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.