Council Reports for Marple Area Committee

[simonesaffron]

It's looking like a done deal, isn't it. Let's just hope that the council has the sense not to reject the camsfc/ASDA scheme until it is satisfied that Kirkland have got a supermarket signed up, the bank finance is in place, and their scheme is actually going to happen. Otherwise they really will have egg on their faces!

Dave, a beat is being missed here. It is only planning permission that is being requested. There are hundreds/thousands of planning  applications throughout the country that get passed every year and never get built on. If the supermarket status quo was preserved there are many in Marple, probably Local Councillors amongst them who would consider this the gold medal position. They certainly wouldn't see it as having "egg on their face". In fact the opposite is true, they would rejoice. They would see it as winning the battle without having fired a shot. The last thing the Council is going to do is query Kirkland's realisation of its own scheme. All that does is weaken Kirkland's case thus strengthening Asda'a.

They need to promote total belief in Kirkland to run ASDA out of town that's an absolute prerequisite.

Kirkland is a scheme to prevent ASDA. The scheme in itself is enough - it doesn't have to be realised, not in the short - term anyway. Which could easily be five years.     

[Dave]

Also (I meant to add) one of them can undoubtedly be funded, but we don't know whether the other can.

[Dave]

I accept that wheels - I'm simply pointing out that one of the applications is 'WYSIWYG' whilst the other is a 'black box'. That's all.

[wheels]

Dave you continually say Kirkland don't have a partner as if repeating it somewho discredits them when you are well aware that in developments such as this is is the norm to find the partner once theplanning application has been approved. No developer isgoing to come on board until Kirkland have got over than hurdle.

Personally I hope both applications are approved so that we can move onto the next stage, knowing full well they won't be,

[Dave]

That quite wrong Dave one decision should not be consequential on the other. Each should stand or fall on their merits alone.

No, the implication of what wheels writes is that in theory, both bids could succeed, but if you read the extensive consultants' reports etc, no-one is suggesting that Marple needs TWO new big supermarkets - only one. 

However, I go along with wheels to the extent that I agree that each application should be considered strictly on its merits.  So what merits do we see?

1.  An application from a huge multinational retail chain, coupled with our local sixth form college, to build a new Asda and a new college building.  If approved, no-one doubts that it would happen.  Asda/Walmart will be able to finance it with small change from their back pockets.  Some people may not like it, but what you see is what you get.  And Marple would get significantly improved educational facilities for the next fifty years or so. 

2.  An application from a small local local developer who has not yet got any supermarket to sign up, and therefore will not have any bank finance in place.  If his bid is approved, we have no idea whether his scheme will actually happen.  And if it did, there would be no wider educational benefit to the local community.

Which would you choose?

[Harry]

That quite wrong Dave one decision should not be consequential on the other. Each should stand or fall on their merits alone.

As you say Wheels, SHOULD. But we all know it won't.

[wheels]

It's looking like a done deal, isn't it. Let's just hope that the council has the sense not to reject the camsfc/ASDA scheme until it is satisfied that Kirkland have got a supermarket signed up, the bank finance is in place, and their scheme is actually going to happen. Otherwise they really will have egg on their faces!

That quite wrong Dave one decision should not be consequential on the other. Each should stand or fall on their merits alone.

[Dave]

It's looking like a done deal, isn't it. Let's just hope that the council has the sense not to reject the camsfc/ASDA scheme until it is satisfied that Kirkland have got a supermarket signed up, the bank finance is in place, and their scheme is actually going to happen. Otherwise they really will have egg on their faces!

[simonesaffron]

Apologies for unfinished post tricky.

The ASDA is classified exactly as Dave says whereas Trinity is classified as central. The point is because of this ASDA has to pass various sequential tests but Trinity doesn't even have to take them.

It is all in smbc's resoponse to the planning app. Like a saddo, I've read it, I can say without reservation that Bookers/Nobels ARE NOT BEING MENTIONED.   

[simonesaffron]

Hey Amazon, lets have an Asda on Chadwick Street. It's big enough

The idea of a supermarket on Trinity Street/Chadwick Street is an utter nonsense.

MIA should be ashamed of themselves not fighting this.. it would cause EVERY single issue they say a supermarket on Hibbert Lane would  bring.. and yet it doesn't provide for the future of educational facilities.

That's not quite true though is it tricky. Every issue but the core one. Trinity Street is in the centre whereas Hibbert Lane isn't. That is MIA's central objection. It is also the Council's trump card.

Nor is Hibbert Lane out of town.. it's a brown field site in the middle of town.

That may be your classification tricky but it isn't the planners' at least not the one's that are not working for ASDA. The Hibbert Lane site is defined exactly as Dave says whereas the Trinity/Chadwick S

[Dave]

Hibbert Lane is officially classified, according to the government planning framework, as 'edge of centre'  That's why, as Simone says, it's the council's trump card. 

[Tricky]

Hey Amazon, lets have an Asda on Chadwick Street. It's big enough

The idea of a supermarket on Trinity Street/Chadwick Street is an utter nonsense.

MIA should be ashamed of themselves not fighting this.. it would cause EVERY single issue they say a supermarket on Hibbert Lane would  bring.. and yet it doesn't provide for the future of educational facilities.

That's not quite true though is it tricky. Every issue but the core one. Trinity Street is in the centre whereas Hibbert Lane isn't. That is MIA's central objection. It is also the Council's trump card.

Nor is Hibbert Lane out of town.. it's a brown field site in the middle of town.

[admin]

There is another report on the agenda page on the council site that has either been added since I pasted the links a few days ago, or I missed first time around.

It is a full appraisal of the Hibbert Lane/Buxton Lane and Chadwick Street planning proposals carried out by HollissVincent on behalf of the council:

http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s25234/FINAL%20Marple%20Foodstores%20Report%20-%2022%2001.pdf

[simonesaffron]

Belly, you say that it is hard to take MIA seriously, I agree. Then why are you doing it and giving them more credit/blame than they deserve ?

They have done nothing that has been effective. It is  Councillors that have devised the "Trinity Street Strategy" not MIA. MIA haven't even been allowed through the Town Hall doors let alone been privvy to the dozens of meetings that must have taken place behind closed doors. Councillors have just treated MIA like an irrelevant noise. The people responsible for Trinity Street are Mssrs; Alexander,Bispham,Candler,Dowling,Ingham & Wright. It really is about time we stopped giving MIA BLAME/CREDIT for something they have had no influence over.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the traffic catastrophe that will/could ensue with the Trinity Street Strategy. But the scheme is not yet realised and there are a lot of obstacles to overcome before it is.

1/ The relocation of Royal Mail.

2/ Development of a really difficult site.

3/ Procurement of a client.

4/ The traffic issues referred to.

You know about planning, so you will know that all that really has to happen on the Trinity Street site is that it has to be available and realisation has to be achievable. It doesn't actually have to be conceived.

What about this for wild speculation ?  Suppose in 2/3 years time when ASDA have ridden off and a supermarket half the size of the current proposed one is developed - would that soften the traffic problem ? 

[simonesaffron]

Hey Amazon, lets have an Asda on Chadwick Street. It's big enough

The idea of a supermarket on Trinity Street/Chadwick Street is an utter nonsense.

MIA should be ashamed of themselves not fighting this.. it would cause EVERY single issue they say a supermarket on Hibbert Lane would  bring.. and yet it doesn't provide for the future of educational facilities.

That's not quite true though is it tricky. Every issue but the core one. Trinity Street is in the centre whereas Hibbert Lane isn't. That is MIA's central objection. It is also the Council's trump card.