Chadwick Street / Trinity Street Development Announced

[simonesaffron]

Barbara, what about the 8000 plus signatory petition delivered to Council opposing ASDA'S plans?

Alstan, you obviously weren't in attendance when the Area committee heard the planning application and the Cricket Club was packed to the rafters with virtually everybody in it being opposed to the proposal.

Opposition didn't evaporate after the party in the park and the ensuing  street marches, it increased dramatically.

Anyway, Hibbert  Lane is old hat now it will not be revisited and the site will contain houses within a year. It is my understanding that dialogue to bring this about between C&MSFC and SMBC is much past the initial stages.

Kirkland are also history as far as the current Trinity Street scheme is concerned and it doesn't matter Dave how much you preoccupy yourself with 'translating' the contractual arrangements between SMBC & Kirkland as this relationship is going to cease.  

What is of great relevance here and now is what is going to happen to Trinity Street ? What do we want to happen to Trinity Street ?

[wheels]

That is a great document alstan - I'll add my thanks to those of Dave.

I'm bemused that the Council thinks it can seek reimbursement from Kirkland (items 4.2 and 9.1) when even the council's new advisors Carillion think that Kirkland's revised offer is "not unrealistic" given current market conditions (item 7.5). It's like giving someone a birthday present ... and then demanding it back! I hope that our council taxes aren't going to be paying Stockport MBC's legal bills.

The site clearly isn't viable - stop wasting our time and money and revisit Hibbert Lane.

I think that misses the point. If Kirkland whan to come it at a different price it would be quite wrong for the council to agree to that and other developers might rightly complain if the council just gave it to Kirkland at a lower price. If that were the case then developers would always over bid and then come back saying the market does not bear the price. No if Kirkland want a lower price the council have to re offer it to all or take the work in house which would not require any bidding process.

[alstan]

No flak, Barbara, you are absolutely right. Perhaps 1000 plus did turn out for the march on 21st August 2011, a big response considering that during the school holidays part of their support would be out of town, but that was before any proposals had been put forward and the campaign could, for the time being, rely upon rumour and outrageous and ridiculous claims.

Once proposals were put forward the support evaporated at a surprising rate until, by the time of the second ASDA/CAMSFC exhibition on Saturday 29th September 2012, their protest march could muster little more than 100. I counted 108 but I have to admit that I might have missed some of the children.

Dave, I agree with your reading of paras 4.2 and 9.1 except, of course, when they say that the Council might be bearing those costs they actually mean us. There is a small quid pro quo in that the Council might claim the right to the benefit of any reports for which they (us) compensate Kirkland

[Dave]

I'm bemused that the Council thinks it can seek reimbursement from Kirkland (items 4.2 and 9.1) when even the council's new advisors Carillion think that Kirkland's revised offer is "not unrealistic" given current market conditions (item 7.5). It's like giving someone a birthday present ... and then demanding it back! I hope that our council taxes aren't going to be paying Stockport MBC's legal bills.

Although it is not entirely clear, my reading of paras 4.2 and 9.1 is different from hollins: nearly two years ago, SMBC undertook to repay Kirkland for the cost of the various reports and surveys required for their planning application, if the scheme should fail to go ahead for any reason.  Kirkland paid for those reports at the time, and that cost would have been 'rolled up' into the total costs of the development if it had gone ahead.  No doubt SMBC regarded this as a necessary sweetener (for political reasons of which we are all well aware)  to get Kirkland to submit the application, by offering to mitigate any abortive costs.

So the reimbursement which is referred to is from the Council to Kirkland, on the basis that if the Council is now going to develop the site, then it should now be bearing the costs of those necessary reports.  Or as para 9.1 puts it.'Decline the revised offer from Kirkland Developments Ltd and approve their reimbursement for appropriate ‘planning’ costs for obtaining planning permission on
Chadwick Street in return for the assignment of any outputs produced by these costs'.

[Barbara]

Simone I am not sure that it was 'the majority of people' who were against the development of Hibbert Lane - but it was a very vocal group of 'antis' who scuppered these plans.  (I shall now sit back and await the flak!) 

[simonesaffron]

Considering this topic has been done to death on this site and every conceivable opinion expressed then we don't seem to have taken any notice of what anybody has said.

Of course the Executive will accept the recommendation of the Director. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever there is no 'if' in it. That is why the issue is making an appearance tonight at the AC to fulfil protocol. If any body asks any difficult questions then the blind of confidentiality will be brought down by the Council.

Our Council taxes are paying for the work done by Kirkland to keep Asda out of Hibbert Lane which is what most people in Marple seemed to want at the time.

[amazon]

Being outed, speculation and hand grenades have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

If the Executive accept the recommendation of the Corporate Director for PM&R they will reject Kirkland, compensate them for the cost of obtaining planning permission and start all over again using the SSPP.

Useful comments and information are of interest.

Recon about ten years for this development if it goes ahead ....

[alstan]

Being outed, speculation and hand grenades have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

If the Executive accept the recommendation of the Corporate Director for PM&R they will reject Kirkland, compensate them for the cost of obtaining planning permission and start all over again using the SSPP.

Useful comments and information are of interest.

[hollins]

That is a great document alstan - I'll add my thanks to those of Dave.

I'm bemused that the Council thinks it can seek reimbursement from Kirkland (items 4.2 and 9.1) when even the council's new advisors Carillion think that Kirkland's revised offer is "not unrealistic" given current market conditions (item 7.5). It's like giving someone a birthday present ... and then demanding it back! I hope that our council taxes aren't going to be paying Stockport MBC's legal bills.

The site clearly isn't viable - stop wasting our time and money and revisit Hibbert Lane.

[Dave]

Very interesting paper, Alstan - thank you. 

Looks like the Council is going to play hardball with Kirkland, along the lines of 'If you can't afford to stick to the original agreed price, then we'll develop the site ourselves'.

This could be seen as a negotiating tactic, of course, but my feeling is that Kirkland will take the opportunity to walk away from what we have all seen is a potentially costly and complex scheme.  This would leave SMBC to pick up the pieces and develop the site, in the knowledge that if they don't, they could well be receiving another application for a supermarket on Hibbert Lane. 

[wheels]

Dam having been outed I can't speculate in the same way or throw handgranades in .

;-)

[alstan]

See the following regarding tonight's Area Committee Meeting

http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/b15999/Marple%20Area%20Committee%20-%205%20February%202014%20-%20Report%20Marked%20To%20follow%20-%20item%2010%20Chadwick%20Street%2005th-.pdf?T=9

So Kirkland, who are now backtracking presumably having served their purpose at our expense, are likely to be dumped.

[admin]

Marple Civic Society asked the following questions at Marple Area Committee on December 11th:


Question regarding the proposed foodstore development on the site of Chadwick Street car park.

The Kirkland Planning application to build a foodstore on the site of Chawick street car park was approved by the Stockport MBC Planning and Highways Committee on 1st March 2013 and the ASDA/CAMCFC proposal was rejected at the same meeting.

On 31st May 2013 ASDA/CAMSFC announced that they would not appeal the decision made by Planning and Highways. (The appeal deadline expired on 1st September 2013).

On 10th July 2013 we asked members for an update on progress with the development.

On 25th September 2013 Cllr. Candler reported that the council is eager to progress the project and are working with their preferred partner to achieve an agreement to provide a good offering to the town.

Two and a half months has passed since that report and it is now eight months since the planning application was granted.

The Civic Society requests that councillors provide an update on progress with the Kirkland project including when the development is planned to start.

David Hoyle asked four questions all relating to the proposed foodstore on the site of Chadwick Street car park. He asked:

1. that negotiations with the developer be concluded as soon as possible.

2. serious consideration would be given to (the effect on) Marple town centre during negotiations.

3. that the long term importance of the site to Marple should be weighed against any short term gains to SMBC.

4. the council’s pro-active Town Centre First policy needs to be maintained during negotiations.

This is the council's reply:

Further to the public questions asked at the Area Committee on 11th December 2013 concerning the Chadwick Street development, the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration has provided a response and confirms that:

It is not possible to say when the development is planned to start. For this to be possible an end user will need to be contracted and for this to be possible, the relocation of the Royal Mail will need to be agreed. This remains the subject of detailed negotiations.

In respect to the request that any negotiations on the sale of the Chadwick Street site be concluded as quickly as possible - it is the intention for a report to be submitted to the council's Executive in February.

Serious consideration will be given to the future of Marple town centre in all negotiations.

In respect to the request that the long term importance of the site to Marple will be weighed against a short term financial gain to the Council - it is not a question of short term financial gain to the Council, the key issue is the optimum means of delivering the site.

In response to the suggestion that a proactive Town Centre First policy which has been applied so far in Marple should be maintained - the answer is yes. That is the council's adopted planning policy (as well as national policy) and there is no question of changing it.

[amazon]

If MIA has disbanded why is information being published "on the MIA website"?

This is what I asked and was told they had Disbanded and yet they seem to be in discussion with the college .
Will be interesting if ASDA .go for Chadwick street .

[alstan]

If MIA has disbanded why is information being published "on the MIA website"?