Marple Community Forum & Noticeboard
October 31, 2014, 08:24:03 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Visit the Main Site

News: Banner Adverts on this site raise £1,000 for Skatepark Project
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  

Flexible ServiceDesk Solutions for your business

Poll
Question: Do you approve, oppose or not care if a supermarket were built on the Hibbert Lane site?
I object to a supermarket being built on the site.
I approve of a supermarket being built on the site.
I don't mind what is done with it.

Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 129
  Print  
Author Topic: Tesco / ASDA !!!  (Read 139298 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Lisa Oldham
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 575



« Reply #1590 on: June 28, 2012, 11:18:17 AM »

"will be" should read... could be as big as

"understood" should read ..could be as little as

neither statement from either side give definition.  MIA is right.. it could be.. they dont know for sure...

BUT the truth is the other side already know whats planned so they may or may not be telling porkies..

I know what I'm betting on.

As I have said before.. I will wait for the ACTUAL plans..   and take absolutely no notice of either side until that happens!
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1997



« Reply #1591 on: June 28, 2012, 12:52:39 PM »

I think you're missing HWL's point, Lisa.  It's not that either side is right or wrong - as you say, we will all find out in due course.  But the problem is that MIA posted something described as 'Consultation Details (taken from SMBC web site), but then deliberately omitted one sentence from it.  If the caption had read 'Excerpt from Consultation Details (taken from SMBC web site)' then they might have got away with it, but I'm afraid they have caught red-handed this time (or should it be red-faced?)
Logged
Henry_
Full Member
***
Posts: 230



« Reply #1592 on: June 28, 2012, 02:15:10 PM »

I think you're missing HWL's point, Lisa.  It's not that either side is right or wrong - as you say, we will all find out in due course.  But the problem is that MIA posted something described as 'Consultation Details (taken from SMBC web site), but then deliberately omitted one sentence from it.  If the caption had read 'Excerpt from Consultation Details (taken from SMBC web site)' then they might have got away with it, but I'm afraid they have caught red-handed this time (or should it be red-faced?)

I wasn't the one who made that point Dave but I know what you mean. I pasted in both statements and there are some subtle other differences in there too. Not sure why so I was waiting from someone from MIA to come along before jumping to conclusions.

The supermarket could of course be as big as 6 five-a-side football pitches  Roll Eyes
Logged
amazon
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1857


« Reply #1593 on: June 28, 2012, 03:14:21 PM »

I think you're missing HWL's point, Lisa.  It's not that either side is right or wrong - as you say, we will all find out in due course.  But the problem is that MIA posted something described as 'Consultation Details (taken from SMBC web site), but then deliberately omitted one sentence from it.  If the caption had read 'Excerpt from Consultation Details (taken from SMBC web site)' then they might have got away with it, but I'm afraid they have caught red-handed this time (or should it be red-faced?)

I wasn't the one who made that point Dave but I know what you mean. I pasted in both statements and there are some subtle other differences in there too. Not sure why so I was waiting from someone from MIA to come along before jumping to conclusions.

The supermarket could of course be as big as 6 five-a-side football pitches  Roll Eyes

Which is not that big for a supermarket .
Logged
Mrs O
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 510



« Reply #1594 on: June 28, 2012, 06:57:03 PM »

I think you're missing HWL's point, Lisa.  It's not that either side is right or wrong - as you say, we will all find out in due course.  But the problem is that MIA posted something described as 'Consultation Details (taken from SMBC web site), but then deliberately omitted one sentence from it.  If the caption had read 'Excerpt from Consultation Details (taken from SMBC web site)' then they might have got away with it, but I'm afraid they have caught red-handed this time (or should it be red-faced?)

I wasn't the one who made that point Dave but I know what you mean. I pasted in both statements and there are some subtle other differences in there too. Not sure why so I was waiting from someone from MIA to come along before jumping to conclusions.

The supermarket could of course be as big as 6 five-a-side football pitches  Roll Eyes
Why would the words " New build facility " also be omitted? I think the council have probably changed their original statement. No big deal, just unfortunate the first one has been quoted.
Logged
Miss Marple
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1397



« Reply #1595 on: June 28, 2012, 06:57:18 PM »

Hey don't get me wrong about this ASDA proposal just a few assurances needed

1. I can get out of Marple after 7.20 am without joining a traffic queue and be in Stockport in 15 Min's any time of the day

2 They can assure me in no uncertain terms that our local shops will not close as a result of there ability to reduce all items until there is no competition in the area

3. That the 500 children that will soon be attending The New Rose Hill super school will not be subjected to increased car pollution ( recent survey highlights diesel to be carcinogenic ) given the proximity of the school playground from the main road this concerns me !

4. That our elderly do not lose the experience of shopping in established shops where they can ask for 2 sausage and a slice of bacon

5 That ASDA employ local people ?

6 That after 10 years ASDA  will not develop on the site which they can not do at present but after ten years are able to develop the whole 8.5 acres

7 That no LOCAL young person will ever have to commute to an out of the area college

8. That ALL residents around the site will not suffer a lesser quality of life due to noise and light pollution

9 That ALL residents do not suffer house devaluations as a result of such a vast development across the road or butting up to their garden fence

10. That several huge lorries a day  will not be trundling and winding their way through residential housing estates

11. That streets and Avenues where children play  will not be used as rat runs by ASDA shoppers who try to avoid the conjestion on Stockport Rd and place our children in danger

12 That the ASDA car park does not attract youths at night like so many other large supermarket car parks and place our elderly residents some of who are often vulnerable at risk

Not a lot to ask is it ? But guess what I am not holding out much hope ?

Now call me old fashioned but I value the above far more than 2p off a tin of beans ?  
Logged

BECAUSE IT CONCERNS ME, MINE AND OTHERS !!!!!
Belly
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 290



WWW
« Reply #1596 on: June 28, 2012, 08:08:08 PM »

Remarkable. Do you object to all forms of new development anywhere in the Country with such vigour, or have you simply cut and paste the NIMBY's charter and made a couple of local Marple amendments?

If this is the 'Marple in Action' demands, perhaps they should surely be re-named 'Maple Inaction' as clearly lots of people are simply terrified of change  Shocked and will do anything they can to try to stop it.

Don't forget the potential for a plague of frogs generated by ASDA, or the death of the first born of each Marple resident.  Wink

Let the people attend the exhibition, see the proposals and then lets decide what extent of change in this town that we can stand.


 

Logged

Words are trains for passing through what really has no name...
Miss Marple
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1397



« Reply #1597 on: June 28, 2012, 08:11:56 PM »

Where did I object to the development ?   I just want a few assurances is that too much to ask ?

Unless I post as MIA these are my own views which are of importance to me and my family who may stand to have their quality of life effected.   I am no Luddite just a realist  Kiss and once it's done there's no turning back !  But thank you for you views which I take on board but would like to ask you what assurances do you require to ensure our community doesnt suffer as a result   Always remember once the land is sold a multiple million pound American company can and will do whatever they want, so buyer into the hype beware !
Logged

BECAUSE IT CONCERNS ME, MINE AND OTHERS !!!!!
Belly
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 290



WWW
« Reply #1598 on: June 28, 2012, 08:22:04 PM »

Where did I object to the development ?   I just want a few assurances is that too much to ask ?

Unless I post as MIA these are my own views which are of importance to me and my family who may stand to have their quality of life effected.   I am no Luddite just a realist  Kiss and once it's done there's no turning back !  

Because ultimately many of your points (traffic congestion, lorries, college future, house prices, pollution (that was a good one by the way - i hope you objected to the new Rose Hill school on that basis at the time)) can be targetted at any new type of new development on the College site. Which most people seem to think probably needs to happen at some point in the future in order for the College to survive / thrive.

There is clearly a threshold at which 'over-development' would be a problem, but I don't know what that might be yet.
Logged

Words are trains for passing through what really has no name...
Miss Marple
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1397



« Reply #1599 on: June 28, 2012, 08:34:37 PM »

The college was offered 9.5 million by a company wanting to develop a small supermarket and a housing development on the site but this was refused by the college, no I tell a lie the corporation only went looking for one of the three large supermarkets to sell the land to.  
Whatever happens CAMSFC are guilty of not wanting to get a deal which would benefit the community, such was their greed they chased the money and rode rough shod over their neighbours.
Have you seen the salary  CAMSFC are offering for a new finance director, short of money? I think they need to cut their cloth accordingly

My view is that the land should remain as education land and if CAMSFC no longer want or afford what was given to them they should give it back to another education facility that would value the site and continue to use it for our future generations
Logged

BECAUSE IT CONCERNS ME, MINE AND OTHERS !!!!!
Miss Marple
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1397



« Reply #1600 on: June 28, 2012, 08:43:16 PM »

No I didn't object to the New Rose Hill school to be honest I didn't know anything about it !   I wish to God I had have known because it's awful in my opinion, I am just so thankful that my family do not have to go there.   I feel sorry that the land on Hibbert Lane was not given over to The New Rose Hill to relocate to, how much better would that have been for young children to be, away from a main road, plenty of parking and open green fields for them to play on.   Somethings not right is it ? if you really really think  about it  Is it Undecided
Logged

BECAUSE IT CONCERNS ME, MINE AND OTHERS !!!!!
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1997



« Reply #1601 on: June 29, 2012, 08:07:50 AM »

The college was offered 9.5 million by a company wanting to develop a small supermarket and a housing development on the site but this was refused by the college,

As I have explained before, when disposing of any assets the the governors of the college have a legal obligation to sell to the highest bidder.

I feel sorry that the land on Hibbert Lane was not given over to The New Rose Hill to relocate to,

See above.  If SMBC had been prepared to offer the best price for the land, they could have had it. 
Logged
Maria
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 78


« Reply #1602 on: June 29, 2012, 12:13:19 PM »

The comments re the statement quoted (about the consultation) by MIA also seem to be due to the fact the statement on SMBC's website changed from that originally posted, and indeed has changed again.

No mystery, no dodgy cut and paste by MIA, so there you have it.
Logged
sgk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 378



« Reply #1603 on: June 29, 2012, 12:45:52 PM »

Quote
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=138
Consultation Events – Friday 6 July 2012 10am – 6pm and Saturday 7 July 10am – 5pm
Cheadle & Marple 6th Form College, Hibbert Lane Campus.

Cheadle and Marple sixth form College and Asda have organised an exhibition for residents to find out about their plans for the Hibbert Lane and Buxton Lane sites. The College plans include a re-modelled campus on the Buxton Lane site for its students and the local community. The plans include refurbishing the Buxton buildings along with a new 6,000sq m teaching block and new sports hall. The site will be unified through a multi-use learning ‘street’ for informal and social learning and a new 3G all weather sports pitch and upgraded changing facilities.

SMBC/College have revised the location, it's now at the Buxton Lane Campus, as that same website now shows :-

Quote
Consultation Events – Friday 6 July 2012 10am – 6pm and Saturday 7 July 10am – 5pm
Cheadle & Marple 6th Form College, Buxton Lane Campus off Hibbert Lane.

Cheadle and Marple sixth form College and Asda have organised an exhibition for residents to find out about their plans for the Hibbert Lane and Buxton Lane sites. The College plans include a re-modelled campus on the Buxton Lane site for its students and the local community. The plans include refurbishing the Buxton buildings along with a new build facility which includes a  new 6,000sq m teaching block and new sports hall. The site will be unified through a multi-use learning ‘street’ for informal and social learning and a new 3G all weather sports pitch and upgraded changing facilities.
Logged
Mrs O
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 510



« Reply #1604 on: June 29, 2012, 01:01:32 PM »

Oh dear.  We've had misleading information from MIA in the past, but until now it has tended to come from individuals on this forum, or talking to passers-by at the MIA tent in Market Street, and not from official MIA statements.   But this is obviously a deliberate attempt by MIA to conceal information, and it can only backfire on them, I'm afraid.    
Oh dear Dave! It seems you are the one with a red face Grin. The SMBC statement has changed again.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 129
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Tweets by @marplewebsite
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!