Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Sale of Hibbert Lane Campus to Supermarket Chain => Topic started by: Osdog on June 05, 2013, 09:31:09 AM
-
Now that it looks like ASDA have pulled out - what is the future of MIA ?
Will you disband it? It seems that the only function it had was in relation to the ASDA / supermarket building... for example it had no connection with the Chadwick Street development.
I'm not being awkward - but I just wondered what was going to happen, and what the plans are for any monies left after this is over (if any). Will a statement of account be given, showing how the funds were spent. It seems that a reasonable amount of money was raised over the time, and I think people may like to know how their money was used in a bit more detail.
Thank you
-
Good point you have made about MIA and the funds Osdog.
It would be interesting to see how the money has been used.
Just a thought, if there is any money left over from all the street collections etc then perhaps it can be given to the Friends of Marple Memorial Park. I'm sure it would be spent wisely and it would then benefit the whole community.
-
I for one will be very surprised if this is the end of MIA.
If, I was in their shoes I think that I would "hang around" at least for a couple of years until the issues regarding both Hibbert Lane and Trinity Street are resolved. Although there is no reason why they can't publish some account figures as Osdog suggests. In fact they owe this much to all the donors and I'm sure that they will do so in due course.
I have to say that MIA can "cock - a- hoop" all they want now and good luck to them with it. Nevertheless, their impact is questionable, I don't believe that ultimately they have had any influence on either ASDA or CAMSFC. In addition to which some of the postings made on this site in the early days on their behalf were absolutely idiotic and did more to support ASDA's cause than to challenge it. I do though believe that these postings were mainly down to one renegade individual who they should have reined in earlier than they did. From my soundings Councillor Kev's barnstorming 5 minute speech on the night did more to defeat ASDA than all the MIA parades and petitions put together. Asda themselves were absolutely flattened by it.
It does though have to be recognised that MIA have been an absolutely tremendous,without equal, vehicle for raising awareness. I can't see how anybody could have sneaked in and built a superstore on Hibbert Lane without anybody noticing but we do read about these things actually going on and without MIA who knows what may have happened ?
-
Nevertheless, their impact is questionable, I don't believe that ultimately they have had any influence on either ASDA or CAMSFC.
I cant see how the impact of MIA has been 'questionable' Sure, they didn't influence ASDA or CAMSFC, but their campaign certainly influenced our councillors, and thereby the outcome of the planning application.
-
I personally think they would oppose any other type of large development happening in Marple. Now they think they have 'won' this I would be very surprised if they didn't later object to Trinity or a social housing estate on HL etc etc. I have my doubts that Trinity will ever happen but if it does, and especially if Asda or Tesco are involved, I am pretty sure they would object on the same grounds as HL; traffic etc.
-
I cant see how the impact of MIA has been 'questionable' Sure, they didn't influence ASDA or CAMSFC, but their campaign certainly influenced our councillors, and thereby the outcome of the planning application.
I don't believe they had any influence at all on the Councillors. Councillors were probably a little taken aback by the depth of feeling demonstrated in number but I think that they were against the Hibbert Lane scheme from the start with or without Marple in Action.
-
I personally think they would oppose any other type of large development happening in Marple. Now they think they have 'won' this I would be very surprised if they didn't later object to Trinity or a social housing estate on HL etc etc. I have my doubts that Trinity will ever happen but if it does, and especially if Asda or Tesco are involved, I am pretty sure they would object on the same grounds as HL; traffic etc.
Do tesco and Asda build houses with smaller convenience stores included on site .were as Mia go just waiting for something else to object to .
-
Do tesco and Asda build houses with smaller convenience stores included on site .were as Mia go just waiting for something else to object to .
There you go, make up a scenario in your head, invent a response to the imaginary scenario by a group that you haven't consulted about your imaginary scenario and then post it onto a forum so the handful of Marple readers know what you think the imaginary reaction to an imaginary scenario would be.
Next week we find out why people believe in god.
-
I think that they were against the Hibbert Lane scheme from the start with or without Marple in Action.
Why do you think that, Simone?
-
Why do you think that, Simone?
Because I have heard of/heard this view expressed by them and it was long before C&MSFC "partnered up" with ASDA and long before MIA was ever dreamed up. In addition to this a Supermarket on Hibbert Lane was not part of SMBC'S development plan which was devised when the Supermarket issue was only a rumour and they are after all SMBC Councillors and you would expect them to support the plan. So whilst I admit that none of that is cast-iron conclusive it is good enough for me.
-
Because I have heard of/heard this view expressed by them and it was long before C&MSFC "partnered up" with ASDA
Hmmmm. So they were against it before it had even been proposed...........
We saw the fear in their eyes when facing the baying mob at the 'party in the park' two years ago. That, for my money, was when they made their minds up (or rather, had their minds made up for them ;D)
-
Dave,
I'm not so sure about "fear". One of them I thought actually, seemed quite amused by it. On the whole though I do agree, the hostility conveyed by the mob at the party in the park did have an effect on some of our Elected Members' demeanour. However, this was instant reaction and was purely cosmetic. The decision had long since been debated and decided upon well in advance.
-
But will there be a statement showing how the funds were spent......? I'd like to know please......
-
But will there be a statement showing how the funds were spent......? I'd like to know please......
I think most of us would like to know .
-
If no-one volunteered the information, how would we get it, surely it should be public.....
-
If no-one volunteered the information, how would we get it, surely it should be public.....
If you have a pressing need for the knowledge about this why don't you write to the chair of MIA or alternatively contact one of our Councillors and ask them to write to MIA.
I think that you're right, if they taken public subscription then they should account for it. They've been going now for about 2 years and I don't believe that they have posted any accounts of any sort. It's easy enough for them to do, its just that I don't think that a few individual postings on this site from anonymous people is the way to get them to do it.
-
AFAIK donations to MIA were collected by the Marple Civic Society, presumably because it is a properly constituted charitable body, which is therefore allowed to collect public subscriptions. However, this also mean that the Civic Society should be able to account for the funds which it has collected.
You can see the Society's annual accounts for 2011 and 2012 here:
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=5AE1C34D7E844FFF&id=5AE1C34D7E844FFF%21544#
The report refers to the MIA campaign, but the accounts don't identify the MIA funds. It's possible, of course, that these are the income labelled as 'Reserved Donations': £1895 in 2011 and £1035 in 2012. But the only listed expenditure that could be for MIA purposes would be Post and Print (£1105 in 2011 and £711 in 2012). So if that's the case, MIA would seem to have made a surplus in both years, so there are presumably some funds left over?
-
It's certainly not a pressing need at all.... I am curious, as I contributed in the beginning at least.... the MIA seemed to be a group I had problems identifying with in the end... but I would still like to know how the money was spent. I'm sure that someone somewhere kept a watchful eye on income and expenditure.
Thought that someone from MIA might just have responded on the forum... I'd have been happy with that.
-
AFAIK donations to MIA were collected by the Marple Civic Society, presumably because it is a properly constituted charitable body, which is therefore allowed to collect public subscriptions. However, this also mean that the Civic Society should be able to account for the funds which it has collected.
You can see the Society's annual accounts for 2011 and 2012 here:
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=5AE1C34D7E844FFF&id=5AE1C34D7E844FFF%21544#
The report refers to the MIA campaign, but the accounts don't identify the MIA funds. It's possible, of course, that these are the income labelled as 'Reserved Donations': £1895 in 2011 and £1035 in 2012. But the only listed expenditure that could be for MIA purposes would be Post and Print (£1105 in 2011 and £711 in 2012). So if that's the case, MIA would seem to have made a surplus in both years, so there are presumably some funds left over?
If there is they could donate to the skatepark ?or do you think they might need it for there next protest .
-
Marple in Action’s policy is not to reply to posts in this forum. Although I’m (obviously) a Marple in Action supporter and I go to some of their meetings, I’m not an official spokesperson and cannot speak on behalf of the organisation.
I can speak for myself of course and I’m happy to tell you that I attended a meeting recently (before this thread was started) when the issues you have raised were discussed and a number of proposals and ideas put forward. These have not been fully debated or decided yet but when they are then I’m sure that they will be announced.
I don’t know how much money has been raised or spent during the course of the campaign but I believe Marple in Action will give full account of what it has been spent on and what will be done with the surplus. In the case of the latter, I expect that they will do some consultation with the community and the people who donated it as best they can to solicit views about what should be done with it.
Despite ASDA and CAMFC declaring that they will not appeal against the decision, the council’s planners say that the opportunity to do so still formally remains open until the allotted time period has elapsed. Although it is unlikely that they would appeal after making the statements that they have, Marple in Action will not disband until that possibility, however remote, can no longer occur. That means that nothing will happen until early September, when the appeal period expires.
So if you can’t wait for the fat lady to sing, probably around mid-September, and have a burning desire to ask Marple in Action what they are going to do before they feel ready to make a public announcement, then do as Simone suggests and write to the Chairman. If you can be patient then all should become clear in a reasonable time frame.
-
I personally think they would oppose any other type of large development happening in Marple. Now they think they have 'won' this I would be very surprised if they didn't later object to Trinity or a social housing estate on HL etc etc. I have my doubts that Trinity will ever happen but if it does, and especially if Asda or Tesco are involved, I am pretty sure they would object on the same grounds as HL; traffic etc.
How does one (or even MIA for that matter) object to something that already has planning consent? That ship sailed long ago..... if someone can stump up the cash then that scheme cannot be stopped. Thats the greatest shame of the past 2 years, that this potential mess of a scheme was waved through just to fight off the evil ASDA empire. You are right that pretty much all the same arguments exist (and more imho) but alas this was ignored amongst the jubilation of scuppering Hibbert Lane.
-
As I stated, it's not a burning desire..... I didn't know that MIA would not post on the forum directly. I must have missed that bit - I suppose it's no use asking why that is.....
Anyway - like I said - if all will be revealed later in the year.. I'll wait around for that to happen. Like I said - idle curiosity really.
-
How does one (or even MIA for that matter) object to something that already has planning consent? That ship sailed long ago..... if someone can stump up the cash then that scheme cannot be stopped. Thats the greatest shame of the past 2 years, that this potential mess of a scheme was waved through just to fight off the evil ASDA empire. You are right that pretty much all the same arguments exist (and more imho) but alas this was ignored amongst the jubilation of scuppering Hibbert Lane.
Belly, why do you say that it is "the greatest shame of the past two years". I don't actually think that anything has been ignored at least not by the people with the influence. IMHO it has all been calculated down to the last detail. The Trinity Street scheme is further away from realisation than the ASDA is. The ship hasn't sailed at all. Its not even drawn anchor. There are thousands of planning permissions the length and breadth of the country that never become anything more than that - just planning permissions. Instead of seeing Trinity Street as a Supermarket to stop a Supermarket try viewing it as a planning permission to stop a planning permission.
-
How does one (or even MIA for that matter) object to something that already has planning consent? That ship sailed long ago..... if someone can stump up the cash then that scheme cannot be stopped. Thats the greatest shame of the past 2 years, that this potential mess of a scheme was waved through just to fight off the evil ASDA empire. You are right that pretty much all the same arguments exist (and more imho) but alas this was ignored amongst the jubilation of scuppering Hibbert Lane.
Good point. I did read in the free 'Civic Review' very recently that they (it mentioned a person involved in MIA so I assume it was related to MIA) are objecting to the traffic proposal at Trinity. I really do think they will start to object more if a retailer comes on board-especially if it is what some would call a 'low end' or discount store. After all another MIA member said (admittedly about HL ASDA) that if cheaper groceries/items are available then it would put Marple small shops out of business. But the same argument would apply for a Tesco/ASDA right in the centre surely? Traffic would be dreadful as well as parking. Much worse than HL would have.
-
The theoretical argument against Hibbert Lane has always been that as an out of town Store it will take footfall away from the town centre and thus debilitate the commercial aspect of it whereas Trinity Street is in the town centre so it will bring footfall into the centre thus supporting the local businesses. As I say this is theoretical.
-
Belly, why do you say that it is "the greatest shame of the past two years". I don't actually think that anything has been ignored at least not by the people with the influence. IMHO it has all been calculated down to the last detail. The Trinity Street scheme is further away from realisation than the ASDA is. The ship hasn't sailed at all. Its not even drawn anchor. There are thousands of planning permissions the length and breadth of the country that never become anything more than that - just planning permissions. Instead of seeing Trinity Street as a Supermarket to stop a Supermarket try viewing it as a planning permission to stop a planning permission.
Simone, I understand what you say and I suspect on cost grounds that you might well be right.... but if you are not, thats one hell of a gamble thats just been played by our Council.
Its also not true to say that TS is much further from realisation from ASDA - as TS has planning consent. Ultimately its now down to money as to whether anyone can actually deliver the scheme or indeed, something similar. The principle has now been set for the land or at least it has for the next few years.
-
Simone, I understand what you say and I suspect on cost grounds that you might well be right.... but if you are not, thats one hell of a gamble thats just been played by our Council.
Its also not true to say that TS is much further from realisation from ASDA - as TS has planning consent. Ultimately its now down to money as to whether anyone can actually deliver the scheme or indeed, something similar. The principle has now been set for the land or at least it has for the next few years.
Belly,
I really do see the points that you make and I'm no defender of the Council. As a body they let us down as much as they support/stand up for us. We've got six Councillors in Marple all of the same party plus the fact that the leader of the Council lives in Marple, I appreciate that she has to take the wider view but she is also a LibDem and this should give us some unified strength, but where is it ? Where is it say on the issue of the proposed park cutbacks which to me is just as important as where they build the supermarket.
However the only way to stop an out of town centre, 25,000 sq ft Supermarket in Marple was to have a definite plan to build a 25,000 sq ft Supermarket in town and that's exactly what they came up with. So in that instance they did stand up and be counted. You're right it probably is a gamble but in some situations there is an inevitable element of that. IMHO, I don't think that Trinity Street will ever see a Supermarket that size but it might see a smaller one which could be a benefit to Marple.
Back to the Parks and as this topic started about MIA's future, where are they on raising awareness about this issue ?
-
thats one hell of a gamble thats just been played by our Council.
Why is it a gamble? (Gamble, n. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit)
What risk did the council take?
-
Simone, I think there are those who are deliberately misleading others re any proposals for the the parks. Because that's exactly what they are proposals no more. It seems to me entirely responsible of an authority face with massive cuts left by the last Labour Govt to seek to get peoples views as to where those cuts should be.
Such consultation of the public is something Stockport is well known for in comparison with other surrounding authorities.
And if the public say they would prefer to see cuts to the parks budget instead of says Library's or adult social care are you saying that's a bad thing?
-
Why is it a gamble? (Gamble, n. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit)
What risk did the council take?
Dave,
Thank you kindly for the dictionary definition but we think we know what "gamble" means or at least we have an accepted definition in our eyes.
They took the risk of authorising a development on Trinity Street in the hope that the authorisation alone would defeat the supermarket proposals on Hibbert Lane. Which is exactly what it has done. The danger is now (albeit remote) that somebody somewhere could actually find the money and the will and try and develop Trinity Street in accordance with the actual planning permission.
-
Simone, I think there are those who are deliberately misleading others re any proposals for the the parks. Because that's exactly what they are proposals no more. It seems to me entirely responsible of an authority face with massive cuts left by the last Labour Govt to seek to get peoples views as to where those cuts should be.
Such consultation of the public is something Stockport is well known for in comparison with other surrounding authorities.
And if the public say they would prefer to see cuts to the parks budget instead of says Library's or adult social care are you saying that's a bad thing?
Wheels,
I don't think this is a party political issue. The last Labour government has been out of office for over three years. There does come a time when incumbent governments have to stop blaming past governments. This current government hasn't stopped doing that yet.
Parks are a local issue not a National one - not yet anyway. All I'm saying is where are our local politicians now. They've been vociferous about the ASDA; Marches, leaflets, speeches. Where's the Marches, leaflets and speeches for the parks ? If it is a party political issue, its a LibDem one cos' their all LibDems.
As you've mentioned consultation, I'll say this, in theory it is a good thing and top marks to SMBC for even attempting it and also you're quite right there is many a local authority, some not to far from here who would not have even gone out to consultation. However it has to be done properly otherwise people don't respond and lets not forget consultation processes are not free, they cost money so if its not done properly it is worse than useless. You might just as well as implement the plan in the first place and save yourself the consultation fee. That's exactly what has happened in Stockport. It hasn't been done properly so people have not responded. Last year 28,783 responses were received over ten borough wide consultations. With a population of 248,600 that's an average response of just 1% - are you happy with that ?
-
Simone that sounds like whatever the outcome if you don't like it we can blame the authority.
Your well aware saving have to come from none statuary expenditure, sadly some might say but that's where we are currently. Better a park closed than savings on cycle infrastructure provision some might say if one wanted to be provocative.
Just trust the people if Parks don't figure highly on peoples agenda even after all the scaremongering then let them go.
-
Simone that sounds like whatever the outcome if you don't like it we can blame the authority.
Your well aware saving have to come from none statuary expenditure, sadly some might say but that's where we are currently. Better a park closed than savings on cycle infrastructure provision some might say if one wanted to be provocative.
Just trust the people if Parks don't figure highly on peoples agenda even after all the scaremongering then let them go.
Sooner have a nice park than a bike
-
From my soundings Councillor Kev's barnstorming 5 minute speech on the night did more to defeat ASDA than all the MIA parades and petitions put together. Asda themselves were absolutely flattened by it.
I would dearly love to know what he said. Is a transcript available?
-
we think we know what "gamble" means or at least we have an accepted definition in our eyes.
Your majesty, is this the Royal 'We'? ;)
They took the risk of authorising a development on Trinity Street in the hope that the authorisation alone would defeat the supermarket proposals on Hibbert Lane. Which is exactly what it has done. The danger is now (albeit remote) that somebody somewhere could actually find the money and the will and try and develop Trinity Street in accordance with the actual planning permission.
That's not a risk. A risk means a risk of losing something - e.g. when you bet on a horse you risk losing the money if the horse doesn't win. But in the event that the Trinity Street site is developed, that is no loss to the council. On the contrary, they will gain because they will get money for the site, plus ongoing business rates for the indefinite future.
-
On the contrary, they will gain because they will get money for the site, plus ongoing business rates for the indefinite future
Unfortunately all Business Rates go straight to Central Government, the Council get nothing.
-
Dave,
Why do you have to relate everything to money and business are you absolutely sure that you are not really Duke Fame's alter ego ?
The risk of loss was that the Hibbert Lane site would be lost to ASDA and that in the eyes of the Marple 6 is as big a loss as you can get.
Now there is risk that a 25,000 sq ft Supermarket will be developed on Trinity Street and that's a potential loss only surmounted by a HL ASDA.
So its all gamble and more gamble.
-
This is getting a bit surreal! So by putting Trinity Street on the market, the council were risking 'that the Hibbert Lane site would be lost to ASDA'. No they weren't, they were seeking to prevent that!
And as for thisNow there is risk that a 25,000 sq ft Supermarket will be developed on Trinity Street and that's a potential loss only surmounted by a HL ASDA.
....that's no loss to the council, that's a gain. I accept Victor's point about business rates, but if the Trinity St supermarket is built the council will not have lost anything, they will have gained the money handed over for the land.
-
Simone that sounds like whatever the outcome if you don't like it we can blame the authority.
No Wheels, That's not my view at all but when you have power and influence you also have responsibility for both failures and successes and a 1% response to "consultation" is a failure and indicative of nothing.
If we had a 1% turnout for the next election (although that day may be fast approaching) would we consider that we had successfully got our message across ?
-
Er Simone, I didn't want to say anything first time but now you've repeated it. 28,763 is 11% of 248,600, not 1%...
Or are you saying 10 successive consultations to the same 248,600 resulted in a combined total of 28,763? Your statement is open to interpretation... NB. If it was the latter, I'd probably be less inclined to respond to surveys 4 to 10 than I was surveys 1 to 3. You can have too much of a good thing!!!
RH.
-
Rudolph is right, of course, the consultation response was around 10% not 1%, but it still doesn't tell us much. Most people, for all sorts of reasons, don't respond to consultations, but that doesn't mean they don't care. For example, some don't respond simply because they are very young or very old, and these are exactly the people who will suffer most if the disgraceful proposal not to repair or replace broken park benches or playground equipment is implemented.
-
No, Rudolph is not right, a total 28,783 response over "ten borough wide consultations" which I am fairly sure is what I said, against a population of 284,600 is an approximate 1% (give or take a point or two, Dave even you wouldn't be that pedantic or would you? ) response per consultation - NOT 10%
Of course this could mean that people are just not interested in the issues, but when you consider that MIA gained an 8000 plus petition from the population of Marple alone. Dave before you say it I know they used different tactics. Maybe SMBC should the same. The biggest issue with these consultations is not that people are too young/old it is that people are unaware they are taking place and it suits the people that have to do them to keep it that way. So these consultations are not managed in an overt way.
Try this Dave/Rudolph: the ten consultations I refer to took place over 2012/13. With the exception of the parks because it has been all over this website, and so it should be. Can either of you tell me(without guessing and without research)what any of them were about ?
-
Simone, I think you'll find that 1% of 284,600 is 2,846.
-
No, Rudolph is not right, a total 28,783 response over "ten borough wide consultations" which I am fairly sure is what I said, against a population of 284,600 is an approximate 1% (give or take a point or two, Dave even you wouldn't be that pedantic or would you? ) response per consultation - NOT 10%
As maths exam papers say..."All working must be clearly shown and must be set out in the space provided". Perhaps you can help us here, Simone, because I am confused.
-
Me too, Howard, but having re-read Simone's original post I can now see the point she is making - apologies for being slow on the uptake. :-[ It is that over ten different SMBC consultations, the average response rate was around 1%. Now I don't know what the response rate to each individual consultation was, but I'd lay a bet that the response to the parks and playgrounds consultation was a bit more than that. Which of course would mean that the response to the nine others was even less than 1% :(
-
Simone said "last year" - the parks consultation was this year so presumably isn't included.
-
Gosh! Those percentages were hard work, having re-read perhaps my posting was a little unclear, anyway we got there in the end.
Apologies, admin I did actually say "last year". What I actually meant to say was political year which is May to May, 2012/2013.
My understanding is that the parks consultation is not included in those figures.
-
The other thing about these consultations is exactly how are they communicated to us ? I don't know the answer bytheway but I can't see SMBC writing to all citizens or even households as that would probably cost more than the saving they are trying to make. If they are all online then that would discourage, even exclude people that don't have household access to a computer. I think that I read somewhere that, that figure is around 40%.