Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more
by Lib Dem team on 30 June, 2011
Paul Lawrence, who heads up Regeneration at Stockport Council, came to the Gatley Village Partnership on Tuesday. Although he didn’t have anything new to tell us about progress on the Tatton site, this seems like a good opportunity to say where we are.
Everyone in the village wants something to happen to the Tatton site, though as Pam and I speak to people around Gatley we come across many different ideas and disagreements over exactly what should happen.
However, the site is privately owned (by Dickens Property Group) so forcing something to happen is very difficult. Dickens have spent over £1.8 million on the site and, of course, did want to develop the site back in 2008 with a large convenience store at the front and a care home to the rear.
That plan was stopped as a result of a strong local campaign against it (our local Conservative councillor was elected in 2008 on the back of a strong campaign to stop the development, and the Lib Dems were persuaded by some of the arguments being made to oppose the plans).
So what happens now:
Clearing up the site
Following pressure from local councillors, the Council has started the legal process to force the owners to better maintain the Tatton site and make it less of an eyesore in the village.
Development
The Council has investigated several options, working with the developers to see if a better way to develop the site can be found. Where opportunities arise, the Council has pursued them.
That includes looking at a possible land-swap for the rear of the site (to get Gatley another car park). No suitable land could be found to swap with the whole rear area, despite several months of searching, but it may still be possible to swap a smaller parcel of land (e.g. if part of the rear were used for something else, like a smaller care home).
Paul Lawrence said that turning the whole site into some sort of care home or home for the elderly was an option, but the Council strongly felt that the frontage of the Tatton – in the heart of Gatley – should be commercial, ideally retail.
The developers also have the option to sit on the site and wait for land prices to increase – not something we like, but legally they can do it and it’s a very common thing to do. They bought the site near the top of the market, prices are now much lower and they’re entirely within their rights to simply wait until the prices increase before selling it.
The Council’s also looked at the compulsory purchase option. Compulsory purchase is when a Council finds a buyer for the site with a plan to develop it and then forces the sale to that buyer at the market price. So far no willing buyer has been found.
Where now?
Pam and I are glad that action’s been taken to clean up the site and improve the look – something we’ve been pressing for.
Beyond that there are no certainties. In the current economic climate, it doesn’t seem realistic for either the Council or the local community to come up with £2 million to buy, develop and maintain the site, much as we’d love to have it as a local resource like a library or community centre.
We need to pursue every option for developing the site – most won’t work out, but we just need to find one that does to sort out the site.
At the meeting, Cllr Jones, our Conservative councillor, mentioned a plan he’s come up with. He wants to use powers in the new Localism Bill to force a community buy-out of the car parks in Cheadle and use the money raised from people parking in those car parks to fund the purchase and development of the Tatton site.
As Pam King mentioned at the meeting – if you were going to take all the money from car parking in Cheadle (which currently contributes to Council spending and goes to repair potholes, fix pavements etc.), surely it should be used to benefit Cheadle, and not just Gatley!
However, Cllr Jones appears to have misunderstood the Government’s Localism Bill fairly fundamentally – there is not and will not be any power for anyone – community groups or others – to take ownership of Council assets like car parks.
We also need to be aware that whoever does own the building, whether it’s Dickens, a community group, or anyone else, will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the building and site over the years to come.
11 Comments
There seems to have been an equally crackpot idea at the Gatley Village Partnership that the “community” should in some way club together to buy the Tatton and then operate it as a something – presumably profitably so the investors eventually get their money back.
Property speculators like Dickins have to take the rough with the smooth in their gambles. Unlike banking speculators who are beign bailed out by the “community”
I’m not sure I understand the need for the frontage to remain completely ‘retail’ In the days when there was a mixed useage people ‘lived over’ the shop and some years ago I think SMBC were happy to let this happen. I was on the Underbanks Retailers committee at the time. It brings people into the area by creating residential in the heart of village. Isn’t that what’s happening to Warwick Mall in Cheadle? Ordinary flats as opposed to retirement/care home facilities(of which there are plenty already) are almost non existent in Cheadle & Gatley. With the nearby rail link + through bus routes, I think apartments/flats would be a viable option.
Hi Estelle,
I don’t think the Council is saying it should completely retailon the frontage, just that there should be a retail option. As you say, flats above one or more retail units would probably be fine.
Iain,
Thanks to the LibDems for being the voice of reason in the face of Conservative hysteria !
Voice of reason – don’t make me laugh! The Libdems were the most vehement critics of the development of the site and two of them in particular: – the late Brian Millard and our local MP Mr Hunter. At the time of the application we had a Libdem MP and a Libdem council so they must take the blame. But this is typical of Libdems – everything is always someone else’s fault – never theirs. For once why don’t they admit that they got something wrong?
Bruce – we’re the last to say that no mistakes were made, and hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course.
But your claim that “the LibDems were the most vehement critics of the development of the site” is simply untrue. The campaign against the development was the main plank of Cllr Jones’ Conservative election campaign and also featured heavily in Labour’s.
The Conservative campaign in 2008 was all about saving the Tatton from the Lib Dems who, we were told, were hell-bent on developing it – his leaflets attacked the Lib Dems heavily for not being sufficiently opposed to the development.
Of course it could always reopen as a cinema showing classic / less mainstream films, together with a wine bar / restaurant (NOT Indian!) Anybody lend me a million?
Perhaps DPG should consider moving the remaining tennants out, boarding the place up, lighting a torch…
Result ? RESULT !… a blank canvass – allowing ‘all’ to ‘move-on’ !
“Anybody lend me a million?”
You’d be up agsinst the very excellent Cornerhouse in Manchester, Alan. I’m not sure you’d be a good punt (not that I’ve two halfpennies to rub together, doncha know).
Ian – your answer (6) proves my point – even Labour is being accused now. The relevant issue is that your party held all the positions of power and your party refused the application – nobody else. All you had to say was yes, we got that wrong and left it at that. But no – you just cannot help yourself – you have to attribute blame elsewhere
Hi Bruce,
Planning is a quasi-judicial matter for councillors. The planning decision in this case was made by the Planning and Highways committee of the Council, on which councillors of all parties sit.
The decision is then subject to appeal to a planning inspector who is independent and non-political.
I can describe how events happened, and clearly you will interpret them as you see fit, though I remain somewhat mystified at how you reach the conclusion you have done given the facts.
For those like yourself who were in favour of the development back in 2009, and want to know who to blame for it being refused, there are a number of sources. You might blame the developers for not putting together an application that complied with the planning rules, the political parties (including the Lib Dems) for not voting it through in the face of public opposition, and of course the lack of a community voice in favour of the application, as any of those could have changed the outcome.
Can I ask what you did in 2008/9 to make your views in favour of the development clear to those making the decision at the time?