Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced

[Tricky]

Goyt Mill is still for sale..

that's a very big site..

[Dave]

if a new supermarket is built, it will be on Chadwick Centre.

Indeed - but the key word there is 'if'.  We can be sure that Kirkland will have tried very hard indeed to persuade one of the big supermarket chains to take the site, but without success.  So as things currently stand, there is no prospect of a supermarket being built on any town centre site.  For the planners' definition of 'town centre', see this map:  http://www.marplepartnership.org.uk/map.htm.  The boundary of the town centre is in red.  Anything outside that boundary but within 300 metres of it is officially designated 'edge of centre'.  

In which case, as I pointed out in a recent post, the inescapable conclusion is that the only way a new supermarket can be built in Marple will be on an edge-of-centre site.  Howard mentions the rec, and that is certainly edge-of-centre, but no-one could seriously imagine a supermarket being built there.   So where could it be built?  

[simonesaffron]

All the people I talk to about this proposed development are appalled at the probable (I would say certain) traffic chaos it will cause! I agree another supermarket in Marple would be a good idea, as the population has increased enormously over the years, but the effect of a development on Chadwick/Trinity Street is awful to contemplate.

You are of course absolutely right Barbara and there is no apparent answer to this conundrum. If the supermarket is a small one then what is the point of it and if it is a large one then how will the traffic be managed. If the held view for some was that a large supermarket on Hibbert Lane would cause traffic chaos then what will a large supermarket in the centre of Marple do for the traffic chaos? Improve it tremendously  no doubt - the chaos I mean not the situation.

[Howard]

I agree Marple needs competition for the co-op. Hibbert Lane will not be developed as retail so there are two spaces where a large(ish) retail centre could be built. CHadwick Street is 1 and the only other possible space is the Rec. The Rec has no planning permission and Chadwick Street does. Therefore, if a new supermarket is built, it will be on Chadwick Centre.

Let's face it, the way that the centre of Marple has developed over the years means there are no decent spaces that don't have houses or other popular amenities which could be demolished to build on.

PS, I only mentioned the Rec as a largely unused open space close to the centre, not because I have any inside knowledge or have heard any rumours at all about it. In fact, forget I ever mentioned it. 

[Barbara]

All the people I talk to about this proposed development are appalled at the probable (I would say certain) traffic chaos it will cause! I agree another supermarket in Marple would be a good idea, as the population has increased enormously over the years, but the effect of a development on Chadwick/Trinity Street is awful to contemplate.

[Dave]

I don’t think our councillors will be left in peace if they attempt to let the issue lie fallow for a while. They are under considerable pressure from Marple Business Forum to ensure that Marple develops as a “district” shopping centre and, at last weeks meeting, they were assured by the chairman that it was the intention of the local committee to actively pursue that objective, including the possibility of finding an alternative site for a supermarket if necessary.

But we already know that the Chadwick Street/Trinity Street site was identified by SMBC as the only site within the designated 'town centre' area which was deemed to be available, suitable and viable for a supermarket.  So the only possible alternative sites will be 'edge of centre', such as, er, Hibbert Lane?

[TINSLEY]

MIA have a lot to answer for. We need a decent shopping outlet store in Marple. Never seen the the Two Ronnie's  shopping in Marple.

[alstan]

Yes, Simone, I was led to believe by Kirkland’s representatives at their PR exercise at the library that all the supermarkets, particularly the “quality” retailers, were queuing up to bid for the site. Not so it seems.

I don’t think our councillors will be left in peace if they attempt to let the issue lie fallow for a while. They are under considerable pressure from Marple Business Forum to ensure that Marple develops as a “district” shopping centre and, at last weeks meeting, they were assured by the chairman that it was the intention of the local committee to actively pursue that objective, including the possibility of finding an alternative site for a supermarket if necessary.

[simonesaffron]

As innocent bystanders we can debate the effect of petitions and marches time over. In fact we have.

What mattered of course was the perception of local Councillors in relation to this opposition. It seemed to me that they considered it strong  enough to come out in support of it. So in that sense the Marches and Petitions worked for as we now all realise even though some of us are still clinging on by our fingernails - there will be NO supermarket on Hibbert Lane.  

From the onset the preferred developer made proclamations and assertions about interested parties though to my knowledge they didn't name any of these parties. Names did surface but they had their origins in speculation. Some of it from this website.

The decision makers could easily leave Trinity Street fallow for 2/3 years maybe more. It may be for the sake of outside appearances but they seem to be not doing that. Again the decision makers seem to have lost patience when a lethargic attitude would be to keep it.

As I say all old hat and we are left with our own assumptions, hypothesis and for the sake of arguments in fact we are even now using these very words only thinly disguised.

[Dave]

A pretty good summing up there, I think.  However, a reading of the committee paper which alstan kindly published on this thread a few days ago does provide some justification for this:

In which case why does the report prepared for Marple Area Committee recommend that SMBC throw some of the Council Tax payer’s cash at Kirkland?

Para 9.1 of the report refers to 'reimbursement for appropriate ‘planning’ costs for obtaining planning permission on Chadwick Street in return for the assignment of any outputs produced by these costs.' (my italics).  So if SMBC decide to develop the site themselves, they will presumably either take over the existing planning consent, or submit a new application.  If they take over the existing consent, then it's reasonable for them to compensate Kirkland for the cost of securing it.  On the other hand, if the Council submits a fresh planning application, then the site surveys and other reports which Kirkland commissioned and paid for to support their own planning application can be used by SMBC for the same purpose, so it would be equally reasonable that the Council should pay for them.

Of course, if in the end the Council doesn't develop the site (which would not surprise me at all - far from it), then the justification for reimbursing Kirkland disappears, and we are left with marplexile's 'horrendous waste of taxpayers' money'  

[alstan]

I agree that my, perhaps too lengthy, post (353), delved into the past but Simone’s suggestion that support for MIA grew “dramatically” during the period of street marches could not be left unanswered.

This current burst of activity stems from the posting of the link to the report being presented at the MAC meeting 3 days ago and this cannot be regarded as “old hat”.

At the meeting those parts of the report which are entrusted to the public were summarised . At the end of the summary, and with some resistance from the chair,  a question was asked, ie  “Why is there not a fifth option for Councillors to consider, that is to require Kirkland to continue and fulfil their contractual obligations?”. The answer given was that there is no contract and thus nothing that can be enforced. Obviously this immediately gave rise to a number of further questions but an attempt to ask them was rebuffed, the meeting was declared closed to the public forthwith and members of the public were asked to leave the room.

Of course the Councillors appeared enthusiastic regarding the Chadkirk St development, the largest group present were members of Marple Business Forum, and former stalwarts of the demised MIA but the possibility of finding alternative sites was also mentioned. As for “calling the shots”, their failure to reach a decision regarding a muddy footpath did not inspire confidence.

I think you may not be too far off the mark, Simone, in suggesting that the compensation might amount to six figures and there might be a few, mainly MBF members, who would think it money well spent, but “there are many”? I rather doubt it. Perhaps you are thinking that this would be Marple’s money but it would not, it would be SMBC’s money. Do you honestly think the people of Hazel Grove, Brinnington and Bredbury would stand up and say “Good old Marple, you go for it, splash our cash, we’ve got nothing better to spend it on” ?

Just assume, hypothetically and purely for the sake of argument, that the answers to the questions set out in my earlier post were;-

No, it’s not the way we normally do business.
This wasn’t normal business
Looks like it’s turned out that way
Yes that would be right
Errr, I need to take advice on this one

In those circumstances I can think of only one way forward. The dilemma is, of course, what conclusion would we draw if no answers were forthcoming.

[Dave]

There are many who would think that this is money well spent on preventing ASDA coming to Hibbert Lane.

Yes they would - but only if it works.   But if the Chadwick Street site ends up staying as it is (which IMO is the most likely outcome), then there is nothing to stop another planning application for a supermarket on Hibbert Lane or another 'edge of centre' site.  And as we know, such an application would now stand a better chance of success, by passing the so-called 'sequential test'.  In which case, as marplexile so rightly says, the money spent by SMBC will have been 'a horrendous waste of taxpayers money''.  

That is what I meant when I referred to a 'slow-motion car crash'.  

[alstan]

You’re lucky admin, my current earworm is Nurse with Wound and Easy Listening Nightmares. Like all their work it might be regarded by many as monotonous but there is a place and time for everything. Thankfully, when they take a break another earworm steps in, Joan as Policewoman with Game of Life.

Perhaps you should have started an earworm thread, this could catch on

[simonesaffron]

I think Exile that you might be looking at 'compensation' in  the hundreds of thousands of pounds not tens but that should be easy enough to establish one way or the other for those that are interested in establishing such things. There are many who would think that this is money well spent on preventing ASDA coming to Hibbert Lane. 

I don't see it as a gamble that hasn't paid off unless you see CAMSFC as the gambler as it certainly didn't pay off for them but then they dealt the hands from the beginning and just saw their playing partner as too powerful and underestimated others around the table.

As far as local Councillors are concerned they didn't want a supermarket on Hibbert Lane at any cost and they set about destroying that ambition. It's true that they did it in a devious (some would say clever) way but they are Politicians aren't they.

I personally wasn't at the AC the other night when the Director presented on Chadwick Street but I have spoken to somebody who was and she told me that it was totally obvious who was calling the shots as far as any future development of Chadwick Street is concerned and it was the Marple 6 OR The Marple 4 as they were on the night.

She said that it certainly didn't seem to her that Chadwick Street was just a 'spoiling tactic' for Hibbert Lane. It seemed that the Marple 4 genuinely had plans for it - it's just that they weren't telling anybody what they were.

On a positive/creative note I hope and IMHO and now that all the dust has settled on Hibbert Lane I think that Local Councillors were right to stop it. I also think that the right size/identity supermarket on Trinity Street with the right kind of traffic management would be an asset to Marple Community.

I certainly don't understand where this slow car crash is that is waiting to happen.   
 

       

[marpleexile]

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

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

There has probably been a little too much raking over old ground, but the fact is, Chadwick Street is only on the table as a spoiling tactic for the proposed Hibbert Lane development, so some of the history is relevant.

Take, for example, the Council reimbursing the developers for the cost of reports and surveys. If Chadwick Street had been the Council trying to dispose of derelict/unused land, and they had promised to underwrite the costs of investigating doing so to ensure that someone did, then that would be fair enough. It would have been a gamble that unfortunately in this instance didn't pay off.

However, that's not the case, and essentially what has happened is that the Council will pay out what must surely be a good few thousand pounds (if not 10s of thousands of pounds) just to stop the Hibbert Lane development. In my opinion that is a horrendous waste of tax payers money.