Toilets on Marple Rec to become a Barber Shop!

[My login is Henrietta]

Yes, there is some roadside parking next to the rec and at times of heavy (and not so heavy) traffic it's a nuisance. There is "domestic" and commercial parking on the opposite side of the road and double decker buses use the road. I use that stretch of road at various times during the working day and traffic is frequently held up on Possett Bridge because the road is blocked by parked vehicles on the nearside and buses and/or other large vehicles coming the other way and this causes delays for cars using Stockport Rd/Strines Rd as well as those turning into Oldknow Road. There is already a problem with cars parking on the rec side of Strines Road and obscuring the view of traffic coming from the Strines direction for vehicles turning out of Oldknow Road onto Stockport Road.

Further to the parking issue there are double yellow lines on most of the rec side of the road.

[My login is Henrietta]

I tend to agree with corium about covenants - surely they can't be regarded as lasting for ever! But I don't agree that we should regard the closure of public toilets as irreversible.  At the moment we have a right-wing government which doesn't believe in local councils providing good services - if they did they wouldn't be cutting their funding so severely.  But in twelve months time we may have a very different government, and its priorities will, hopefully, be different too.  You can always hope.......  

Incidentally, I see wheels was on this thread yesterday, but strangely he didn't answer's Admin's questions.  I wonder why.....    

From the Department of Planning and Community Development's site

"Special rules for permit applications
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) sets special rules about planning permit applications for use or development that would breach a registered restrictive covenant.

An application for land that is burdened by a registered restrictive covenant must be accompanied by a copy of the covenant. If the application is for something that would result in a breach of the covenant, it must also be accompanied by information clearly identifying each lot benefited by the covenant (refer to section 47(1) of the Act).

Section 61(4) of the Act provides that a planning permit cannot be granted for something that would result in a breach of a registered restrictive covenant unless a planning permit is also granted to remove or vary the covenant.

This means, for example, that a planning permit to erect a three metre high fence cannot be issued if there is a covenant restricting fences on the property to two metres in height. A planning permit for a three metre high fence can only be granted if the covenant is removed or varied first or at the same time to allow a higher fence.

Section 61(4) is designed to:

stop planning permits being granted for use or development in isolation from the need to remove or vary the covenant
avoid the need for affected land owners to respond to separate applications
stop projects proceeding in breach of a covenant in the mistaken belief that a planning permit for the use or development authorised the breach."

Didn't someone say that SMBC couldn't find a copy of the covenant? I think I could make a suggestion about where they should look but I'm not inclined to help them out if it's likely to result in the end of the covenant.

[wheels]

Why ?? Because I had more important things to do yesterday Dave

[Dave]

Part of me says if there are covenants they should be respected. Part of me says, the building is there, I'm amazed anyone can make a use of it but better that than watch it slowly decay as I can't see its original function being resurrected and the impact on traffic,as others have pointed out, is likely to be pretty minimal

I tend to agree with corium about covenants - surely they can't be regarded as lasting for ever!  But I don't agree that we should regard the closure of public toilets as irreversible.  At the moment we have a right-wing government which doesn't believe in local councils providing good services - if they did they wouldn't be cutting their funding so severely.  But in twelve months time we may have a very different government, and its priorities will, hopefully, be different too.  You can always hope.......   

Incidentally, I see wheels was on this thread yesterday, but strangely he didn't answer's Admin's questions.  I wonder why.....     

[wheels]

I accept that. Certainly I don't think the two Marple seats are going to provide the interest at tomorrows count.

[simonesaffron]

Simone, I am sure its not your intention but you make it sound as if its the Lib Dems fault that that they are well entrenched in the community. There seems to me an unwillingness amongst the other parties to actually do anything other than at election time.

There are many aspects here Wheels. Other political parties can't really do much in Marple as they don't have any elected Councillors. Therefore they have no mandate and thus no power.

I don't see it as a fault of the Lib Dems that they are entrenched in the community. In fact if anything it is probably more like a compliment to them. In substantiation of what you say I drove over from Marple to High-  Lane yesterday and Windlehurst / Hibbert Lane was festooned with Libdem posters. I didn't see one single poster for any other party. Then when I arrived in High Lane - Lib Dem Posters again, so they probably deserve their election victories for the hard work that they put into their campaigns. However being good campaigners (which they undoubtedly are) and being good for the community are not the same thing.     

[corium]

Dragging this conversation to where it started.

Part of me says if there are covenants they should be respected. Part of me says, the building is there, I'm amazed anyone can make a use of it but better that than watch it slowly decay as I can't see its original function being resurrected and the impact on traffic,as others have pointed out, is likely to be pretty minimal

[wheels]

I think that you said in a previous post that you would be voting for (Abell),  Lib Dems. Fair enough you're allowed to change your mind.

The problem as I see it now in Marple is that the Lib Dems are so entrenched in the issues; E.G. Semms, Chadwick Street Supermarket, Windlehurst Park etc etc and they dominate politics in Marple so much, that if anybody else came in these issues would be resolved before they knew and understood how it all works. That is the reason in my opinion why people vote for the status quo or at least enough of them do.     

Simone, I am sure its not your intention but you make it sound as if its the Lib Dems fault that that they are well entrenched in the community. There seems to me an unwillingness amongst the other parties to actually do anything other than at election time.

[admin]

Picking up on this earlier comment by wheels:

Its also worth noting that this Council have massively increased the toilet provision across the town by getting retailer, pubs etc to open their toilets to none customers as much safer and cleaner alternative to old Victorian urinals

Marple and Mellor have had public toilets closed at Rose Hill, Derby Way, Marple Recreation Ground and Mellor Recreation Ground.

The only public toilet to remain open is in Marple Memorial Park and that is thanks to the campaign by Friends of Marple Memorial Park and Marple Civic Society to keep it open.

When the proposals to close all these toilets were first aired there was a undertaking not to do so until partners had been found to provide three "Community Toilets" for each public toilet to be closed.

So please substantiate the statement that "this Council have massively increased the toilet provision across the town"

Where are the 12 new "Community Toilets" that should have replaced the public toilets closed at Rose Hill, Derby Way, Marple Rec and Mellor Rec?

And if there are any at all, how does anyone know? Where are the Community Toilet signs making the public aware of their existence?

Also, as an aside, which of those public toilets closed in Marple and Mellor were Victorian?

[Dave]

Well remembered Simone.  Actually I wrote of Mr Abell 

I guess he'll probably get my vote.

... but I'm still thinking about it! 

Re Henrietta's concern about parking around the rec, given the tiny size of the proposed barber's shop I doubt whether there will ever be more than one or two customers parked there.

[simonesaffron]

Maybe I'll be voting against them 

I think that you said in a previous post that you would be voting for (Abell),  Lib Dems. Fair enough you're allowed to change your mind.

The problem as I see it now in Marple is that the Lib Dems are so entrenched in the issues; E.G. Semms, Chadwick Street Supermarket, Windlehurst Park etc etc and they dominate politics in Marple so much, that if anybody else came in these issues would be resolved before they knew and understood how it all works. That is the reason in my opinion why people vote for the status quo or at least enough of them do.     

[My login is Henrietta]

The application shows that the plan is simply to convert the existing building.  See
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120677

I don't see why parking should be a problem.  There is plenty of roadside parking next to the rec. 

Yes, there is some roadside parking next to the rec and at times of heavy (and not so heavy) traffic it's a nuisance. There is "domestic" and commercial parking on the opposite side of the road and double decker buses use the road. I use that stretch of road at various times during the working day and traffic is frequently held up on Possett Bridge because the road is blocked by parked vehicles on the nearside and buses and/or other large vehicles coming the other way and this causes delays for cars using Stockport Rd/Strines Rd as well as those turning into Oldknow Road. There is already a problem with cars parking on the rec side of Strines Road and obscuring the view of traffic coming from the Strines direction for vehicles turning out of Oldknow Road onto Stockport Road.

[Dave]

Maybe I'll be voting against them 

[simonesaffron]

It's a little confusing Dave, that you are holding them responsible for their actions - by voting for them. 

[Dave]

Re the practical side of the application - would the toilet building have room for a barber's shop given that there needs to be a waiting area as well as a "cutting" area or does the application involve demolishing the existing building and rebuilding on the site?

There would also be parking issues.

The application shows that the plan is simply to convert the existing building.  See
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120677

I don't see why parking should be a problem.  There is plenty of roadside parking next to the rec. 

As for this: 

Thinking that Councillors run the Council is a bit like thinking that MP's run the country.

I entirely agree - the analogy is a good one.  MPs do indeed run the country, and Councillors run councils, and on Thursday we will be holding them responsible for their decisions - at least, those of us who can be bothered to vote!