Tesco / ASDA !!!

[Dave]

I do agree, Miss C - thank you.  And here is my effort at resuming this dialogue in a calm and civil way (let's see how long we can keep it up ;-).

There is, inevitably, a lot of disagreement on this issue, but there are also things that most of us would agree on.  Not surprisingly, we don't mention those much, but here's a few for starters:

1.   A new supermarket on Hibbert Lane would increase traffic congestion in Marple.
2.   It would mean that fewer of us will go elsewhere (Bredbury, Hazel Grove etc) to do our main supermarket shopping.
3.   It would have an impact on other local shops (but no-one can forecast for certain what that will be)
4.   It will almost certainly not receive planning permission from Stockport Council.  The only way it could go ahead would be if the Council decision were to be overturned on appeal. 
5.   Er...
6.   That's it   

[Miss C]

As someone for whom the jury is out re a new supermarket, it is increasingly difficult to identify pertinent information on here. Why is it so hard for some to sustain a robust debate and respond to differing opinions without entering into personal attacks on each other? These insults to each other discredit you and mean that others of us will miss other salient points you may make amidst all the back biting. Surely you can voice opinions without the added nonsense?

[Steptoe and Son]

In response to the question from "Steptoe and Son" as to who established the "widely recognised needs of the district" I would answer that I think MIA has. As I said yesterday it is some time since I last referred to the MIA forum but I have a clear recollection that there was widespread support for the view that the Coop is inadequate and that a supermarket of a suitable size and in a suitable location might be welcome. After all, there is no campaign that I am aware of against a supermarket in Marple, only against a "supermarket on the Hibbert Lane College site"; no more than that.

I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that Alstan, particularly if you are taking others to task about their claims.  Where is the proof that there is 'widespread support for the view that the Coop is inadequate and that a supermarket of a suitable size and in a suitable location might be welcome'.

[alstan]

Thank you to those who have read my post yesterday and particularly to those who share my view on that particular topic.

In response to the question from "Steptoe and Son" as to who established the "widely recognised needs of the district" I would answer that I think MIA has. As I said yesterday it is some time since I last referred to the MIA forum but I have a clear recollection that there was widespread support for the view that the Coop is inadequate and that a supermarket of a suitable size and in a suitable location might be welcome. After all, there is no campaign that I am aware of against a supermarket in Marple, only against a "supermarket on the Hibbert Lane College site"; no more than that.

One other aspect that I didn't mention yesterday is that the letter is defamatory and it is not just the author but also the publisher, which I take to be MIA, who might be held liable in the event of a successful action. There are, of course, defences to an action for defamation and I seem to remember reading in the past that MIA is supported by a band of professional people so presumably MIA were advised that there would be a defence and it was safe to publish. However, if I were a donor, I would be a little concerned at the prospect of my donations ending up in the pocket of ASDA and their CEO.

It reminds me of that rash of illegal flyposting in the early days of the campaign

[Henry_]

Will you join Dave HWL and myself to look at the sites?

Hi Miss Marple,

OK, first of all please let me know which offensive picture or messages remain on the Yes facebook page. Anything deemed offensive is taken off. [Note: posts relating to this item have been removed because they were becoming too personal and abusive. Admin]

Secondly, the reason why I have not taken you up on your invitation is that I absolutely do not see the point of it. I know the site very well for starters having attended it as a night class student only last year, and can look at it on google maps to jog my memory. But also neither you, Dave nor I are experts on surveying, architecture, planning law or educational buildings (apart from Dave on that last one it seems) so what would we gain from pacing around it and being told again of some councillor statements buried away earlier in this thread?

Also, it's not like we've not met up already is it? I enjoyed debating with you in person back in September and I do admire the passion of people within MIA. Rather that than people who show no interest whatsoever in local matters or in politics on any level.

I don't agree with you on your underlying arguments though and unless Asda unveil plans for some hideous megastore I probably never will.

Finally, I do have some criticisms of the MIA campaign which I wish would be seen as constructive and not met with a wall of denials or just ignored. The recent newsletter has confirmed my suspicions that you need to do things better in my humble opinion. Especially if I was a donor I would be concerned that:

- There does not appear to be a published list of roles within the organisation, with contact names for each. It does appear to be a little 'shadowy' with tales of unknown people with 'greater insight' working tirelessly and right through Christmas. People come on here and post with two hats on. As soon as they are asked if they represent MIA they take that hat off.

- There appear to be no published accounts, or evidence of where donated money is being spent

- There appears to be a relationship with the Marple Civic society as donations are routed in this way. But this relationship does not appear to be formalised in writing, such that a suspicious person might think it has just been set up as a tax dodge. One would hope that Marple Civic society have some say in the running of MIA as a result and are 100% in approval of their messages and actions, but there is no transparency on this.

- There seems to be a 'word of mouth' culture whereby communication is done via a helpline with no audit trail of who said what to whom. This seems to be the way that evidence is presented too (this person heard someone say this in a meeting and told this person who told MIA etc). If a donor or anyone else wanted an email or other written conversation with MIA, how would they go about this?

- Written communication when done via the newsletters does not seem to have any quality control, see the model letter on the last one

- It is quite easy to think that MIA is primarily driven by protectionism on the part of local shopkeepers. Indeed, the message on the MIA website was toned down as a result of this. But having the co-op display a 'No' poster is a serious own goal. Stating that 'well the co-op has always been big in Marple' is not sufficient as a response either as it smacks of resistance to change

Like I said, I hope these points can get a measured response from someone in MIA and can be seen as constructive criticism. The last thing needed as a response is 'Well why aren't the Yes campaign doing this?' because the answer to that is obvious. The Yes campaign do not accept donations.

By accepting donations you make yourselves a lot more accountable and responsible and I would hope that by addressing the above points you can establish a level of governance which an active donor would expect. You may indeed be working very hard, but maybe you need to work a little smarter.

As stated previously in many places, the Yes campaign was never intended to be a mirror image of MIA. It states that quite clearly on the FB page. Indeed, people in favour of something act very differently from those against something, and the Yes campaign has to embrace this. It is basic human nature and has been referenced elsewhere in these threads but again can be seen very clearly in the reactions of the general public to government cuts and recent public sector strikes. Actually, I won't ask you to trawl through the forum, you can find the discussion on this here: http://www.marple-uk.com/smf/index.php?topic=3962.15

Finally, I sense a little bit of vitriol creeping back in. Not really the time of year for it! The last thing anyone needs is for any campaigning to get personal and that all contributions to debates on local public life are better than none at all.

Merry Christmas  

[Dave]

Oh Hello are you forgetting something, you know. Like an apology ? 

Miss M, you tried to send me off on a wild goose chase, looking for:

....information from SMBC back in June ! 

So I think it's Miss M that owes me an apology, because the actual information which admin kindly provided turned out to be from October! 

But let's get back to the issue at hand.  Looking at the video clip again, although the sound is not very clear, the key phrase from Paul Lawrence seems to be something like 'the council will accept no net loss of public open space'. 

This begs the question of course - what is 'public open space'.  Definitions are quite hard to find on the web. but here's one: 'Open, grassed and hard landscaped areas fully accessible to the public and maintained in a condition suitable for the purpose it is being provided for.'   Source: http://www.exeter.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3120&p=0

I'm not at all convinced that the land around the college's Buxton Lane building comes within that definition of 'public open space'.  The grounds of places such as schools, colleges and hospitals may be 'public' in the sense that they are publicly owned, but they are not 'fully accessible to the public', in the way that, say, Brabyn's Park or Hawk Green is.  If any of us decided to wander about in the grounds of the college or of one of the local schools, I think we would technically be trespassers, and we could be challenged and asked to leave, unless we could show that we had legitimate business there.  That doesn't sound like 'public open space' to me.

[Dave]

I didn't waste time 'trawling' HWL, because I knew there was nothing to trawl for, apart from the usual bluff, bluster, waffle and flannel ;-)

Perhaps you should have done a bit of trawling before being so critical Dave. I remember exactly what MM was talking about regarding the college "only being able to build on the car park" or the brownfield part of the site. It is something that I have heard mention of often and it was confirmed by the Council's Paul Lawrence at the Extraordinary Area Comittee Meeting on 12 October. He said that the council's planning policy accepts "no nett loss of public open space".

I would have thought that everyone with strong views either way should listen to everything that was said on the video of this meeting if they did not attend but if you what to go straight to it then it is 65 minutes in. Go to the MiA web site and scroll down to the 21 October news: www.marple-in-action.org.uk

Thanks for the reference, admin.  I have looked at the video and noted what was said.  Mr Lawrence undoubtedly knows what he is talking about, and I would not want to take issue with him on any planning matter. However, I would be interested to know the legal basis of the council's policy, and in particular, the grounds on which the council would regard the college's land as 'public open space'. 

[sooty2]

Thank you, alstan, for making the point so well about the ridiculous model letter to Asda which is included in the latest MIA newsletter.  As HWL1973 wrote, it's....

appalling misinformation...............a very unhelpful and ultimately self defeating way for MIA to communicate their message

What appalls me about the letter is its insult to people's intelligence - the assumption by whoever wrote it that anyone would believe it or take it seriously.   And surely HWL is right to call it 'self-defeating', in that such nonsense must inevitably undermine MIA's credibility. 

The other thing is Dave that MIA, in the form of their representative on this forum, is going on the defensive over it. If they listened to constructive criticism they might get somewhere. If I was a donor to MIA and had issues with their communicated messages then apparently I'd have to wait until a PO box was set up to send a letter to it.

I was not aware that MIA had a representitive on this forum.I don't think many MIA supporters are aware of this forum,and would not get involved if they did.

[Steptoe and Son]

commensurate with the widely recognized needs of the district
 

Interesting, who has established these 'widely recognized needs'?

[sooty2]

It is obvious to me and others that the offending sample letter should not of been published.It has,and nothing can be done about it. There is no point backtracking now,What is done is done!any form of apology would be would be frowned upon.So there really would be no point.

[admin]

I didn't waste time 'trawling' HWL, because I knew there was nothing to trawl for, apart from the usual bluff, bluster, waffle and flannel ;-)

Perhaps you should have done a bit of trawling before being so critical Dave. I remember exactly what MM was talking about regarding the college "only being able to build on the car park" or the brownfield part of the site. It is something that I have heard mention of often and it was confirmed by the Council's Paul Lawrence at the Extraordinary Area Comittee Meeting on 12 October. He said that the council's planning policy accepts "no nett loss of public open space".

I would have thought that everyone with strong views either way should listen to everything that was said on the video of this meeting if they did not attend but if you what to go straight to it then it is 65 minutes in. Go to the MiA web site and scroll down to the 21 October news: www.marple-in-action.org.uk

[Henry_]

Thank you, alstan, for making the point so well about the ridiculous model letter to Asda which is included in the latest MIA newsletter.  As HWL1973 wrote, it's....

appalling misinformation...............a very unhelpful and ultimately self defeating way for MIA to communicate their message

What appalls me about the letter is its insult to people's intelligence - the assumption by whoever wrote it that anyone would believe it or take it seriously.   And surely HWL is right to call it 'self-defeating', in that such nonsense must inevitably undermine MIA's credibility. 

The other thing is Dave that MIA, in the form of their representative on this forum, is going on the defensive over it. If they listened to constructive criticism they might get somewhere. If I was a donor to MIA and had issues with their communicated messages then apparently I'd have to wait until a PO box was set up to send a letter to it.

[Henry_]

After an absence of several months I have now had an opportunity to return to the MIA website. The latest newsletter seemed a good place to start and I was drawn to a paragraph "What you can do" which included the suggestion, among others, that a letter to the CEO of ASDA might be a good idea. Having read the adjacent sample letter I felt it essential to follow up the suggestion and the text of my letter to
Mr Clarke reads as follows:-

"I have just seen on the “Marple in Action” (MIA) website  a sample of a letter which people might wish to use as a basis for their own letter to you (Marple in Action Update 4th edition December 2011). Since there might be some chance that someone might decide to do so I think it only right that you should know that there are people in Marple who do not share the views expressed.

For some months MIA have been conducting a vigorous campaign against they knew not who in respect of their proposals for they knew not what. It seems that they now have information which leads them to focus on your own company although what your plan might be, assuming you have a plan, is, I believe, still unknown.

The argument had several threads, financial loss to local traders, increased traffic, potential loss of amenities (eg swimming pool), loss of opportunity (sports centre, health centre, social housing etc), light pollution, damage to the environment, supermarkets are unethical  and so on. However it now appears from the sample letter that these arguments have either been abandoned or have at least become secondary since the sample letter focuses on one issue alone, a highly emotive allegation that “your huge company” is setting out to “destroy a school and build land (sic) gifted for education”.

Talk about twisting and distorting the facts and turning reality on its head! We have a local college which is looking for ways of maintaining the important service that it provides to the community at negligible, if any, financial cost to that community, objectives which most rational people would consider highly commendable and difficult to achieve in the current climate. The sample letter includes the statement that   “…we now live in a country that closes schools to open supermarkets.”, a breathtakingly inaccurate comment in this context. I am not aware that anyone has previously suggested that either the governors or any potential buyer of the land are motivated by a desire to close the college. The truth is the exact opposite; their motivation is to ensure that the college remains an asset for Marple and its people for generations to come.

Personally I remain firmly on the fence until the facts emerge. If there is a plan to build a hypermarket, an “Extra” or something like it, on the site I will oppose it. If, however, there is a plan to build a supermarket commensurate with the widely recognized needs of the district and with architecture which owes at least something to the vernacular, such as it is, I believe that most of the opposition will simple evaporate."

I have seen admirable posts which have contributed with sense and realism to both sides of the debate; I have seen a lot of posts which contribute nothing; but I was gobsmacked by this "sample letter" with its appallingly inaccurate statements and its thinly veiled threats. It brings great discredit to MIA
 

Couldn't have summed this up better myself alstan. A brilliantly worded summary and letter.

[Dave]

Thank you, alstan, for making the point so well about the ridiculous model letter to Asda which is included in the latest MIA newsletter.  As HWL1973 wrote, it's....

appalling misinformation...............a very unhelpful and ultimately self defeating way for MIA to communicate their message

What appalls me about the letter is its insult to people's intelligence - the assumption by whoever wrote it that anyone would believe it or take it seriously.   And surely HWL is right to call it 'self-defeating', in that such nonsense must inevitably undermine MIA's credibility.  

And I think alstan makes a key point here:

If, however, there is a plan to build a supermarket commensurate with the widely recognized needs of the district and with architecture which owes at least something to the vernacular, such as it is, I believe that most of the opposition will simple evaporate.

It's certainly possible that the opposition could dwindle if the ultimate proposal is right.  And it's interesting that elsewhere on this forum, a poll asking whether people would use the new supermarket once it is built shows 80% responding 'yes' or 'maybe'. 

[alstan]

After an absence of several months I have now had an opportunity to return to the MIA website. The latest newsletter seemed a good place to start and I was drawn to a paragraph "What you can do" which included the suggestion, among others, that a letter to the CEO of ASDA might be a good idea. Having read the adjacent sample letter I felt it essential to follow up the suggestion and the text of my letter to
Mr Clarke reads as follows:-

"I have just seen on the “Marple in Action” (MIA) website  a sample of a letter which people might wish to use as a basis for their own letter to you (Marple in Action Update 4th edition December 2011). Since there might be some chance that someone might decide to do so I think it only right that you should know that there are people in Marple who do not share the views expressed.

For some months MIA have been conducting a vigorous campaign against they knew not who in respect of their proposals for they knew not what. It seems that they now have information which leads them to focus on your own company although what your plan might be, assuming you have a plan, is, I believe, still unknown.

The argument had several threads, financial loss to local traders, increased traffic, potential loss of amenities (eg swimming pool), loss of opportunity (sports centre, health centre, social housing etc), light pollution, damage to the environment, supermarkets are unethical  and so on. However it now appears from the sample letter that these arguments have either been abandoned or have at least become secondary since the sample letter focuses on one issue alone, a highly emotive allegation that “your huge company” is setting out to “destroy a school and build land (sic) gifted for education”.

Talk about twisting and distorting the facts and turning reality on its head! We have a local college which is looking for ways of maintaining the important service that it provides to the community at negligible, if any, financial cost to that community, objectives which most rational people would consider highly commendable and difficult to achieve in the current climate. The sample letter includes the statement that   “…we now live in a country that closes schools to open supermarkets.”, a breathtakingly inaccurate comment in this context. I am not aware that anyone has previously suggested that either the governors or any potential buyer of the land are motivated by a desire to close the college. The truth is the exact opposite; their motivation is to ensure that the college remains an asset for Marple and its people for generations to come.

Personally I remain firmly on the fence until the facts emerge. If there is a plan to build a hypermarket, an “Extra” or something like it, on the site I will oppose it. If, however, there is a plan to build a supermarket commensurate with the widely recognized needs of the district and with architecture which owes at least something to the vernacular, such as it is, I believe that most of the opposition will simple evaporate."

I have seen admirable posts which have contributed with sense and realism to both sides of the debate; I have seen a lot of posts which contribute nothing; but I was gobsmacked by this "sample letter" with its appallingly inaccurate statements and its thinly veiled threats. It brings great discredit to MIA