Sale of Chadwick St car park

[richard]

I think we are all too hung up on proposed sites that, have as yet, no planning permission. I think that Chadwick street as an alternative site is a definite no go as access is a major problem and the.cost of implementation will be prohibitive

[My login is Henrietta]

Miss M, I've heard some dodgy arguments in my time, but the notion that getting rid of a 1930s school building in order to provide a decent 21st century college is 'the loss of an educational site in a Town with a growing population' is frankly bizarre!

After a lifetime in teaching all over the country in 1930s (and older) buildings and any number of jerry-built 1960s, '70s & '80s schools I know which I'd rather work in - especially after two terms on supply in a 1970s building where I had to endure conditions that would have been illegal in any other trade or profession. The Shops, Offices and Factories Act applied to the school secretary's office but not to the classroom conditions! At least the old buildings were usually warm with efficient, if expensive, heating systems.

(Obvously, I'm not speaking of The Willows/Camsfc because I never worked there.)

[Dave]

The obvious access would be from Staockport Road, so that deliveries and shoppers don't have to negotiate Church Lane. The buildings by the bus stop are of no architectural or historic interest, and the businesses can easily be relocated nearby.

[My login is Henrietta]

For those opposed to the Hibbert lane development, it's all good

It is indeed - unless the Council don't find a buyer, whereupon it's lack of ability to sell could be used as an argument for Hibbert Lane in that the key alternative site isn't practical. It will be interesting to see how it goes. Lets not pre-judge.

I'll tell you what though - undercroft, underground or even roof parking isn't cheap and what with the levels changes across the site to contend with, one imagines that the Council won't make much money through its sale. Build costs will be at the forefront of any developers mind. Traffic and deliveries will be fun too!

And what will they demolish to improve access? Housing? The Carver? Shops on Stockport Road?

[Miss Marple]

Chadwick Street has been on the cards for sometime long  before Ms Cassidy's secret was leaked out.  What is interesting is that since MIA was formed we are getting to know about issues which before the days
Just a question to Belly Tricky and Dave why are you all so negative towards MIA who are constantly bringing information to this forum ?

I'm not negative to MIA at all - but I do take issue with some of the sensationalising of some of the information brought forward at times. I'm all for information, just sometimes I don't like the 'spin' with which it is presented by some.

This.. absolutely this.



Miss Marple, even in the post above, you call it "Ms Cassidy's secret"

I don't like the way you make everything so personal, yet you constantly say "don't shoot the messenger" if and when your comments are questioned.

That's not a reason to dislike MIA that's a personal attack on myself.  It's a flipping good job that I don't take things personally Lol  

[Miss Marple]

Irrelevant post overwritten. Admin

[Miss Marple]

It was a very uncomfortable meeting for the councillors who had to admit that in one recent major development NO consultation was undertaken with the public even though it was a requirement

What was that major development?

The Cycle Track / Bridle Way apparently it should have had public consultation but the councillors had to admit that there was no public consultation even though it was a requirement

[Tricky]

Chadwick Street has been on the cards for sometime long  before Ms Cassidy's secret was leaked out.  What is interesting is that since MIA was formed we are getting to know about issues which before the days
Just a question to Belly Tricky and Dave why are you all so negative towards MIA who are constantly bringing information to this forum ?

I'm not negative to MIA at all - but I do take issue with some of the sensationalising of some of the information brought forward at times. I'm all for information, just sometimes I don't like the 'spin' with which it is presented by some.

This.. absolutely this.



Miss Marple, even in the post above, you call it "Ms Cassidy's secret"

I don't like the way you make everything so personal, yet you constantly say "don't shoot the messenger" if and when your comments are questioned.

[admin]

It was a very uncomfortable meeting for the councillors who had to admit that in one recent major development NO consultation was undertaken with the public even though it was a requirement

What was that major development?

[Dave]

Miss M, I've heard some dodgy arguments in my time, but the notion that getting rid of a 1930s school building in order to provide a decent 21st century college is 'the loss of an educational site in a Town with a growing population' is frankly bizarre!

[Miss Marple]

Well I am a founder member of MIA and I can tell you that the group was formed to oppose the sale of a local education facility to a major supermarket and that remains our aim. So Dave I feel you need to reflect on your accusation about MIA being against education when you support the loss of an educational site in a Town with a growing population, it's laughable for you to say you are a supporter of education!

  The issue of Chadwick St has, we have been informed been on the cards for years.  The sorting office does not have to move they have quite a lengthy lease still on the property and if the councillors at the meeting last night are to be believed the supermarket on Chadwick St would only be the size of the sorting office if they were to move out  Residents of Chadwick st were in attendance at last nights meeting and MIA know several  of them well and they heard first hand and had sight of plans of the proposed site if it was to go ahead.
It's a pity you two chaps could not attend last nights meeting because all your questions would have been answered

[Dave]

If I seem to be 'negative' towards MIA, it's simply because the organisation seems to be doing everything it can to stop much-needed improvements to educational facilities in Marple. Sometimes I think MIA should be renamed MAE: Marple Against Education. :-( 

[Belly]

Chadwick Street has been on the cards for sometime long  before Ms Cassidy's secret was leaked out.  What is interesting is that since MIA was formed we are getting to know about issues which before the days of MIA were done deals behind closed doors.   For all those who were present at last nights Area Committee Meeting you will know exactly what I am talking about.  It was a very uncomfortable meeting for the councillors who had to admit that in one recent major development NO consultation was undertaken with the public even though it was a requirement    Not anymore  

Just a question to Belly Tricky and Dave why are you all so negative towards MIA who are constantly bringing information to this forum ?

I'm not negative to MIA at all - but I do take issue with some of the sensationalising of some of the information brought forward at times. I'm all for information, just sometimes I don't like the 'spin' with which it is presented by some.

My comment below was simply an observation that there are many houses around the Chadwick St site with no posters in windows. It may well be that a side effect of the campaign (which I fully accept was stimulated by the supermarket rumblings at CAMSFC) may now result in a hefty re-development of their own back yard. If I understand their position correctly, MIA tacitly support the principles of the Chadwick St site for such re-development.

[Miss Marple]

Chadwick Street has been on the cards for sometime long  before Ms Cassidy's secret was leaked out.  What is interesting is that since MIA was formed we are getting to know about issues which before the days of MIA were done deals behind closed doors.   For all those who were present at last nights Area Committee Meeting you will know exactly what I am talking about.  It was a very uncomfortable meeting for the councillors who had to admit that in one recent major development NO consultation was undertaken with the public even though it was a requirement    Not anymore  

Just a question to Belly Tricky and Dave why are you all so negative towards MIA who are constantly bringing information to this forum ?

[Belly]

With regard to the sequence test the Hibbert Lane site will be applying for planning permission when the Chadwick Street land is being marketed and hence the application for a Supermarket at Hibbert lane will fail the sequential test as there will be land within the District Shopping Centre that is available for development.
What is worrying is that the College and it's consultants were warned of this by the Council and chose to ignore it. Another example of mis management by CAMSFC Governing Body.

Your point regarding the sequential test is true in the short term - a cynic might suspect a little bit of political influence here to suddenly seek to sell the Chadwick Street asset.

If it is an attempt to try to spike Hibbert Lane, it could backfire in the longer term though - for example if the site was to be bought by a non supermarket user or if the site was to fail to sell because economically no-one could get the site to stack up for development. In either case, it could then easily be argued that the one remaining site available for supermarket retail in Marple had either gone or was a non-starter and thus the sequential argument folds.

I have some doubts as to the Chadwick Street site as a major developed site anway - as others have noted it doesn't lend itself easily to development and could be a nightmare / extremely expensive to deliver. Furthermore, most of the traffic arguments hurled at Hibbert Lane are the same, if not worse, for Chadwick Street.

I wonder if those houses nearby to Chadwick Street with their "No" posters in the window, ever realised that the MIA campaign may could potentially land them with a supermarket in their own back yard