Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced

[wheels]

Wheels, Portfolio Selection and Executive Election are two entirely different things. I can assure you that I understand it perfectly.

I double that really.But I am happy to leave it until you mislead again  

[Dave]

We know from many previous posts on this forum that the valuation of the Hibbert Lane site for housing is about £4 million, which leaves an £8 million shortfall, which Kirkland seem to suggest could be made up by 'the return generated by a store at Chadwick Street'.   I don't understand that - does anyone else? 

Yes I understand it and it has been suggested as a way forward elsewhere

I'm glad you understand it, wheels.  Are you going to enlighten the rest of us??

Well are you??

[simonesaffron]

Wheels, Portfolio Selection and Executive Election are two entirely different things. I can assure you that I understand it perfectly. The leader has no say in the identities of the Executive they are democratically elected from within their own group.

I will leave it at that now. I don't want to play Yes,No, Yes, No, Yes,No.   

[wheels]

You are total wrong here Simone. The Council Constitution is quite clear in that the Leaders nominees are put to council for confirmation. So if considered the Transport Executive member he is appointed ot that post by the leader confirmed by council. The party groups have no voice in portfolio allocation. Thus again you mislead or just dont understand.

[simonesaffron]

Wheels, with respect, it is leaders of Councils who are irrelevant not local Councillors. Leaders of Councils are not like Chairs of PLC'S or Captain's of Industry, they have no authority whatsoever over their Councillors. Leaders are elected by their own internal political group. They are often chosen because no other fool wants to do it and this is the case with Stockport. The Council sticks them up at Council question time to answer awkward questions.The real power in any Council is the Executive and the Alliances on that board. The leader has no more say in who makes up the Executive than the most junior backbench Councillor, they are elected internally. So there is really no leadership as such to have "confidence" in. A

The whole executive in 2012 (all 8 of them) was elected completely unopposed, what does that tell you? It tells me that it was decided before the election was. Let's remember the  Council Leader that came out of that election was not the leader that went into it. So it didn't matter who the Leader was but it mattered who the Executive was.     

There is a good deal of misunderstanding and misinformation there Simone. Under Stockports Constitution the Executive is appointed by the Leader and Confirmed by full council so clearly there is not going be be any election there is not meant to be any. The Leader puts her slate forward and council confirms end off. Of course other minor party Lab and Tory's could put a slate forward but what would be the point they would lose.

Further you are quite wrong the role of the Leader nowadays is much more like a Company Chair working with the Chief Ex. Indeed the Leader in stockport controls a budget of £250much more than none entities like Stunnel and other back bench MPs ever get near.There were in fact three other members lobbying for the Leaders Post  following the previous leaders defeat however all melted away given the strength of support for the current leader Cllr Derbyshire. The Leader themselve is appointed by the full council.

Further you

There is no misinformation here Wheels, The leader does not appoint the Executive. The Executive stands for election within the group and each group member has a vote, the leader has one vote the same as everybody else.  The Executive appointments have to be ratified by the full Council but that is the power of the Council not the leader. The Leader cannot hire and fire anybody as a Chief Executive of a private company can.

[wheels]

Wheels, with respect, it is leaders of Councils who are irrelevant not local Councillors. Leaders of Councils are not like Chairs of PLC'S or Captain's of Industry, they have no authority whatsoever over their Councillors. Leaders are elected by their own internal political group. They are often chosen because no other fool wants to do it and this is the case with Stockport. The Council sticks them up at Council question time to answer awkward questions.The real power in any Council is the Executive and the Alliances on that board. The leader has no more say in who makes up the Executive than the most junior backbench Councillor, they are elected internally. So there is really no leadership as such to have "confidence" in. A

The whole executive in 2012 (all 8 of them) was elected completely unopposed, what does that tell you? It tells me that it was decided before the election was. Let's remember the  Council Leader that came out of that election was not the leader that went into it. So it didn't matter who the Leader was but it mattered who the Executive was.    

There is a good deal of misunderstanding and misinformation there Simone. Under Stockports Constitution the Executive is appointed by the Leader and Confirmed by full council so clearly there is not going be be any election there is not meant to be any. The Leader puts her slate forward and council confirms end off. Of course other minor party Lab and Tory's could put a slate forward but what would be the point they would lose.

Further you are quite wrong the role of the Leader nowadays is much more like a Company Chair working with the Chief Ex. Indeed the Leader in stockport controls a budget of £250much more than none entities like Stunnel and other back bench MPs ever get near.There were in fact three other members lobbying for the Leaders Post  following the previous leaders defeat however all melted away given the strength of support for the current leader Cllr Derbyshire. The Leader themselve is appointed by the full council.

[simonesaffron]

Wheels, with respect, it is leaders of Councils who are irrelevant not local Councillors. Leaders of Councils are not like Chairs of PLC'S or Captain's of Industry, they have no authority whatsoever over their Councillors. Leaders are elected by their own internal political group. They are often chosen because no other fool wants to do it and this is the case with Stockport. The Council sticks them up at Council question time to answer awkward questions.The real power in any Council is the Executive and the Alliances on that board. The leader has no more say in who makes up the Executive than the most junior backbench Councillor, they are elected internally. So there is really no leadership as such to have "confidence" in. A

The whole executive in 2012 (all 8 of them) was elected completely unopposed, what does that tell you? It tells me that it was decided before the election was. Let's remember the  Council Leader that came out of that election was not the leader that went into it. So it didn't matter who the Leader was but it mattered who the Executive was.     

[sooty2]

Not sure what your point is O it was nonesense and is nonesense now

Whats your point W? You was not present at the telephone conversation. I was.

[wheels]

Not sure what your point is O it was nonesense and is nonesense now

[sooty2]

This statement is taken from the Kirkland web site: www.marpletowncentrestore.co.uk/theproposals.html

What about the College?
Kirkland Developments recognise the importance of the redevelopment of the College to residents in Marple. As a local company, Kirkland was involved in the initial stages of bidding for the College redevelopment, prior to the Chadwick Site becoming available for a foodstore proposal. Kirkland's initial bid for the redevelopment of Marple College included a residential and leisure scheme for the Hibbert Lane site. During this bidding process, Kirkland was in a position to understand the requirements of bringing forward a redevelopment of the College. As such, the company believes that if a town centre store was approved, the Marple College redevelopment is still possible without Asda. Proposing new homes at Hibbert Lane, as opposed to a foodstore, combined with the return generated by a store at Chadwick Street, will provide a sum that could be used to redevelop Marple College.

Kirkland has not brought forward proposals for Hibbert Lane but has looked carefully into the potential for new College facilities without approval for the Asda proposals, in recognition of Marple College's ambitions and to reassure residents that approval for Kirkland's town centre store proposals will not mean the College is sidelined.

As an example, Kirkland has worked on the indicative proposal below, showing new homes at Hibbert Lane alongside new facilities for Marple College.

It refers to an indicative proposal "below" but it isn't on the site (as far as I can see). However, it was on display at the consultation and I asked them for a copy to put on here. If / when it arrives I will add it.

Below is a post by Miss M back in July last year!

Ms Cassidy stated that plan B was housing, she stated that she did not ever think that SMBC would have refused planning permission  .    Sorry for having to continually repeat myself but some posters on this site never want to know the events as to how we have got to this stage.   MIA were contacted by a developer who stated that they had offered nearly 9million for housing and a very small Waitrose, but their bid had never been even considered by CAMSFC.   
MIA had to inform the developer that we could not assist in anyway as that part of things  were nothing to do with MIA as we had only formed to prevent a supermarket on Hibbert Lane.

[Tricky]

I agree.. Car parking will be a major factor but I think it's about logistics too.. there'd be massively more moving traffic issues with a 20,000+ sqft store on Chadwick Street.

[Belly]

For me Chadwick Street is all about car parking - specifically is there enough proposed to accommodate the store and residual town centre parking. Gut feeling is that there isn't enough. I predict problems if it isn't addressed and I'm not sure how it can be.

[Dave]

I'm glad you understand it, wheels.  Are you going to enlighten the rest of us??

[wheels]

Yes I understand it and it has been suggested as a way forward elsewhere.

I urge you to have confidence in the Coucnil leadership Dave.

[Dave]

Thanks admin - that is useful.

Obviously Kirkland are going out of their way to be reassuring about the college, and to acknowledge the importance of the college's development plans.  This seems to be a key sentence:

the company believes that if a town centre store was approved, the Marple College redevelopment is still possible without Asda. Proposing new homes at Hibbert Lane, as opposed to a foodstore, combined with the return generated by a store at Chadwick Street, will provide a sum that could be used to redevelop Marple College.

Can anyone work out what that means, exactly?   We know from many previous posts on this forum that the valuation of the Hibbert Lane site for housing is about £4 million, which leaves an £8 million shortfall, which Kirkland seem to suggest could be made up by 'the return generated by a store at Chadwick Street'.   I don't understand that - does anyone else?