Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced

[Belly]

Given the above arguments that the car park at Chadwick street will be too small & shoppers will not be bothered to walk to the other car parks, I think the Eutopia of an energised centre on the back of Hibbert lane is not likely and the shops in Marple will die.

Thats not my argument - I don't think that there will be any other car parks to walk to, as they will all be full! On the strength of last Saturdya at 11am, when the only spare parking in the town was at the soon to be lost Chadwick St - that is a definite realty.

Adding another deck to Derby Way car park. Are you for real Duke - who is going to pay for that? Another bill to add to the cost of Chadwick St or would it come out of your beloved Council Tax?

[Duke Fame]

The cost of building on the land will be reflected on the price that the land is eventually sold for. Chadwick St will be far more costly to build on than Hibbert lane therefore the land on Chadwick St. will cost less per sq. m. than the land on Hibbert Lane.

Good point.  So it comes down SMBC not being too greedy about how much they want for the site, I guess, bearing in mind that there will be a cost involved in relocating the sorting office.

  if the site can return more than the long-term interest rate, a supermarket will invest, otherwise, they may as well return all cash holdings to their shareholders.

To attract a supermarket chain I think the Chadwick Street investment appraisal will have to offer something a bit better than merely 'more than the long-term interest rate'.   We can be sure that all supermarket chains are at any one time appraising dozens of possible new sites throughout the country, and without unlimited access to capital, they will choose to invest in those which offer the best return.  Some of the weaker projects which are not selected may nevertheless offer more than the long-term interest rate - but that's no big deal! 

Of course Dave, that's why I refer to the IRR. Yes,  there will be other potential sites and the best will be developed first but supermarkets are working to diminishing returns now. All i'm saying is that Chadwick St may offer a lower return on investment that Hibbert Lane, it would also offer a lower return on Farmer Parmer's prime field, neither of the latter sites are likely to get through planning without a lot of objection. Chadwick street will go ahead if there is a will and the supermarket that takes it will see the site creating an income within 24 months, any other site will take a decade.

[Duke Fame]

Why do you keep referring to Asda shoppers as obese? I've read a few comments now by you which says this! and I'm surprised no one has asked you sooner or your comments removed

Because I'm not saying all Asda shoppers are obese. It's been claimed that Asda @ Hibbert Lane will energise the centre of the village as shoppers will park in Asda, shop for the mechanically recovered meat products and then, having placed items in their car, they will walk the 400m to Marple to but some nice things.

Given the above arguments that the car park at Chadwick street will be too small & shoppers will not be bothered to walk to the other car parks, I think the Eutopia of an energised centre on the back of Hibbert lane is not likely and the shops in Marple will die.

[Dave]

The cost of building on the land will be reflected on the price that the land is eventually sold for. Chadwick St will be far more costly to build on than Hibbert lane therefore the land on Chadwick St. will cost less per sq. m. than the land on Hibbert Lane.

Good point.  So it comes down SMBC not being too greedy about how much they want for the site, I guess, bearing in mind that there will be a cost involved in relocating the sorting office.

  if the site can return more than the long-term interest rate, a supermarket will invest, otherwise, they may as well return all cash holdings to their shareholders.

To attract a supermarket chain I think the Chadwick Street investment appraisal will have to offer something a bit better than merely 'more than the long-term interest rate'.   We can be sure that all supermarket chains are at any one time appraising dozens of possible new sites throughout the country, and without unlimited access to capital, they will choose to invest in those which offer the best return.  Some of the weaker projects which are not selected may nevertheless offer more than the long-term interest rate - but that's no big deal! 

[tina]

Why do you keep referring to Asda shoppers as obese? I've read a few comments now by you which says this! and I'm surprised no one has asked you sooner or your comments removed

I agree that for some, they will be too lazy to walk to their car but I think that really shows that there is no way the Obese Asda shopper will waddle down to the Marple centre to get the bits & bobs they didn't pick up in Asda.

[Duke Fame]

Given the choice for the supermarket is a  profitable centre which will go ahead compared to a very profitable centre that has a 25% chance of going ahead

Two problems with that, Duke:

1.  Who says it's a profitable centre?   We've seen projected income for Chadwick Street, but we have no clue as to its costs.   Therefore we simply can't know whether it would be profitable or not.  

I'm assuming that either site will give the minimun IRR otherwise nobody will go for it. As Victor says, the difference in the NPV of either project will be refelceted in the price of the land that any interested party will pay. Every major supermarket will know what the costs are for a store of that size.

2.  It isn't a two-way choice, it's a three-way choice.  The third option for any supermarket is simply to walk away from both sites.   That is beginning to look just as likely as a development on Chadwick Street going ahead.  I agree that Hibbert lane is now trailing a poor third.

Agreed to an extent but it's very unlikely. It's WM Morrisons stated strategy to open smaller central stores, obtaining out of town planning permission is increasingly difficult unless on truely brown field sites and even if such sites are not as profitable than others, if the site can return more than the long-term interest rate, a supermarket will invest, otherwise, they may as well return all cash holdings to their shareholders.

[Victor M]

1.  Who says it's a profitable centre?   We've seen projected income for Chadwick Street, but we have no clue as to its costs.   Therefore we simply can't know whether it would be profitable or not. 

The cost of building on the land will be reflected on the price that the land is eventually sold for. Chadwick St will be far more costly to build on than Hibbert lane therefore the land on Chadwick St. will cost less per sq. m. than the land on Hibbert Lane.

[Dave]

Given the choice for the supermarket is a  profitable centre which will go ahead compared to a very profitable centre that has a 25% chance of going ahead

Two problems with that, Duke:

1.  Who says it's a profitable centre?   We've seen projected income for Chadwick Street, but we have no clue as to its costs.   Therefore we simply can't know whether it would be profitable or not. 

2.  It isn't a two-way choice, it's a three-way choice.  The third option for any supermarket is simply to walk away from both sites.   That is beginning to look just as likely as a development on Chadwick Street going ahead.  I agree that Hibbert lane is now trailing a poor third.

[Duke Fame]

I think Duke and I are at cross purposes (not for the first time  ).  Duke suggested that

Morrisons, Sainsbury and Waitrose would kill for that site and Tesco or Asda wouldn't mind it either.

I disagreed, on the basis that

The size of the car park is only one issue, and not the major one, I suspect.    More significant will be the relatively low turnover on Chadwick Street compared with the Hibbert Lane site (as projected by the council's consultants Hollis Vincent), and the greater cost of developing the site, with its slope, limited space, and the need for a very expensive vehicle turntable for delivery trucks to turn round.  Also the lack of a petrol filling station.  Doesn't sound much like a site to kill for to me!  

Duke's most recent point about the other shops in Marple may or may not turn out to be true, but it is irrelevant to the decision making of any supermarket chain considering the Kirkland site.  It will be a straightforward investment decision: they will look at the costs and the potential turnover, and having crunched those numbers they will come to a decision.  They will not be the slightest bit interested in how well or badly other shops in Marple may do, let alone how much corporation tax and business rates they may or may not pay.   It's pretty obvious that the cost of developing Chadwick Street will be significantly higher than Hibbert Lane, whilst the turnover will be lower.  Whichever purveyor of horseburgers is considering the Kirkland site, I suspect their accountants will be taking a long hard look at the numbers! 

Now don't get me wrong, any store would prefer the Hibbert Lane site as a profit centre, it's bigger / less compromise.

However, as a planning proposal, the Hibbert Lane site would normally be refused for all the reasons already been thrown about. Given the choice for the supermarket is a  profitable centre which will go ahead compared to a very profitable centre that has a 25% chance of going ahead and that should Chadwick St go ahead, Hibbert la is dead in the water, Chadwick st is a goer.

Parking capacity can't be a deal breaker though. Derby way could have a 2nd level added and road layout remodelled.

I agree that for some, they will be too lazy to walk to their car but I think that really shows that there is no way the Obese Asda shopper will waddle down to the Marple centre to get the bits & bobs they didn't pick up in Asda.

[Dave]

I think Duke and I are at cross purposes (not for the first time  ).  Duke suggested that

Morrisons, Sainsbury and Waitrose would kill for that site and Tesco or Asda wouldn't mind it either.

I disagreed, on the basis that

The size of the car park is only one issue, and not the major one, I suspect.    More significant will be the relatively low turnover on Chadwick Street compared with the Hibbert Lane site (as projected by the council's consultants Hollis Vincent), and the greater cost of developing the site, with its slope, limited space, and the need for a very expensive vehicle turntable for delivery trucks to turn round.  Also the lack of a petrol filling station.  Doesn't sound much like a site to kill for to me!  

Duke's most recent point about the other shops in Marple may or may not turn out to be true, but it is irrelevant to the decision making of any supermarket chain considering the Kirkland site.  It will be a straightforward investment decision: they will look at the costs and the potential turnover, and having crunched those numbers they will come to a decision.  They will not be the slightest bit interested in how well or badly other shops in Marple may do, let alone how much corporation tax and business rates they may or may not pay.   It's pretty obvious that the cost of developing Chadwick Street will be significantly higher than Hibbert Lane, whilst the turnover will be lower.  Whichever purveyor of horseburgers is considering the Kirkland site, I suspect their accountants will be taking a long hard look at the numbers! 

[Duke Fame]

Never believe a consultant for a council. Consultants are used by councils to justify something obviously flawed. A couple of pals worked for KPMG when they did consultancy for the TIF thing to prove the TIF thing would be good for Manchester. Of course, it was an expensive load of tosh but it said what the local authority wanted which meant they would be paid.

I would tend to go along with that, Duke, being almost as cynical about such things as you are    But this is different: these consultants did not say what the local authority will have wanted.   SMBC will no doubt have been keen to ensure that the consultants made Chadwick Street look like a much more viable proposition than Hibbert Lane.  But sadly HV did not oblige  .  They projected a turnover of 21.6 million for Hibbert Lane in 2017, and only 17.4 million for Chadwick Street. That is not at all what the council will have wanted to hear!

Ahhh, but you ignored my secondary point. £17.4m turnover from the new supermarket added to the £8m of other shops all paying corp tax & rates is better than £21.6m to and a precinct of charity shops not paying rates nor corp tax.

[Dave]

Never believe a consultant for a council. Consultants are used by councils to justify something obviously flawed. A couple of pals worked for KPMG when they did consultancy for the TIF thing to prove the TIF thing would be good for Manchester. Of course, it was an expensive load of tosh but it said what the local authority wanted which meant they would be paid.

I would tend to go along with that, Duke, being almost as cynical about such things as you are    But this is different: these consultants did not say what the local authority will have wanted.   SMBC will no doubt have been keen to ensure that the consultants made Chadwick Street look like a much more viable proposition than Hibbert Lane.  But sadly HV did not oblige  .  They projected a turnover of 21.6 million for Hibbert Lane in 2017, and only 17.4 million for Chadwick Street. That is not at all what the council will have wanted to hear!

[JMC]

When we go into Stockport we often park on the Asda car park, go into Mersey Square etc. and then come back to do our Asda shop thereby benefiting from the cash back for the car park.  Why shouldn't visitors to Chadwick Street do something similar in Marple?

I think they might if they could park at Chadwick Street. But if they cannot park there (due to not enough parking) and have to instead park at nearby car parks such as Derby Way, would they carry a weeks shopping all the way across the centre? I can't see it. Could they even wheel a trolly all the way across? Most people want to park right outside where they do their main shop. For that reason if the parking is better at Hibbert Lane people may be more likely to walk to the centre and then back to do main shopping than  to park away from where they do their weeks shopping and have to carry it a long way. I agree that the Chadwick Street scheme could cause awful traffic issues. Especially for residents on Lyme Grove, Mount Drive and near the Cottage Surgery.

[thebigshed]

When we go into Stockport we often park on the Asda car park, go into Mersey Square etc. and then come back to do our Asda shop thereby benefiting from the cash back for the car park.  Why shouldn't visitors to Chadwick Street do something similar in Marple?

If you don't mind walking from the Tesco Portwood car park you don't even have to pay or shop at Tesco! You can cut through under the motorway.

I still believe that if the Chadwick Street site is developed the lack of car parking whilst the building is being done would do more harm to local traders than the eventual supermarket would.

[Belly]

But the town would not be suffering a few local residents near to the store would be suffering and many might consider that a price worth paying.

Why would it not be suffering? If I can't park in Marple because there is no spare parking spaces I'll simply go somewhere else. Given that the supermarket car park would be full of their own customers - they would be fine. Not so sure about the other shops though.

The town would also suffer if the community events that are organised, struggle due to the fact that visitors can't park in the town to attend.

I've literally just come back from Marple town centre this morning. Coop car park full, Derby Street car parks full - I'm guessing the Memorial Park car park was full (it always is in my experience) - so just where is all the displaced parking from Chadwick Street going to go to exactly?