Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced

[Dave]

As I've mentioned more than once, my humble opinion, for what it's worth, is that the College needs to get the best possible price for the Hibbert Lane site, so that they have sufficient resources to invest in Buxton Lane and give the next few generations of Marple youngsters the best possible educational facilities.  Our kids deserve nothing less.  I seem to recall that Hibbert Lane was valued at about £4 million for housing, but if planning consent can be obtained for an alternative use which would have more value, then they owe it to the community to go for that, obviously. 

[simonesaffron]

Interesting new post by MIA on the Hibbert lane thread. It includes the following statement by the College: 'The College is committed to full and frank consultation with the community about any plans.'

So we can all agree that's a welcome (if overdue) change of approach!   

And the College has also said 'A logical option is that the Hibbert Lane site could be sold for housing development.'  Not the logical option, just a logical option...........

What do you expect them to build there Dave ?

What would you like to see there ?

[admin]

Thought MIA had disbanded .

They have..........

4 December 2013 - MARPLE COLLEGE STATEMENT

MARPLE COLLEGE STATEMENT – former members of Marple in Action met up with Edward Vitalis...........

[amazon]

Interesting new post by MIA on the Hibbert lane thread. It includes the following statement by the College: 'The College is committed to full and frank consultation with the community about any plans.'

So we can all agree that's a welcome (if overdue) change of approach!   

And the College has also said 'A logical option is that the Hibbert Lane site could be sold for housing development.'  Not the logical option, just a logical option...........

Thought MIA had disbanded .

[Dave]

Interesting new post by MIA on the Hibbert lane thread. It includes the following statement by the College: 'The College is committed to full and frank consultation with the community about any plans.'

So we can all agree that's a welcome (if overdue) change of approach!   

And the College has also said 'A logical option is that the Hibbert Lane site could be sold for housing development.'  Not the logical option, just a logical option...........

[Dave]

Dave, Perhaps you're still a little bit mad about C&MSFC not getting its all singing/dancing new campus on Hibbert Lane.

I am. 

So Dave, the £11m refurbishment of Buxton Lane is dead - ACCEPT.

I do.   

Marple Co-op becomes an Sainsbury's OR Tesco. 

In your dreams!   

[simonesaffron]

Dave,

Perhaps you're still a little bit mad about C&MSFC not getting its all singing/dancing new campus on Hibbert Lane.

Government guidelines or not this project is not going to happen if it means building a supermarket on that site. The political will is against it and whilst we have the local Councillors that we have then they will find a way of stopping it. Currently that way is the planning application for Trinity Street. As Belly says that application is valid for three years but I'm fairly sure that if required it could be extended or altered in some way beyond that if necessary. Remember 'guidelines' are exactly that - they are not laws.

IMHO a 25,000 square feet supermarket on Trinity Street is a vehicular traffic, disaster. Perhaps the Council have concluded the same and are looking to revise it.

There is also the stance of C&MSFC. They now have new management and my understanding is that they are trying to build bridges with the Council. They will hardly do that if they start talking to another supermarket. If they are still looking to sell that land then they will need the support of local Councillors in relation to its use.

As far as Kirkland/SMBC relationship is concerned. I think that the partnership is irrelevant. As I have said previously my reading of the situation is that the Council as a body doesn't need them and in these straitened times would be content to leave the site as a car park and divorce Kirkland, if that is what the have to do. I notice by the way that SMBC have just entered into a trading relationship with Carillion. So Carillion could develop TS under the auspices of the Council.

Finally the land on Hibbert Lane has dramatically reduced in value so nobody is going to pay C&MSFC the 'alleged' amount needed to refurbish Buxton Lane.

So Dave, the £11m refurbishment of Buxton Lane is dead - ACCEPT.

The key here to TS/C&MSFC is local Councillors.

For what it is worth this is my forecast.

Hibbert Lane  sold for houses.

TS either remains a car-park or is developed as a much smaller supermarket than on the original plan.

Marple Co-op becomes an Sainsbury's OR Tesco.               

[Dave]

the Chadwcik Street site will still have planning for a superstore for at least 3 years (i haven't checked the time on the consent) so for a while, at least, its a decent block to anyone else having a pop elsewhere outside the town centre.

A good point. But it's worth having a look at the relevant government guidance:   https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7781/towncentresguide.pdf

Section 6 (starts p 33) is the relevant bit, and the most relevant in this case is this:

ARE SITES SUITABLE, AVAILABLE AND VIABLE?

6.36 National policy requires those promoting development, where it is argued that no
other sequentially preferable sites are appropriate, to demonstrate why such sites are
not practical alternatives in terms of their availability, suitability and viability.

6.37 These terms are defined as:
•    Availability – whether sites are available now or are likely to become available
for development within a reasonable period of time (determined on the merits
of a particular case, having regard to inter alia, the urgency of the need). Where
sites become available unexpectedly after receipt of an application, the local
planning authority should take this into account in their assessment of the
application.
•    Suitability – with due regard to the requirements to demonstrate flexibility,
whether sites are suitable to accommodate the need or demand which the
proposal is intended to meet.
•    Viability – whether there is a reasonable prospect that development will occur
on the site at a particular point in time. Again the importance of demonstrating
the viability of alternatives depends in part on the nature of the need and the
timescale over which it is to be met.

Looking at the above definitions, I would suggest that any new planning application for a supermarket on Hibbert Lane would fail to meet the first two factors, because Chadwick Street is demonstrably available, and also deemed suitable , in that it has planning consent.  However, if there were to be no interest in Chadwick Street from any retailer, than the Hibbert Lane planning applicant could argue that Chadwick Street fails to meet the viability criterion, on the grounds that 'there is no reasonable prospect that development will occur on the site at a particular point in time.'

[amazon]

Maybe it is simply that the supermarket doesn't need to be as big as the current proposal as it doesn't need to "compete" with the Hibbert Lane plans now?

What was on the Kirkland web site? It seems to be off-line at the moment.

Could Kirkland have gone out of business ....

[Bluezorro]

The website was along the same lines as the leaflets.

[Belly]

The proposal being presented to the council is 'To consider a revised offer from the previously selected developer'.   Before we make it ever so complicated, it would surely make sense to take the words literally, and assume (until there is evidence to the contrary) that Kirkland have simply reduced their offer.  This is something that happens all the time, and it would not be at all surprising if it happened here, for reasons which I have given in the previous post.  On the other hand, it could be something even more straightforward, as Mark suggests. 

Howard asks 'Why on earth would the tactic be "in tatters".'   Any failure by the council to get a supermarket on the Chadwick Street site could mean that if a new planning application were to be submitted for a supermarket on Hibbert Lane, it might no longer fail the so-called 'sequential test', which was crucial in ensuring that the Asda planning application was rejected. 

Yes, ish, Dave. But the Chadwcik Street site will still have planning for a superstore for at least 3 years (i haven't checked the time on the consent) so for a while, at least, its a decent block to anyone else having a pop elsewhere outside the town centre.

[Dave]

The proposal being presented to the council is 'To consider a revised offer from the previously selected developer'.   Before we make it ever so complicated, it would surely make sense to take the words literally, and assume (until there is evidence to the contrary) that Kirkland have simply reduced their offer.  This is something that happens all the time, and it would not be at all surprising if it happened here, for reasons which I have given in the previous post.  On the other hand, it could be something even more straightforward, as Mark suggests. 

Howard asks 'Why on earth would the tactic be "in tatters".'   Any failure by the council to get a supermarket on the Chadwick Street site could mean that if a new planning application were to be submitted for a supermarket on Hibbert Lane, it might no longer fail the so-called 'sequential test', which was crucial in ensuring that the Asda planning application was rejected. 

[admin]

Maybe it is simply that the supermarket doesn't need to be as big as the current proposal as it doesn't need to "compete" with the Hibbert Lane plans now?

What was on the Kirkland web site? It seems to be off-line at the moment.

[wheels]

I hate to say 'I told you so', but.....
So it's not hard to figure out what's going on here.   Kirkland have discovered that the site is going to be costly to develop, and/or no retailer is interested in taking it at the planned price.   So they are holding a gun to the council's head: accept a lower offer for the site, or we will walk away.  This would leave the council with an unsold plot of land, but that's the least of their problems.    More to the point, the council's tactic to sabotage the college/Asda scheme will be in tatters. 

Let me add my voice to those who say your totally wrong here Dave.

[Howard]

I hate to say 'I told you so', but.....
So it's not hard to figure out what's going on here.   Kirkland have discovered that the site is going to be costly to develop, and/or no retailer is interested in taking it at the planned price.   So they are holding a gun to the council's head: accept a lower offer for the site, or we will walk away.  This would leave the council with an unsold plot of land, but that's the least of their problems.    More to the point, the council's tactic to sabotage the college/Asda scheme will be in tatters. 

Nonsense, Dave. Why on earth would the tactic be "in tatters". We know there will be no supermarket on Hibbert Lane and the only likely place could be Chadkirk St. which was what the counil intended all along. It's entirely possible that the council is thinking that they may get more for the site rather than less and have gone out looking for other options.