Marple Community Forum & Noticeboard
October 30, 2014, 04:39:32 PM *
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  

Visit the Ring o' Bells

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
  Print  
Author Topic: YES to a Supermarket on Hibbert Lane  (Read 19122 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tina
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 415



« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2011, 12:43:10 PM »

Would it be better if there was just one facebook group for the Yes group. ?

Just a suggestion , could they be combined ?




The first group was set up, then once they realised you had to add friends to the group, they decided to do a open page where you clicked like if you was a 'yes' as some people was being added who didn't want to be added. thats why there are 2, and they wanted to add all the comments onto the new page but don't know how to.
Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1369



« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2011, 12:51:59 PM »

As you say, MIA are right to raise these issues, but in my opinion they have gone down the Scaremongering route, and unfortunately if they continue with it too much it will ultimately have a negative impact on the campaign. There's a phrase that marketing/PR people often use - Under promise, over deliver. MIA are doing it the wrong way round. Getting everyone in Marple up in arms about the prospect of a Portwood sized supermarket, the loss of the swimming baths, and high-rise buildings at the College is fine. However, what happens when the plans are actually submitted, and they turn out to be, by comparison, fairly modest proposals? A supermarket only slightly larger that the Co-Op that fits in the footprint of the existing buildings, the new junction with stockport road only needs to demolish the newsagents on the corner so the Swimming baths is safe, the new college buildings are the same height as what is already there, there are just now two of them instead of one. A lot of people will end up being in favour, or at least not against, the plans, and they'll go through because in their minds, thanks to the scaremongering, "it could have been worse".

This is right, the supermarkets will say, look we listened and here's our proposals. All this heresay is playing into their hands.
Logged
artcatdog
Newbie
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2011, 11:06:33 PM »

Hey guys, nobody really knows what the College plans to do, but if it sells to Tesco or Asda it will be a sad sad sad day.

I like most of you probably on this thread live on a tight budget. I live in a rented flat in Marple, I have to travel out of the town to go to get most of my shopping*. I have a low paid job that I constantly worry i'm going to loose. I have Uni fees to pay, general bills coming out of my ears ect ect. I'm not some toff that lives in a big fancy house in Marple Bridge who swans around Waitrose or M and S food. I'm just a general Joe bloggs just like you... but the difference between me and most of you guys is that I would never ever shop in Tesco or Asda, no matter how cheap they are and how much money I could be saving i'll never go into TESCO or ASDA. They are TOO BIG and have TOO MUCH POWER.

It's a false economy.. 

If you think having a Tesco in Marple is a good thing, please just read this - most of the text is taken from the Tescopoly website.

Please just take the time to give it a read,
http://www.tescopoly.org



Who is paying the real cost of supermarket price wars? [/b]
Thanks to rapid growth in recent years, Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons now control over 70% of the UK groceries market. Increasingly, if producers overseas want to get into the UK market, they have to deal with supermarkets. Supermarkets are using the enormous buying power that comes with their dominant position to force farms and factories in poor countries to lower their prices, deliver goods ever faster and at shorter notice. The pressure on suppliers to deliver more for less is passed on to workers in the form of low wages, job insecurity and poor working conditions.

"Having travelled to many countries to meet farmers it was very clear that supermarkets treated all farmers equally  - unfortunately that is equally badly and it was the name of Tesco which came up time and time again. If we are to have a future as farmers and sustainable agriculture then we need to control supermarket power."
Michael Hart, chairman of Small and Family Farms Alliance

Supermarkets fail to pay farmers a fair share of  retail prices

Farmers have to bear the burden of unfair trading practices imposed by supermarkets.

Bananas
Worldwide Tesco buys and sells around 20 million boxes of bananas a year from Latin America, the Caribbean and West Africa. Most of these are from plantations where workers do not earn a living wage and where workers have inadequate protection from the toxic chemical hazards that are endemic to industrial-scale production.

 
Research by the Clean Clothes Campaign
reveals that while supermarkets are seeing massive profits from their cheap fast fashion lines, workers in their supply chains face increasing poverty, appalling conditions, and serious workers rights violations. The “Cashing In” report conducted research in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Thailand, interviewing factory workers for Tesco, Walmart, Aldi and Lidl. It showed that major supermarkets' price breaking approach to garment retail created major labour rights issues for garment workers in their supply chains:


Take action for Tesco chickens.


Viva!'s investigations into animal welfare
In 2006 Viva! made a complaint, supported by the Food Standards Agency, about Tesco packaging on own-label duck products, which were misleading customers. The packaging suggested that the birds were reared free-range, but Viva! provided evidence that the they were housed in industrial sheds with no outdoor access. Trading Standards upheld the complaint. For further information please see Viva!'s press release.

In 2003, Viva! undertook an undercover investigation into Bowes of Norfolk, a pig farm supplying Tesco, which revealed severe animal suffering. According to an article in The Observer, the company, which employs more than 600 people and has an annual turnover of over £30 million, is Tesco's major UK-based pork supplier, providing pork cuts for all of the chain's 'Finest' range, processing 50 per cent of its 'Organic' and 'Tender Select' ranges and a substantial part of its 'Standard' range, as well as providing meat for sale at the chain's over-the-counter service. The investigation made clear that responsibility for these standards lay with Tesco -Viva! said “As Bowes' main customer, Tesco is indirectly responsible for those conditions. Of course, other major supermarkets also sell meat from pigs reared intensively - Tesco just got caught - but that does not excuse Tesco from responsibility.”
A follow-up investigation in 2004 revealed continued animal suffering including sows still confined to farrowing crates, overcrowding and lame pigs. Despite suggesting that a meeting might be useful, Tesco apparently found “one excuse after another not to actually hold one.” In response Viva! Held a Day of Action in August 2004 with demonstrations at 90 Tesco stores.

Tesco selling live turtles and frogs abroad
According to the Tortoise Trust Tesco is involved in selling live turtles and live frogs at its branches in China. The Trust state that “the suffering inflicted on these animals is so extreme that were it to take place in the UK, Tesco directors would undoubtedly face criminal charges. In addition to the most horrendous cruelty, the live turtle and frog trade is acutely environmentally destructive, and is contributing to the rapid extinction of a number of species. Campaigners have launched a petition to campaign against the sale of live turtles in Tesco stores in China petition.

Tesco now controls over 30% of the grocery market in the UK is that a good thing?


There are over 400 local campaigns against supermarkets listed on the Tescopoly website, thats just in the UK on one website!!!

Tesco are cowards, we need a change, we need something new... let Marple be the first to buck the trend and SAY NO TO TESCO

How many times can a man turn his head pretending he just doesn't see???
Logged
Maria
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 78


« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2011, 11:30:26 PM »

Just a thought do the people saying yes to the supermarket on Hibbert lane live on Hibbert lane?

In the town centre is supported by the majority of people in Marple whether they have voted yes or no, but in the middle of a housing estate is completely unsuitable for many reasons. 

The rumour about the college selling all sites in Marple and Cheadle was raised at the area committee meeting and the counsellors were not surprised-the source of this cannot be revealed as they have not given their permission but let's just say they are reliable and if in time it turns out to be true then we may all suffer with more than one huge supermarket in the area-also Mr Hubert from the college has confirmed the Buxton lane development would most likely be several stories high to accommodate everyone-again assuming the development does actually go ahead and all the sites are not sold off. 

It is not all rumour at all and to say it is is unfair-many people are working very hard to discover the facts when the college are trying to keep it all quiet.
Logged
danny
Full Member
***
Posts: 172



« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2011, 11:38:42 PM »

I second that maria, But not only are people working hard to find the infomation, A small band of dedicated people are putting there jobs on the line to brind us infomation from behind closed doors.
Logged

Whats that coming over the hill? Is it a monster?
Kinda... its a monster with a towel on its head!
Maria
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 78


« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2011, 11:45:56 PM »

I know, as part of the MIA group I am amazed at the dedication people have demonstrated to try to stop the area becoming another town like all the rest with a large supermarket and not much else.  We can only hope.  Sure those signing the yes petition (re the development on Hibbert lane) think differently if it was to be built facing their house.  Within the town centre is great-as I have always maintained-but in the middle of houses is a ridiculous notion. 
Logged
Sareena
Newbie
*
Posts: 37


« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2011, 11:50:07 PM »

I live across from the college and i wouldn't mind it being a supermarket.
Logged
Maria
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 78


« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2011, 11:53:53 PM »

Sareena fair enough, you obviously want to live in a different way to me-I do respect your opinion though and think you may have been the woman I met in Greggs the other week-apologies if not you but the lady I was talking to lived facing the end of the college (so won't be able to see the store from her front room as being built at the other end) and also thought it was a brilliant idea. 

Logged
Sareena
Newbie
*
Posts: 37


« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2011, 12:00:59 AM »

That must have been someone else you were talking to.

I live near the phone box (the useless one that is always vandalised)
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1997



« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2011, 10:20:03 AM »

Can we just lay to rest this 'rumour' about the college moving away from Marple. It's not difficult to spot its origin: the governors' minutes previously quoted on this forum list a few options which they considered. One of these was to consolidate all three camsfc campuses on to a new site with a completely new building. However, the governors rejected this on the grounds of cost. It simply ain't going to happen.
Logged
admin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4225



WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2011, 01:08:01 PM »

I have received complaints about certain posts in this topic and they have been removed to a hidden area. As I am at work at the moment that is all I can currently do. People need to calm down, be more polite in what they post and also less ready to take offence when none may be intended. I will try to provide some guidelines about complaining later as I suspect we are going to need them. Admin
Logged

Mark Whittaker

The Marple Website
sgk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 378



« Reply #41 on: August 31, 2011, 08:35:29 PM »

Can we just lay to rest this 'rumour' about the college moving away from Marple. It's not difficult to spot its origin: the governors' minutes previously quoted on this forum list a few options which they considered. One of these was to consolidate all three camsfc campuses on to a new site with a completely new building. However, the governors rejected this on the grounds of cost. It simply ain't going to happen.

Just out of interest Dave, would you be able to post a link to the minutes where this was rejected ?
Logged
admin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4225



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 31, 2011, 08:56:47 PM »

Can we just lay to rest this 'rumour' about the college moving away from Marple. It's not difficult to spot its origin: the governors' minutes previously quoted on this forum list a few options which they considered. One of these was to consolidate all three camsfc campuses on to a new site with a completely new building. However, the governors rejected this on the grounds of cost. It simply ain't going to happen.

Just out of interest Dave, would you be able to post a link to the minutes where this was rejected ?

He did in this post: http://www.marple-uk.com/smf/index.php?topic=3554.msg17618#msg17618
Logged

Mark Whittaker

The Marple Website
NeilCorrie
Full Member
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #43 on: August 31, 2011, 09:47:57 PM »

Can we just lay to rest this 'rumour' about the college moving away from Marple. It's not difficult to spot its origin: the governors' minutes previously quoted on this forum list a few options which they considered. One of these was to consolidate all three camsfc campuses on to a new site with a completely new building. However, the governors rejected this on the grounds of cost. It simply ain't going to happen.

Just out of interest Dave, would you be able to post a link to the minutes where this was rejected ?

He did in this post: http://www.marple-uk.com/smf/index.php?topic=3554.msg17618#msg17618

When I read the minutes of 17th June 2010 I don't come to the conclusion that consolidation had been rejected on grounds of cost.  I got the impression it was one of three options being actively considered.



AHU talked to the paper detailing the options in relation to the Estates Strategy recommended by Principalship (paper previously circulated – deemed confidential on grounds of commercial sensitivity). There appeared to be three clear avenues to follow in the short and long term, briefly summarised as:

  • Try to obtain planning consent for development at Cheadle. The cost of planning consultants was estimated at £25 - £30 k, although this was subject to confirmation and had the potential to be more. A tender process would be involved.
  • Continue discussions with the Local Authority about the possibility of moving to a single site. The risk associated with moving to one site was that there could be a need to borrow significant amounts of  additional funds.
  • Investigate options for the Marple campus. Initially any consultancy fees could be kept to a minimum.

Estates Committee agreed that the College should move forward in a way that did not prejudice the final view taken. Dialogue would continue with the Local Authority. The Corporation would need to be sure that all the proposed options were being reviewed thoroughly.

The Committee recommended for approval by Corporation that the Estates Strategy be progressed as detailed in the three options recommended by Principalship.
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1997



« Reply #44 on: September 01, 2011, 04:42:03 PM »

Good point Neil.  The bit of those minutes that I was referring to was this:

'The options for each site and the possibility of moving to a single site were
discussed in detail, including planning considerations, different proposals for
buildings and facilities and the options for funding. The four funding
scenarios presented ranged from self funding, where energy saving works
and student retention works were undertaken, to extensive new build with a
£44-48 million gap in funding.
[my bold type]
There were three recommendations resulting from the work undertaken :
? Undertake legislative compliance works and energy savings works
with a payback period of less than two years. The cost quoted for this
was £25k +VAT.
? Secure outline planning permission for work at the Cheadle campus.
The cost quoted for this was £70k +VAT.
? Initiate discussions regarding options for the Marple campus. The
cost quoted for this was £10 – 20k +VAT.'


But you're right to draw attention to the other section, which shows the college still engaging in discussions with SMBC about the possibility of moving on to a single site.   

That said, the very high cost of this option is mentioned again ('a need to borrow significant amounts of additional funds'), and I still think that will make it a non-starter in the end.  Perhaps the college is still talking to the council about this option in the hope that the council might help out in some way - perhaps by giving them the land?   Fat chance of that, I suspect!    Grin
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
  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!