Lost

[amazon]

You could well be right there, Simone, judging from the carefully worded statement by the Council, which has just been reported via the latest (and final) MIA newsletter: 

'No contract has been signed yet for the sale of the land, owned by Stockport Council, and there are some difficult negotiations to be had before a deal is done and the site marketed. Only at that stage will we know the name of the retailer coming in. We are told to “not hold our breath” so it may be some time before there is any action on the site.'

See http://www.marple-uk.com/marple-in-action/MiA-newsletter-Final.pdf

'No contract has been signed.....difficult negotiations.......it may be some time.'  I think we get the message. 

More chance of going to the moon first .before its sorted . Like you say if ever .Marple Will change some day
By then it might be to late compared with other towns that have better shopping facilities .

[Dave]

You could well be right there, Simone, judging from the carefully worded statement by the Council, which has just been reported via the latest (and final) MIA newsletter: 

'No contract has been signed yet for the sale of the land, owned by Stockport Council, and there are some difficult negotiations to be had before a deal is done and the site marketed. Only at that stage will we know the name of the retailer coming in. We are told to “not hold our breath” so it may be some time before there is any action on the site.'

See http://www.marple-uk.com/marple-in-action/MiA-newsletter-Final.pdf

'No contract has been signed.....difficult negotiations.......it may be some time.'  I think we get the message. 

[simonesaffron]

I think that if you scratch a little (only a little) beneath the surface you will find that Kirkland Developments has gone to comparatively little expense in pursuit of this application. If they were to pull out to-morrow they will have lost little more than the price of the planning application -and SMBC will probably reimburse them for that.

If my understanding of the situation is correct then the deadline for ASDA's appeal submission has passed. I would expect soon to see some planning activity on Hibbert Lane and also to hear that Kirkland have ceased to be interested in the TS site.   

[wheels]

I am not disagreeing there Dave I am making the point that to suggest the developer and The Council were complicit in conspiring to bring forward an application on that site is far from the mark.

If what you have suggested went on then I think you need to look at certain members driving that forward rather than the Council being the driver.

[Dave]

Dave do you really believe that a a major developer went to all the expennse of putting in an application just to help out SMDC. I don't think so do you.

Property developers deal in millions of pounds, and the cost of drawing up plans and submitting planning applications is relative peanuts.  It happens all the time - they speculate to accumulate.  ASDA and CAMSFC had to write off significant abortive costs when their proposals for Hibbert Lane came to nothing.  No doubt Kirkland hope that their Chadwick Street scheme will attract the right retailer - but it's not a done deal yet.

[Bluezorro]

Aldi cleared site in offerton ready to open 2014.

Even less chance of them coming to chadwick st.

Maybe the rosehill stores guy could weigh in the bollards and buy chadwick st himself.

[wheels]

It's OK, wheels - we all understand! 

There are those who subscribe to the deplorably cynical view that the only reason SMBC put Chadwick Street on the market was to stop Asda.  This tactic was entirely successful, so they will understandably hold the council responsible for the Co-op's continuing monopoly. 

This is more like it  Dave do you really believe that a a major developer went to all the expennse of putting in an application just to help out SMDC. I don't think so do you.

[Dave]

Blame the Council?? I don't understand that concept.

It's OK, wheels - we all understand! 

There are those who subscribe to the deplorably cynical view that the only reason SMBC put Chadwick Street on the market was to stop Asda.  This tactic was entirely successful, so they will understandably hold the council responsible for the Co-op's continuing monopoly. 

[amazon]

Post office isn't being privatised, just Royal Mail. Different company's!

I stand corrected again .

[Jay]

Things may move a bit if the post office is privatised  .Dont you think . this should get the forum going again .

Post office isn't being privatised, just Royal Mail. Different companys!

[wheels]

Perhaps there was no one within Hearing Distance .

Oh I don't think they need to be in hearing distance Amazon.

The I want to complain Marple brigade/NIMBYs don't need it to affect them to complain.

[amazon]

You're quite right, Wheels. It has been a little quiet in here recently. We didn't even get any noise complaints when my band played at The Bull's Head.

Perhaps there was no one within Hearing Distance .

[Howard]

You're quite right, Wheels. It has been a little quiet in here recently. We didn't even get any noise complaints when my band played at The Bull's Head.

[amazon]

Hope your right Dave I fear too many will have driffted away by they for the lack of banter.

Blame the Council?? I don't understand that concept. Blame the Marple 6 if you lack but not the Council 

No I have not drifted away . Just waiting .

[amazon]

Don't worry wheels - sooner or later hostilities will no doubt be resumed.  For example, when the developer of the Chadwick Street supermarket site discovers that no retailer is interested in taking it on, we can all have a happy time blaming one another (and the Council, of course) for the fact that we're going to be stuck with the Co-op for ever.   

Things may move a bit if the post office is privatised  .Dont you think . this should get the forum going again .