Tatton cinema makeover completed
January 7, 2012 Iain Roberts 23 Comments

The former Tatton Cinema has now completed its makeover, with the banner going up on Friday. This has been paid for by the owner of the site, not from taxpayers’ money!

Whilst this is an improvement on how the site has looked recently, we want this to be short term only.

We firmly believe that the site needs to be put to good use – and will continue to work with the developers and the Council to sure a long-term future for the location in the heart of Gatley. However, in the meantime, this is certainly an improvement to what was there before.

tatton

23 Comments

1
John Hartley
Sunday 8 January 2012 - 10:46 am

Have to say I’m unconvinced that drawing attention to this derelict eyesore like this is such a great idea.

2
Paula Isherwood
Sunday 8 January 2012 - 11:26 am

I totally agree with John. All it does is catch the attention of passers by – in THAT condition not a good thing to do.

What idiot thinks these things up?

3
phil
Sunday 8 January 2012 - 11:44 am

I must be missing something here but how can a sign be classed as a makeover? I went to the original meeting in 2001 at Kingsway School when this site was first discussed- it has since been mentioned by local and national politicians every time there is an election with promises to do something. One thing has always confused me – how can a company buy something and sit on it for 11 years with no incoming income.

4
bruce thwaite
Sunday 8 January 2012 - 11:46 am

What a fiasco – a touch of black paint and a cloth banner only emphasises what a complete mess the whole saga is.
The ONLY way forward is to develop it!
Was an eyesore and is still an eyesore.

5
Iain Roberts
Sunday 8 January 2012 - 12:20 pm

Hi Phil,

What I referred to as the “makeover” is the boarding put across the front and round the side, painted black in addition to the sign.

I agree completely that we need the site developed, though I have to say that Lib Dem politicians have never promised that we could make that happen – only that we would work hard and try everything we can (which we have done). We’ve always made clear that it’s a privately owned site and we can’t force action.

You ask how a company can buy it and then sit on it for 11 years. The site has actually been through several owners since 2001, with the current owners buying it in 2005. Financially for an owner, it can make sense to wait to right deal to come along, or for property prices to increase, rather than do something quickly but make a loss.

The current owners did, of course, want to do something with it in 2008 but local businesses and residents did not feel it was the right solution.

If you look across the country, you’ll find many thousands of similar situations where someone has bought land or property and is waiting for the right time to do something with it (sometimes called ‘land banking’).

6
Geoff S.
Sunday 8 January 2012 - 12:27 pm

Just like the old ‘Barnes’ hospital site, it appears that developers purposely neglect the structure (especially if it has a conservation order on it) let it fall into decay and then the council finally give in and it gets knocked down. Why not a CPO on the Tatton, and develop it with part of it for the benefit of the local community? Now that would get some votes.

7
Iain Roberts
Sunday 8 January 2012 - 1:10 pm

Hi Geoff,

The current owners (Dickens Property Group) are keen to develop the site, and have spent the last few years looking for solutions that have the support of local residents and work for them financially. As councillors, we’ve had numerous meetings looking at options and will continue to do so.

We have looked at CPO in the past. Much as we’d love to, there are a couple of issues.

First, a CPO is essentially the Council forcing the sale from the current owner to a new developer. The Council itself doesn’t have the money to buy the site at a time when we’re having to shave millions from our budget. We don’t currently have an alternative developer who would buy it.

Second, there are ways to get round a CPO (which is why it was rejected last time it was looked at) so it wouldn’t be a simple issue even if we did have a buyer.

A CPO can work when an owner is sitting on a site and the Council either has another developer who’s keen to do something, or can be pretty certain of generating enough revenue from the site itself to cover the borrowing costs. Neither is the case here, unfortunately.

8
Paula Isherwood
Sunday 8 January 2012 - 7:24 pm

I’ve always understood that the Tatton was not a listed building. Am I wrong?

I always thought it was a very ugly building even at the best of times and certainly not worth keeping.

9
jean skitt
Sunday 8 January 2012 - 7:51 pm

I’m not at all thrilled by this !!!!!

10
concerned resident. mild
Monday 9 January 2012 - 12:06 am

Please remember, whilst some people don’t like the look of the tatton, when refurbished it would compliment the area. The last plans that were declined would have been a bigger eyesore than the one we have now, and that would have lasted a lifetime. I again draw peoples attention to the ugly block of shops and flats opposite gatley green, we don’t want a similar carbuncle on the site of the tatton.

11
Paula Isherwood
Monday 9 January 2012 - 10:44 am

At least the “ugly” block of shops opposite Gatley Green are all full of working businesses and bringing customers into the area which is more than can be said for the Tatton which has been empty and derelict for almost 8% of it’s working life.

12
Iain Roberts
Monday 9 January 2012 - 10:48 am

A slight correction – although there was an original proposal for the Tatton site that many did think was ugly, the developers revised it in light of the comments and the one that actually went to Planning and had the big campaign against it included retaining the art deco frontage.

13
Robert Taggart
Monday 9 January 2012 - 11:32 am

For a ‘complete makeover’… pull the building down !

14
Rashid
Friday 13 January 2012 - 4:31 pm

Does anyone know what plans were declined by the council for the Old Tatton Cinema.

15
Iain Roberts
Saturday 14 January 2012 - 7:33 am

Hi Rashid,

The full plans will be on the Council website – in the planning section.

The short version is that it was for a small supermarket at the front with some limited parking (retaining the existing Art Deco frontage) and a care home at the rear.

16
Mike Savage
Saturday 14 January 2012 - 3:47 pm

The reason that this saga has dragged on for so long and attracted more blog comment than any other topic is nothing to do with developer inactivity, council intransigence or bungled CPOs, but because the building in question is an old cinema. There is no other building type that I know of that provokes such sentiment, such nostalgic lament and such unrealistic ideas as to what can be done with it than a clapped out old picture house. This is easily quantified, since the rise of the multiplex in the 90s there are now hundreds of these old cinemas now abandoned across the country, some are listed but the bulk of them, like the Tatton, are not. And across the land there are developers constantly battling with local communities with differing ideas about what should be done. Developer wants to put something new and profitable up, local community wants the past preserved and the cinema restored to its former glory and re-opened for community use. Nothing could be more impossible but these fantasists believe it.

More to the point, these fantasists effectively block any attempt by the developer to move things on. If the plans do not involve restoring the building to its original use (and they never do) they go for the stalemate – nothing. That way they can go on dreaming of the day it re-opens as a cinema and the developer is hounded out of town with the cry of ‘victory!’

The fantasists of Gatley took a bit longer to nail their colours to the mast, but a least now with that silly lottery scheme of theirs they have done so and told us what we could have guessed years ago – that it’s a simple straightforward matter to buy the building for community use and restore it to its former glory. What a surprise. No developer is going to agree with that nonsense and so we face the real prospect of nothing happening on this site all, and that isn’t good enough.

Iain, you have skirted round this issue with some brilliance but in trying to please everyone simply allows this situation to persist. If you really are committed to moving things forward then you may find yourself backing the only viable plan now possible for the site; knock the lot down and start again. And I don’t care that it’s in a conservation area, so was the Cine City in Withington and the bulldozers made short work of that. If you are prepared to stand up to these fantasists you may find you’ll have more support than you could have imagined, it’s only by burying this corpse that we can ever hope to sow the seeds of regeneration

17
Robert Taggart
Saturday 14 January 2012 - 7:20 pm

re: Mike Savage. Savage by name Savage by nature, but, here ,here, here.

18
J Clark
Tuesday 17 January 2012 - 10:04 pm

Uncultured peasants! You don’t recognise a beautiful and original building when you see one! I suppose you would rather live in a bland, featureless world of dull, identical buildings with no character? Boring lot!

19
Robert Taggart
Wednesday 18 January 2012 - 11:34 am

re: J.Clark. Oneself appreciates good architecture… the Tatton is NOT ! Guessing you must be one those ‘fantasists’ ?!

20
J Clark
Wednesday 18 January 2012 - 2:18 pm

Robert Taggart,
No, I’m just someone with taste. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder…

21
Robert Taggart
Wednesday 18 January 2012 - 6:40 pm

re: Clarky ! good buildings in Gatley…
Gatley Hall, Gatley Hill House, Saint James Church and The Clock Tower (?). Otherwise – so, so.

22
J Clark
Wednesday 18 January 2012 - 9:44 pm

If you say so Taggers

23
Iain Roberts
Thursday 19 January 2012 - 1:48 pm

This debate has probably run its course, but it does highlight something we find as we knock on doors and speak to hundreds of people across the area. There are genuine differences of opinion.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course, and there are some very keen to keep the Art Deco frontage and others who would as soon lose it.

From our side, we will continue to work with the Council and the Developers to find a solution that stacks up financially for the owners and is acceptable to local residents.



Leave a Reply