Tesco / ASDA !!!

[Dave]

Steptoe, I entirely agree that  the improvement of educational facilities shouldn't depend on flogging land to a supermarket, but here in the real world I'm afraid that, sadly, it does :-(

[sooty2]

Yes, we've all seen the 'no' posters in Hibbert Lane, but that's not what I meant by 'less affluent areas'. I won't list the roads in question, because Mrs O seems to regard it as a sensitive issue. But anyone who knows Marple knows where the less affluent areas are, and I don't think you'll see many 'no' posters there.
As for 'social conscience', how can anyone who opposes the improvement of educational facilities claim to have one?

Dave,Do you see the less affluent areas as such because the majority only have one car? ::)Just an observation of mine.

[Belly]

Dear Miss M

I think you need to read my post again. I don't believe I expressed my opinion as to which of the views put forward I agreed with. I simply took issue with the belittling "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude of the response to Dave's original post. An attitude which you have simply repeated in spades in your own reply.

Well done. If you want to alienate people from the cause, you couldn't have done it better.

Belly

[Steptoe and Son]

I think you should stick to your own opinions Dave, as opposed to presuming you know the opinions of swathes of Marple residents.  Re your closed argument on the proposed supermarket/educational facilities, as I've said before, the improvement of educational facilities shouldn't depend on flogging land to a supermarket so it is entirely valid to oppose the proposed supermarket whilst supporting the education of all our children/grandchildren etc..

[Miss Marple]

Dave / Belly I have never heard such absolute rubbish and believe me I do know about this issue !!    Under the present benefit system I have NEVER seen anyone in absolute poverty whereby they can not afford to feed their family in MARPLE.   I have although seen relative poverty whereby people prioritise monies differently for example seeing smoking and socialising high on their list of priorities and at nearly £7.00 for a packet of cigarettes it is rather an expensive priority ( I smoke and it's one of my priorities). Sky TV , designer clothing , fast food and the like are top priorities for some.
I take great offence at you saying that the building of a supermarket  would benefit the people living around the site.
Just by reading your posts I can tell that you know nothing about the area and that you are not local to it.  I grew up around that area and there are lots of people who have purchased their properties and take pride in what they have achieved.  How dare you both feel that it is acceptable to devalue property and disrupt  peoples lives.   It strange but the majority of the YES campaign group at that time( think they have disbanded now) were either living in social housing or in rented properties whereby they can move if the development becomes a problem.  Sadly the majority of us can not because we own our properties and will have to stay and suffer, noise , light pollution , increased traffic and the like.
To say the area is less affluent is also an insult to people who have chosen to live there.  This social housing is where many LOCAL  young people hope to live!  So what are you both saying , that it's OK to put a supermarket in an area so we can enhance a PRIVATE college but it's acceptable for our local children to bring their families up around a noisy, traffic congested site.  
You both need a reality check !  I would like to see both your reactions if the supermarket was to be developed in your back yard  SHAME ON YOU BOTH you come across as inverted snobs which I feel is a far description, plus you  have both  just given me the determination to go on to fight this ridicules proposal.

[Dave]

Yes, we've all seen the 'no' posters in Hibbert Lane, but that's not what I meant by 'less affluent areas'. I won't list the roads in question, because Mrs O seems to regard it as a sensitive issue. But anyone who knows Marple knows where the less affluent areas are, and I don't think you'll see many 'no' posters there.
As for 'social conscience', how can anyone who opposes the improvement of educational facilities claim to have one?

[Belly]

"No matter where someone lives, they are all entitled to have, and display a social conscience....."

Trouble is Mrs O, your idea of a social conscience is not necessarily the same as others.

You believe that it means fighting for one's community in trying to fight off the perils of a supermarket.

Others see a social argument for providing a supermarket within easy travel range of the more disadvantaged of the community.

Who's to say, who is right and who is wrong? I certainly don't think either argument is based on "ridiculous assumptions". Does it hurt to ever try and see the other side of the argument away from your own perspective, therefore allowing for constructive debate?  

[sooty2]

It's understandable that a lot of this discussion has focused on traffic issues, but we shouldn't forget those who can't, or don't want to, drive to do their shopping.

We need to remember that:

1. About 25% of UK households don't have a car.  
2. The Marple area has the biggest % of elderly residents in Stockport (If you doubt it, look around you in the Co-op.  I'm no spring chicken, but when I go there I feel young again   )
3. The potential supermarket site in Hibbert Lane is close to some of Marple's least affluent residential areas, where car ownership is therefore likely to be lower than in some other parts.

It's quite thought-provoking when you pass a big five-bedroom detached house in one of the leafier parts of Marple, and you see a 'No' poster in the window saying 'save our community'.  There are two cars in the drive, and at least one of them is a 4x4.  They can afford to buy their food at Waitrose or M&S, or maybe the Sainsbury's van calls here.  And yet they want to prevent people who are less fortunate than themselves from being able to shop locally more cheaply.  And they also want to stop our local college improving its facilities (but of course, it doesn't matter to them as their kids go to Stockport Grammar  )


Good post that Dave it's bit like sod you iam all right jack .

Dave just sees what he wants to see and makes ridiculous assumptions. A lot of people will be shocked to learn they live in the least affluent area according to Dave No matter where someone lives, they are all entitled to have, and display a social conscience. Stockport Grammar? Another over the top presumption. This whole issue is not about where we live or how much money we have, it is about a lot of people not wanting a major supermarket in Marple.

[amazon]

The potential supermarket site in Hibbert Lane is close to some of Marple's least affluent residential areas, where car ownership is therefore likely to be lower than in some other parts.
How strange!Have you not seen all the NO posters in that area?

Have seen some tired looking posters  a bit like the people that put them up . One near me asked them were do you shop o we go to morrisons .yet they have a no poster up .sad ......

[sooty2]

The potential supermarket site in Hibbert Lane is close to some of Marple's least affluent residential areas, where car ownership is therefore likely to be lower than in some other part?

How strange! Have you not seen all the NO posters in that area?

[JMC]

It's understandable that a lot of this discussion has focused on traffic issues, but we shouldn't forget those who can't, or don't want to, drive to do their shopping.

We need to remember that:

1. About 25% of UK households don't have a car. 
2. The Marple area has the biggest % of elderly residents in Stockport (If you doubt it, look around you in the Co-op.  I'm no spring chicken, but when I go there I feel young again   )
3. The potential supermarket site in Hibbert Lane is close to some of Marple's least affluent residential areas, where car ownership is therefore likely to be lower than in some other parts.

It's quite thought-provoking when you pass a big five-bedroom detached house in one of the leafier parts of Marple, and you see a 'No' poster in the window saying 'save our community'.  There are two cars in the drive, and at least one of them is a 4x4.  They can afford to buy their food at Waitrose or M&S, or maybe the Sainsbury's van calls here.  And yet they want to prevent people who are less fortunate than themselves from being able to shop locally more cheaply.  And they also want to stop our local college improving its facilities (but of course, it doesn't matter to them as their kids go to Stockport Grammar  )

Some very good points there, Dave.

[amazon]

It's understandable that a lot of this discussion has focused on traffic issues, but we shouldn't forget those who can't, or don't want to, drive to do their shopping.

We need to remember that:

1. About 25% of UK households don't have a car.  
2. The Marple area has the biggest % of elderly residents in Stockport (If you doubt it, look around you in the Co-op.  I'm no spring chicken, but when I go there I feel young again   )
3. The potential supermarket site in Hibbert Lane is close to some of Marple's least affluent residential areas, where car ownership is therefore likely to be lower than in some other parts.

It's quite thought-provoking when you pass a big five-bedroom detached house in one of the leafier parts of Marple, and you see a 'No' poster in the window saying 'save our community'.  There are two cars in the drive, and at least one of them is a 4x4.  They can afford to buy their food at Waitrose or M&S, or maybe the Sainsbury's van calls here.  And yet they want to prevent people who are less fortunate than themselves from being able to shop locally more cheaply.  And they also want to stop our local college improving its facilities (but of course, it doesn't matter to them as their kids go to Stockport Grammar  )

Good post that Dave it's bit like sod you iam all right jack .

[Dave]

It's understandable that a lot of this discussion has focused on traffic issues, but we shouldn't forget those who can't, or don't want to, drive to do their shopping.

We need to remember that:

1. About 25% of UK households don't have a car. 
2. The Marple area has the biggest % of elderly residents in Stockport (If you doubt it, look around you in the Co-op.  I'm no spring chicken, but when I go there I feel young again   )
3. The potential supermarket site in Hibbert Lane is close to some of Marple's least affluent residential areas, where car ownership is therefore likely to be lower than in some other parts.

It's quite thought-provoking when you pass a big five-bedroom detached house in one of the leafier parts of Marple, and you see a 'No' poster in the window saying 'save our community'.  There are two cars in the drive, and at least one of them is a 4x4.  They can afford to buy their food at Waitrose or M&S, or maybe the Sainsbury's van calls here.  And yet they want to prevent people who are less fortunate than themselves from being able to shop locally more cheaply.  And they also want to stop our local college improving its facilities (but of course, it doesn't matter to them as their kids go to Stockport Grammar  )

[Belly]

If "studies show that supermarkets catch diversion trips" this would explain why so many people from Marple do their supermarket shopping outside the town ie on their way home from work etc, therefore they don't need to use a supermarket in Marple, nor are they travelling extra miles as they pass an alternative anyway.

Thats some of the trips, but you need to quote the whole sentance. Transfer trips are a signficant part of the make up.

[sleepless]

If "studies show that supermarkets catch diversion trips" this would explain why so many people from Marple do their supermarket shopping outside the town ie on their way home from work etc, therefore they don't need to use a supermarket in Marple, nor are they travelling extra miles as they pass an alternative anyway.