Cole and Fox Interior Design Marple | Romiley | Stockport

Author Topic: Fighting Dirty  (Read 53740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

marpleexile

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #116 on: December 04, 2012, 01:05:50 PM »
Also makes reference to a 3.5m high (11 1/2 foot) acoustic fence to maintain the acoustic criterion... could be an eyesore

Possibly, but what is there at the moment - my recollection is that it's quite tall wooden fence panels with tall bushes/scrubs, so would this actually be any worse, or just the same but different?

acoustician

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #115 on: December 04, 2012, 10:01:47 AM »
Also makes reference to a 3.5m high (11 1/2 foot) acoustic fence to maintain the acoustic criterion... could be an eyesore, seems a bit of a flimsy requirement which could possibly be challenged. Without it levels would be around 11-15dB higher.

More when i can read it properly.

acoustician

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #114 on: December 04, 2012, 09:54:40 AM »
Ive just seen this, and had a quick look through the acoustic report in the planning app.

Ive only skimmed at this stage, but interestingly, i did notice the criteria that has been set for noise is 5dB above the lowest measured background (bear with me). The criteria usually set in Stockport is 10dB below, meaning Asda have had it lenient to the tune of 15dB (a huge amount, its a logarithmic scale).

To put into context, If the noise is 10dB lower it would be generally inaudible. If the same it would increase by 3dB, a small but noticeable amount. If 10dB higher, its perceived as a doubling of volume. So 5dB is definitely noticeable. But to be fair, 5dB above is not an uncommon criterion elsewhere.

It says that this was agreed with the EHO in Stockport, but not which one...

Why do asda appear to have a far more generous criterion than elsewhere in Stockport?

Funny they used a consultancy based in Portsmouth(!) We were approached but declined...

Ill have a proper read through and see what else leaps out.

Ta

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #113 on: December 02, 2012, 05:47:27 PM »
Yes, lots to read there, although one of the most useful bits of information is easy to find on the front page: that the college's development at Buxton Lane involves the construction of '6,473 sqm of new educational floorspace, together with car parking and landscaping works, [and] construction of synthetic floodlight pitch'.

I've mentioned a couple of times before that there's a general assumed cost for the construction of educational buildings of around £1,500 per sq.m.  However, there's a document towards the bottom of the documents list, entitled 'Planning Statement Appendix 1', which gives actual estimates for the costs as follows: 

Remodelled Buxton Lane buildings: 1,100m2 £1.0M = £909 £/m2
New-build sports, street & teaching: 6,200m2 £11.0M = £1,774 £/m2
TOTAL COST: £12.1M


So the scheme involves spending a million on improvements to some of the existing buildings at Buxton Lane, and demolishing the rest, to be replaced by new build costing 11 million.   Obviously the gross area of new space has increased slightly since this document was produced, from 6,200 sq.m. to 6,473 sq.m.  And it's interesting to note in this document that the existing floor area of the college's two buildings amounts to 14,100 sq.m - so they will end up with just over half the space they currently occupy.  A tight fit! 

Section 3.0 of the same document also confirms reports that the college has a Plan B, for use in the event that the Asda scheme fails to get planning consent, and they have to dispose of the Hibbert Lane land for residential use for around £4.5 million.   This is inevitably a very limited scheme, in which all the existing Buxton Lane buildings are retained and remodelled, and a relatively small amount of additional new space (1,800 sq.m) is provided. 

Belly

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #112 on: December 02, 2012, 01:36:20 PM »
The planning application for Asda  is in Marple Library,it is a big application make sure you have plenty of time to read it........

Its also here...... http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=116256

Or at least some of it is..........  ???

bat man

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #111 on: December 02, 2012, 12:44:41 PM »
The planning application for Asda  is in Marple Library,it is a big application make sure you have plenty of time to read it........

simonesaffron

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #110 on: December 02, 2012, 09:03:22 AM »
Bowden Guy,

I thought you were going to follow that Cameronesque assertion with the word "madam" for a moment.

I think accusing someone of "financial mismanagement" is a bit more than an "opinion". I don't recall anybody going to jail for it but I can certainly think of a few who have had their careers ruined as a consequence of this allegation. Any way the point for me is that it shouldn't be made (like many allegations on this site) unless it can be evidenced and obviously it can't, so it is just idle, unintelligent speculation or if you like gossip.

With respect I think that everybody in the UK knows that if your survival is dependent upon some kind of public funding then you are under some kind of strain under the current political/economic climate. With this in mind CAMSFC is no different than any other institution of its kind.       

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #109 on: December 01, 2012, 02:02:50 PM »
Did Gordon Brown "mismanage" the UK economy leading to a massive national debt?

Not really, no.  In fact, some would argue that it was Brown who rescued the world banking system from complete and catastrophic collapse in October 2008!  But let's not go there - the last thing we want is Duke joining in......    ;D

Btw, what's the difference between mismanagement and maladministration?

Bowden Guy

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #108 on: December 01, 2012, 01:22:03 PM »
Calm down. To say something has been "mismanaged" is an opinion. Did Gordon Brown "mismanage" the UK economy leading to a massive national debt? If I write to him and accuse him of this,is he going to sue me? There is a significant difference between mismanagement and other accusations such as fraud, maladministration etc.

I make no comment about the effectiveness of financial management at this College. However, I certainly know that FE and Sixth Form Colleges are under huge financial strain at the moment due to severe cuts in funding rates from both main funding bodies.

simonesaffron

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #107 on: December 01, 2012, 10:57:01 AM »
I'm all for education - I earned my living from it for many years - but Camfsc, going back to its old days as Cheadle & Marple College has a history of financial mismanagement. It's to be hoped that when they've got their new all-singing, all-dancing, shiny new buildings they will also have got their act together and learned to do sums.


Henrietta, this is a libellous accusation. I am sure that you just threw this away like we often do and that you don't reslly mean it. CAMSFC may not be the best at community, public relations but there is no evidence of any kind that I've ever come across that suggests that they are guilty of ..."financial mismanagement". If you know different then like Dave I'd be interested in hearing about it.

I only hope for your sake that nobody from CAMSFC is reading this or you could find yourself on the wrong end of a libel action. If I can presume to advise, I'd retract now.

Remember, Lord McAlpine.     

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #106 on: December 01, 2012, 09:45:40 AM »
Cheadle & Marple College has a history of financial mismanagement.

That is a serious accusation, Henrietta.  Have you got any evidence to back it up?   

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #105 on: December 01, 2012, 06:25:34 AM »
I'm all for education - I earned my living from it for many years - but Camfsc, going back to its old days as Cheadle & Marple College has a history of financial mismanagement. It's to be hoped that when they've got their new all-singing, all-dancing, shiny new buildings they will also have got their act together and learned to do sums.

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
    • The Marple Website
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #104 on: October 22, 2012, 12:21:17 PM »
Not necessarily Dave.  Kirkland development have been in touch with the college before and may well do so once more.

We may well end up with another supermarket to challenge the Co-op and better facilities for the students yet without the proposed ASDA on Hibbert lane.

I've made a post relevant to this in the Chadwick St thread:

http://www.marple-uk.com/smf/index.php?topic=4619.msg27002#msg27002
Mark Whittaker
The Marple Website

Maria

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #103 on: October 22, 2012, 11:41:43 AM »
Not necessarily Dave.  Kirkland development have been in touch with the college before and may well do so once more.

We may well end up with another supermarket to challenge the Co-op and better facilities for the students yet without the proposed ASDA on Hibbert lane.


Dave

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #102 on: October 22, 2012, 10:48:34 AM »
From the outset, the camsfc/Asda scheme was a long shot, simply because the area is zoned for housing, not retail.  Many of us assumed that for this reason, the planning application would be turned down by SMBC.  However, it was also assumed that the application would then go to appeal, and that such an appeal might just succeed on the basis that:

1.   There is evidence that many or even most of us go outside Marple to do our supermarket shopping,
2.   A town of 23,000 people can support a decent sized-supermarket,
3.   Hibbert Lane was the only site which was both suitable and available,
4.   Government planning guidelines state that edge-of-centre sites can be developed where there is no suitable town-centre site.

However, now that the Chadwick Street scheme has been unveiled, with a 25,000 sq.ft retail area (the same as Hibbert Lane), that effectively disposes of most of the case which Asda and camsfc could have put forward at an appeal. 

In which case, as Simone points out, the Hibbert Lane scheme is now looking pretty unlikely.  Which probably puts paid to the college's development plan.  A win for MIA, of course - but the losers are the young people of Marple.   :'(