To advertise on this site

Linked Events

  • Chadwick St. Dev. Consultation: October 19, 2012 - October 20, 2012

Author Topic: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced  (Read 175144 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #358 on: February 06, 2014, 11:05:22 PM »
MiA this, MiA that! That's history, it doesn't matter
Agreed.

It is a great intro though, don't you think?
Also agreed.   :D

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8089
    • The Marple Website
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #357 on: February 06, 2014, 07:56:16 PM »
You're right, Mark, we all ought to get over it and move on.  On the other hand, there's nothing our councillors would like better than for us all to avert our eyes from the slow-motion car crash that's taking place - so I don't think we should!  

I'm not suggesting we stop talking about Chadwick Street - that's really important - or even start a NEW campaign for a Supermarket on Hibbert Lane if that's what you want. Go and meet with the college and try to influence their plans, form a pressure group, whatever - it's all this recycling about validity of old petitions and raking over what happened with a fine tooth comb - MiA this, MiA that! That's history, it doesn't matter - ASDA has gone. Move on and focus on achieving something positive for Marple, whatever you think that is.

It is a great intro though, don't you think?

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #356 on: February 06, 2014, 07:15:22 PM »
Presumably if Kirkland have no contractual obligations then, presumably, SMBC don’t either?
In which case why does the report prepared for Marple Area Committee recommend that SMBC throw some of the Council Tax payer’s cash at Kirkland?

Because if they don't, the whole scheme will collapse, leaving the way open for another planning application for a supermarket somewhere else (e.g. Hibbert Lane).  :o

You're right, Mark, we all ought to get over it and move on.  On the other hand, there's nothing our councillors would like better than for us all to avert our eyes from the slow-motion car crash that's taking place - so I don't think we should!  

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8089
    • The Marple Website
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #355 on: February 06, 2014, 06:52:34 PM »
Not been able to get this tune out of my head for a couple of days. Thankfully it's one of my favourites!

 

Franz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #354 on: February 06, 2014, 06:28:38 PM »
I agree with Tricky. I think the petition can be easily dismissed. It was started in August 2011 and by the end of October 2011 there were claims on the website that it had received 7500 signatures. That was at a time when Mr Hoyle claimed that Marple in Action represented the views of some 19,000 Marple residents and MIA was, as Tricky suggests, fat on a diet of ”development the size of  seven football pitches”, “swimming pool to be demolished to make way for a roundabout “ etc, etc. etc.

By the time the petition was presented, in December 2012, a great deal of information was available and scaremongering had of necessity been replaced by the consideration of facts. During that intervening fourteen month period the petition had apparently gained just 770 signatures. In addition MIA have always ignored suggestions that they should reveal just how many of the signatories were Marple residents. Somewhat less than 19,000 obviously.

No one has ever said that MIA had no support, there is obviously a hardcore. How many would you say were at the Marple Area Committee meeting, 200?

I believe that the numbers turning out for protest marches give some indication of the rate of evaporation of support among the general public. At the first such march in August 2011 the turnout was estimated to exceed 1000. It  was on a Saturday and the weather was good. The campaign was well and truly in la la land at the time but the fact that it was during the school holidays could have reduced the turnout.

There was another protest march on 7th July 2012, at the time of the first ASDA/CAMSFC public consultation. By then the campaign had found itself in the real world and MIA estimated the turnout at “around 200”. Again it was on a Saturday with fine weather, there was a similar campaign to raise support, and this time turnout would not have been affected by school holiday absentees.

Finally there was the march on 29th September 2012 at the time of the second public consultation. Again neither the weather nor school holidays were an issue and similar requests for support were made. To be honest I was staggered by tiny turnout of about 100 supporters. Subsequently MIA said virtually nothing about this march and  published no estimate of the numbers, which is hardly surprising. I can add to that the number of comments I heard at the July 2012 consultation to the effect that it all seemed quite reasonable and “I wouldn’t have signed the petition if I had known it was going to be like this”.
 
I  think it reasonable to describe a fall of 90% in public support as a dramatic decrease. It was always likely that support would fall when the facts were known and it became clear that the proposals were for a facility commensurate with the needs of Marple, not the nightmare scenario that MIA had endeavoured to portray, but nothing on this scale

Don’t spend a lot of time trying to analyse the terms of any contract between Kirkland and SMBC. There isn’t one and there never has been. It seems to be some sort of arrangement. This, of course gives rise to a host of questions which our councillors seem reluctant to answer.
Is this the way SMBC normally do business?
If not why was this one different?
Was it for any reason expected to be a temporary arrangement?
Presumably if Kirkland have no contractual obligations then, presumably, SMBC don’t either?
In which case why does the report prepared for Marple Area Committee recommend that SMBC throw some of the Council Tax payer’s cash at Kirkland?
To name a few.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #353 on: February 06, 2014, 04:36:06 PM »
There is a series of 'doubts' attributed o you on this website that have all happened

Such as?

What then do you think will happen to Hibbert Lane ?  

It will probably be used for housing - but there's no way that will happen within a year if there hasn't even  been a planning application.  

amazon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #352 on: February 06, 2014, 02:48:05 PM »
So tricky, you are saying that the views of 8000 + People of Marple are "useless."

They weren't all from Marple ...you made sure of that when you have people signing from Hyde and other areas ...... ........ Planning permission has not bean even sent in yet for Hibert lane . They are waiting .


Tricky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #351 on: February 06, 2014, 11:05:56 AM »
No.

I am saying that the petition generated by MIA before any plans were actually released, and signed by people who were told that a 24hr megastore would be arriving, demolishing the baths etc was worthless.
meh

simonesaffron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #350 on: February 06, 2014, 10:34:37 AM »
Sorry -"worthless."

simonesaffron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #349 on: February 06, 2014, 10:31:22 AM »
And?

It's worthless.



So tricky, you are saying that the views of 8000 + People of Marple are "useless."

Tricky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #348 on: February 06, 2014, 10:06:54 AM »
And?

It's worthless.

meh

simonesaffron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #347 on: February 06, 2014, 09:57:56 AM »
The petition that was collected BEFORE any plans were actually released.




And ?

simonesaffron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #346 on: February 06, 2014, 09:55:50 AM »
I doubt it - there hasn't even been a planning application yet! 

My bet is - nothing. 

Dave, I'm not surprised that you doubt it - you doubt everything until it has actually happened. There is a series of 'doubts' attributed o you on this website that have all happened - go on own up. You can't keep operating under a stable door/horse bolted policy.

What then do you think will happen to Hibbert Lane ?   

Tricky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #345 on: February 06, 2014, 09:39:06 AM »
Barbara, what about the 8000 plus signatory petition delivered to Council opposing ASDA'S plans

The petition that was collected BEFORE any plans were actually released.

meh

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
Re: Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced
« Reply #344 on: February 06, 2014, 09:11:00 AM »
Anyway, Hibbert  Lane is old hat now it will not be revisited and the site will contain houses within a year.

I doubt it - there hasn't even been a planning application yet! 

What is of great relevance here and now is what is going to happen to Trinity Street ?

My bet is - nothing.