Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Sale of Hibbert Lane Campus to Supermarket Chain => Topic started by: Duke Fame on August 04, 2011, 12:33:21 PM
-
It appears a few 'Say NO' signs were nabbed last night.
I'm sure it will just be high jinx from teenagers but it makes it more fun to get signs out again and raise awareness. If they get nicked again, it may be a light hearted news spot on local telly / local papers.
-
My mum and dads neighbour had his ripped off his gate over the weekend, and somebody saw a red car pull up and a young male got out , saw him rip it off! then sped off. Today they had there own sign ripped away too!!! a few people have said they have seen the same red car, doing it!,
-
can i suggest sticking them down on something more solid.. pieces of wood etc then nailing them somewhere.. that way idiots will take a while to get them off and you will hear them and you can do something about it whether take pics of them and the car or stop them... might even put them off if it doesnt come off on first try.
-
Most of the posters I've seen are in people's windows, they should be safe and seen from there!
-
can i suggest sticking them down on something more solid.. pieces of wood etc then nailing them somewhere.. that way idiots will take a while to get them off and you will hear them and you can do something about it whether take pics of them and the car or stop them... might even put them off if it doesnt come off on first try.
Thanks for that Lisa,They were just a quick fix to get the word out.More, hopefully permanent ones were aqquired last week and are being prepared as we speak. ;)
-
few mnore nicked and moved on Hibbert Lane last night , heard kids about 2:00 this morning , one hitting one of the signs he had uprooted on the gate of the college , another that was on the tree at the top of buxton lane has been set on fire >:(
-
few mnore nicked and moved on Hibbert Lane last night , heard kids about 2:00 this morning , one hitting one of the signs he had uprooted on the gate of the college , another that was on the tree at the top of buxton lane has been set on fire >:(
Thats interseting, I seem to recall someone on the "yes to tesco" facebook page mentioning setting a sign on fire.
But i'm not sure who it was,
-
I am admin and I have not seen any posts like this, I have removed other commens and pictures posted that are classed as offensive. I can assure you that the admins of this group are not interested in taking signs down and defacing peoples properties. There's good and bad in every group of people.
-
few mnore nicked and moved on Hibbert Lane last night , heard kids about 2:00 this morning , one hitting one of the signs he had uprooted on the gate of the college , another that was on the tree at the top of buxton lane has been set on fire >:(
Thats interesting, I seem to recall someone on the "yes to tesco" facebook page mentioning setting a sign on fire.
But i'm not sure who it was,
I think Daniel you might be referring to a post I made on there about half an hour ago asking for calm and for no insults or threats to be made on the page. I aslo made a plee that after reading Martyns post on here about the posters being set on fire that we do not want people on the yes side to be involved in that behaviour. To my knowledge no one has said they have set fire to one.
Stop trying to stir things up. why have you clicked 'like' on the page if you are a 'no'?
-
I'm not trying to stir things, mearly stating that I read someone saying something about the burning signs.
If however, my post offended you in any way I must apologise, It was not ment to in any way shape or form :)
Back to topic :
Is it possible for MIA to arrange the replacement of some signs with more perminant fixtures? the current ones look a little bit worn down,
-
Had a walk round the centre today during my visit to the dentist.... how come I only saw one shop (Crafty Ladies) actually displaying the 'No Supermarket' poster....
I would have thought all the traders would have been displaying them... clearly, on windows, on view to the outside world..... (just asking ??)
-
Had a walk round the centre today during my visit to the dentist.... how come I only saw one shop (Crafty Ladies) actually displaying the 'No Supermarket' poster....
I would have thought all the traders would have been displaying them... clearly, on windows, on view to the outside world..... (just asking ??)
I saw more than that last time I looked - definitely in Paul Howard, Alan the Paint, Kay Dee, Inkbox and Helen Wintersons too.
-
Still not very many though........ maybe more will join in.
-
also in Littlewoods, Whites, All things Nice, Trek and Travel, Beadesaurus, Marple Chiropractor, Marple News, Antique Rose, SVC Lighting, and myself!
-
Personally I suspect the more sensible shop owners will think twice before they take sides on this issue. I doubt whether a shop displaying a 'No' poster will gain any custom from it, but they might lose some. I am certainly trying to avoid those shops showing the poster at present, because I don't think local businesses should be opposing a scheme which will enhance our educational facilities.
-
which will enhance our educational facilities.
And your proof for that is please?
-
I doubt whether a shop displaying a 'No' poster will gain any custom from it, but they might lose some.
Any proof to back this point up? Otherwise its just "pointless scaremongering"
-
which will enhance our educational facilities.
And your proof for that is please?
Because, at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, £12 million will buy a whole lot more improvements than £4 million.
-
I doubt whether a shop displaying a 'No' poster will gain any custom from it, but they might lose some.
Any proof to back this point up? Otherwise its just "pointless scaremongering"
No proof - it's just my opinion. Hence my use of the words 'doubt' and 'might'. We shall have to wait and see.
-
I am certainly trying to avoid those shops showing the poster at present, because I don't think local businesses should be opposing a scheme which will enhance our educational facilities.
Dave, you have posted the sentence above as a statement of fact; "will enhance". No proof at all, just more speculation, yet this is precisely what you are continually criticising other forum members for...do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy?
-
I am certainly trying to avoid those shops showing the poster at present, because I don't think local businesses should be opposing a scheme which will enhance our educational facilities.
Dave, you have posted the sentence above as a statement of fact; "will enhance". No proof at all, just more speculation, yet this is precisely what you are continually criticising other forum members for...do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy?
How is this speculation? The whole raisaon d'etre for the College selling their land is to for them to seek to improve their facilities, by raising money to create a campus that will meet 21st century needs. If that is not a fact, then surely the 50+ page thread it has generated is simply speculation about speculation and we should all just pack it in.
-
Improving their educational facilities...I agree, that is what the college is selling the land for. Improving our educational facilities...is a different matter. Many public services are looking at how their services are delivered and part and parcel of these considerations are the costs involved in running multiple sites. We don't really know the intentions of CAMSFC, apart from flogging the land.
-
The college have never said that the money will definitely go to improve the Buxton lane site. I think its something many presume. I am very concerned we will lose the college all together eventually and this is just a first step.. And if thats the case we will have little chance of fighting it.
-
The college have never said that the money will definitely go to improve the Buxton lane site. I think its something many presume. I am very concerned we will lose the college all together eventually and this is just a first step.. And if thats the case we will have little chance of fighting it.
It's a good question. Would be a little remiss to just assume that it'll get spent on Buxton Lane. We're due an answer very shortly to a FOI concerning details of what CAMSFC intend to do with the proceeds, see FOI : Plans concerning proceeds from proposed Hibbert Lane sale (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/plans_concerning_proceeds_from_p).
-
The college have never said that the money will definitely go to improve the Buxton lane site.
We don't really know the intentions of CAMSFC, apart from flogging the land.
The Chairman of Governors' statement, issued back in July, spells it out: 'There is no doubt that the Marple campus of Cheadle & Marple Sixth Form College is in need of urgent investment and we must sell the land at Hibbert Lane to afford this investment.'
Think about it......
1. They intend to invest in the Marple Campus.
2. In order to do that, they will sell the Hibbert Lane part.
3. That just leaves the other part to invest in.
It's as simple as that.
Improving their educational facilities...I agree, that is what the college is selling the land for. Improving our educational facilities...is a different matter.
I can't get my mind round that! They are our educational facilities - after all, they're not much use to the college if our kids and grandkids don't go there!
-
I'm afraid it's not 'as simple as that'. There's nothing concrete regarding CAMSFC's plans in the public arena. As stated, given their shenanigans so far, I agree with Lisa in that it may be remiss to assume all the proceeds would be spent on Buxton Lane.
Re my previous post, it's simple Dave, you said 'our' educational facilities. They aren't 'ours' they are CAMSFC's and what they do with them, what level of investment there is, and what will be based at Buxton Lane etc just isn't known.
-
I'm afraid it's not 'as simple as that'. There's nothing concrete regarding CAMSFC's plans in the public arena. As stated, given their shenanigans so far, I agree with Lisa in that it may be remiss to assume all the proceeds would be spent on Buxton Lane.
Re my previous post, it's simple Dave, you said 'our' educational facilities. They aren't 'ours' they are CAMSFC's and what they do with them, what level of investment there is, and what will be based at Buxton Lane etc just isn't known.
Indeed.
The gym and sports hall are "ours" (i.e. facility for the community) but they're to be bulldozed as part of the supermarket build.
And until CAMSFC lift their veil of secrecy, I remain to be convinced whether flattening an entire college site and cramming all 2,000 students into Buxton Lane should be considered an improvement.
-
I agree that the college has not handled this matter very cleverly so far - trying to hush it up from the outset was completely the wrong thing to do - after all, it was always going to become public at some stage. So no wonder it has now backfired on them. ::)
That said, the college can't have the faintest idea what they are going to get for the Hibbert Lane site, if they go ahead with trying to sell it. If a supermarket can get planning consent, then we are told it might sell for £12 million or more. If they can't get that consent, and the land is sold for another use, it could be £4 million or less. So we're not going to see anything 'concrete' for quite a while - in more senses than one ;D
-
I agree that the college has not handled this matter very cleverly so far - trying to hush it up from the outset was completely the wrong thing to do - after all, it was always going to become public at some stage. So no wonder it has now backfired on them. ::)
That said, the college can't have the faintest idea what they are going to get for the Hibbert Lane site, if they go ahead with trying to sell it. If a supermarket can get planning consent, then we are told it might sell for £12 million or more. If they can't get that consent, and the land is sold for another use, it could be £4 million or less. So we're not going to see anything 'concrete' for quite a while - in more senses than one ;D
CAMSFC have recently registered the land to set it up for sale with a value confirmed in the land registry documents of £12 million. I know it is not binding but seems unlikely they would sell for less than that-goes against their statement of intent to sell for, as confirmed by Andrew Hubert, the maximum value. If it is 'worth' £12 million they will not sell for less. Again my opinion and I await the backlash as a result!
-
CAMSFC have recently registered the land to set it up for sale with a value confirmed in the land registry documents of £12 million. I know it is not binding but seems unlikely they would sell for less than that-goes against their statement of intent to sell for, as confirmed by Andrew Hubert, the maximum value. If it is 'worth' £12 million they will not sell for less. Again my opinion and I await the backlash as a result!
Not just your opinion, maria - it's the inevitable outcome, because as the college's chair of governors has pointed out in his statement, 'The College, being a public body, must always act in the best interests of our students and is duty bound to accept the highest offer without fear or favour.' MIA are wrong to assume that if a supermarket offered £12 million for the site, the college could still choose to sell it to a housing developer for less. They would not be allowed to do that.
-
CAMSFC have recently registered the land to set it up for sale with a value confirmed in the land registry documents of £12 million. I know it is not binding but seems unlikely they would sell for less than that-goes against their statement of intent to sell for, as confirmed by Andrew Hubert, the maximum value. If it is 'worth' £12 million they will not sell for less. Again my opinion and I await the backlash as a result!
Not just your opinion, maria - it's the inevitable outcome, because as the college's chair of governors has pointed out in his statement, 'The College, being a public body, must always act in the best interests of our students and is duty bound to accept the highest offer without fear or favour.' MIA are wrong to assume that if a supermarket offered £12 million for the site, the college could still choose to sell it to a housing developer for less. They would not be allowed to do that.
The price has been set high for a purpose and has been registered for the same reason. They are allowed to sell to whom they choose in reality.
-
They are allowed to sell to whom they choose in reality.
Not quite. They would not be allowed to sell to anyone other than whoever makes the best offer, as the Chair of Governors has stated.
-
They are allowed to sell to whom they choose in reality.
Not quite. They would not be allowed to sell to anyone other than whoever makes the best offer, as the Chair of Governors has stated.
Best offer does not always mean highest price. In this case to the college it does therefore I can never see them selling to say a housing development, the supermarket owners will simply keep applying for planning permission as they always do until they get it. Greed, not need, is the driving factor here in my opinion!
-
Best offer does not always mean highest price.
What else could it mean?
-
Best offer does not always mean highest price.
What else could it mean?
I suppose it could mean the difference between "cost" and "value". Cost could mean a lump sum all in one go whereas value might be a larger overall sum but paid over a few years or with additional payments once certain conditions have been met (gaining planing permission for a supermarket, for example).
No inside knowledge here, just some recognition that best offer isn't always the highest.
-
The key issue is the governors' responsibility for 'the effective and efficient use of resources, the solvency of the institution and the Corporation and safeguarding their assets', which is the relevant clause from the standard Articles of Government of sixth form colleges. I believe that the present legal interpretation of 'safeguarding assets' includes the expectation that if any assets are disposed of, it must be for the best available value. Hence the Chairman's reference to the college being 'duty bound to accept the highest offer without fear or favour.'
-
Convenient that 90% of 'NO' signs were removed from gardens on hibbert lane near the college last night ready for their photoshoot , just shows what immature scallys we are dealing with. Radio interview was comical also , scaremongering about house depreciation ....... Lets get one thing straight , if you are lucky enough to own your own house (as some don't and it wouldn't affect them) on Hibbert Lane very near to where the supermarket would be built , depreciation of house value is a certainty.
-
Convenient that 90% of 'NO' signs were removed from gardens on hibbert lane near the college last night ready for their photoshoot , just shows what immature scallys we are dealing with. Radio interview was comical also , scaremongering about house depreciation ....... Lets get one thing straight , if you are lucky enough to own your own house (as some don't and it wouldn't affect them) on Hibbert Lane very near to where the supermarket would be built , depreciation of house value is a certainty.
How do you know it was them? Why resort to name calling?
-
Convenient that 90% of 'NO' signs were removed from gardens on hibbert lane near the college last night ready for their photoshoot , just shows what immature scallys we are dealing with. Radio interview was comical also , scaremongering about house depreciation ....... Lets get one thing straight , if you are lucky enough to own your own house (as some don't and it wouldn't affect them) on Hibbert Lane very near to where the supermarket would be built , depreciation of house value is a certainty.
Very childish to blame the yes people...Yes posters have also been taken down, as quick as they are put up they are taken down, but I can't see any yes people throwing accusations about? I'm no scally for your information, I have 2 jobs and own my own house, why do you all presume the worst in people? A supermarket for some residents is appealing, and not so for others. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion and should not be slagged off . MIA keep saying its not a class war but alot of you are making it sound like that with disrespectful post's like this 1!
-
Oh goodness me ! Let's not have another bun fight over a few posters ! Don't forget I am supposed to be Marple's working class hero :D. As someone kindly pointed out on this very forum lol :D.
-
Oh goodness me ! Let's not have another bun fight over a few posters ! Don't forget I am supposed to be Marple's working class hero :D. As someone kindly pointed out on this very forum lol :D.
Its not a bun fight MM. I was only pointing out that you can not blame the yes people for removing posters. There are MANY people who are fed up of seeing posters dotted around everywhere Yes and No ones and are removing them. I witnessed a student removing one on Friday, I didn't have time to ask him why he removed it as I was on my way to work. But I did hear from someone else that the students are scared because they have been told they are going to loose their college. I know this is not true because they are only going to be moved down the road to Buxton lane, but they have been told the college will be closed.
This is why it is important to keep to the facts and give up the hearsay, scaremongering he said she said they said etc etc...
I did ask to be shown some facts, I'm still waiting!!! You can't say I'll show you but then not
-
Oh goodness me ! Let's not have another bun fight over a few posters ! Don't forget I am supposed to be Marple's working class hero :D. As someone kindly pointed out on this very forum lol :D.
Its not a bun fight MM. I was only pointing out that you can not blame the yes people for removing posters. There are MANY people who are fed up of seeing posters dotted around everywhere Yes and No ones and are removing them.
Any evidence for these "many people"?
Also, I know that the chances of it being anyone affiliated with the "Yes" campagian, however, it does seem convienent that A. only "no" posters were removed and B. they were removed around the time of the interview.
I also aggree with MM here, we shouldn't get in a "heated discussion" about these signs/posters. all its going to lead to is people going away with there tail between there legs.
I also don't find a problem with Martyn's post, hes not attacking anyone, infact, he's calling those people who do own there house "lucky"!
-
Oh goodness me ! Let's not have another bun fight over a few posters ! Don't forget I am supposed to be Marple's working class hero :D. As someone kindly pointed out on this very forum lol :D.
Its not a bun fight MM. I was only pointing out that you can not blame the yes people for removing posters. There are MANY people who are fed up of seeing posters dotted around everywhere Yes and No ones and are removing them.
Any evidence for these "many people"?
Also, I know that the chances of it being anyone affiliated with the "Yes" campagian, however, it does seem convienent that A. only "no" posters were removed and B. they were removed around the time of the interview.
I also aggree with MM here, we shouldn't get in a "heated discussion" about these signs/posters. all its going to lead to is people going away with there tail between there legs.
I also don't find a problem with Martyn's post, hes not attacking anyone, infact, he's calling those people who do own there house "lucky"!
Read it again Daniel I said the yes and no posters have been removed!!! why would the yes people remove their own posters?
-
I thought the "yes" posters were only on display in windows?
I have no idea why the "yes" people would remove there only posters, although it could be a distraction technique.... maybe I've been watching to much murder she wrote as of late ;D
-
I didn't notice the post referring to the 'yes' group removing the posters, it only seemed to say 'dealing with a bunch of scallies', which is open to interpretation. Don't always assume offence from the 'no' group or this will rumble on into something it needn't be.
Regarding witnessing a sign being removed, please tell me you didn't just drive by a trespasser removing someone's personal property and assume this to be ok? As stated, anyone removing posters of either 'side' from private property is committing an offence.
If I witness someone in a vehicle removing signs from gardens the Police will be involved, petty as that sounds. Freedom to express opinion in a non-offensive way is important.
-
I didn't notice the post referring to the 'yes' group removing the posters, it only seemed to say 'dealing with a bunch of scallies', which is open to interpretation. Don't always assume offence from the 'no' group or this will rumble on into something it needn't be.
Regarding witnessing a sign being removed, please tell me you didn't just drive by a trespasser removing someone's personal property and assume this to be ok? As stated, anyone removing posters of either 'side' from private property is committing an offence.
If I witness someone in a vehicle removing signs from gardens the Police will be involved, petty as that sounds. Freedom to express opinion in a non-offensive way is important.
Convenient that 90% of 'NO' signs were removed from gardens on hibbert lane near the college last night ready for their photoshoot , just shows what immature scallys we are dealing with. Radio interview was comical also , scaremongering about house depreciation ....... Lets get one thing straight , if you are lucky enough to own your own house (as some don't and it wouldn't affect them) on Hibbert Lane very near to where the supermarket would be built , depreciation of house value is a certainty.
READY FOR THEIR PHOTOSHOOT to me mean the yes people as it was a photoshoot for the yes group. I'm not thick you know! I can read
-
I didn't notice the post referring to the 'yes' group removing the posters, it only seemed to say 'dealing with a bunch of scallies', which is open to interpretation. Don't always assume offence from the 'no' group or this will rumble on into something it needn't be.
Regarding witnessing a sign being removed, please tell me you didn't just drive by a trespasser removing someone's personal property and assume this to be ok? As stated, anyone removing posters of either 'side' from private property is committing an offence.
If I witness someone in a vehicle removing signs from gardens the Police will be involved, petty as that sounds. Freedom to express opinion in a non-offensive way is important.
Well said Marple Syrup what a very sensible post ;D
-
Surely though tina, you have to admit that it is A little, "convienient"? that most of the "no" posters, which were being displayed according to law, were removed within 24/48 hours of the "photoshoot" for the yes group.
Now, These "scallies" are most certianly not part of the "yes" campaign, we know that. however, they are showing there support for the "yes" campaign, albet by means that are law breaking.
Long story short these idiots are making life harder for themselves.
Does anyone know when MIA will be issueing replacement signs?
-
We hardly had time to organise the photo's nevermind going out late at night revmoving posters. Most of us are very busy people. I live on Hibbert lane and know for a fact that the people doing this are just drunk chavs, i get woken up to the sound of them doing it as they walk along drunk. The people who did that would be too hungover to be out having their pictures taken. Stop making accusations. If i had a video camera i would catch them at it just to shut you up.
-
Surely though tina, you have to admit that it is A little, "convienient"? that most of the "no" posters, which were being displayed according to law, were removed within 24/48 hours of the "photoshoot" for the yes group.
Now, These "scallies" are most certianly not part of the "yes" campaign, we know that. however, they are showing there support for the "yes" campaign, albet by means that are law breaking.
Long story short these idiots are making life harder for themselves.
Does anyone know when MIA will be issueing replacement signs?
my point was you can't blame the yes group as yes posters have been taken aswell. This pettiness is now really tiresome. It seems to me there are bad on both sides Martyn for one is just rude and how he gets away with posting on this forum is beyond me! along with skyguy who is just as rude!
-
Surely though tina, you have to admit that it is A little, "convienient"? that most of the "no" posters, which were being displayed according to law, were removed within 24/48 hours of the "photoshoot" for the yes group.
Now, These "scallies" are most certianly not part of the "yes" campaign, we know that. however, they are showing there support for the "yes" campaign, albet by means that are law breaking.
Long story short these idiots are making life harder for themselves.
Does anyone know when MIA will be issueing replacement signs?
Tina you can also be very rude but you are sadly not as open as other people and prefer to wind people up
on the YES facebook page. Now I think we should all calm down and get on with the job in hand. I am still
very shocked at what I have just read on this forum from a supporter of the YES campaign and frankly can
not believe that people can get away with putting things like that on Face Book. There could be a lot of
trouble to come for those people concerned so I would now like to totally distance myself for interaction with
anyone remotely linked to that Face Book page
-
Tina you can also be very rude but you are sadly not as open as other people and prefer to wind people up
on the YES facebook page. Now I think we should all calm down and get on with the job in hand. I am still
very shocked at what I have just read on this forum from a supporter of the YES campaign and frankly can
not believe that people can get away with putting things like that on Face Book. There could be a lot of
trouble to come for those people concerned so I would now like to totally distance myself for interaction with
anyone remotely linked to that Face Book page
Why am I rude, please explain. I have been polite and asked for facts to be shown which you said you would do but have chosen not to.
Also that post Martyn made from someones facebook page has nothing to do with the yes group so why does it keep getting mentioned? those post's said 2010... so Martyn must of spent a long time looking through that persons facebook page, to get the responce it is now getting. A person can not be made responsible for another persons post. So leave her alone now its not fair!
-
Mm, I am not responsible for writing those offensive things. It wasn't taken from my account, it was taken from my brothers account. As much as I think my brother is an absolute plonka I am not going to delete him from my Facebook because he is my brother. I don't know if he is in favour of the supermarket, he is nothing to do with the yes group. I cannot help who my brother is
-
Feel free to report him on Facebook but other than that, drop it.
-
The point I was trying to make, Tina, was that we all need to appreciate that th 'extremist' types act on their own behalf on both sides, as opposed to representing their campaigns. Nobody said it was you, and I certainly didn't call you 'thick' or say you couldn't read.
Often individuals' opinions are quoted on here as being representative of MIA, and time and again it has to be pointed out that individual opinions on the forum are just that.
On the flip side, when signs are stolen and the culprits are called scallies, it is treated as outrageous that this could be related to the opposing campaign. If the post related to a faction of the group being scallies, there is no need for you to take personal umbrage. I am in support of MIA, but if one on here expresses a personal opinion which you respond to, I don't take that as a personal sleight.
Everybody needs to stop with the sweeping generalisations, it is clear that some people act purely under their own steam and it is unfortunate that These people support either group.
In general, I think all - but particularly the 'yes' campaigners I have read, need to be less touchy.
When an opinion is expressed it is very easy for you to dismiss this as a class issue, inconsiderate snobbery. This is unfair, as if people having money have no right to have an opinion.
I have a young family, can't afford childare and between me, my wife and family members manage this. I work most nights and go a day without sleep once a fortnight to ensure we can provide.
But I oppose a large scale supermarket on Hibbert Lane.
I work hard to live in a nice area, and I think whatever spin is put on it, a large supermarket would detract from this in terms of dominating the town centre, havinga detrimental effect on traffic and the infrastructure of the area being changed to accommodate this.
I could easily work slightly less and try to save money, and to this end no doubt a supermarket would help... But don't insult me by trying to turn it into a class war and saying that your views are representative of working families. They are not. Nobody has an ingrained right to live anywhere, but my home is my sanctuary and I work extremely hard to have that. My opinion is as much valid as anyone else's, and I am unhappy to hear some areas of the yes campaign acting as though they represent 'the unspoken majority'.
In fact, it appears to me as a relative observer as I speak little, that most (but not all) MIA members are at least considered. They at least do appear to be trying to get facts. It appears to be a nmber of the yes campaign who simply do not listen to valid arguments raised within the no campaign, and too often dismiss information as speculation and conjecture without even considering the logic behind it or the efforts used to obtain it.
As I understand it MIA supports a supermarket, but not a big one on Hibbert Lane. Yes have made it clear that they want a supermarket, but when issues of infrastructure and devaluation relating to the large Hibbert Lane site are raised they are simply dismissed as being scaremongering. I've heard people saying 'the size of the site is just speculation and scaremongering'... Something like the size of the site, given from the planning department, is quite indisputable.
-
What a fantastic and thought provoking post.I feel for you and you're family and would suspect this post is a true representation of many MIA supporters.I do not know where you live,but I feel so sorry for the home owners especially around the four sides of the college site who could possibly find their selves in negative equity.Add this to the increased conjestion and the possible demise of the local shops then Marple will not be the attractive place you thought you were buying into.I am not surprised that some people get nasty and overheated.They are fighting for their future!So if protecting yourself and your family causes so much outrage to the Yes people so be it.I just wish more people had a social conscience ::)
-
What a fantastic and thought provoking post.I feel for you and your family and would suspect this post is a true representation of many MIA supporters.I do not know where you live,but I feel so sorry for the home owners especially around the four sides of the college site who could possibly find their selves in negative equity.Add this to the increased conjestion and the possible demise of the local shops then Marple will not be the attractive place you thought you were buying into.I am not surprised that some people get nasty and overheated.They are fighting for their future!So if protecting yourself and your family causes so much outrage to the Yes people so be it.I just wish more people had a social conscience ::)
oops! double post due to spelling correction.
-
Marple_syrup, that is one sweet post ;D
In all seriousness though, That post has to be one of the best i've seen!
I aggree that BOTH sides need to "lighten up" a little, and need to stop jumping to conclusions!
MIA need to stop posting things that haven't been confirmed, and the "yes" campaigners need to make sure that they post facts, and try their damn hardest to "take things on ths chin". I also feel the "yes" campaigners need to stop posting half sentences on their facebook, which only give a snippet of what has actually been said.
-
The point I was trying to make, Tina, was that we all need to appreciate that th 'extremist' types act on their own behalf on both sides, as opposed to representing their campaigns. Nobody said it was you, and I certainly didn't call you 'thick' or say you couldn't read.
Often individuals' opinions are quoted on here as being representative of MIA, and time and again it has to be pointed out that individual opinions on the forum are just that.
On the flip side, when signs are stolen and the culprits are called scallies, it is treated as outrageous that this could be related to the opposing campaign. If the post related to a faction of the group being scallies, there is no need for you to take personal umbrage. I am in support of MIA, but if one on here expresses a personal opinion which you respond to, I don't take that as a personal sleight.
Everybody needs to stop with the sweeping generalisations, it is clear that some people act purely under their own steam and it is unfortunate that These people support either group.
In general, I think all - but particularly the 'yes' campaigners I have read, need to be less touchy.
When an opinion is expressed it is very easy for you to dismiss this as a class issue, inconsiderate snobbery. This is unfair, as if people having money have no right to have an opinion.
I have a young family, can't afford childare and between me, my wife and family members manage this. I work most nights and go a day without sleep once a fortnight to ensure we can provide.
But I oppose a large scale supermarket on Hibbert Lane.
I work hard to live in a nice area, and I think whatever spin is put on it, a large supermarket would detract from this in terms of dominating the town centre, havinga detrimental effect on traffic and the infrastructure of the area being changed to accommodate this.
I could easily work slightly less and try to save money, and to this end no doubt a supermarket would help... But don't insult me by trying to turn it into a class war and saying that your views are representative of working families. They are not. Nobody has an ingrained right to live anywhere, but my home is my sanctuary and I work extremely hard to have that. My opinion is as much valid as anyone else's, and I am unhappy to hear some areas of the yes campaign acting as though they represent 'the unspoken majority'.
In fact, it appears to me as a relative observer as I speak little, that most (but not all) MIA members are at least considered. They at least do appear to be trying to get facts. It appears to be a nmber of the yes campaign who simply do not listen to valid arguments raised within the no campaign, and too often dismiss information as speculation and conjecture without even considering the logic behind it or the efforts used to obtain it.
As I understand it MIA supports a supermarket, but not a big one on Hibbert Lane. Yes have made it clear that they want a supermarket, but when issues of infrastructure and devaluation relating to the large Hibbert Lane site are raised they are simply dismissed as being scaremongering. I've heard people saying 'the size of the site is just speculation and scaremongering'... Something like the size of the site, given from the planning department, is quite indisputable.
Agreed you have thought out this post well, but I must correct you on the 'don't take things personal'...I do take it personal when some 'No' people are rude, insulting and disrespectful. I take offence when single mothers are singled out I am a single mother and these people don't know why I'm a single mother but judge all single mothers. So yes I will take it as personal. I also take it personal when friends of mine are attacked verbally for what a family member may have done/said. I do take it personal when people in council houses are told they have no right to a opinion. When people are called scallies. I took the removing of posters as personal because I was one of the yes group at the photoshoot and know that none of us removed them.
Also to your last part. I do listen to MIA I spoke with them at the rally, and found 'some' of them to be polite and willing to listen to us as we listened to them. 'some' of them just love their own voice! but hey that's 'my opinion'
We was told that if we messaged a certain member of MIA she would forward on some 'facts' for us to read to see the full horrors of what CAMSFC are planning. To this date No such information has been forwarded on. If they really want us to know the true facts so we can therefore jump ship and join MIA then I'm sure if there really was some 'facts' I would of seen them by now.
While I'm on my soap box can I just add... that for me personally a supermarket would benefit me and members of my family. I understand the residents reasons for not wanting one on their doorstep, I have friends who live very close by to the college and I understand fully why they are against it. But on the other hand I would also understand why other residents would be against it if it was where MIA suggest it goes. So either way wherever a supermarket gets built it will unfortunately upset some people.
I can only look after me and my family. and its not about the price of beans as its been suggested today its about the reality of life.
-
Tina I have decided that if you really really really want to know the facts that you should put the time and energy into finding out like I have had to do for everyday for nearly 5 months. It would have been the easiest thing to do in passing over all the information for the YES campaign to digest but NO ! if you want to be taken seriously go out and investigate, because like I have said time and time again, the YES campaign will need all the evidence they can get hold of if this goes ahead. You appear very savvy in use of the Internet start researching then we can compare notes. If you want to be taken seriously and represent the YES people you owe it to them to become more active and seek out information so that they are armed with the facts and as to the reason a supermarket on Hibbert Lane will not disrupt any of our community, without knowledge the yes group is not credible. As for single parents we have lots of single mothers who support MIA and their main intrest is for their children not BOGOF deals
Harsh I may seem but I am sick of your continued disrespect of people trying to protect their community, shops, house prices and noise and light pollution. Debate Tina is the answer not trying to incite an already volatile situation
-
Tina I have decided that if you really really really want to know the facts that you should put the time and energy into finding out like I have had to do for everyday for nearly 5 months...
The trouble is, Miss M, that as we know, this sort of thing is what you seem to call 'facts' and 'knowledge': Did you now that the new road has had men sizing up and when asked were not from the council, did you know that the Buxton Lane Campus has also had planners sizing up, did you know that the Buxton Lane Campus can only build on the car park, so if they are not building up how do they intend to house the Hibbert Lane students.
And so on. And on, and on, and on......... ::)
You write that 'without knowledge the yes group is not credible', but it is MIA that lacks credibility because of its reliance on rumour, speculation, leaks, gossip, conspiracy theories and 2+2 = 5. These are a poor substitute for facts and hard information.
-
Dave it is food for thought!MIA members work their backsides off,It is called dedication to the cause.They won't be saying we wasted our time if the big SM blights our town.They will say we tried.As for the yes people being scared to speak out,scared of what?The people I see on the street hardly look mean or threatening.I don't think they carry any lethal weapons.They just need a thick skin not to retaliate to the parents of small children being prompted to shout "Tesco" as they walk by. What does that achieve?What kind of idiot would prompt an innocent child to say that?The mind boggles.On a lighter note Dave I think you would secretly like to be a member of MIA. I do believe the joining fee is £5000 plus you get the option to buy a T shirt at the cost price of £4.50 against the RRP of £5.Go on Dave!Get out of that closet ;D
-
Tina I have decided that if you really really really want to know the facts that you should put the time and energy into finding out like I have had to do for everyday for nearly 5 months. It would have been the easiest thing to do in passing over all the information for the YES campaign to digest but NO ! if you want to be taken seriously go out and investigate, because like I have said time and time again, the YES campaign will need all the evidence they can get hold of if this goes ahead. You appear very savvy in use of the Internet start researching then we can compare notes. If you want to be taken seriously and represent the YES people you owe it to them to become more active and seek out information so that they are armed with the facts and as to the reason a supermarket on Hibbert Lane will not disrupt any of our community, without knowledge the yes group is not credible. As for single parents we have lots of single mothers who support MIA and their main intrest is for their children not BOGOF deals
Harsh I may seem but I am sick of your continued disrespect of people trying to protect their community, shops, house prices and noise and light pollution. Debate Tina is the answer not trying to incite an already volatile situation
You did ask us to message you and you would gladly provide the information as long as we didn't publish it etc...
Could you not of politely told me this when I messaged you a couple of weeks ago! I wouldn't of asked again!
-
Dave it is food for thought!MIA members work their backsides off,It is called dedication to the cause.They won't be saying we wasted our time if the big SM blights our town.They will say we tried.
I appreciate that, Mrs O, although I suspect that MIA's scattergun approach to this issue may in the end prove to be counter-productive. This is because like any planning issue, this is going to be a slow burner, which will go on for many months and probably years. And once planning applications are submitted, and the realities start to replace rumours and speculation, some people in Marple will start to realise some inconvenient truths. In some cases, they will realise that an MIA person told them little porkies in order to con them into signing a petition - for example, that the plan to sell Hibbert Lane and develop Buxton Lane was a 'smokescreen' for moving out of Marple altogether. And did the petition-wielding MIA people explain to anyone that their campaign would, if successful, deprive Marple of £8 million of badly-needed educational investment. Did they 'eck as like! (as my dad used to say) ::)
As for the yes people being scared to speak out,scared of what?
I'm neither a yes-person nor a no-person, but I suspect people who are in favour of a supermarket will be reticent about shouting it from the rooftops, out of awareness of those who live close to the site. As many of us have said at different times, people in the neighbouring houses really do have cause for concern about this plan, and we would all feel the same if we were in their shoes.
Btw, what's with the change of name, Mrs O? I rather liked the last one. ;D
-
I think as with anything you have to make personal judgement and sort the wheat from the chaff and assess what is reasonable and logical and what is not.
I don't genuinely think the are any from MIA who are actively involved who are deliberately 'telling porkies' to get anyone to sign a petition. Obviously there is going to be a lot of rumour and speculation in something like this, but the argument about it being just that is also being used to dismiss people's thoughts and opinions out of hand.
All I know is that they have had extensive meetings with the college, the council, planning department, the loal area committe, highways, legal representatives... They have been looking at the deeds and covenants...
Yet you seem to believe that they act underhandedly, with an ulterior motive for not wanting the development on Hibbert Lane. Have you ever stopped to wonder why they would lie? I don't see any reason they would. It is clear that some is speculation, but much of it based strongly on what has happened in similar towns with similar developments elsewhere. Why dismiss this out of hand as scare mongering without considering the content? For example, I was there when Paul Lawrence from the council quoted the size of the plot and size of the building development potential as 9 acres / 5.5 acres. Yet I am still told to this day that the size is merely a scare tactic and the real development will be much smaller... Why dismiss this?
I just get the feeling that the No argument is the more measured of the two. It is against a large scale development for reasons of infrastructure, devaluation, and detriment to the town centre and community. Throughout this there genuinely seems to be an appreciation that competition is needed for the coop, just not on the scale suggested.
The Yes argument meanwhile seems to want a supermarket there at all costs, irrespective of the collateral damage. I know it will benefit individuals now, but when Marple turns into Bredbury (genuinely no offence intended) the place won't be the same for my kids. It's difficult, and the political correctness issue is clouding matters, and I do appreciate the financial issue to people. It's one of the situations where not everyone will be happy, and that is a hard pill to swallow on both sides and I'm sure we'd all agree that we want harmony and a happy neighbour.
People do need to stop being heated and stop taking offence to that when they do. I can see why you were unhappy Tina, but again, I feel it would help to differentiate between an individual and tarring the whole group with that opinion, and not allow interactions like that to prejudice your future analysis of all arguments presented to you.
-
I think as with anything you have to make personal judgement and sort the wheat from the chaff and assess what is reasonable and logical and what is not.
I totally agree.
I don't genuinely think the are any from MIA who are actively involved who are deliberately 'telling porkies' to get anyone to sign a petition.
I would like to think you were right, but I'm afraid you aren't. This is part of a post of mine from last week:
Stopped by at the MIA gazebo in Market Street yesterday - mainly, I must admit, to shelter from a downpour! While I was browsing the leaflets, I couldn't help overhearing what one MIA person wielding a petition was saying about the college's plans - including all that stuff about the plan to use the proceeds of Hibbert Lane to develop Buxton Lane being a 'smokescreen' for the real plan, which was to move out of Marple altogether and build a new college on Jacksons Lane. And of course, people appeared to believe every word of it......... ::)
I'm not personally a supporter of MIA, because to my mind, education has to be the overriding priority. I admit that there is a valid case to be made against the college's plans - but by peddling nonsensical rumours, which have already been disproved, MIA just discredits itself.
Now bear in mind this was not just some badly-informed gossip - this was an MIA official manning the MIA stand and wearing MIA ID, asking passers by to sign the petition. I was fairly appalled!
You seem to believe that they act underhandedly, with an ulterior motive for not wanting the development on Hibbert Lane.
No, I don't see any ulterior motive on the part of MIA - they have been open about their reasons for opposing the college's plans. These seem to be:
1. It would increase traffic congestion in Marple
2. It would increase disturbance to neighbouring properties, and reduce property values
3. It would take business away from the existing smaller shops in Marple
I don't think any reasonable person would dispute numbers 1 and 2. But the evidence for no 3 is less clear: posts in these threads have provided examples elsewhere of supermarkets which have had a detrimental effect on local shops, and examples in other places where the local shops have survived and thrived.
But I do think that MIA are being economical with the truth (to coin a phrase ;). I think we would all think better of them if they came clean and said 'yes, we know that our campaign, if it is successful. will deprive our children and grandchildren of £8 million of investment in their educational facilities, but we believe that this is a price worth paying in order to achieve our other objectives'.
-
But I do think that MIA are being economical with the truth (to coin a phrase . I think we would all think better of them if they came clean and said 'yes, we know that our campaign, if it is successful. will deprive our children and grandchildren of £8 million of investment in their educational facilities, but we believe that this is a price worth paying in order to achieve our other objectives'.
What people are conveniently forgetting is that the college would not be able to spend an additional £8 million if Ms Cassidy had not pursued retail as an option, when she is well aware that the initial planning application will be rejected by the council as the site is not within Marple District Centre and outside the area zoned for retail as laid down by the Core Strategy. These provisions are in place for a reason, i.e. the Council believes that retail should only be within the designated area to protect existing businesses. If the college had not approached supermarkets with a view to selling to them, they would then have to sell the site for "best value" to alternative bidders and come up with a plan to improve the Buxton Lane campus with whatever money they were able to get. This notion that MIA are "depriving" anyone of investment money is not really the way I see it. MIA are simply trying to make the college sell the Hibbert Lane site within the parameters which are already in place as laid down by the planners and councillors - and for very good reason.
Not only that, the college has spent an awful lot of money on the assumption that they will eventually be granted planning permission in the knowledge that this will then cost the council thousands of pounds to have to fight their original decision.
-
It's an interesting idea, bellestar, that a multi-million pound property deal involving public sector assets could be made on the basis of one person averting her gaze and pretending she doesn't know about the better offer!
Sadly, this is the real world, and it ain't like that. :'(
This kind of major issue is one for the college governors. It cannot be delegated to the principal. As we know, the governors commissioned a property strategy examining all the options for developing and improving the college's estate. The expensive international consultants they retained no doubt did a thorough job, and they advised the governors that the best price could be received for Hibbert Lane if planning consent for retail use could be secured. I'm afraid once the governors know that, they can't 'un-know' it, if you see what I mean. Their legal duty, as you know, is to safeguard the college's assets, which includes getting the best price if assets are disposed of.
-
Btw, what's with the change of name, Mrs O? I rather liked the last one. ;D
Some woman has been using it as a stage name on the Costas :o
-
Post overwritten. Please use the PM system to continue chatting about unrelated issues. Admin
-
Tina I have decided that if you really really really want to know the facts that you should put the time and energy into finding out like I have had to do for everyday for nearly 5 months...
The trouble is, Miss M, that as we know, this sort of thing is what you seem to call 'facts' and 'knowledge': Did you now that the new road has had men sizing up and when asked were not from the council, did you know that the Buxton Lane Campus has also had planners sizing up, did you know that the Buxton Lane Campus can only build on the car park, so if they are not building up how do they intend to house the Hibbert Lane students. [/quote
And so on. And on, and on, and on......... ::
You write that 'without knowledge the yes group is not credible', but it is MIA that lacks credibility because of its reliance on rumour, speculation, leaks, gossip, conspiracy theories and 2+2 = 5. These are a poor substitute for facts and hard informati
Hey that's a Little below the belt David and I had missed this latest attempt to belittle me ! These are facts we have had them passed on to us by concerned residents living around the Buxton Lane Campus. If I am not mistaken I think Mark reported this
on the forum so I hope you are not referring as well to Mark as being a scare monger. The sizing up of
the new road was reported via the Action Line several times and the people who contacted MIA had asked the work men if they worked for the council which they reported that they did not. So please stop shooting the messenger, because in the real world I doubt if I would even communicate with you Dave, but there again without your continual digs at me I fear your life maybe oh so very boring Night Night :D
-
You're right, Miss M, the quote I used was factual, and I apologise for implying that it wasn't. But that quote is a classic example of 2 plus 2 equals 5 - ie making something out of nothing. You post something as if it's a dramatic new revelation, when it's nothing of the sort. Of course there are site surveys going on, and road surveys too - it's just people from the council, and from the college's consultants, getting on with their jobs.
As for leaks and rumours, you have admitted many times that you make use of these sources.
-
You're right, Miss M, the quote I used was factual, and I apologise for implying that it wasn't. But that quote is a classic example of 2 plus 2 equals 5 - ie making something out of nothing. You post something as if it's a dramatic new revelation, when it's nothing of the sort. Of course there are site surveys going on, and road surveys too - it's just people from the council, and from the college's consultants, getting on with their jobs.
As for leaks and rumours, you have admitted many times that you make use of these sources.
I am informing people without your knowledge and insight Oh Great One ! Of course I inform the community ! Are you confusing me with someone else ? My name is Miss Marple ! Not Ms Cassidy! :D
-
Two sarcastic insults in the one sentence.. you're getting more prolific MM :-*
dons tin hat
-
Two sarcastic insults in the one sentence.. you're getting more prolific MM :-*
dons tin hat
It's called defence !
-
Dave, you seem pretty sure in your belief that an extra £8m of investment would revamp the College's facilities and make them available to my grandchildren.
I personally think that investing £8m extra into the Buxton Lane site, which needs a complete construction overhaul, not just renovation, is chicken feed.
Any downward spiral that the college is in would not be halted by £8m extra into the Buxton Lane site. CAMSFC is now competing with the likes of Aquinas, who invested in excess of £40m into an existing site. If the £12m was being spent on a updating the Hibbert Lane site, it may have a chance, but the construction needed on Buxton Lane relegates this amount - in my personal opinion - to almost worthless.
On top of this, the Cheadle site is also struggling. You may want to dismiss this as speculation, but by the time the money comes through I think it is naive in the extreme to assume that won't have any bearing on how the money is spent. The College as a whole will have an agenda including the other site, like that or not. It may ringfence the money for Marple, but as student numbers dwindle I personally - having experienced the Tameside College merger a decade ago - am genuinely pessimistic that £12m will revamp CAMSFC in Marple. By the time a big supermarket replaces it, it is simply too late.
It's a matter of what you believe and why you believe it.
As I sit in traffic caused by a large supermarket on the way to pick the grandkids up from Aquinas, I shall remember your optimism at what £8m could do back in 2011.
-
The post by marple_syrup raises some interesting points.
An obvious one is that CAMSFC can't use the £12M to update the Hibbert Lane site, as the only way they will get the £12M is by selling the site. So that's irrelevant.
No, it really got me thinking about Aquinas. CAMSFC have always competed with Aquinas for students, so this is nothing new.
When Aquinas decided to rebuild and extend, they faced similar concerns from local residents that CAMSFC are facing. The residents wanted to know what the college's plans were. This prompted the principal to write in the college newsletter “When we have a clearer idea of what our plans are, we will share them with you, our neighbours, and seek and listen to your views.” So, similar to CAMSFC, they didn't share their plans until they were clear what they were. I believe CAMSFC have said they will share their plans in October.
To further quote from an Aquinas newsletter "Can we reassure you straight away that, whatever we plan to do, we have no intention of significantly increasing student numbers at the college? It is widely accepted that the college has in this regard reached its optimum size. As we are part of the education provision for students over the age of 16 in Stockport, any move to increase student numbers at Aquinas would have a detrimental effect on other local colleges. We have no intention of allowing this to happen." So, as the Aquinas intake is already heavily oversubscribed, the competition for CAMSFC is unchanged. Also, we must not forget that any potential students who are not of the Catholic faith, or attending a Catholic school, have very little chance of going there.
I think the serious competition for sixth form colleges is going to come from secondary schools that are applying for Academy status. Sixth form colleges came about when government policy was to take A Levels out of the school system. It could be that colleges will shortly have to refocus and move back to Further Education.
-
Post overwritten. Please use the PM system to continue chatting about unrelated issues. Admin
-
Dave, you seem pretty sure in your belief that an extra £8m of investment would revamp the College's facilities and make them available to my grandchildren. I personally think that investing £8m extra into the Buxton Lane site, which needs a complete construction overhaul, not just renovation, is chicken feed.
I think I have read somewhere in the numerous posts on this forum that the college is expecting to require about £14 million to build what it needs at Buxton Lane, in order to replace the Hibbert Lane premises. Presumably they plan to top up the anticipated £12 million from the sale of Hibbert lane from reserves and/or borrowing.
In my experience of building college buildings, that is realistic. Admittedly my building days were a few years ago (in the late nineties and early noughties), and allowances have to be made for inflation hitting building costs since then. But in those days, the ball-park cost estimate for a college building, with a mix of specialised (ie expensive) space and general classrooms (ie cheap) was about £1,000 per sq.m. Now overall UK inflation since the mid-90s is about 40%. So let's assume that this college will need to spend about £1,500 per sq.m. That should still provide them with over 9,000 sq.m (90,000 sq.ft), which is probably more than they need. So it should leave them with a few quid to tart up the existing Buxton Lane building. And Buxton Lane looks to me like a straightforward site: level ground, not 'brownfield' (so no decontamination required), easy access, and of couse they already own it, so no cost to purchase the land. And above all, perhaps, we are in a long and difficult recession, which is hitting the construction industry very badly. So the tendering process should be extremely competitive. :)
On the other hand, if they only get £4 million for Hibbert Lane, that would fall well short of giving them what they require to replace that campus. So the likelihood is that if they don't get planning consent for retail, the sale will be off and they will have to think of a plan B.
Any downward spiral that the college is in would not be halted by £8m extra into the Buxton Lane site......but as student numbers dwindle.
What downward spiral? According to the latest annual accounts posted on their website, the college's finances are sound, and I believe the inspector pronounced their financial state as 'outstanding' in the last report. As for 'dwindling' student numbers, look at these figures: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_numbers_by_yearsitepostc.
-
As for 'dwindling' student numbers, look at these figures: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_numbers_by_yearsitepostc.
Number of students at Marple site, with %change on previous year.
2007 = 1,683
2008 = 1,715 (+2%)
2009 = 1,656 (-3%)
2010 = 1,472 (-11%)
Number of students at Cheadle site, with %change on previous year
2007 = 2,539
2008 = 2,365 (-7%)
2009 = 2,578 (+9%)
2010 = 1,945 (-25%)
-
As for 'dwindling' student numbers, look at these figures: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_numbers_by_yearsitepostc.
Number of students at Marple site, with %change on previous year.
2007 = 1,683
2008 = 1,715 (+2%)
2009 = 1,656 (-3%)
2010 = 1,472 (-11%)
Number of students at Cheadle site, with %change on previous year
2007 = 2,539
2008 = 2,365 (-7%)
2009 = 2,578 (+9%)
2010 = 1,945 (-25%)
Does exam results not count as a possible -% or the fact people are scared that the college is going to close down so have gone else where? Maybe if the no campaign calmed down then the numbers might go up? Don't shoot me, but you do have to look at the bigger picture. The no campaign say they are concerned for their children's education in one hand but then slander the said college in the other hand for wanting to improve the building to be able to continue teaching our children.
-
All this was covered at Question Time at the college on Tuesday night by the panel it was very interesting and worth going to as it provided lots of answers to question such as these.
-
Thank you, I'm glad the questions was asked
-
sgk, what is the source of your data? We need to reconcile those figures with the ones provided by the college in response to the FOI request:
07-08 2539
08-09 2365
09-10 2578
-
sgk, what is the source of your data? We need to reconcile those figures with the ones provided by the college in response to the FOI request:
07-08 2539
08-09 2365
09-10 2578
The figures quoted by sgk ARE from the college response to the FOI : http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/82034/response/206880/attach/html/3/FOI%20student%20data.xlsx.html
-
Has anyone contrasted these figures with those from Aquinas and Stockport College which are the chief competition to MACSFC? Is there a general reduction in students attending college or have their figures gone up correspondingly?
-
sgk, what is the source of your data? We need to reconcile those figures with the ones provided by the college in response to the FOI request:
07-08 2539
08-09 2365
09-10 2578
The figures quoted by sgk ARE from the college response to the FOI : http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/82034/response/206880/attach/html/3/FOI%20student%20data.xlsx.html
Thanks Mark. Maybe my techie skills are failing (again ::)) but that link, though it looks different, takes me to the same excel spreadsheet as the one I used in post 78 above: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_numbers_by_yearsitepostc
It is headed 'Cheadle Postcode analysis', but if you look down all the areas where the students come from, they include Marple, Offerton, Glossop etc, so I assumed that it included all camsfc students at both campuses. The table also gives just three years figures - 2007, 2008 and 2009. So where does sgk get the Marple data from, and also the 2010 data? Is there another spreadsheet in that link, and if so, how do you get to it?
-
It is headed 'Cheadle Postcode analysis', but if you look down all the areas where the students come from, they include Marple, Offerton, Glossop etc, so I assumed that it included all camsfc students at both campuses. The table also gives just three years figures - 2007, 2008 and 2009. So where does sgk get the Marple data from, and also the 2010 data? Is there another spreadsheet in that link, and if so, how do you get to it?
Dave, there are two "worksheets" in the spreadsheet for which you can see the tabs for at the bottom of the windows (if you're using Excel or Open Office. I haven't tested it in Google Docs). One shows the numbers for the Marple campus and the other for the Cheadle campus.
EDIT: And in fact, if you look at the original on the FOI site, if has five pages. a title sheet for each worksheet, one page for Marple and two for Cheadle.
-
Yes, as pointed out in the earlier posts, all the numbers are from the recent FOI requests.
CAMSFC: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_numbers_by_yearsitepostc#incoming-206880 (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_numbers_by_yearsitepostc#incoming-206880)
Stockport: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_intake_figures#incoming-209612 (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_intake_figures#incoming-209612)
Aquinas: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_intake_by_postcode#incoming-209426 (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/student_intake_by_postcode#incoming-209426)
Here's a little summary.
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4497/miastudentnumbers.png) (http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4497/miastudentnumbers.png)
(Some empty cells because only Aquinas was able to provide 2011 figures)
-
Thanks sgk. If I click on the first of your links, I get an exchange of communications between Steve Kay and camsfc. When I click on the file attached to Andrew Hubert's letter of 2 September, all I get is one Excel spreadsheet headed 'Cheadle Postcode Analysis', which gives three years figures only. What am I doing wrong? ???
-
Hadn't you better add the relatively-newly-opened Stockport Academy to your list of sixth-form providers. Otherwise it looks, from the total number of students in the area in 2010-2011, as if about 1900 of them must have joined the armed forces.
-
Dave, interesting of you to counter my speculation and rumour with your own proof that they'll have enough money and the funds will be reinvested into Marple by 'roughly estimating' what you think is will cost to renovate theBuxton Lane site based on absolutely nothing but your own guessing!
I think what the spreadsheets show is that college numbers are decreasing, and it would be interesting to see this years student intake. I stand by my belief that the money would not necessarily all be reinvested into Marple, and that the Cheadle site, with it's quite dramatic drop in numbers, would receive some of that benefit. Like I said, it's what you believe and why. Again, given Dave you think that the books are sound at the college, i don't believe that the large supermarket on the Hibbert Lane site is in any way the answer to getting the college money it professes to need, given the collateral impact I believe it would have, and your guesstimations as to costs to turn Buxton Lane into this superb facility don't inspire any confidence in me at all.
I'd add that this argument is pretty shaky even if you only consider the college, and don't take any of the extraneous factors into account. That you are happy to risk the rest of the problems the shop could cause to Marple on this gamble is quite frightening to me.
-
'roughly estimating' what you think is will cost to renovate theBuxton Lane site based on absolutely nothing but your own guessing!
I was certainly not 'guessing', marple_syrup, and I'm sorry if I did not spell that out clearly enough. I repeat, I was drawing on directly relevant personal experience. But if you refuse to believe me, then do it the long way and plough through this! http://www.smg.ac.uk/documents/PromotingSpaceEfficiency.pdf
In that report you will find repeated references to average new build costs between £900 and £1,300 per.sq.m. Now given that that report is about five years old, updating it for inflation confirms that £1,500 per sq.m. is a realstic figure, possibly even a generous one.
-
Dave, there are two "worksheets" in the spreadsheet for which you can see the tabs for at the bottom of the windows (if you're using Excel or Open Office. I haven't tested it in Google Docs). One shows the numbers for the Marple campus and the other for the Cheadle campus.
Many thanks Howard - I got there in the end ::)
Yes, interesting data, isn't it. The dramatic drop in numbers last year (especially at Cheadle) must be quite a significant issue for them. It's far from a 'downward spiral' (yet), but if enrolments don't recover this year then they will have some challenges to face.
One thing is clear, though - with numbers at Cheadle falling so much more than at Marple, it is even less likely that the college will want to divert capital receipts from Hibbert Lane to invest at Cheadle - where the buildings are much better already, anyway.
-
One thing is clear, though - with numbers at Cheadle falling so much more than at Marple, it is even less likely that the college will want to divert capital receipts from Hibbert Lane to invest at Cheadle - where the buildings are much better already, anyway.
Here's a perverse thought with no merit to it at all. Maybe the new buildings at Cheadle are turning students off and we should be teaching in the oldest and nastiest buildings possible ;)
-
Just a thought Dave ! How is it that you can speculate but when anyone else does you class it as rumour or scare mongering ;D. Not that I am in the least concerned but a valid point I feel ! Just my opinion !
-
It's not speculation, Miss M, just as it isn't guessing either! It's (somewhat ball-park) construction cost estimating, based on actual experience of multi-million pound building projects at a college. Trust me - I've done it.
-
But it's more than the building costs ! It's about relocating everything on a very small plot of land and if Tina's conversation with Ms Cassidy is right , when she was informed that they were not building higher on the Buxton Lane Site, even though MIA have been informed that they are planning to go a few blocks higher, where are they going to relocate all the facilities from Hibbert Lane ? I was at the very least hoping for a roof top swimming Pool at the Buxton Lane Site , if there is going to be a roundabout on the new road ;). The truth will be out later this month so lets all wait and see
-
I think you'll find there's ample space at Buxton Lane for the college to build what it needs, without building significantly higher than the present Buxton Lane. Also, it's important to realise that the floor area of a new building will not be as great as what they are replacing at Hibbert Lane. One of the main reasons for getting rid of Hibbert Lane is that is used very inefficiently, because it was built as a secondary school. Consequently, many of the rooms are the wrong size: schools have nice neat classes of 30 kids - 6th form colleges don't: far from it! So the new building, being purpose built, should be quite a bit smaller.
-
It's interesting you mention the possibility of the new building being "quite a bit smaller". Buxton lane (where my Geography lesson takes place) Is, if anything, too small! The classroom Isn't being enough to handle the 27+ students in my class, We have to borrow tables and chairs from other rooms, which their isn't room for!
Although I must say, the sooner the college gets this "new building" the better! And I hope it has A/C ::)
As a offtopicish point, I feel that this bickering between the college, MIA and "yes" (the same bickering I have partaken in) is getting nowhere. Insted, ALL I repeat ALL parties need to sit round the table together, and figure a solution out that works, For everyone. Including the students.
-
It's interesting you mention the possibility of the new building being "quite a bit smaller". Buxton lane (where my Geography lesson takes place) Is, if anything, too small! The classroom Isn't being enough to handle the 27+ students in my class, We have to borrow tables and chairs from other rooms, which their isn't room for!
Although I must say, the sooner the college gets this "new building" the better! And I hope it has A/C ::)
As a offtopicish point, I feel that this bickering between the college, MIA and "yes" (the same bickering I have partaken in) is getting nowhere. Insted, ALL I repeat ALL parties need to sit round the table together, and figure a solution out that works, For everyone. Including the students.
Well said!!
When i was there we had too many people in 1 tiny room...very clostraphobic!! There is no way the no and yes would sit round and 'discuss what is best or both parties' as we all know a rather large heated debate would occur and nothing would g 'settled'
I am a huge beleiver in havin a supermarket, but i also understand some of the no campaigners points.
Neither the yes or no can stop the college selling to a supermarket (afterall they are thehighest bidders) its something we all have to just wait and see.
-
It's interesting you mention the possibility of the new building being "quite a bit smaller". Buxton lane (where my Geography lesson takes place) Is, if anything, too small! The classroom Isn't being enough to handle the 27+ students in my class, We have to borrow tables and chairs from other rooms, which their isn't room for!
Although I must say, the sooner the college gets this "new building" the better! And I hope it has A/C ::)
As a offtopicish point, I feel that this bickering between the college, MIA and "yes" (the same bickering I have partaken in) is getting nowhere. Insted, ALL I repeat ALL parties need to sit round the table together, and figure a solution out that works, For everyone. Including the students.
It's healthy and harmless though isn't it ? What else would we be doing ? Drinking, dancing and enjoying ourselves ! I have just taken a bite out of your tree of knowledge ;D
-
It's interesting you mention the possibility of the new building being "quite a bit smaller". Buxton lane (where my Geography lesson takes place) Is, if anything, too small! The classroom Isn't being enough to handle the 27+ students in my class, We have to borrow tables and chairs from other rooms, which their isn't room for!
Although I must say, the sooner the college gets this "new building" the better! And I hope it has A/C ::)
As a offtopicish point, I feel that this bickering between the college, MIA and "yes" (the same bickering I have partaken in) is getting nowhere. Insted, ALL I repeat ALL parties need to sit round the table together, and figure a solution out that works, For everyone. Including the students.
It's healthy and harmless though isn't it ? What else would we be doing ? Drinking, dancing and enjoying ourselves ! I have just taken a bite out of your tree of knowledge ;D
I don't drink and can't dance to save my life :P FYI, the tree's poisonous, See, theres a good reason why I said not to take a bite from it ::)