Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Sale of Hibbert Lane Campus to Supermarket Chain => Topic started by: NeilCorrie on February 09, 2013, 02:54:15 PM
-
Is there anything to stop ASDA snapping up the Chadwick Street site from Kirkland Developments, after the site got the Council "nod" at the meeting earlier this week?
Or are they committed to going the Hibbert Lane route? They avoid the overwhelming opposition to their Hibbert Lane proposal this way, and avoid having to deal with the college while it's going through the management turbulence referenced in last month's OFSTED.
Ofsted Reports: Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College (http://www.ofstedgov.com/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/130515/(type)/2128609280,1073741824,536870912,268435456,134217728,67108864,33554432,16777216,8388608,4194304,2097152,1048576,524288/(typename)/Learning%20and%20skills)
-
Is there anything to stop ASDA snapping up the Chadwick Street site from Kirkland Developments, after the site got the Council "nod" at the meeting earlier this week?
Or are they committed to going the Hibbert Lane route? They avoid the overwhelming opposition to their Hibbert Lane proposal this way, and avoid having to deal with the college while it's going through the management turbulence referenced in last month's OFSTED.
Ofsted Reports: Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College (http://www.ofstedgov.com/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/130515/(type)/2128609280,1073741824,536870912,268435456,134217728,67108864,33554432,16777216,8388608,4194304,2097152,1048576,524288/(typename)/Learning%20and%20skills)
The Hibert lane site would be a lot easier to develop than Chadwick street ....
-
If they developed chadwick street it may be a more expensive build per m2 but asda wouldnt have to gift millions to the college.
-
On their website FAQ they say that they looked into the site but it was not suitable.
http://www.marplecollegeandasda.co.uk/
-
I think asdas comments and preferences are very subjective.
They can buy what they want
-
There is nothing to stop ASDA turning up on the Trinity Street site. Their own objections to it in the first instance are based on keeping Kirkland out of the competition in relation to the Hibbert Lane Development. If all goes against them with Hibbert Lane they may have a re-think. If they want a foothold in Marple then that site is the ideal opportunity as its half-way there already and ASDA are already in town - so to speak. I can't see objections from any area. Kirkland would be happy to do business with ASDA, the Community would support it, Marple 6 have already said yes.
The Trinity Street scheme looks expensive to develop but perhaps that could be moderated and as has been pointed out they would have an extra £13MILLION to put towards it which they wouldn't have to use to develop to the College. In fact if I was Mr ASDA it would seem like the obvious solution. It is surely more preferable than fighting a long battle with Marple & SMBC and one which they seem to be losing.
-
If they developed chadwick street it may be a more expensive build per m2 but asda wouldnt have to gift millions to the college.
The Trinity Street scheme looks expensive to develop but perhaps that could be moderated and as has been pointed out they would have an extra £13MILLION to put towards it which they wouldn't have to use to develop to the College. In fact if I was Mr ASDA it would seem like the obvious solution. It is surely more preferable than fighting a long battle with Marple & SMBC and one which they seem to be losing.
Let's get this clear: ASDA are not planning to give the college anything - they are simply intending (subject to planning permission, of course) to buy the Hibbert Lane site off the college at its commercial valuation for retail use, and then build a supermarket on it. Speculating on the relative costs of the two sites is a highly specialised business, and way beyond my grasp, but I do know that one of the criteria for retail land valuations, for rent or purchase, is projected turnover, and the Holliss Vincent report puts the Hibbert Lane turnover at 21.6 million in 2017, compared with only 17.4 million for Chadwick Street. See http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s25234/FINAL%20Marple%20Foodstores%20Report%20-%2022%2001.pdf.
So by that criterion, and also because its gross area is smaller, the valuation of Chadwick should be lower. On the other hand, construction costs at Chadwick Street will be higher, and of course, there will be no revenue from fuel sales at Chadwick Street (that is not included in the Hollis Vincent figures, btw).
So it's hard to call - but you can bet that Asda are looking at it, of course!
-
I can't see objections from any area.
I am pretty sure segments of MIA would object purely because it is an Asda/'cheap end' store. They are always going on about the ethics of Walmart etc (simelar to what they did about Tesco when they though it was Tesco after HL). Although of course they have already shot themselves in the foot by saying they do not object to a supermarket JUST one on HL. I have a feeling if HL was turned down at appeal and Asda did go for Kirkland then they would object then on grounds of traffic, threat to other small stores etc. Pretty sure Co-op would also object. Although admittedly none of these potential objecters carry much weight.
It was always obvious that Asda would have to go to appeal. They could still win, it has happened in many towns with simelar scenarios. Let's hope they do win.
-
I can't see objections from any area.
I am pretty sure segments of MIA would object purely because it is an Asda/'cheap end' store. They are always going on about the ethics of Walmart etc (simelar to what they did about Tesco when they though it was Tesco after HL). Although of course they have already shot themselves in the foot by saying they do not object to a supermarket JUST one on HL. I have a feeling if HL was turned down at appeal and Asda did go for Kirkland then they would object then on grounds of traffic, threat to other small stores etc. Pretty sure Co-op would also object. Although admittedly none of these potential objecters carry much weight.
It was always obvious that Asda would have to go to appeal. They could still win, it has happened in many towns with simelar scenarios. Let's hope they do win.
Do you think if I were marks and spencer or waitrose or even booths .that wanted to build on the ridge .they would have been any objections .have MIA just this obsession with ASDA .
-
I can't see objections from any area.
I am pretty sure segments of MIA would object purely because it is an Asda/'cheap end' store. They are always going on about the ethics of Walmart etc (simelar to what they did about Tesco when they though it was Tesco after HL). Although of course they have already shot themselves in the foot by saying they do not object to a supermarket JUST one on HL. I have a feeling if HL was turned down at appeal and Asda did go for Kirkland then they would object then on grounds of traffic, threat to other small stores etc. Pretty sure Co-op would also object. Although admittedly none of these potential objecters carry much weight.
It was always obvious that Asda would have to go to appeal. They could still win, it has happened in many towns with simelar scenarios. Let's hope they do win.
Do you think if I were marks and spencer or waitrose or even booths .that wanted to build on the ridge .they would have been any objections .have MIA just this obsession with ASDA .
It has been said so many times MIA have no influence and are not even a minor part of any part of the decision making process.
-
If ASDA's application is turned down by SMBC and that now seems inevitable. ASDA could appeal or they could turn their attention to Trinity Street. Or they could appeal, lose the appeal and stil turn their attention to Trinity Street. One thing is for sure no retail "client" is going to sign up for Trinity Street whilst ASDA's situation in Marple is unresolved.
Supermarkets have been turned down before and still won on Appeal. Indeed they have a track record of doing so. How many though have a track record of doing so when there is already a "superior" site in the same town and there is only room for one supermarket. It would be interesting to see what ASDA'S case actually is.
-
Do you think if I were marks and spencer or waitrose or even booths .that wanted to build on the ridge .they would have been any objections .have MIA just this obsession with ASDA .
I personally don't think they would object to the 3 you mentioned. I think this is why some are OK about Kirkland (because it is rumoured to be a 'high end' retailer, much to the disgust of some nearby shops and residents who thought MIA were against any supermarket as it would kill local shops/traffic etc; the very same issues they are up in arms about just along the road at Hibbert Lane. Miss M vocally was against Asda in particular as are several other members. On their facebook page they often post about the dubious ethics of Walmart.
-
How many though have a track record of doing so when there is already a "superior" site in the same town and there is only room for one supermarket. It would be interesting to see what ASDA'S case actually is.
Asda claim that the site is not suitable for its plans. So according to them there is not an alternate site. Just because the council claim there is one doesn't make it suitable.
-
Very interesting indeed! Simone makes a key point:
One thing is for sure no retail "client" is going to sign up for Trinity Street whilst ASDA's situation in Marple is unresolved.
...and that point is endorsed by the council's own consultants Hollis Vincent.
If Asda decide they are not interested in the Chadwick Street site, then they could possibly adopt a 'dog in a manger' strategy: acquire Hibbert lane, thus enabling the college to proceed with its rebuild at Buxton Lane. Sit on it until Kirkland give up trying to find a supermarket to take on Chadwick Street, and sell it off for another use - the council listed a whole range of possible uses when they originally put the site on the market:
A1 Shops
A2 Financial and Professional Services
A3 Restaurants and Cafes
A4 Drinking Establishments
A5 Hot Food Take Away
B1 Business
D1 Non Residential Institution
D2 Assembly and Leisure
C1 Hotel
C2 Residential Institution
C3 Dwelling Houses
Some types of Sui Generis use e.g. Night Club, Casino
Once Chadwick Street is developed as a casino or night club ;), Asda re-submit the planning application, which now passes the sequential test because there is no suitable and available town centre site. Job done.......
-
Very interesting indeed! Simone makes a key point:One thing is for sure no retail "client" is going to sign up for Trinity Street whilst ASDA's situation in Marple is unresolved.
...and that point is endorsed by the council's own consultants Hollis Vincent.
If Asda decide they are not interested in the Chadwick Street site, then they could possibly adopt a 'dog in a manger' strategy: acquire Hibbert lane, thus enabling the college to proceed with its rebuild at Buxton Lane. Sit on it until Kirkland give up trying to find a supermarket to take on Chadwick Street, and sell it off for another use - the council listed a whole range of possible uses when they originally put the site on the market:
A1 Shops
A2 Financial and Professional Services
A3 Restaurants and Cafes
A4 Drinking Establishments
A5 Hot Food Take Away
B1 Business
D1 Non Residential Institution
D2 Assembly and Leisure
C1 Hotel
C2 Residential Institution
C3 Dwelling Houses
Some types of Sui Generis use e.g. Night Club, Casino
Once Chadwick Street is developed as a casino or night club ;), Asda re-submit the planning application, which now passes the sequential test because there is no suitable and available town centre site. Job done.......
Bet MIA are printing the banners already . No CASINO for Marple .
-
How many though have a track record of doing so when there is already a "superior" site in the same town and there is only room for one supermarket. It would be interesting to see what ASDA'S case actually is.
Asda claim that the site is not suitable for its plans. So according to them there is not an alternate site. Just because the council claim there is one doesn't make it suitable.
That's quite right and conversely just because ASDA claim Trinity Street is not suitable that does not make it so either. As Mandy Rice Davies said ..."they would say that wouldn't they".
-
ASDA might do exactly as you say Dave. Give the College the money then wait for years. After all they are well known for their acts of altruism and philanthropy.
-
It's not altruism, Simone, and neither is it philanthropy. Supermarkets are well known for hoarding land - they call them 'land banks'. They do it for all sorts of reasons, but especially for keeping the competition out. If they decide that by buying the land and sitting tight they could end up getting planning consent after all, I wouldn't put it past them.
-
They do have land banks of course. What about the small matter of developing the College Dave - why would they do that ?
-
Furthermore, I don't really mind where they put the ASDA or whatever it turns out to be.
To me both those sights are problematic. In my opinion if they put it on Trinity Street it has the potential to be an absolute traffic disaster. If they put it on Hibbert Lane it has the potential to damage the Town Centre and in 3/4 years time I can see it being joined by a group of other retailers. So in effect we will have an out of town shopping centre just like the one they have at the Fort in Cheetham Hill or Ashton or LLandudno or a thousand other places. Only it won't really be an "out of town" one because it'll be 300 metres from the town centre. The only good thing is we get the College out of it. But I don't really want to live in Cheetham Hill, I mean I'm sure the people are lovely and they've got some nice pubs and restaurants but I prefer Marple.
-
If they put it on Hibbert Lane it has the potential to damage the Town Centre
On the other hand it could save/help the town centre? If it keeps people doing their shopping local. The more businesses coming here the better?
-
I can't see objections from any area.
I am pretty sure segments of MIA would object purely because it is an Asda/'cheap end' store. They are always going on about the ethics of Walmart etc (simelar to what they did about Tesco when they though it was Tesco after HL). Although of course they have already shot themselves in the foot by saying they do not object to a supermarket JUST one on HL. I have a feeling if HL was turned down at appeal and Asda did go for Kirkland then they would object then on grounds of traffic, threat to other small stores etc. Pretty sure Co-op would also object. Although admittedly none of these potential objecters carry much weight.
It was always obvious that Asda would have to go to appeal. They could still win, it has happened in many towns with simelar scenarios. Let's hope they do win.
Do you think if I were marks and spencer or waitrose or even booths .that wanted to build on the ridge .they would have been any objections .have MIA just this obsession with ASDA .
You ask have MIA an obsession with Asda? I ask have you an obsession with MIA?
-
If they put it on Hibbert Lane it has the potential to damage the Town Centre
On the other hand it could save/help the town centre? If it keeps people doing their shopping local. The more businesses coming here the better?
That didn't work too well in Stalybridge when Tesco arrived.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JL_Z4awEAic/TCpJB8gNoMI/AAAAAAAAC0Y/XkfnERTdhs8/s400/Stalybridge+Town+Centre.jpg)
http://tamesidecitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/sad-state-of-stalybridge-town-centre.html (http://tamesidecitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/sad-state-of-stalybridge-town-centre.html)
-
It's not altruism, Simone, and neither is it philanthropy. Supermarkets are well known for hoarding land - they call them 'land banks'. They do it for all sorts of reasons, but especially for keeping the competition out. If they decide that by buying the land and sitting tight they could end up getting planning consent after all, I wouldn't put it past them.
A prime example of a supermarket/company keeping the competition out is the Co-Op, they own what used to be the supermarket building, part of which is now Costco. How many years has that building been kept empty by the Co-Op?
-
I can't see objections from any area.
I am pretty sure segments of MIA would object purely because it is an Sada/'cheap end' store. They are always going on about the ethics of Walmart etc (simelar to what they did about Tesco when they though it was Tesco after HL). Although of course they have already shot themselves in the foot by saying they do not object to a supermarket JUST one on HL. I have a feeling if HL was turned down at appeal and Asda did go for Kirkland then they would object then on grounds of traffic, threat to other small stores etc. Pretty sure Co-op would also object. Although admittedly none of these potential objecters carry much weight.
It was always obvious that Asda would have to go to appeal. They could still win, it has happened in many towns with simelar scenarios. Let's hope they do win.
Do you think if I were marks and spencer or waitrose or even booths .that wanted to build on the ridge .they would have been any objections .have MIA just this obsession with ASDA .
You ask have MIA an obsession with Asda? I ask have you an obsession with MIA?
Non whatever . If I ask them they don't reply .
-
I can't see objections from any area.
I am pretty sure segments of MIA would object purely because it is an Sada/'cheap end' store. They are always going on about the ethics of Walmart etc (simelar to what they did about Tesco when they though it was Tesco after HL). Although of course they have already shot themselves in the foot by saying they do not object to a supermarket JUST one on HL. I have a feeling if HL was turned down at appeal and Asda did go for Kirkland then they would object then on grounds of traffic, threat to other small stores etc. Pretty sure Co-op would also object. Although admittedly none of these potential objecters carry much weight.
It was always obvious that Asda would have to go to appeal. They could still win, it has happened in many towns with simelar scenarios. Let's hope they do win.
Do you think if I were marks and spencer or waitrose or even booths .that wanted to build on the ridge .they would have been any objections .have MIA just this obsession with ASDA .
You ask have MIA an obsession with Asda? I ask have you an obsession with MIA?
Non whatever . If I ask them they don't reply .
Ask them what?
-
They do have land banks of course. What about the small matter of developing the College Dave - why would they do that ?
In order to make Hibbert Lane part of any Asda 'land bank', they would obviously have to buy it, for the 12 million which, we are told, has been agreed. In doing so, they would be funding the college's Buxton Lane scheme. It's as simple as that!
-
They do have land banks of course. What about the small matter of developing the College Dave - why would they do that ?
In order to make Hibbert Lane part of any Asda 'land bank', they would obviously have to buy it, for the 12 million which, we are told, has been agreed. In doing so, they would be funding the college's Buxton Lane scheme. It's as simple as that!
That's it then, as you say Dave ..."simple as that".
Neither CAMSFC nor ASDA have got any problems whatsoever and we can all expect to see both of them open and trading by summer 2016.
I can't wait.
-
Sorry, I evidently didn't make my point clearly enough! I was just trying to point out out that if (and it's a very big 'if'!) Asda decide to buy Hibbert Lane even without planning consent, in order to stop any other supermarket taking Chadwick Street, the 12 million which they would have to pay for it would fund the college's Buxton Lane development. That's all.
But hey, this is all just speculation - as ever....... ;D
-
I can't see objections from any area.
I am pretty sure segments of MIA would object purely because it is an Asda/'cheap end' store. They are always going on about the ethics of Walmart etc (simelar to what they did about Tesco when they though it was Tesco after HL). Although of course they have already shot themselves in the foot by saying they do not object to a supermarket JUST one on HL. I have a feeling if HL was turned down at appeal and Asda did go for Kirkland then they would object then on grounds of traffic, threat to other small stores etc. Pretty sure Co-op would also object. Although admittedly none of these potential objecters carry much weight.
It was always obvious that Asda would have to go to appeal. They could still win, it has happened in many towns with simelar scenarios. Let's hope they do win.
Do you think if I were marks and spencer or waitrose or even booths .that wanted to build on the ridge .they would have been any objections .have MIA just this obsession with ASDA .
I've not seen MIA object to anything other than a supermarket of any colour on the site. As Simone says, MIA are irrelevant but the concerns they raise are relevant. It's a bit silly to turn this into some inverted snobbery.
-
Think you need to update the picture of Stalybridge, We have new shops open and a farmers market every month.
-
Furthermore, I don't really mind where they put the ASDA or whatever it turns out to be.
To me both those sights are problematic. In my opinion if they put it on Trinity Street it has the potential to be an absolute traffic disaster. If they put it on Hibbert Lane it has the potential to damage the Town Centre and in 3/4 years time I can see it being joined by a group of other retailers. So in effect we will have an out of town shopping centre just like the one they have at the Fort in Cheetham Hill or Ashton or LLandudno or a thousand other places. Only it won't really be an "out of town" one because it'll be 300 metres from the town centre. The only good thing is we get the College out of it. But I don't really want to live in Cheetham Hill, I mean I'm sure the people are lovely and they've got some nice pubs and restaurants but I prefer Marple.
I go to Cheetham hill quite often, they have some pretty authentic Chinese & Indian Sub-continental eating places but not much else.
I don't see a traffic disaster Simon(e). The car parks for the shops are scarcely populated and the one at Derby Lane could easily be re-designed to doulbe it's capacity.
The entrance from the main road will, I assume, be restricted to deliveries and the whole shopping area will be opened up.
-
They do have land banks of course. What about the small matter of developing the College Dave - why would they do that ?
In order to make Hibbert Lane part of any Asda 'land bank', they would obviously have to buy it, for the 12 million which, we are told, has been agreed. In doing so, they would be funding the college's Buxton Lane scheme. It's as simple as that!
They are not going to pay 12m for the land without planning permission. The only likely development allowed on that land without a fight is housing and maybe a gym complex, Nobeody will pay £12m for that.
-
The car parks for the shops are scarcely populated and the one at Derby Lane could easily be re-designed to doulbe it's capacity.
The entrance from the main road will, I assume, be restricted to deliveries and the whole shopping area will be opened up.
1. Scarcely populated? Really? Have you been into Marple on a Saturday morning recently. They are mainly full apart from Chadwick Street, with the Coop in particular (now it is temporarily free) copping it massively.
2. Can we see you design for doubling Derby Way car park? I'm sure that the Council will be fascinated.
3. Why not look at the approved plans, if you want to understand what the scheme would look like.
-
I disagree Duke, the car parks in Marple are the opposite of "scarcely populated" perhaps you've been visiting them in the wee small hours, does the duchess know about this?
A couple of weeks ago (it was Friday about 1pm) I couldn't get a space in the co-op so I parked in Chadwick Street and it was three-quarters full. My point is that when the supermarket arrives the effect will be that traffic that normally disperses from Marple will now converge upon it. I don't know anything about traffic design schemes and I don't think that you do either but Belly seems to be knowledgeable and he appears to be worried. So I'm going to have to side with him in the hope that he's wrong and you're right.
-
Was there any provision in the chadwick st development for reopening church st to help with traffic.
-
My point is that when the supermarket arrives the effect will be that traffic that normally disperses from Marple will now converge upon it. I don't know anything about traffic design schemes.
Thats my concern Simone and it remains a 'concern' rather than an absolute - if you get my drift.
The CS traffic work was based, as far as I can tell, on limited f surveys carried out in the late summer / autumn of last year and the conclusion of this work went something along the lines of: the new supermarket car park will be at capacity to cater for all of the new supermarket traffic on a 'typical' day (the conclusion being that there would not be enough spaces for a busy time such as Christmas - althought this wasn't stated). The displaced existing parking from CS (again based on a typical day only, not during busy times of the yerar) should be able to be accomodated across all the other car park sites in Marple, so that the final situation would be that all the car parks in Marple would be pretty much 'at capacity' on any given weekend.
Hmm. To me thats teetering on a cliff and it only needs the new supermarket to be more popular than anticipated (parking work was only undertaken based on an 'average' basket of sites) or there is an event in Marple and then the wheels could come off. There is also the practical issue as to how traffic will know which car park to head for, in order to avoid touring round and round Marple's many pocket handkerchief sized car parks looking for a space. The Council's solution appears to be variable message signage - i.e. signs with LED's showing the number of spare spaces at different car parks. A good idea in principle but in practice in the cramped confines of the Marple car parks, likely to be very diffiicult to achieve accurately and it still won't address the busy day issue.
Anyway, not to worry. Its all been approved, so lets just wait and see what happens. Maybe it will all balance itself out - that can occur, but if it does, who will suffer, the supermarket with its own car park sized towards its needs, or the remainder of the town, which will now be one large car park short of what it used to have? ???
-
I disagree Duke, the car parks in Marple are the opposite of "scarcely populated" perhaps you've been visiting them in the wee small hours, does the duchess know about this?
A couple of weeks ago (it was Friday about 1pm) I couldn't get a space in the co-op so I parked in Chadwick Street and it was three-quarters full. My point is that when the supermarket arrives the effect will be that traffic that normally disperses from Marple will now converge upon it. I don't know anything about traffic design schemes and I don't think that you do either but Belly seems to be knowledgeable and he appears to be worried. So I'm going to have to side with him in the hope that he's wrong and you're right.
I'll study urban transport planning overnight and I'll show the plans on the back of an envelope or something, worry not, all will be great.
It's interesting that the worry is that the shopping area will become busy. Surely that is the aim of the shopping area.
The co-op may lose customers but I can't see that a smallish co-op sized shop being the magnet for shoppers all around
-
Duke,
It isn't a worry that the shopping area will become busy with people, that's great if it happens. The concern is that if the equation is wrong Marple will become congested with cars which is not great and even may serve to put people off coming into it because of the vehicular traffic.
-
Duke,
It isn't a worry that the shopping area will become busy with people, that's great if it happens. The concern is that if the equation is wrong Marple will become congested with cars which is not great and even may serve to put people off coming into it because of the vehicular traffic.
Well, I think it's safe to assume people will arrive by car so yes there will be more vehicular traffic into the cetral shopping area
To change the layout of the carpark on Derby st, I think there is two choices:
Single level car park – remove the exit onto Hibbert la, landscape the whole area to turn the exit area of Derby st to be incorporated into the car park. This will add around 16 spaces.
Multi storey – remove exit onto Hibbert la, a ramp be built to the 2nd level on the exit area of Derby St, parking under this ramp, this will add around 8 places on ground level & 20 spaces on level 2.
I don't see a small Asda / Waitrose / Aldi creating that much more traffic. The Aldi at Rommily doesn't get as busy as the Co-op car park, the Waitrose at Cheadle is the same, a smaller Asda again would not cause a huge problem, in fact teh one at Hazel Grove does not have a massive car park.
Remember that there are two under utilised car parks, one behind the fire stations & the other oppositet eh hatters.
-
Unless shoppers can unload their shopping trolley into their car in the car park at the supermarket then they won't shop there. I for one would not push a shopping trolley from the proposed supermarket to the Derby Street car park. If that was my choice then I would still shop out of Marple.
-
Duke,
People are not prepared these days to push shopping trolleys through town centres to get to their cars even if the distance is relatively short.
What exactly do you mean by a ..."smaller ASDA" ? I take it you looked at the plans and you know the proposed size of the store. I personally wouldn't class that as small would you?
-
Duke,
People are not prepared these days to push shopping trolleys through town centres to get to their cars even if the distance is relatively short.
What exactly do you mean by a ..."smaller ASDA" ? I take it you looked at the plans and you know the proposed size of the store. I personally wouldn't class that as small would you?
I understand the Chadwick St development will be slightly smaller than the Co-op, when I say smaller Asda, I mean as opposed to mega Asda.
As for the need to walk, I see your point, in the days of obesity, people don't like to walk too far. However, the plans remind me a little of Wetherby where they have been able to incorporate the whole precinct around a large Morrisons and yes, people are prepared to walk through th etown to their cars.
-
I must say that I think this idea of Duke's has more merit than it's being given credit for.
I think that imaginative use of the Derby Street Car Park and the one way road itself could result in significantly more parking for the town centre.
I also think that in terms of distance to push a trolley, you could have to go further than this in Tesco at Portwood, Asda in Hyde and Stockport and Sainburys in Hazel Grove.
Some efficient management of trollies would be needed of course.
-
I thought both Chadwick Street and Hibbert Lane had a 25,000 sq metre supermarket?
-
Duke,
People are not prepared these days to push shopping trolleys through town centres to get to their cars even if the distance is relatively short.
What exactly do you mean by a ..."smaller ASDA" ? I take it you looked at the plans and you know the proposed size of the store. I personally wouldn't class that as small would you?
I understand the Chadwick St development will be slightly smaller than the Co-op, when I say smaller Asda, I mean as opposed to mega Asda.
As for the need to walk, I see your point, in the days of obesity, people don't like to walk too far. However, the plans remind me a little of Wetherby where they have been able to incorporate the whole precinct around a large Morrisons and yes, people are prepared to walk through th etown to their cars.
Duke, Let's not get into the world of obesity again. Your constant reference to the word has gone far beyond the point of tedium.
My understanding of the Chadwick Street Development is that your understanding is a misunderstanding. I thought that the proposed development (sales area only) of the scheme was 25,000 sq ft whereas the Co-op comes in at 16,000 plus sq ft. This makes the new supermarket around 64% bigger than the existing co-op. I wouldn't call that small Duke - would you ?
-
I must say that I think this idea of Duke's has more merit than it's being given credit for.
I think that imaginative use of the Derby Street Car Park and the one way road itself could result in significantly more parking for the town centre.
I also think that in terms of distance to push a trolley, you could have to go further than this in Tesco at Portwood, Asda in Hyde and Stockport and Sainburys in Hazel Grove.
Some efficient management of trollies would be needed of course.
That's true, certainly Portwood has a longer walk. As long as the paved areas are smooth there will not be a problem. Most importantly, the walk will go past other shops meaning the new supermarket compliments helps the local business rather than destroys it
-
Duke,
People are not prepared these days to push shopping trolleys through town centres to get to their cars even if the distance is relatively short.
What exactly do you mean by a ..."smaller ASDA" ? I take it you looked at the plans and you know the proposed size of the store. I personally wouldn't class that as small would you?
I understand the Chadwick St development will be slightly smaller than the Co-op, when I say smaller Asda, I mean as opposed to mega Asda.
As for the need to walk, I see your point, in the days of obesity, people don't like to walk too far. However, the plans remind me a little of Wetherby where they have been able to incorporate the whole precinct around a large Morrisons and yes, people are prepared to walk through th etown to their cars.
Duke, Let's not get into the world of obesity again. Your constant reference to the word has gone far beyond the point of tedium.
My understanding of the Chadwick Street Development is that your understanding is a misunderstanding. I thought that the proposed development (sales area only) of the scheme was 25,000 sq ft whereas the Co-op comes in at 16,000 plus sq ft. This makes the new supermarket around 64% bigger than the existing co-op. I wouldn't call that small Duke - would you ?
I see, that is officially quite large.
-
That's true, certainly Portwood has a longer walk. As long as the paved areas are smooth there will not be a problem. Most importantly, the walk will go past other shops meaning the new supermarket compliments helps the local business rather than destroys it
And where would you leave your trolley full of shopping whilst you nipped into the other shops? Bearing in mind the shoppers having to cope with toddlers, shopping trolleys walking through Market Street and down Derby Street etc. Also the other supermarkets have special parking for disabled and people with children, how many of the parking spaces will be lost to cater for these at the supermarket?
-
That's true, certainly Portwood has a longer walk. As long as the paved areas are smooth there will not be a problem. Most importantly, the walk will go past other shops meaning the new supermarket compliments helps the local business rather than destroys it
And where would you leave your trolley full of shopping whilst you nipped into the other shops? Bearing in mind the shoppers having to cope with toddlers, shopping trolleys walking through Market Street and down Derby Street etc. Also the other supermarkets have special parking for disabled and people with children, how many of the parking spaces will be lost to cater for these at the supermarket?
I've gone and typed compliments not complements.
I'm sure there will be disabled parking in whatever car parking provision is in place. The supermarket may well insist on parent & child slots but it's a pet hate of mine, having a child is not a disabilty