 would certainly be an improvement

It's down to the retailer at teh end of the day, they have a life to lead and if they can't guarantee a turnover to cover / exceed the min wage of staff members along with all the problems/costs of employing people (thanks to the hapless Labour govt) - they are not going to open longer.

I'd like to hear the business forum's view on this.