Marple in Action - The Future

[simonesaffron]

The other thing about these consultations is exactly how are they communicated to us ? I don't know the answer bytheway but I can't see SMBC writing to all citizens or even households as that would probably cost more than the saving they are trying to make. If they are all online then that would discourage, even exclude people that don't have household access to a computer. I think that I read somewhere that, that figure is around 40%.     

[simonesaffron]

Gosh! Those percentages were hard work, having re-read  perhaps my posting was a little unclear, anyway we got there in the end.

Apologies, admin I did actually say "last year". What I actually meant to say was political year which is May to May, 2012/2013.

My understanding is that the parks consultation is not      included in those figures.

[admin]

Simone said "last year" - the parks consultation was this year so presumably isn't included.

[Dave]

Me too, Howard, but having re-read Simone's original post I can now see the point she is making - apologies for being slow on the uptake.   It is that over ten different SMBC consultations, the average response rate was around 1%.  Now I don't know what the response rate to each individual consultation was, but I'd lay a bet that the response to the parks and playgrounds consultation was a bit more than that.  Which of course would mean that the response to the nine others was even less than 1%   

[Howard]

No, Rudolph is not right, a total 28,783 response  over "ten borough wide consultations" which I am fairly sure is what I said, against a population of 284,600 is an approximate 1% (give or take a point or two, Dave even you wouldn't be that pedantic or would you? ) response per consultation  - NOT 10%

As maths exam papers say..."All working must be clearly shown and must be set out in the space provided". Perhaps you can help us here, Simone, because I am confused.

[Dave]

Simone, I think you'll find that 1% of 284,600 is 2,846.

[simonesaffron]

No, Rudolph is not right, a total 28,783 response  over "ten borough wide consultations" which I am fairly sure is what I said, against a population of 284,600 is an approximate 1% (give or take a point or two, Dave even you wouldn't be that pedantic or would you? ) response per consultation  - NOT 10%

Of course this could mean that people are just not interested in the issues, but when you consider that MIA gained an 8000 plus petition from the population of Marple alone. Dave before you say it I know they used different tactics. Maybe SMBC should the same. The biggest issue with these consultations is not that people are too young/old it is that people are unaware they are taking place and it suits the people that have to do them to keep it that way. So these consultations are not managed in an overt way.

Try this Dave/Rudolph: the ten consultations I refer to took place over 2012/13. With the exception of the parks because it has  been all over this website, and so it should be. Can either of you tell me(without guessing and without research)what any of them were about ?           

[Dave]

Rudolph is right, of course, the consultation response was around 10% not 1%, but it still doesn't tell us much. Most people, for all sorts of reasons, don't respond to consultations, but that doesn't mean they don't care. For example, some don't respond simply because they are very young or very old, and these are exactly the people who will suffer most if the disgraceful proposal not to repair or replace broken park benches or playground equipment is implemented.

[Rudolph Hucker]

Er Simone, I didn't want to say anything first time but now you've repeated it. 28,763 is 11% of 248,600, not 1%...

Or are you saying 10 successive consultations to the same 248,600 resulted in a combined total of 28,763? Your statement is open to interpretation... NB. If it was the latter, I'd probably be less inclined to respond to surveys 4 to 10 than I was surveys 1 to 3. You can have too much of a good thing!!!

RH.

[simonesaffron]

Simone that sounds like whatever the outcome if you don't like it we can blame the authority.

No Wheels, That's not my view at all but when you have power and influence you also have responsibility for both failures and successes and a 1% response to "consultation" is a failure and indicative of nothing.

If we had a 1% turnout for the next election (although that day may be fast approaching) would we consider that we had successfully got our message across ?

[Dave]

This is getting a bit surreal!  So by putting Trinity Street on the market, the council were risking 'that the Hibbert Lane site would be lost to ASDA'. No they weren't, they were seeking to prevent that!

And as for this

Now there is risk that a 25,000 sq ft Supermarket will be developed on Trinity Street and that's a potential loss only surmounted by a HL ASDA.

....that's no loss to the council, that's a gain.  I accept Victor's point about business rates, but if the Trinity St  supermarket is built the council will not have lost anything, they will have gained the money handed over for the land.

[simonesaffron]

Dave,

Why do you have to relate everything to money and business are you absolutely sure that you are not really Duke Fame's alter ego ?

The risk of loss was that the Hibbert Lane site would be lost to ASDA and that in the eyes of the Marple 6 is as big a loss as you can get.
Now there is risk that a 25,000 sq ft Supermarket will be developed on Trinity Street and that's a potential loss only surmounted by a HL ASDA.
So its all gamble and more gamble.

[Victor M]

On the contrary, they will gain because they will get money for the site, plus ongoing business rates for the indefinite future

Unfortunately all Business Rates go straight to Central Government, the Council get nothing.

[Dave]

we think we know what "gamble" means or at least we have an accepted definition in our eyes.

Your majesty, is this the Royal 'We'?   

They took the risk of authorising a development on Trinity Street in the hope that the authorisation alone would defeat the supermarket proposals on Hibbert Lane. Which is exactly what it has done. The danger is now (albeit remote) that somebody somewhere could actually find the money and the will and try and develop Trinity Street in accordance with the actual planning permission. 

That's not a risk.  A risk means a risk of losing something - e.g. when you bet on a horse you risk losing the money if the horse doesn't win.  But in the event that the Trinity Street site is developed, that is no loss to the council.  On the contrary, they will gain because they will get money for the site, plus ongoing business rates for the indefinite future. 

[barndoor]

From my soundings Councillor Kev's barnstorming 5 minute speech on the night did more to defeat ASDA than all the MIA parades and petitions put together. Asda themselves were absolutely flattened by it.    

I would dearly love to know what he said. Is a transcript available?