Marple in Action RALLY 10th Sept 2pm Memorial Park

[JMC]

So far, I've been quiet on the subject of new supermarket on Hibbert Lane. I've given it quite a bit of thought and I have decided I am in favour of an ALDI store (like the one in Romiley) Ideally, I'd prefer direct competition in the town centre e.g. the former Hanbury's site, but the Co-op hold the purse strings on that building and it doesn't provide a solution for the college.

I have similar views at the moment.

[chaffinch]

Thanks Dave. 'Skills Funding Agency'  probably is what Mr Stunnell read out then. Applogies for confusion.
This is why I really would like to see the letter. Did anyone record the speeches? Seeing the College's justification set out and then deconstructing it to try and find some area on which we can work together, seems useful to me. As I said if we just go head-to-head I feel we  lose out whoever 'wins': it's a community-bashing supermarket or a sub-standard college and I don't want either.

[Dave]

I think chaffinch has inadvertently caused some confusion.  S/he probably meant this lot:  http://skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/   That said, when the college was 'let down' (if that's what it was) the SFA didn't exist - in those days it was this lot: http://www.lsc.gov.uk/.  And then coming soon (next year) there will be the YPLA (this lot: http://www.ypla.gov.uk/).

Confused? You're entitled to be. And at the rate new quangos come and go, these won't be around for long either.   

[Smithy166]

Skills and development agency you say?
Its No wounder the college couldn't get funding from the college. the S&DA website states the following (theres a condsensed version at the bottom of the post):

S&DA (The Skills and Development Agency) was founded in 2001 as a not for profit company limited by guarantee (Company Registration no: 5258081) and was formerly known as North West London Online. S&DA is a provider of skills, employment and community development opportunities for adults, employers and young people. We are a staff cooperative with an elected board and as such our organisation’s ethos is based on fairness, inclusion, equality and community cohesion.

We initially delivered ICT training (computer training) in Brent as part of the UK Online framework, but developed to deliver European Social Fund initiatives, training young people, ex-offenders (though OLAS) and unemployed people in West London.

Since 2008, we have grown, rebranded and have extended our delivery portfolio. We now offer a wide range of vocational and non-vocational training courses, as well as Apprenticeship provision and employability support in Brent, across London, the South East and East of England.

We receive ESF and Skills Funding Agency Employer Responsive Train to Gain funding, UK Online and LDA funding, amid other sources.

We have an excellent track record in delivering projects from both a project management perspective and in terms of helping our learners to achieve accredited and non-accredited learning results.

We are committed to high quality provision. We work to the Matrix and ISO 9001 standard and our training is accredited by OCR, City & Guilds, EdExcel, NEFCE, ILM and BCS."

But i'll condense the above into "We don't fund colleges" So its No wounder they turned the colleges request down! I swear the college take us for village idiots.

[Dave]

I do not want a large supermarket on the site. I believe a smaller store will provide competition to the Co-op and will not adversely affect other local businesses. I think this compromise might provide enough money for the college

I wish you were right, marveld, but I fear that's a pipe dream.  A supermarket can be around 3,000 square metres, whilst a Tesco Metro or Sainsbury's Local is classed as a convenience  store - i.e. up to 300 sq metres, AFAIK.   So if a Tesco Metro is around 10% of the size of a full Tesco supermarket, we can reasonably assume that it would also have about 10% of the land value.   

[marveld]

So far, I've been quiet on the subject of new supermarket on Hibbert Lane. I've given it quite a bit of thought and I have decided I am in favour of an ALDI store (like the one in Romiley) or a Tesco / Sainsburys etc. "Local". I do not want a large supermarket on the site. I believe a smaller store will provide competition to the Co-op and will not adversely affect other local businesses. I think this compromise might provide enough money for the college and not significantly impact the residents of Hibbert Lane or swamp Marple with additional traffic. Additional local jobs will also be created.

Ideally, I'd prefer direct competition in the town centre e.g. the former Hanbury's site, but the Co-op hold the purse strings on that building and it doesn't provide a solution for the college.

[chaffinch]

MIA V. CAMSFC: Battle of the Titans (and acronyms). But we get hurt both ways. Either we get a supermarket so many of us don't want or the college where our children are educated doesn't get the money it genuinely needs.
Is there 'a third way?' Can we not harness our combined powers to work toward a different solution? In the letter from Mrs Cassidy read by Mr Stunnell at the rally, was there mention of The Skills and Development Agency 'letting down' the college is terms of the required funding? (Apologies if this were not the case. It would be really useful if a copy of that letter could be posted on this site as I haven't seen much in writing that expresses the college's stance.) I know nothing of the Skills and Development Agency but could we not join forces with the College to overturn whatever decision the Agency made? We could end up with a  fabulous college and no giant supermarket. With the political spotlight currently on localism; the Mary Portas report due next month and of course The Big Society, the timing could be spot on. MIACAMSFC UTD?

[Dave]

So when SMBC say no. Tesco appeals against the ruling who pay for the cost of the appeal.

It depends.  This is the long answer:  http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/circularcostsawards.pdf

However, the short answer, AFAIK, is that each side in the appeal process normally meets their own costs.  However, the side that 'wins' the appeal can apply to have their costs covered by the 'losing' side, and in a minority of cases these costs are awarded.   

So in this case, whoever 'wins', SMBC (i.e. we council tax payers) will have to foot the bill for their own costs.  I think if the council were to lose, it would be unlikely that they would have to pay the supermarket's costs as well, as in rejecting the initial planning application they had clearly been acting properly and within their own planning policy. 

[TINSLEY]

So when SMBC say no. Tesco appeals against the ruling who pay for the cost of the appeal.

[Belle Star]

Thanks for sharing your positive take on the day HWL1973. I agree that the discussion after the rally was very constructive and, as you said previously, we all understand one another better, so that's definitely a step in the right direction 

[Henry_]

Hi All,

I do think people are looking for arguments here where there aren't any. It would be shame as we had a constructive face to face discussion on Saturday and this should not take a backwards step once we're all back on our keyboards  

For what it's worth, it was an MIA rally and I for one felt rather nervous in attending it - especially when going up to ask a couple of questions on behalf of the 'Yes' lot. However, I was not shouted down or booed and David Hoyle responded in a polite fashion. At very least it allowed people there to hear a different point of view.

Another member of the 'Yes' group did have a pre-prepared speech but it was clearly not on the agenda for the rally. There was a little confusion as to whether it would be fitted in or not (due to some stormy clouds overhead and the politicians in attendance inevitably going on a bit). If I was to put myself in MIA's shoes then I for one would not be too happy having my rally ended by someone from the other group getting the last word, but overall it was nothing more than a mix up when they said the speech would be allowed. I don't think there was any malicious intent in any of this at all. It certainly should not be used for points scoring.

Oh, and we were also told that the Area Committe meeting in October will be the open forum for everyone (Yes/No/In between) to have a say - and this will be a lot more appropriate than the MIA rally.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I have some more thoughts on Saturday which I'll try and share when I get some more time.

[tina]

Not quite right there MM, we was only given the chance to ask 2 questions after they said to everyone it had ended. 1 member spoke to David before the start of the rally and asked if he could speak, and was told No!

That's not quite right either... everybody was welcome to speak but only one person from the "Yes" campaign chose to step forward. He had 2 questions, both of which were dealt with. There had been plenty of opportunity for other people to come forward so it's wrong to say you were only given the chance to ask 2 questions. In reality, you only had 2 questions answered because only 2 questions were asked! It's not really fair to suggest that the "Yes" campaign were not given an opportunity to speak. It's important for people that weren't there to get a true picture of what really happened.

As for someone else speaking to David beforehand and being told they were not allowed to speak, I would question what that person actually asked. If he asked if he could make a speech, then it's not surprising he was turned down as it was a MIA rally. The question and answer session was always open for all so he would not have been told no. I'd check again to see what he actually asked (and I'll check with David what he actually told him).

To my understanding after just speaking to the person who asked David he said....
when he asked David he told him it was the MIA rally. so he said yes i understand and respected that. And in the middle of the rally the MC said we was there and would be given a chance to speak. As this didn't happen he asked the MC at the end why he wasn't given a chance and he said they had run out of time and wanted to finish because the rain was coming and they wanted to get packed away.
we respected that it was a MIA rally, and did ask before hand and wasn't rude to anyone. we didn't cause a scene that we wasn't able to speak. We all actually stayed behind and spoke to some members of MIA and we all found we had common ground almost. so we are not the big bad wolf.
MM you are not being discredited again. you are playing with our words.

[Belle Star]

Not quite right there MM, we was only given the chance to ask 2 questions after they said to everyone it had ended. 1 member spoke to David before the start of the rally and asked if he could speak, and was told No!

That's not quite right either... everybody was welcome to speak but only one person from the "Yes" campaign chose to step forward. He had 2 questions, both of which were dealt with. There had been plenty of opportunity for other people to come forward so it's wrong to say you were only given the chance to ask 2 questions. In reality, you only had 2 questions answered because only 2 questions were asked! It's not really fair to suggest that the "Yes" campaign were not given an opportunity to speak. It's important for people that weren't there to get a true picture of what really happened.

As for someone else speaking to David beforehand and being told they were not allowed to speak, I would question what that person actually asked. If he asked if he could make a speech, then it's not surprising he was turned down as it was a MIA rally. The question and answer session was always open for all so he would not have been told no. I'd check again to see what he actually asked (and I'll check with David what he actually told him).

[tina]

Just for the record

Yesterday the YES group were invited to say a few words but for whatever reason they decided not to   I am only putting the record straight having read the YES face book page.  If I am wrong I am sure I will be corrected but they were invited to do so by David Hoyle. So I am really at a loss and a little miffed off that we are being discredited once again !   

Not quite right there MM, we was only given the chance to ask 2 questions after they said to everyone it had ended. 1 member spoke to David before the start of the rally and asked if he could speak, and was told No!

[Miss Marple]

Just for the record

Yesterday the YES group were invited to say a few words but for whatever reason they decided not to   I am only putting the record straight having read the YES face book page.  If I am wrong I am sure I will be corrected but they were invited to do so by David Hoyle. So I am really at a loss and a little miffed off that we are being discredited once again !