Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: admin on May 13, 2014, 04:54:27 PM
-
Would you believe there are plans afoot to turn the toilets on Marple Recreation ground into a Barber Shop? No, I didn't either but here they are:
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120677
Marple Memorial Park has covenants on it preventing the buildings being used for commercial purposes. The Rec was given to the community around the same time and may or may not have similar ones. Those who wish to object to this are advised to seek details of the covenants from Stockport Council. It may need a FOI request if they are not forthcoming. Looks like the Rec needs that Friends Group desperately!
Then again, perhaps some will think it's a good idea?
-
Would you believe there are plans afoot to turn the toilets on Marple Recreation ground into a Barber Shop? No, I didn't either but here they are:
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120677
Marple Memorial Park has covenants on it preventing the buildings being used for commercial purposes. The Rec was given to the community around the same time and may or may not have similar ones. Those who wish to object to this are advised to seek details of the covenants from Stockport Council. It may need a FOI request if they are not forthcoming. Looks like the Rec needs that Friends Group desperately!
Then again, perhaps some will think it's a good idea?
What an odd change of use. Almost as many barber shops as estate agents in Marple these days. FOI submitted, nothing ventured, nothing gained, etc.
Thanks for spotting and highlighting this, admin.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/covenants_on_marple_rec/new (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/covenants_on_marple_rec/new)
-
Marple Recreation field was given to the people of Marple by Walter Hodgkinson and the laying out of the children's play area, with swings etc, was paid for by Thomas Carver. The opening ceremony was on the 8th October 1910. There have always been public toilets as part of the facilities on the Rec. The present toilets, (closed!) for which a change of use to Barbers shop has been applied for, (!) replace the original toilets. I have always understood that the gift given by Walter Hodgkinson was given under covenant to protect the Rec. (and its facilities) for recreational use only and not for commercial use but I have been unable to verify this.
I understand that Stockport MBC Planning department say they know nothing about the existance of a covenant presumably because they want to get rid of their closed public toilet and want to sell/rent the building for commercial use. Its the thin end of the wedge. If this planning application for change of use to barbers shop succeeds it will leave the door wide open for other retail development on the Rec. A chip shop or a betting shop could replace the barbers shop. There is an area of Marple for retail development and a number of vacant shop premises that may well be suitable for use as a Barbers shop. If you want tourists to come to Marple you need public toilets!
Precedents from the past. A small area of the Rec at the apex where Arkwright Road and Strines Road meet was given later by another land owner and is not protected by this covenant. In the 1960's a planning application to build a Scouts HQ on this apex was refused by Marple UDC after a vigorious campaign by local residents. In the 1990's (I think) a temporary use by contractors undertaking replacement of sewers on Stockport Road to use the greater part of the Rec. given by Walter Hodgkinson for storage of materials, pipes and equipment was refused by Stockport MBC, after action by local resident, on the grounds that the Rec. was protected by a covenant. In 2011 the apex of the Rec not protected by a covenant was used by contractors repairing walls on Strines Road.
If you care about Marple make your views known about this proposed change of use.
Stockport Planning Applications planning ref. 055217
Marple Rec. is not what it used to be. Last week without prior consultation Stockport MBC destroyed the remaining swings on the children's play area that Thomas Carver paid for 104 years ago.
-
Yes, quite a surprising turn of events!
On the one hand, I have to confess to a sneaking admiration to this Mr Grantham, the 'demon barber' of Hyde, who is obviously an imaginative and enterprising guy!
However, I'm with Winefred on this. We need to do everything we can, especially at local election time, to remind our dear councillors (who only want to talk about potholes, it seems) that we strongly object to the closure of public amenities such as toilets and childrens' play equipment, and that they should be reinstated as soon as finances allow. If the public loo at the rec becomes a barbers shop, that makes it even less likely that it will ever be a public loo again, obviously.
-
It's currently a derelict building. Someone proposes to use it and tidy it up. What on earth is the problem with that? It is hardly going to attract 1000 cars an hour after all! It is probably more useful to the people of Marple than some of the rather optimistic start-ups on Market Street or Stockport Road.
There is plenty of other building on "covenanted" land ... Marple Band's extended premises on the Memorial Park, football clubhouse in Brabyns Park: none of these cause any explosion of wrath in Marple. They seem - like this - to be perfectly reasonable. I may be wrong but I believe I once read that the original covenants for either the Memorial Park or Brabyns Park strictly forbade ball games; goodness knows what they would have made of skate parks.
I don't condone the council closing lots of public toilets or removing children's play apparatus (although I don't seriously believe the climbing frame and swings dated from 1910). However, you have plenty of chance to vote these councillors out in a week's time. A better place for public toilets would be near to public buildings (like the library or main shopping area).
-
A better place for public toilets would be near to public buildings (like the library or main shopping area).
Well yes, but if/when the swings etc are reinstated (and we should not give up on that), then having the public toilet there as well would make sense. And last time I looked the toilets near the library were still open - the only public loo in Marple! ::)
-
A dirty scruffy urinal that was constantly vandalised when it was open, costing the council taxpayer thousands in repair bills. Now a boarded up disused dirty building falling into dilapidation. Proposal an on going business that will clean the place up, provide a service to the community and put money in the economy - what's the problem? We should be supporting it not condemning it.
As for 100 year old covenants, nobody that was involved in their implementation is alive to today. So who cares about them, not me. They should all be reviewed anyway.
As for the Councillors, they are the political arm of the Council they don't manage the operation. It won't be the Councillors who decided that the park apparatus should be dismantled. If it had have been they would have done it 3 weeks after the election not 3 weeks before it.
As the man says vote them out if you don't want them. See if what we get is any better although somehow I doubt that it would be.
I've no love for Councillors wholesale. In fact the whole local government process is ignoble and needs a complete root and branch reform both at officer and politician level. However, the one thing that we've established over the years on this website is that Councillors definitely don't post on it, they probably don't even read it either. So criticising them on here is cowardly and is an easy mark especially when we're hiding behind false names to do it and especially when many of the posters obviously have a complete ignorance of how the Council actually operates .
-
As for the Councillors, they are the political arm of the Council they don't manage the operation. It won't be the Councillors who decided that the park apparatus should be dismantled.
Sorry, but that won't wash. The councillors may not directly 'manage the operation', but they are responsible for what the council does. It's called 'democracy!'
Its also worth noting that this Council have massively increased the toilet provision across the town by getting retailer, pubs etc to open their toilets to none customers as much safer and cleaner alternative to old Victorian urinals.
I wouldn't mind if our councillors were honest and simply said 'We're sorry we've had to close the public toilets. We know it's a very sad day when such basic amenities are removed. But we've got no choice, as the government has cut our funding so drastically'.
But they don't, they insult our intelligence by trying to pretend it's a good thing, for heaven's sake! So you get the party line, as issued above by wheels. Now maybe this works in some places: if there happens to be a pub or cafe nearby, and it happens to be open, then they may allow you to use the loo. But all too often, there isn't. Take Mellor rec, for example, where parents have always liked to take their kids after school. The loo there is closed, and when I raised this with a councillor, he airily said 'it's OK, you can use the toilets at the Devonshire' - but you can't, because it's closed!
The public domain matters. Parks, libraries, playgrounds, public toilets, they are all important, and we should not allow politicians to suggest otherwise. If we allow them to go, I fear they will go for good, and we'll never get them back!
-
Dave,
Thinking that Councillors run the Council is a bit like thinking that MP's run the country. They might invent the laws but they don't implement them and they don't interpret them.
You can hold them responsible as much as you want to and call it 'democracy' as often as you wish too but you are just theorizing and holding somebody responsible that in reality has played no part in the actual decision is just self - delusion .
As for not telling people that drastic cuts are upon us. It seems to me that Councillors do nothing else but give out this message. Every time I open a newspaper or tune into telly/radio there always seems to be some Councillor giving forth about government cuts to local authorities. In fact their "honesty" is becoming tedious.
-
I'd be hesitant about going in and asking for 'a number 2 all over'.
-
. Looks like the Rec needs that Friends Group desperately!
The Rec may need its Friends Group but there doesn't seem to be any interest from those who should be its Friends. Plenty of complaining about "Them" but no-one seems to want to get involved in standing up to "Them".
-
Re the practical side of the application - would the toilet building have room for a barber's shop given that there needs to be a waiting area as well as a "cutting" area or does the application involve demolishing the existing building and rebuilding on the site?
There would also be parking issues.
-
The Rec may need its Friends Group but there doesn't seem to be any interest from those who should be its Friends. Plenty of complaining about "Them" but no-one seems to want to get involved in standing up to "Them".
That's normall .
-
Re the practical side of the application - would the toilet building have room for a barber's shop given that there needs to be a waiting area as well as a "cutting" area or does the application involve demolishing the existing building and rebuilding on the site?
There would also be parking issues.
The application shows that the plan is simply to convert the existing building. See
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120677
I don't see why parking should be a problem. There is plenty of roadside parking next to the rec.
As for this: Thinking that Councillors run the Council is a bit like thinking that MP's run the country.
I entirely agree - the analogy is a good one. MPs do indeed run the country, and Councillors run councils, and on Thursday we will be holding them responsible for their decisions - at least, those of us who can be bothered to vote! ::)
-
It's a little confusing Dave, that you are holding them responsible for their actions - by voting for them.
-
Maybe I'll be voting against them ;)
-
The application shows that the plan is simply to convert the existing building. See
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120677
I don't see why parking should be a problem. There is plenty of roadside parking next to the rec.
Yes, there is some roadside parking next to the rec and at times of heavy (and not so heavy) traffic it's a nuisance. There is "domestic" and commercial parking on the opposite side of the road and double decker buses use the road. I use that stretch of road at various times during the working day and traffic is frequently held up on Possett Bridge because the road is blocked by parked vehicles on the nearside and buses and/or other large vehicles coming the other way and this causes delays for cars using Stockport Rd/Strines Rd as well as those turning into Oldknow Road. There is already a problem with cars parking on the rec side of Strines Road and obscuring the view of traffic coming from the Strines direction for vehicles turning out of Oldknow Road onto Stockport Road.
-
Maybe I'll be voting against them ;)
I think that you said in a previous post that you would be voting for (Abell), Lib Dems. Fair enough you're allowed to change your mind.
The problem as I see it now in Marple is that the Lib Dems are so entrenched in the issues; E.G. Semms, Chadwick Street Supermarket, Windlehurst Park etc etc and they dominate politics in Marple so much, that if anybody else came in these issues would be resolved before they knew and understood how it all works. That is the reason in my opinion why people vote for the status quo or at least enough of them do.
-
Well remembered Simone. Actually I wrote of Mr Abell
I guess he'll probably get my vote.
... but I'm still thinking about it!
Re Henrietta's concern about parking around the rec, given the tiny size of the proposed barber's shop I doubt whether there will ever be more than one or two customers parked there.
-
Picking up on this earlier comment by wheels:
Its also worth noting that this Council have massively increased the toilet provision across the town by getting retailer, pubs etc to open their toilets to none customers as much safer and cleaner alternative to old Victorian urinals
Marple and Mellor have had public toilets closed at Rose Hill, Derby Way, Marple Recreation Ground and Mellor Recreation Ground.
The only public toilet to remain open is in Marple Memorial Park and that is thanks to the campaign by Friends of Marple Memorial Park and Marple Civic Society to keep it open.
When the proposals to close all these toilets were first aired there was a undertaking not to do so until partners had been found to provide three "Community Toilets" for each public toilet to be closed.
So please substantiate the statement that "this Council have massively increased the toilet provision across the town"
Where are the 12 new "Community Toilets" that should have replaced the public toilets closed at Rose Hill, Derby Way, Marple Rec and Mellor Rec?
And if there are any at all, how does anyone know? Where are the Community Toilet signs making the public aware of their existence?
Also, as an aside, which of those public toilets closed in Marple and Mellor were Victorian?
-
I think that you said in a previous post that you would be voting for (Abell), Lib Dems. Fair enough you're allowed to change your mind.
The problem as I see it now in Marple is that the Lib Dems are so entrenched in the issues; E.G. Semms, Chadwick Street Supermarket, Windlehurst Park etc etc and they dominate politics in Marple so much, that if anybody else came in these issues would be resolved before they knew and understood how it all works. That is the reason in my opinion why people vote for the status quo or at least enough of them do.
Simone, I am sure its not your intention but you make it sound as if its the Lib Dems fault that that they are well entrenched in the community. There seems to me an unwillingness amongst the other parties to actually do anything other than at election time.
-
Dragging this conversation to where it started.
Part of me says if there are covenants they should be respected. Part of me says, the building is there, I'm amazed anyone can make a use of it but better that than watch it slowly decay as I can't see its original function being resurrected and the impact on traffic,as others have pointed out, is likely to be pretty minimal
-
Simone, I am sure its not your intention but you make it sound as if its the Lib Dems fault that that they are well entrenched in the community. There seems to me an unwillingness amongst the other parties to actually do anything other than at election time.
There are many aspects here Wheels. Other political parties can't really do much in Marple as they don't have any elected Councillors. Therefore they have no mandate and thus no power.
I don't see it as a fault of the Lib Dems that they are entrenched in the community. In fact if anything it is probably more like a compliment to them. In substantiation of what you say I drove over from Marple to High- Lane yesterday and Windlehurst / Hibbert Lane was festooned with Libdem posters. I didn't see one single poster for any other party. Then when I arrived in High Lane - Lib Dem Posters again, so they probably deserve their election victories for the hard work that they put into their campaigns. However being good campaigners (which they undoubtedly are) and being good for the community are not the same thing.
-
I accept that. Certainly I don't think the two Marple seats are going to provide the interest at tomorrows count.
-
Part of me says if there are covenants they should be respected. Part of me says, the building is there, I'm amazed anyone can make a use of it but better that than watch it slowly decay as I can't see its original function being resurrected and the impact on traffic,as others have pointed out, is likely to be pretty minimal
I tend to agree with corium about covenants - surely they can't be regarded as lasting for ever! But I don't agree that we should regard the closure of public toilets as irreversible. At the moment we have a right-wing government which doesn't believe in local councils providing good services - if they did they wouldn't be cutting their funding so severely. But in twelve months time we may have a very different government, and its priorities will, hopefully, be different too. You can always hope.......
Incidentally, I see wheels was on this thread yesterday, but strangely he didn't answer's Admin's questions. I wonder why..... ;)
-
Why ????? Because I had more important things to do yesterday Dave
-
I tend to agree with corium about covenants - surely they can't be regarded as lasting for ever! But I don't agree that we should regard the closure of public toilets as irreversible. At the moment we have a right-wing government which doesn't believe in local councils providing good services - if they did they wouldn't be cutting their funding so severely. But in twelve months time we may have a very different government, and its priorities will, hopefully, be different too. You can always hope.......
Incidentally, I see wheels was on this thread yesterday, but strangely he didn't answer's Admin's questions. I wonder why..... ;)
From the Department of Planning and Community Development's site
"Special rules for permit applications
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) sets special rules about planning permit applications for use or development that would breach a registered restrictive covenant.
An application for land that is burdened by a registered restrictive covenant must be accompanied by a copy of the covenant. If the application is for something that would result in a breach of the covenant, it must also be accompanied by information clearly identifying each lot benefited by the covenant (refer to section 47(1) of the Act).
Section 61(4) of the Act provides that a planning permit cannot be granted for something that would result in a breach of a registered restrictive covenant unless a planning permit is also granted to remove or vary the covenant.
This means, for example, that a planning permit to erect a three metre high fence cannot be issued if there is a covenant restricting fences on the property to two metres in height. A planning permit for a three metre high fence can only be granted if the covenant is removed or varied first or at the same time to allow a higher fence.
Section 61(4) is designed to:
stop planning permits being granted for use or development in isolation from the need to remove or vary the covenant
avoid the need for affected land owners to respond to separate applications
stop projects proceeding in breach of a covenant in the mistaken belief that a planning permit for the use or development authorised the breach."
Didn't someone say that SMBC couldn't find a copy of the covenant? I think I could make a suggestion about where they should look but I'm not inclined to help them out if it's likely to result in the end of the covenant.
-
Yes, there is some roadside parking next to the rec and at times of heavy (and not so heavy) traffic it's a nuisance. There is "domestic" and commercial parking on the opposite side of the road and double decker buses use the road. I use that stretch of road at various times during the working day and traffic is frequently held up on Possett Bridge because the road is blocked by parked vehicles on the nearside and buses and/or other large vehicles coming the other way and this causes delays for cars using Stockport Rd/Strines Rd as well as those turning into Oldknow Road. There is already a problem with cars parking on the rec side of Strines Road and obscuring the view of traffic coming from the Strines direction for vehicles turning out of Oldknow Road onto Stockport Road.
Further to the parking issue there are double yellow lines on most of the rec side of the road.
-
According to Marple Civic Society a covenant prohibiting commercial use of the Recreation Ground has been identified by the council and the planning application for change of use will therefore be withdraw.
-
According to Marple Civic Society a covenant prohibiting commercial use of the Recreation Ground has been identified by the council and the planning application for change of use will therefore be withdrawn.
I'd be a bit brassed off if I was the person who had submitted the planning application! I assume it's the council who put up the "To Lease" boards inviting commercial enterprise to make use of the dormant facilities. I think the council should have done their homework first and identified the covenant and its restrictions.
-
To be fair to the council (well, why not - there's always a first time!), the sale/lease document they issued doesn't actually suggest that the building could be put to commercial use, though what other use they had in mind is hard to imagine.
This is the relevant document: http://property.nps.co.uk/usr/library/documents/main/231/convenience-sites-details-2012.pdf
In a section headed 'Planning', the prospective purchaser or tenant is 'advised to contact the Council’s Planning Office (Tel. 0161 480 4949) to seek advice on their proposed alternative use of the respective premises.'
Assuming the applicant made that phone call, it does look as though he didn't get very good advice. I'd be pretty cross about that - it costs money to submit a planning application.
-
It's been for sale for some time, in fact Stockport council ran it's own estate agents complete with 5 staff and swanky office in Cheadle to promote it's sale along with a massive 9 other properties.
I'd not be so sure a barbers would work so well, better as an ice cream kiosk but good luck to the entrepreeurs.
When I lived in the south, the local authority sold off the changing rooms at the sports fields with a cevenent that they had to be used as changing rooms. We got a cafe, a bar and various vending machines in place of a miserable council worker and cold showers, it was a massive step forward.
-
Now that the planning application has been withdrawn I thought you might like to see how the Recreation Ground looked soon after Walter Hodgkinson donated it to the community in October 1910.
Notice the pathways running to the water fountain and the elaborate gardens around the toilets compared to today.
Also the Boys and Girls swings and separate ones for under 6s.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Lovely picture! And quite thought provoking. We like to think we live in better times than they did 100 years ago, but we don't seem to be able to provide our children with play facilities as good as those. :(
-
We like to think we live in better times than they did 100 years ago, but we don't seem to be able to provide our children with play facilities as good as those.
Come on Dave ... the facilities for small kids/teenagers in Memorial Park are better now than they've ever been!
-
The picture doesn't show you the bullying that would have been going on, just as bulling has always gone on in Parks.
Why do people always go gooey eyed over black and white photos.
-
Lovely picture! And quite thought provoking. We like to think we live in better times than they did 100 years ago, but we don't seem to be able to provide our children with play facilities as good as those. :(
No Health and safety like there is now .easy come easy go in them days .
-
Lovely picture! And quite thought provoking. We like to think we live in better times than they did 100 years ago, but we don't seem to be able to provide our children with play facilities as good as those. :(
Private enterprise works, we expect the state to provide it all now.
-
No Health and safety like there is now .easy come easy go in them days .
Tour not suggesting that's a good thing are you Amazon
-
Private enterprise works
Oh good. Looking forward to the day private enterprise replaces the swings at the rec. And when it does, perhaps Duke could arrange for it to re-open the public loo as well. Thanks Duke!
-
Late reply to this topic but does anyone know if there is anything to stop the Rec being returned to a football pitch??? If funding could be secured to improve drainage etc what would local community think????
-
Late reply to this topic but does anyone know if there is anything to stop the Rec being returned to a football pitch??? If funding could be secured to improve drainage etc what would local community think????
Hi Lee, I don't believe that there is anything stopping it apart from funds. The Rec needs a Friends of Group to fight for it. I know that there are a number of people who live near there interested but they need someone to pull them altogether. Also need to find out who is responsible for the flooding - I understand that there's a load of utility work been done around there and this may be related to the mess it is currently in but not certain of that. I believe that the football pitch would have to be available to all to satisfy the covenants but don't see why that would be an issue.
-
Hi Lee, I don't believe that there is anything stopping it apart from funds. The Rec needs a Friends of Group to fight for it. I know that there are a number of people who live near there interested but they need someone to pull them altogether. Also need to find out who is responsible for the flooding - I understand that there's a load of utility work been done around there and this may be related to the mess it is currently in but not certain of that. I believe that the football pitch would have to be available to all to satisfy the covenants but don't see why that would be an issue.
Sadly, when a "Friends of the Rec" was mooted earlier in this discussion there was a resounding silence.
I see that the "No Horse Riding" sign has disappeared. ('S'OK folks, I won't be taking advantage of this. My horse doesn't live in Marple) I'm surprised not to have seen lots of Tory Horse Riders taking it over ;)