Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Sale of Hibbert Lane Campus to Supermarket Chain => Topic started by: admin on January 30, 2013, 02:02:54 PM
-
The agenda and reports for the special Marple Area Committee at Marple Cricket Club on Wednesday 6th February that will consider the Hibbert/Buxton Lane and the Chadwick Street planning applications are now published on the council web site here:
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=5419&Ver=4
The reports are under items 5(a) and 5(b) and are 97 and 155 pages long respectively, so make sure you are sitting comfortably!
-
Interesting stuff - thanks Admin. I can't claim to have read all of it, and indeed, there's stuff about the habitats of pipistrelle bats, natterjack toads and great-crested newts that can safely be passed over. ::)
Overall, though, it looks like exactly what we have been expecting - the council steering its committees towards approval of Chadwick Street and rejection of Hibbert Lane, largely on the grounds that Hibbert Lane fails the 'sequential test' which is applied to 'edge of centre' schemes.
Amid all the pages of bumf, though, there are some interesting nuggets, and one of them is an estimate of how much we residents of Marple currently spend at supermarkets outside Marple:
the Sainsbury's store in Hazel Grove (£6.8m);
the out-of-centre Morrisons at Bredbury (£5.5m);
the Tesco store at Whaley Bridge (£5.2m);
the Tesco store at Wren Nest Road in Glossop (£2.6m);
the out-of-centre Tesco store at Tivot Way (£2.4m);
the ASDA store in Stockport (£1.7m);
the ASDA store in Hyde (£1.6m); and
the Sainsbury's store in Stockport (£1.1m).
That adds up to nearly £27 million which we spend every year at these supermarkets. Compare that with the *'convenience goods' turnover of the two existing Marple supermarkets and the local shops, which is put at £21.8 million.
* Definition of convenience goods: widely distributed and relatively inexpensive goods which are purchased frequently and with minimum of effort, such as gasoline (petrol), newspapers, and most grocery items
-
The meeting will only refer the issue to the Planning Committe so this is only a box to be ticked, there is no value in anyone attending the meeting, we already know the outcome.
-
It is indeed a foregone conclusion. But a closer reading of the supporting papers for the Chadwick Street scheme underlines a number of shortcomings and 'unknowns' in this proposal.
1. The council's own consultants estimate a delay of up to five years before the site can be cleared, the sorting office relocated, and the scheme be 'shovel ready'.
2. There is no supermarket signed up, and no evidence of serious interest by any supermarket chain.
3. Chadwick Street is a multi-level scheme on steeply sloping site - the fall is 5m east to west, and 7m south to north. The construction will therefore be costly, and in addition, there are a number of other expensive features, including a rotating turntable for delivery vehicles.
So the possibility emerges of a worst-case scenario:
1. Hibbert lane is rejected, on the grounds that the existence of the Chadwick Street scheme causes it to fail the 'sequential test' for edge-of-centre schemes.
2. By 2018, Kirkland have failed to find a supermarket chain which is interested, because the high costs of construction have driven up the rents to a level which is commercially unviable.
3. Nothing happens at Chadwick Street or at Hibbert lane, and our kids don't get their shiny new college.
Even if Kirkland succeed in finding a tenant, the fact that we don't know who it might be is deeply unsatisfactory. The joint applicants at Hibbert lane are Asda and Camsfc - what you see is what you get. But down the road at Chadwick Street, we only have these shadowy developers. Will it be an Aldi? Or a Waitrose? Who knows - but if it's either of those, then you can be sure that most of us will just carry on driving to Hazel Grove, Bredbury and Whaley Bridge to do our shopping. ::)
-
But Dave you would not expect at this stage to know who any partner might be for the Kirkland development only when planning is approved would there be any serious marketing of the site on their behalf. Its unreasonable to expect them to do much prior to planning being agreed.
Nor is who the partner is a planning issue thus I don't think we have any right to know. We the public don't have a veto on certain partners. You get what your given as far as the actual store goes.
-
So the possibility emerges of a worst-case scenario:
1. Hibbert lane is rejected, on the grounds that the existence of the Chadwick Street scheme causes it to fail the 'sequential test' for edge-of-centre schemes.
2. By 2018, Kirkland have failed to find a supermarket chain which is interested, because the high costs of construction have driven up the rents to a level which is commercially unviable.
3. Nothing happens at Chadwick Street or at Hibbert lane, and our kids don't get their shiny new college.
As an alternative:
3. As CAMSFC can't afford the running costs of Hibbert Lane they are forced to sell the land for residential development. Kirkland buy the land for £4M and build an estate of 200 small 'affordable' homes. Kirkland then quietly drop the idea of building on Chadwick Street. The college has to downsize its ambitions for Marple and our kids have reduced options for education locally.
-
But Dave you would not expect at this stage to know who any partner might be for the Kirkland development only when planning is approved would there be any serious marketing of the site on their behalf. Its unreasonable to expect them to do much prior to planning being agreed.
Nor is who the partner is a planning issue thus I don't think we have any right to know. We the public don't have a veto on certain partners. You get what your given as far as the actual store goes.
I accept that, wheels, and that Kirkland are within their rights not to tell us what sort of supermarket they have in mind. That's their decision, but I'm not sure whether they should then expect the council to approve it 'blind', as it were. It's a 'black box', and we don't know what might be in it - or indeed, as Harry points out, whether there is going to be anything in it at all! So the college's plans, and the Asda scheme, could just possibly turn out to have been stopped by something which in the end never happens!
-
Thats correct Dave but actuallly these silly plans for a 6th form at Marple Hall will do more to damage the collage than any failure of the ASDA application.
-
AFAIK there are no plans for a sixth form at MHS - just a bit of rumour and speculation, which no-one with any sense would take seriously.
-
"Interesting stuff" indeed in the council report, thank you for publishing it here, Mr Admin. To me, it shows the town has truly spoken with one voice on the issue - and the overwhelming verdict of residents is that we don't want a supermarket on the college site. Just look at the figures quoted in the report: just 73 letters of support, compared to almost 800 letters of objection sent to the council ... more than 8,000 signatories on the protest petition ... a further 297 objectors signed a newspaper petition against the plans. No petition received in support of the plan from the "yes campaign". It seems from the council report the only support petition was one carried out by Asda themselves at their local stores at Hazel Grove and Stockport. They managed to get just 284 signatures (and how many of those were Asda staff?) So let's show councillors and planning officials the depth of feeling in the town by attending the Wednesday February 6 area committee at Bowden Lane cricket club when they will be making their recommendations on the plan.
-
"Interesting stuff" indeed in the council report, thank you for publishing it here, Mr Admin. To me, it shows the town has truly spoken with one voice on the issue - and the overwhelming verdict of residents is that we don't want a supermarket on the college site. Just look at the figures quoted in the report: just 73 letters of support, compared to almost 800 letters of objection sent to the council ... more than 8,000 signatories on the protest petition ... a further 297 objectors signed a newspaper petition against the plans. No petition received in support of the plan from the "yes campaign". It seems from the council report the only support petition was one carried out by Asda themselves at their local stores at Hazel Grove and Stockport. They managed to get just 284 signatures (and how many of those were Asda staff?) So let's show councillors and planning officials the depth of feeling in the town by attending the Wednesday February 6 area committee at Bowden Lane cricket club when they will be making their recommendations on the plan.
You will reply to this Dave please .
-
Like many Marple residents I won't be at this meeting because I will be at, or about to start the return from, work - one of the reasons why we need a new decent-size supermarket.
In my absence could somebody please ask Councillor Shan Alexander:
(a) what her alternative plans for funding the redevelopment of the college are;
(b) if the Kirkland plan is so good that it merits "Recommendation to Accept" why they have no declared supermarket operator and why our councillors are recommending acceptance of a development with no known operator whilst opposing one for which we do at least know what we would get. Would you put down money on a car without knowing whether you were going to get a mini or a Porsche ... or even no car at all? Apparently our councillors would.
BTW, unless Kirkland have a remarkably generous bank manager their company accounts suggest that they won't be buying this site themselves - just planning it for ... whoever they are planning it for.
-
Henry seems to disregard the well-known fact that almost all planning applications attract many times more objections than they do supporters. If planning applications were simply considered on this basis, almost nothing would ever get built!
First, we can forget about the petition: it tells us nothing about what anyone thinks about the proposed scheme, because most of the signatures were collected before the plans were published. So if we just concentrate on the letters and emails of objection or support, 782 people objected to the scheme. As usual, that's a lot more than the number of supporters, but it's just 3% of the population of Marple. We dont know what most of the other 97% think, but we can assume that they either support the scheme or don't have a strong opinion either way.
'The town has truly spoken with one voice'? Pull the other one... :D
-
"Interesting stuff" indeed in the council report, thank you for publishing it here, Mr Admin. To me, it shows the town has truly spoken with one voice on the issue - and the overwhelming verdict of residents is that we don't want a supermarket on the college site. Just look at the figures quoted in the report: just 73 letters of support, compared to almost 800 letters of objection sent to the council ... more than 8,000 signatories on the protest petition ... a further 297 objectors signed a newspaper petition against the plans. No petition received in support of the plan from the "yes campaign". It seems from the council report the only support petition was one carried out by Asda themselves at their local stores at Hazel Grove and Stockport. They managed to get just 284 signatures (and how many of those were Asda staff?) So let's show councillors and planning officials the depth of feeling in the town by attending the Wednesday February 6 area committee at Bowden Lane cricket club when they will be making their recommendations on the plan.
Say's to me quite the reverse
-
First, we can forget about the petition: it tells us nothing about what anyone thinks about the proposed scheme, because most of the signatures were collected before the plans were published. So if we just concentrate on the letters and emails of objection or support, 782 people objected to the scheme. As usual, that's a lot more than the number of supporters, but it's just 3% of the population of Marple. We dont know what most of the other 97% think, but we can assume that they either support the scheme or don't have a strong opinion either way.
'The town has truly spoken with one voice'? Pull the other one... :D
Great post Dave.
-
Most if initial objections and petition signing revolved around the closure of the swimming pool.
-
Most if initial objections and petition signing revolved around the closure of the swimming pool.
When was this .Asda should have said we will build you a new swimming pool to replace the old one .
Things may have been a bit different then .
-
MIA were asking people to sign their petition in order to stop Tesco from demolishing the swimming pool and building a large roundabout in its place. It took a long time for people to realise they were being conned. Asda were not even in consideration at the time.
-
MIA were asking people to sign their petition in order to stop Tesco from demolishing the swimming pool and building a large roundabout in its place. It took a long time for people to realise they were being conned. Asda were not even in consideration at the time.
Thanks Harry this post going on that long forgot about that .
-
MIA were asking people to sign their petition in order to stop Tesco from demolishing the swimming pool and building a large roundabout in its place. It took a long time for people to realise they were being conned. Asda were not even in consideration at the time.
Nobody has been conned. It was a rumour! It was up to the individual to believe it or not. Who knows if demolishing the swimming pool wasn't an option that was discussed by the college and it's planners?
-
"Interesting stuff" indeed in the council report, thank you for publishing it here, Mr Admin. To me, it shows the town has truly spoken with one voice on the issue - and the overwhelming verdict of residents is that we don't want a supermarket on the college site. Just look at the figures quoted in the report: just 73 letters of support, compared to almost 800 letters of objection sent to the council ... more than 8,000 signatories on the protest petition ... a further 297 objectors signed a newspaper petition against the plans. No petition received in support of the plan from the "yes campaign". It seems from the council report the only support petition was one carried out by Asda themselves at their local stores at Hazel Grove and Stockport. They managed to get just 284 signatures (and how many of those were Asda staff?) So let's show councillors and planning officials the depth of feeling in the town by attending the Wednesday February 6 area committee at Bowden Lane cricket club when they will be making their recommendations on the plan.
Good post Henry, You may feel you are a lone voice amongst the pro supermarket people on this forum. You are not. We just don't feel the need to keep posting anymore.
-
Amid all the pages of bumf, though, there are some interesting nuggets, and one of them is an estimate of how much we residents of Marple currently spend at supermarkets outside Marple:
That adds up to nearly £27 million which we spend every year at these supermarkets. Compare that with the *'convenience goods' turnover of the two existing Marple supermarkets and the local shops, which is put at £21.8 million.
[/i]
Umm, how do "they" know how much Marple residents spend in which shops? No-one has asked me how much I spend where. Is there some miraculous way of separating Marple residents' expenditure from other areas' residents' expenditure?
-
Thats correct Dave but actuallly these silly plans for a 6th form at Marple Hall will do more to damage the collage than any failure of the ASDA application.
Why should the establishment (perhaps I should say RE-establishment) of a sixth form at Marple Hall be a "silly idea"? If MH can set up a better 6th form than CaM can supply (and it wouldn't be difficult) does it matter?
-
Amid all the pages of bumf, though, there are some interesting nuggets, and one of them is an estimate of how much we residents of Marple currently spend at supermarkets outside Marple:
That adds up to nearly £27 million which we spend every year at these supermarkets. Compare that with the *'convenience goods' turnover of the two existing Marple supermarkets and the local shops, which is put at £21.8 million.
[/i]
Umm, how do "they" know how much Marple residents spend in which shops? No-one has asked me how much I spend where. Is there some miraculous way of separating Marple residents' expenditure from other areas' residents' expenditure?
There are a number of ways - tracking car regs in car parks, for example, would be very accurate, although costly. But most likely it's a combination of Loyalty Cards and random sample surveys.
Whilst the figures quoted won't be 100% accurate, even taking into account a variance of +/- 20% they still show that there is a significant demand for a "proper" supermarket in Marple.
-
MIA were asking people to sign their petition in order to stop Tesco from demolishing the swimming pool and building a large roundabout in its place. It took a long time for people to realise they were being conned. Asda were not even in consideration at the time.
Very true. Myself and others raised these objections directly to the council in the consultation. They have taken our views on board BUT are still considering the petition in 'general view' terms about a supermarket from local people!!!! Many of the people in that petition are not local at all.
-
MIA were asking people to sign their petition in order to stop Tesco from demolishing the swimming pool and building a large roundabout in its place. It took a long time for people to realise they were being conned. Asda were not even in consideration at the time.
Very true. Myself and others raised these objections directly to the council in the consultation. They have taken our views on board BUT are still considering the petition in 'general view' terms about a supermarket from local people!!!! Many of the people in that petition are not local at all.
The MIA petition will in reality carry exactly the same weight ( apart fom in the minds of MIA ) if it had been collected 5 years ago, last night, or written in Swahili.
-
Correct. The petition is irrelevant now, although I think it did have an effect at an earlier stage, in that it probably prompted the council to put the Chadwick Street site on the market. And the rest is history.
In other words, this is what we have seen over the past eighteen months or so:
1. The college's plans emerge, that they intend to finance a redevelopment and modernisation scheme by selling Hibbert Lane to a supermarket.
2. MIA gets going, campaigns noisily, pesters the councillors and our MP to support them in opposing the plan.
3. The politicians, lacking the vision and the courage to see that their priority should be securing the best possible educational facilities for the people who vote for them, cave in.
4. The councillors privately consult planning officers at SMBC, who advise them that although Hibbert Lane is zoned for housing and not retail, if they reject the application it could be overturned on appeal because of the demonstrable need for a proper supermarket in Marple, and because Hibbert Lane, as an 'edge of centre' site, would pass the sequential test because there is no suitable and available town centre site.
5. Determined to scupper the scheme, the councillors identify a possible supermarket site in the town centre, and put it on the market, thereby ensuring that Hibbert Lane fails the sequential test.
6. Mission accomplished - our councillors and our MP have succeeded in their objective of wrecking a scheme to provide first class twenty-first century educational facilities for out children and grandchildren.
Well done......... ::)
-
Correct. The petition is irrelevant now, although I think it did have an effect at an earlier stage, in that it probably prompted the council to put the Chadwick Street site on the market. And the rest is history.
In other words, this is what we have seen over the past eighteen months or so:
1. The college's plans emerge, that they intend to finance a redevelopment and modernisation scheme by selling Hibbert Lane to a supermarket.
2. MIA gets going, campaigns noisily, pesters the councillors and our MP to support them in opposing the plan.
3. The politicians, lacking the vision and the courage to see that their priority should be securing the best possible educational facilities for the people who vote for them, cave in.
4. The councillors privately consult planning officers at SMBC, who advise them that although Hibbert Lane is zoned for housing and not retail, if they reject the application it could be overturned on appeal because of the demonstrable need for a proper supermarket in Marple, and because Hibbert Lane, as an 'edge of centre' site, would pass the sequential test because there is no suitable and available town centre site.
5. Determined to scupper the scheme, the councillors identify a possible supermarket site in the town centre, and put it on the market, thereby ensuring that Hibbert Lane fails the sequential test.
6. Mission accomplished - our councillors and our MP have succeeded in their objective of wrecking a scheme to provide first class twenty-first century educational facilities for out children and grandchildren.
Well done......... ::)
Spot on as always .
-
What I still struggle to understand in all this is why MIA have not made any reference to the Chadwick St scheme in their literature. Again the current newsleter with respect to local area committee extols people to muster and vote 'down with ASDA', whilst not mentioning that at the same meeting, the Council will approve another identical sized supermarket in the town and that MIA will not utter a word on the subject. Will many of those who turn up at the request of MIA, be surprised to find the other scheme being promoted for approval at the same meeting.
I sincerely hope the objections that MIA raise to the ASDA store at the meeting are site specific. If they start to raise general issues associated with a superstore e.g. traffic, lighting, etc then I will be very disappointed indeed, as they appear not to have lodged the same objections to the other proposal, which would have exactly the same effects. How can this be right and how is this 'Marple in Action'?
-
What I still struggle to understand in all this is why MIA have not made any reference to the Chadwick St scheme in their literature. Again the current newsleter with respect to local area committee extols people to muster and vote 'down with ASDA', whilst not mentioning that at the same meeting, the Council will approve another identical sized supermarket in the town and that MIA will not utter a word on the subject. Will many of those who turn up at the request of MIA, be surprised to find the other scheme being promoted for approval at the same meeting.
I sincerely hope the objections that MIA raise to the ASDA store at the meeting are site specific. If they start to raise general issues associated with a superstore e.g. traffic, lighting, etc then I will be very disappointed indeed, as they appear not to have lodged the same objections to the other proposal, which would have exactly the same effects. How can this be right and how is this 'Marple in Action'?
you will be lucky if they reply to this they have this obsession against ASDA .
-
Hey Amazon, lets have an Asda on Chadwick Street. It's big enough ;)
-
Whilst I am no defender of MIA in general, (I have not signed their petition) I believe that they have always made it clear from the onset that their opposition is specifically against a Supermarket on the Hibbert Lane site. There have been a variety of reasons for this but the core - one has been that the development is "out of town" and as such will have a devastating impact on local businesses in the town centre and indeed kill it off entirely. To my knowledge they have raised no objections to any other supermarket elsewhere in Marple and certainly not the one proposed on Chadwick/Trinity Street. I expect on the grounds that it is central and will have the opposite effect.
As for local Councillors, half of them made their views clear from the onset. There were local elections last year and both Councillors; Alexander and Candler stood. If my memory is correct both were returned with thumping majorities - so their stance doesn't seem to have harmed them politically. The other half stayed silent but I sure that this was just part of an agreed, collective, political strategy by all six of them.
I don't really have any views on ASDA/CAMSFC Supermarket although I would really hate to see the College leave town as I believe it would have a devastating impact (much more than an out of town ASDA ) on the centre's economy and obviously a negative impact on education in Marple. This is of course is my personal opinion, none of it is not absolute, I cannot prove it any of it and I accept that people will disagree with me.
It has to be said also that CAMSFC has brought about its own downfall in this. It has gone against all advice and taken ASDA's thirty pieces of silver. It has relied on ASDA'S financial muscle and its track record of riding roughshod over any opposition. What would/could have happened if they had co-operated with the Council and been more open with the community - we will never know. In simple terms they have "played dirty" but they have not reckoned with the Marple 6 ( for they are undoubtedly unanimous on this issue) playing dirtier than anybody. Whilst histrionics abounded Local Councillors they have quietly and strategically managed Trinity Street from a dormant car-park to the issue it is now.
I won't be going to the meeting next week as it is an absolute foregone conclusion. Although it has to be said that the Council's response to the planning apps is an absolute masterstroke. It's "viability" issue is brilliant and will surely and completely scupper ASDA'S/CAMSFC plans for Hibbert Lane. It would not surprise me for one if they even decide not to appeal.
Nor would it surprise me if the site on Trinity Street never sees a supermarket.
-
A thoughtful analysis, and I go along with nearly all of it, Simone, especially this bit:
Nor would it surprise me if the site on Trinity Street never sees a supermarket.
The only aspect over which we might part company is on whether the college has at any point 'played it dirty'. Naive, clumsy, politically inept, certainly. But dirty - I'm not so sure. Simone writes that the college 'has gone against all advice'. What advice have they ignored? How might 'co-operating with the council' have led to a better outcome? It takes two to tango - what evidence is there that the council would ever have been prepared to co-operate with the college?
Politicians stabbing their own voters in the back by wrecking their college's improvement plans - now that's what I call 'dirty'!
-
Hey Amazon, lets have an Asda on Chadwick Street. It's big enough ;)
The idea of a supermarket on Trinity Street/Chadwick Street is an utter nonsense.
MIA should be ashamed of themselves not fighting this.. it would cause EVERY single issue they say a supermarket on Hibbert Lane would bring.. and yet it doesn't provide for the future of educational facilities.
-
Whilst I am no defender of MIA in general, (I have not signed their petition) I believe that they have always made it clear from the onset that their opposition is specifically against a Supermarket on the Hibbert Lane site. There have been a variety of reasons for this but the core - one has been that the development is "out of town" and as such will have a devastating impact on local businesses in the town centre and indeed kill it off entirely. To my knowledge they have raised no objections to any other supermarket elsewhere in Marple and certainly not the one proposed on Chadwick/Trinity Street. I expect on the grounds that it is central and will have the opposite effect.
As for local Councillors, half of them made their views clear from the onset. There were local elections last year and both Councillors; Alexander and Candler stood. If my memory is correct both were returned with thumping majorities - so their stance doesn't seem to have harmed them politically. The other half stayed silent but I sure that this was just part of an agreed, collective, political strategy by all six of them.
I don't really have any views on ASDA/CAMSFC Supermarket although I would really hate to see the College leave town as I believe it would have a devastating impact (much more than an out of town ASDA ) on the centre's economy and obviously a negative impact on education in Marple. This is of course is my personal opinion, none of it is not absolute, I cannot prove it any of it and I accept that people will disagree with me.
It has to be said also that CAMSFC has brought about its own downfall in this. It has gone against all advice and taken ASDA's thirty pieces of silver. It has relied on ASDA'S financial muscle and its track record of riding roughshod over any opposition. What would/could have happened if they had co-operated with the Council and been more open with the community - we will never know. In simple terms they have "played dirty" but they have not reckoned with the Marple 6 ( for they are undoubtedly unanimous on this issue) playing dirtier than anybody. Whilst histrionics abounded Local Councillors they have quietly and strategically managed Trinity Street from a dormant car-park to the issue it is now.
I won't be going to the meeting next week as it is an absolute foregone conclusion. Although it has to be said that the Council's response to the planning apps is an absolute masterstroke. It's "viability" issue is brilliant and will surely and completely scupper ASDA'S/CAMSFC plans for Hibbert Lane. It would not surprise me for one if they even decide not to appeal.
Nor would it surprise me if the site on Trinity Street never sees a supermarket.
Simone I understand MIA's position as well - what has annoyed me a little is their tactics and the way that the bluster that they have created over the ASDA site seems to have created a vacuum in the debate over Chadwick Street and what is now being proposed there. The fact that MIA threw the kitchen sink at ASDA and raised a multiude of issues as reasons to object - a significant number of which apply to the Chadwick Street site, in my view means that they should have at least raised the same issues at Chadwick Street and let the public then properly scrutinise the details of both cases. We all know that if you throw enough mud then some will stick and that is certainly the case here. We all know MIA oppose Asda (ergo it must be bad) but they don't oppose (or at least not publically) Chadwick Street so therefore many make the assumption that it must be good.
Its sometimes been hard to take MIA seriously when they trot out the politically trite statement that they "have no view on Chadwick Street". Well they are seeking to influence the future of my town with regards to its single biggest matter for many years, they ought to have the good grace to at least comment on the whole picture, rather than set out only half the story.
Chadwick Street really worries me in terms of its potential infliuence on Marple centre. It will single handedly remove all spare car parking from the town and leave us in a situation whereby any 'event' will cause real problems. Where are the visitors to the town going to park for the Christmas cracker, the food festival, the carnival, etc, etc? All events that promote the town, not a supermarket business. There is a real danger that this could (if built) cause a much greater strain on Marple as a commercial centre than all of the out of town v town centre retail impact arguments. I know the Council think that variable message signs will help manage the future parking situation on a day to day basis, but will it really? Logistically this will be a nightmare as most of Marple's car parks are tiny, cramped and difficult to manoeuvre in (I avoid some as I like my car dent free) - I also have my doubts as to whether it is technically deliverable. VMS also adds yet another layer of cost onto an already expensive scheme, further straining viability.
All in all. Its been an interesting campain and clearly its not all over yet. I just have a nagging doubt that perhaps, as a community, we have been been sold a bit of a dummy and, in time, might look back on the last few months with regret.
-
Hey Amazon, lets have an Asda on Chadwick Street. It's big enough ;)
Why not love one but MIA would find something to start a petition .
-
Hey Amazon, lets have an Asda on Chadwick Street. It's big enough ;)
The idea of a supermarket on Trinity Street/Chadwick Street is an utter nonsense.
MIA should be ashamed of themselves not fighting this.. it would cause EVERY single issue they say a supermarket on Hibbert Lane would bring.. and yet it doesn't provide for the future of educational facilities.
That's not quite true though is it tricky. Every issue but the core one. Trinity Street is in the centre whereas Hibbert Lane isn't. That is MIA's central objection. It is also the Council's trump card.
-
Belly, you say that it is hard to take MIA seriously, I agree. Then why are you doing it and giving them more credit/blame than they deserve ?
They have done nothing that has been effective. It is Councillors that have devised the "Trinity Street Strategy" not MIA. MIA haven't even been allowed through the Town Hall doors let alone been privvy to the dozens of meetings that must have taken place behind closed doors. Councillors have just treated MIA like an irrelevant noise. The people responsible for Trinity Street are Mssrs; Alexander,Bispham,Candler,Dowling,Ingham & Wright. It really is about time we stopped giving MIA BLAME/CREDIT for something they have had no influence over.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the traffic catastrophe that will/could ensue with the Trinity Street Strategy. But the scheme is not yet realised and there are a lot of obstacles to overcome before it is.
1/ The relocation of Royal Mail.
2/ Development of a really difficult site.
3/ Procurement of a client.
4/ The traffic issues referred to.
You know about planning, so you will know that all that really has to happen on the Trinity Street site is that it has to be available and realisation has to be achievable. It doesn't actually have to be conceived.
What about this for wild speculation ? Suppose in 2/3 years time when ASDA have ridden off and a supermarket half the size of the current proposed one is developed - would that soften the traffic problem ?
-
There is another report on the agenda page on the council site that has either been added since I pasted the links a few days ago, or I missed first time around.
It is a full appraisal of the Hibbert Lane/Buxton Lane and Chadwick Street planning proposals carried out by HollissVincent on behalf of the council:
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s25234/FINAL%20Marple%20Foodstores%20Report%20-%2022%2001.pdf
-
Hey Amazon, lets have an Asda on Chadwick Street. It's big enough ;)
The idea of a supermarket on Trinity Street/Chadwick Street is an utter nonsense.
MIA should be ashamed of themselves not fighting this.. it would cause EVERY single issue they say a supermarket on Hibbert Lane would bring.. and yet it doesn't provide for the future of educational facilities.
That's not quite true though is it tricky. Every issue but the core one. Trinity Street is in the centre whereas Hibbert Lane isn't. That is MIA's central objection. It is also the Council's trump card.
Nor is Hibbert Lane out of town.. it's a brown field site in the middle of town.
-
Hibbert Lane is officially classified, according to the government planning framework, as 'edge of centre' That's why, as Simone says, it's the council's trump card.
-
Hey Amazon, lets have an Asda on Chadwick Street. It's big enough ;)
The idea of a supermarket on Trinity Street/Chadwick Street is an utter nonsense.
MIA should be ashamed of themselves not fighting this.. it would cause EVERY single issue they say a supermarket on Hibbert Lane would bring.. and yet it doesn't provide for the future of educational facilities.
That's not quite true though is it tricky. Every issue but the core one. Trinity Street is in the centre whereas Hibbert Lane isn't. That is MIA's central objection. It is also the Council's trump card.
Nor is Hibbert Lane out of town.. it's a brown field site in the middle of town.
That may be your classification tricky but it isn't the planners' at least not the one's that are not working for ASDA. The Hibbert Lane site is defined exactly as Dave says whereas the Trinity/Chadwick S
-
Apologies for unfinished post tricky.
The ASDA is classified exactly as Dave says whereas Trinity is classified as central. The point is because of this ASDA has to pass various sequential tests but Trinity doesn't even have to take them.
It is all in smbc's resoponse to the planning app. Like a saddo, I've read it, I can say without reservation that Bookers/Nobels ARE NOT BEING MENTIONED.
-
It's looking like a done deal, isn't it. Let's just hope that the council has the sense not to reject the camsfc/ASDA scheme until it is satisfied that Kirkland have got a supermarket signed up, the bank finance is in place, and their scheme is actually going to happen. Otherwise they really will have egg on their faces!
-
It's looking like a done deal, isn't it. Let's just hope that the council has the sense not to reject the camsfc/ASDA scheme until it is satisfied that Kirkland have got a supermarket signed up, the bank finance is in place, and their scheme is actually going to happen. Otherwise they really will have egg on their faces!
That quite wrong Dave one decision should not be consequential on the other. Each should stand or fall on their merits alone.
-
That quite wrong Dave one decision should not be consequential on the other. Each should stand or fall on their merits alone.
As you say Wheels, SHOULD. But we all know it won't.
-
That quite wrong Dave one decision should not be consequential on the other. Each should stand or fall on their merits alone.
No, the implication of what wheels writes is that in theory, both bids could succeed, but if you read the extensive consultants' reports etc, no-one is suggesting that Marple needs TWO new big supermarkets - only one.
However, I go along with wheels to the extent that I agree that each application should be considered strictly on its merits. So what merits do we see?
1. An application from a huge multinational retail chain, coupled with our local sixth form college, to build a new Asda and a new college building. If approved, no-one doubts that it would happen. Asda/Walmart will be able to finance it with small change from their back pockets. Some people may not like it, but what you see is what you get. And Marple would get significantly improved educational facilities for the next fifty years or so.
2. An application from a small local local developer who has not yet got any supermarket to sign up, and therefore will not have any bank finance in place. If his bid is approved, we have no idea whether his scheme will actually happen. And if it did, there would be no wider educational benefit to the local community.
Which would you choose?
-
Dave you continually say Kirkland don't have a partner as if repeating it somewho discredits them when you are well aware that in developments such as this is is the norm to find the partner once theplanning application has been approved. No developer isgoing to come on board until Kirkland have got over than hurdle.
Personally I hope both applications are approved so that we can move onto the next stage, knowing full well they won't be,
-
I accept that wheels - I'm simply pointing out that one of the applications is 'WYSIWYG' whilst the other is a 'black box'. That's all.
-
Also (I meant to add) one of them can undoubtedly be funded, but we don't know whether the other can.
-
It's looking like a done deal, isn't it. Let's just hope that the council has the sense not to reject the camsfc/ASDA scheme until it is satisfied that Kirkland have got a supermarket signed up, the bank finance is in place, and their scheme is actually going to happen. Otherwise they really will have egg on their faces!
Dave, a beat is being missed here. It is only planning permission that is being requested. There are hundreds/thousands of planning applications throughout the country that get passed every year and never get built on. If the supermarket status quo was preserved there are many in Marple, probably Local Councillors amongst them who would consider this the gold medal position. They certainly wouldn't see it as having "egg on their face". In fact the opposite is true, they would rejoice. They would see it as winning the battle without having fired a shot. The last thing the Council is going to do is query Kirkland's realisation of its own scheme. All that does is weaken Kirkland's case thus strengthening Asda'a.
They need to promote total belief in Kirkland to run ASDA out of town that's an absolute prerequisite.
Kirkland is a scheme to prevent ASDA. The scheme in itself is enough - it doesn't have to be realised, not in the short - term anyway. Which could easily be five years.
-
Simone, Kirkland are not putting in this application as some sort of favour to the council to stop ASDA. They will have realistic hopes of proceeding there will certainly have been informal discussions with a partner otherwise Kirkland would not be doing this.
Let us hope we see their plans coming to realisation as soon as possible.
-
Simone, Kirkland are not putting in this application as some sort of favour to the council to stop ASDA. They will have realistic hopes of proceeding there will certainly have been informal discussions with a partner otherwise Kirkland would not be doing this.
Let us hope we see their plans coming to realisation as soon as possible.
Absolutely agree Wheels.
Nevertheless, the Council's prime motivation for Trinity Street and Kirkland's are not one and the same. The main reason Kirkland is here is because they want to build a Supermarket, as you quite rightly point out, but the main reason they have been brought here ( let's not forget at the Council's invite) is because the Council wants to stop one being built. If ASDA hadn't rode into town there would not be any Kirkland scheme to debate. Kirkland is here because of ASDA and for no other reason.
-
I think thats fair comment Simone
-
I think thats fair comment Simone
Could Asda go on trinity street if they are refused at appeal .
-
I think thats fair comment Simone
Could Asda go on trinity street if they are refused at appeal .
Can anyone afford to, is perhaps the most pertinent question.
-
I think that's fair comment Simone
Could Sada go on trinity street if they are refused at appeal .
Can anyone afford to, is perhaps the most pertinent question.
Probably right will cost a fortune to develop that site .
-
Just got back from the meeting.
Asda: Councillors Candler,Alexander and Wright declared an interest in the matter in view of their various public involvements in the Asda Campaign and said that the would not take part in the discussion and left the room for the duration of the discussion on the application.
However the officer from the council stated that much more information was required concerning Asda application, upon hearing this, Madam Chairman (Councillor Ingham) said that it would not be fair to both Applicant and objectors if the full information concerning the application were not disclosed. She did say that it was very disappointing that the information was not available. Further discussion was adjourned until a date and venue to be confirmed for next month when hopefully that information will be available
Chadwick St: All voting councillors present spoke on and supported the application with a recommendation that it be granted.
We had the police present at the meeting but all went well without any disorder.
So it looks to me that Chadwick St, will go ahead, if Asda is eventually refused, but I suppose that will only happen once it was established whether Asda would appeal a refusal.
I shudder to think how much this lot is going to cost the council tax payers if they need to appeal againt a refusal .
-
Just got back from the meeting.
Asda: Councillors Candler,Alexander and Wright declared an interest in the matter in view of their various public involvements in the Asda Campaign and said that the would not take part in the discussion and left the room for the duration of the discussion on the application.
However the officer from the council stated that much more information was required concerning Asda application, upon hearing this, Madam Chairman (Councillor Ingham) said that it would not be fair to both Applicant and objectors if the full information concerning the application were not disclosed. She did say that it was very disappointing that the information was not available. Further discussion was adjourned until a date and venue to be confirmed for next month when hopefully that information will be available
Chadwick St: All voting councillors present spoke on and supported the application with a recommendation that it be granted.
We had the police present at the meeting but all went well without any disorder.
So it looks to me that Chadwick St, will go ahead, if Asda is eventually refused, but I suppose that will only happen once it was established whether Asda would appeal a refusal.
I shudder to think how much this lot is going to cost the council tax payers if they need to appeal againt a refusal .
Thanks for info alan how many people there about .
-
Just got back from the meeting.
Asda: Councillors Candler,Alexander and Wright declared an interest in the matter in view of their various public involvements in the Asda Campaign and said that the would not take part in the discussion and left the room for the duration of the discussion on the application.
However the officer from the council stated that much more information was required concerning Asda application, upon hearing this, Madam Chairman (Councillor Ingham) said that it would not be fair to both Applicant and objectors if the full information concerning the application were not disclosed. She did say that it was very disappointing that the information was not available. Further discussion was adjourned until a date and venue to be confirmed for next month when hopefully that information will be available
Chadwick St: All voting councillors present spoke on and supported the application with a recommendation that it be granted.
We had the police present at the meeting but all went well without any disorder.
So it looks to me that Chadwick St, will go ahead, if Asda is eventually refused, but I suppose that will only happen once it was established whether Asda would appeal a refusal.
I shudder to think how much this lot is going to cost the council tax payers if they need to appeal againt a refusal .
Send the bill to Mia if it does .
-
Lots of people - 160+ with many more of us locked out! :'(
-
Lots of people - 160+ with many more of us locked out! :'(
Yes brigade did well then getting that many there :D
-
Kirkland is a scheme to prevent ASDA. The scheme in itself is enough - it doesn't have to be realised, not in the short - term anyway. Which could easily be five years.
I think that was the case when the Chadwick Street scheme first came along - it was self-evidently a spoiling tactic by our wonderful councillors, designed simply to stop the Hibbert Lane scheme.
However, we have now moved on. The Council's own independent Consultants, Hollissvincent, have now advised them that 'there is a qualitative need for at least one medium sized foodstore, in Marple,' ( see http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s25234/FINAL%20Marple%20Foodstores%20Report%20-%2022%2001.pdf) This conclusion is based on the out-of-Marple shopping data which I copied and pasted in an earlier post on this thread - here it is again:
the Sainsbury's store in Hazel Grove (£6.8m);
the out-of-centre Morrisons at Bredbury (£5.5m);
the Tesco store at Whaley Bridge (£5.2m);
the Tesco store at Wren Nest Road in Glossop (£2.6m);
the out-of-centre Tesco store at Tivot Way (£2.4m);
the ASDA store in Stockport (£1.7m);
the ASDA store in Hyde (£1.6m); and
the Sainsbury's store in Stockport (£1.1m).
That adds up to nearly £27 million which we spend every year at these supermarkets. Compare that with the *'convenience goods' turnover of the two existing Marple supermarkets and the local shops, which is put at £21.8 million.
Having commissioned this independent report, and presumably accepted its findings, the council can now reasonably be expected to take whatever steps are necessary to act upon it - i.e. to ensure that the said 'medium sized foodstore' is actually built. Otherwise the council, which is now officially aware of the unnecessary traffic congestion and environmental damage being caused by the lack of a proper supermarket in Marple, could in the end be under some pressure from voters and from government to explain why they have not done anything about it.
So they need to approve one of these applications, but the real prospect now is that the one which would undoubtedly happen, if approved, is likely to be rejected in favour of a highly speculative scheme which could very well never happen. So in a few years time, we could find that the council will have failed to do anything about the need for a new supermarket in Marple despite having been told that they ought to. And that could become quite an embarrassment, I guess.
-
Dave that sounds a little like "Oh lets blame the Council before anythings gone wrong because I don't like them and want to attribute blame as soon as possible."
Hopefully we will soon see movement on the Kirkland Development
-
As far as I'm concerned (and I don't think I'm alone) more than enough has already gone wrong. Thanks to our wonderful councillors, we have had the prospect of an excellent new college building, only to see it disappearing before our very eyes! ::)
-
Wheels has a point Dave. The Councillors I am sure are only doing what they believe is best for Marple and they don't think that putting a Supermarket on Hibbert Lane is.
I'm no fan of politicians national or local. With few exceptions they all have self -seeking agendas and I know it sounds childish but why do they all seem to be SLY. It must be something to do with the political intrigue that they become involved with. I've never been able to work it out but even if they don't start off SLY they very quickly assume it. However, I wasn't at the meeting last night but I've had reports and by all accounts the majority of the people in that hall were supportive of what the Councillors were saying. Apparently a couple of the Councillors were even applauded. So it would seem that last night anyway, Councillors were representing the views of the people of Marple - which is exactly what they are supposed to do. The people in that hall last night didn't want a supermarket on Hibbert Lane it was just too high a price to pay even for a new college.
-
Wheels has a point Dave. The Councillors I am sure are only doing what they believe is best for Marple and they don't think that putting a Supermarket on Hibbert Lane is.
I'm no fan of politicians national or local. With few exceptions they all have self -seeking agendas and I know it sounds childish but why do they all seem to be SLY. It must be something to do with the political intrigue that they become involved with. I've never been able to work it out but even if they don't start off SLY they very quickly assume it. However, I wasn't at the meeting last night but I've had reports and by all accounts the majority of the people in that hall were supportive of what the Councillors were saying. Apparently a couple of the Councillors were even applauded. So it would seem that last night anyway, Councillors were representing the views of the people of Marple - which is exactly what they are supposed to do. The people in that hall last night didn't want a supermarket on Hibbert Lane it was just too high a price to pay even for a new college.
You won't say that if the college closes or moves shops will close then have you been around at dinner time even Dominos is busy now .dont agree at all with what you've said .
-
Amazon, which bit don't you agree with exactly ?
-
Amazon, which bit don't you agree with exactly ?
The people in the hall don't want a supermarket .so you asked every one if they don't want a supermarket .ist better to not have the college upgraded . Can't understand the way people think on this .
They want one on trinity street but not at the ridge .
-
The Councillors I am sure are only doing what they believe is best for Marple and they don't think that putting a Supermarket on Hibbert Lane is.
That's a very telling sentence, Simone, because it sums up the way this issue is (wrongly, in my view) seen by many people, and, as you say, by our councillors. In other words, people see it as being primarily about a supermarket, and not about education. But what is more important - education or supermarkets? It's astonishing that anyone should even be asking the question.....
Now I understand why some people may be unaware of, or choose to disregard, the long-term educational benefits of the college scheme, but surely it's not unreasonable to expect those who have been elected to public office to be able to see the big picture, and to have the imagination and foresight not just to look at an issue in terms of the 'here and now', but also in terms of its future impact. In the case of educational provision in Marple, we are probably talking about the next half-century at least - after all, the present camsfc buildings go back as much as 80 years!
Simone also writes:
Councillors were representing the views of the people of Marple - which is exactly what they are supposed to do.
Well, they were reflecting what THEY believe are 'the views of the people of Marple'. But actually, all we know for sure is that they are the views of a noisy minority. No-one has ever tried to discover what the silent majority think. But I know what I would think if I were a student at camsfc in 20 years time, and still studying in a converted 100-year-old secondary modern school. I would think my parents and grandparents generation had let me down badly. :(
-
Several snarky or off topic posts have been removed from this thread. If you have issues with the way people write posts and feel the need to advise them of such, then please send a PM and keep your discussions private.
-
Dave, what I actually said was..." So it would seem last night anyway Councillors were representing the views of the people". You missed the italics out in your representation.
Despite your slight misrepresentation (which I readily forgive) you make some good points. Apparently there were 200 plus people in the hall at the AC and all seemed in support of Trinity St which must mean that they are opposed to ASDA. ASDA wasn't discussed at all so we don't know the full extent of any objections, but it will be discussed at the next AC. We know that there are no objections to Trinity Street from anywhere. There wasn't even one from the Royal Mail and they are being "evicted".
We know that there have been objections to the ASDA scheme from all quarters. The Marple Civic Society, Marple Buiness Forum, MIA, general public, The MP, lets not forget the Councillors - all 6 of em and lets not forget the Planning Officers. So are they all wrong ?
Councillors cannot represent the silent majority by definition.
Once a supermarket is on Trinity Street that's it you can't get anything else on it. You can on Hibbert Lane. Once the ASDA is built, you could have a Kentucky fried Chicken, a Halfords, a B&Q, Curry's and you'd still have space. Councillors will have surely thought of this.
Nobody wants the College to leave town not even MIA. Everybody wants it to have the best facilities it can afford. It's my understanding that our Councillors made overtures to the College before all this started, then once ASDA came forth CAMSFC disengaged. Well maybe its time they re-engaged. In breaking bread with ASDA, CAMSFC have tried to do the best for CAMSFC but in they have been blinded by ASDA's dollar signs and have disregarded the community they serve.
-
Simone, if you have any evidence to support the notion that the "Marple 6" and/or Stockport Council have/had any capital funding to support the development of facilities at the College I would be interested in hearing it. Otherwise, what was the nature of these "overtures" that the College allegedly turned down?
-
Simone, if you have any evidence to support the notion that the "Marple 6" and/or Stockport Council have/had any capital funding to support the development of facilities at the College I would be interested in hearing it. Otherwise, what was the nature of these "overtures" that the College allegedly turned down?
What evidence would you like Bowden Guy a photograph of them all together, a written transcript of the meeting, I don't have either ? It isn't my job to provide evidence. This is a chatroom website not a Court of Law. We put speculative comments and assertions on it. You choose whether you want to believe or not, that is entirely up to you. By the way I didn't mention the words ..."capital"...nor..."funding" you wrote that - not me.
What I am saying is that since all this stuff started with CAMSFC and ASDA the College has steadfastly refused to engage with the Council. When the College was advised by the Council that they would not get planning permission for a Hibbert Lane supermarket they put their hands over their ears. Now what's inevitably going to happen, surprise,surprise - they won't get planning permission from the Council for a Hbbert Lane Supermarket - so they can hardly complain can they ? But they will won't they ? They'll appeal which will cost The Council (us) a lot of money to defend. The way things are looking now they still won't get planning permission.
In Autumn, 2011 (I am not sure of the exact date) The then leader of the Council, Dave Goddard stood up at a meeting in front of 200 people and said that he had been trying to arrange a meeting with the College management but they wouldn't agree to one - I'm not sure of his exact words but that meeting was recorded and I believe that recording is on the internet. That particular meeting was actually at the College and the College didn't even represent itself. It's my understanding (there's that phrase again) The Council has invited the College for talks and representation countless times but the College has deferred all the time to ASDA.
These people are professional Teachers they should be at ease presenting to rooms full of people but they have never once come out and explained their case to the community.
They could still come to the next AC when ASDA's planning application is due to be heard and explain their position - but do you think that they will ?
If that's not evidence of lack of engagement.
-
It's my understanding that our Councillors made overtures to the College before all this started
So, you are just "speculating" that these overtures took place? That's fine then. Thanks foor the clarification.
-
I don't know about the meeting which Dave Goddard tried to get with the college - I suspect there may be another side to that story, but we don't know what it is. However, I do know a bit more about this:
It's my understanding that our Councillors made overtures to the College before all this started, then once ASDA came forth CAMSFC disengaged. Well maybe its time they re-engaged. In breaking bread with ASDA, CAMSFC have tried to do the best for CAMSFC but in they have been blinded by ASDA's dollar signs and have disregarded the community they serve.
I was told by one of the Marple councillors some time ago that they had pressed the college not to sell Hibbert Lane to a supermarket, but to sell it for housing. This was part of a concerted campaign including the six councillors and our MP, which I seem to recall was publicised locally as asking the college to 'Think Again' about their plan. The only problem was that the college was (and remains) legally obliged when disposing of any assets to seek and accept the best offer. So far from being 'blinded by ASDA's dollar signs', they were simply complying with their legal obligations. And as for 'disregarding the community they serve', why does anyone think they are doing this at all, if not for the benefit of the local community?
As for this: When the College was advised by the Council that they would not get planning permission for a Hibbert Lane supermarket they put their hands over their ears.
No they didn't - at least, they only ignored the council! They will have listened very carefully to their own property consultants, who will have told them what we have all since found out - that although the council would probably reject the initial planning application, they could very well have that rejection overturned on appeal because of the Hibbert Lane site's 'edge-of-centre' location, and the fact that, at the time, there was no suitable and available site for a supermarket in the town centre.
However, one thing we can agree on 100%, Simone: These people are professional Teachers they should be at ease presenting to rooms full of people but they have never once come out and explained their case to the community.
It's largely the college's own fault that the local community sees this as a 'supermarket issue' and not an 'education issue, as the college has completely failed to make their case to the local community, and get people on their side. The nearest they got was at the pre-planning exhibitions last autumn, but by then it was far too late. ::)
-
It's my understanding that our Councillors made overtures to the College before all this started
So, you are just "speculating" that these overtures took place? That's fine then. Thanks foor the clarification.
I said ..."we put speculative comments and assertions on it". As you well know I was referring generally to the Forum and not specifically to my comments about "overtures" again as you well know. This was not a "clarification" in any way. I KNOW THAT THOSE OVERTURES WERE MADE and they were ignored. Does that sound like a speculative comment to you? As I say Bowden Guy you believe what you will, that's entirely your choice but please do not attribute to me things that I HAVE NOT SAID - because that is speculation.
-
Dave, As far as I am aware three Councillors; Bispham, Dowling & Ingham, even at this late stage have yet to pass comment, verbal or written about the CAMSFC/ASDA. So these three at least can hardly be accused of being part of a "concerted campaign".
As for the College's Planning Consultants, I can only say that they appear to have been left at the starting gate. The Trinity Street site was put on the market only 2 or 3 months after CAMSFC made their plans known. It's been public knowledge almost as long as the MACSFC/ASDA scheme. It was rushed through Area Committee and Council Executive at lightening pace long before any planning applications were submitted. Yet, CAMSFC don't appear to have realised what was going on. What did CAMSFC/ Planning Consultants think the Council was planning to build on it a point to point racecourse. Maybe CAMSFC should ask their planning consultants for a refund.
No, lets face it, an amalgam of highly qualified, highly intelligent - academics, a multi - billion dollar conglomerate, a slick band of planning consultants have all been outwitted by a dad's army of half a dozen hick, bumpkin Councillors.
-
No, lets face it, an amalgam of highly qualified, highly intelligent - academics, a multi - billion dollar conglomerate, a slick band of planning consultants have all been outwitted by a dad's army of half a dozen hick, bumpkin Councillors.
:D :D
Simone, you make a very fair point here:
The Trinity Street site was put on the market only 2 or 3 months after CAMSFC made their plans known. It's been public knowledge almost as long as the MACSFC/ASDA scheme. It was rushed through Area Committee and Council Executive at lightening pace long before any planning applications were submitted. Yet, CAMSFC don't appear to have realised what was going on.
....but we need to remember that the council hurriedly putting the Trinity Street site on the market is one thing, but actually getting it to the point where a full-size (25,000 sq.ft.) supermarket is built on it is quite another. I suspect that the college and its advisors looked at what was going on and decided that given the nature of the site, construction could be complex and costly, causing the rent to be at a level which would deter any supermarket chain - and they could yet prove to have been right. I think it was you, Simone, who wrote that we could well end up with no new supermarket in Marple........... and no new college either, of course. ::)
-
Dave, as I have said to you before, although I know you don't believe me you could well end up with the Kirkland Development and the refurbished college. Just be thankfull you have a LD controlled authority.
-
I know you don't believe me
You're right there, wheels! ;)