Keith, Graham and Iain

Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle & Gatley Learn more

“We are developing Tatton” say owners as CPO continues

by Iain Roberts on 14 January, 2015

The Lib Dem team at Gatley's Tatton cinema site

The Lib Dem team are working to get development at Gatley’s former Tatton cinema.

Dickens Property Group, owners of the Tatton, have told the Lib Dem team they are bringing forward new plans to develop the site. We don’t currently have details of their proposals, but initial discussions have taken place between the architects working for Dickens and the Council’s planning team.

We are giving the news a cautious welcome. We’ve long said that our objective is to get sensible development on this privately-owned site, either by the current owners or someone else.

However, we have been here before and we’re taking nothing for granted. We’re concerned that this may end up being a tactic to stall the Compulsory Purchase Order and, though Dickens have assured us that is not the case and that this is a genuine development with other companies signed up to the plan, we will see.

Separate to that, the Council will continue to pursue the Compulsory Purchase Order, which we hope will result in the site being bought for its current market value and sold onto a new developer around the end of 2015. That process does take time and there is no certainty of success (the final decision is not made by the Council or the councillors) but we believe it has a good chance of delivering a result if Dickens don’t carry through their development.

At the request of Gatley Village Partnership, Iain invited George Perrin – one of the council officers with responsibility for the CPO process on the Tatton to the GVP meeting on 13th January to answer questions about the Tatton and the CPO and we had a lively discussion.

As we’ve found in the past, it’s very easy for political parties to say “something must be done” and pretend there’s some easy answer to sort it out overnight, but it’s the Lib Dems who not only get things done but stay the course to see them through.

 

   14 Comments

14 Responses

  1. bruce says:

    It was the Libdem opposition to the original plan that has caused this farce – you opposed it to a man and Libdems must share the blame

  2. Iain says:

    Bruce – I accept that when the majority of residents opposed the 2008/9 plans, and when the Conservatives won a council seat by 17 votes on the back of a strong campaign opposing the development, the Lib Dem councillors at the time supported the majority view of residents. You’ll remember I’m sure that when the application came to Area Committee, it was the Conservative councillor who took the one public speaking slot against the application.

    We’ve always worked to get the site developed in a way that’s acceptable to local residents so we can talk about the events of 2008 (and the application which I supported at the time, before I was even elected to the council) – if that makes you happy but I prefer to get on with the job at hand and do everything I can to get the Tatton developed now.

  3. Jane says:

    What was proposed in 2008?

  4. Iain Roberts says:

    Jane – it was a large convenience store with sheltered accommodation to the rear.

    • Jane says:

      Only been here 18 months so didn’t know out the 2008 proposal.
      Would a convenience store & sheltered accommodation have been such a bad thing?
      Better than more takeaways or a derelict building surely.
      I can’t see there EVER being a proposal that everyone agrees to.

      • JoanP says:

        The planning application was refused because there was not enough recreation space for the sheltered housing. The applicant appealed against refusal but the Planning Inspector agreed with the council.

  5. bruce says:

    Typical of you to blame the Tories absolving Libdems of any blame – just like your party now trying to extricate themselves from all the coalition cuts when you had ample opportunity to stop them. For example Mark Hunter blames the Tories for allowing certain non-qualified teachers in the classroom. Why did the Libdems not veto it?

  6. Iain Roberts says:

    Dear me, Bruce – I’m just setting out the facts. Sorry if you don’t like them. Now, shall we continue to argue about events from seven years ago, or shall we work to get the Tatton site sorted out?

    • bruce says:

      The facts are Iain, that your party must share the blame. Mark Hunter said it would effect trade in the local stores and then Tesco opens. And what did your party say – nothing. Didn’t even know it was happening until I saw the signs . And it was your party that led the campaign and influenced the residents.

  7. Sajeel says:

    typical delaying tactics, carry on with the CPO !
    ” don’t give a dickens what they have to say”

  8. phil says:

    Suspect that under the present climate that the convenience store idea is scrapped. I think that all the long term Gatley residents want is the eyesore demolished. Two things desperate in Gatley – parking for the prethera of curry houses and a nice new parade of shops. I suspect the parking will not happen as no money in it. Don’t want flats to add to the parking congestion

  9. Alan Gent says:

    Just come back from
    Ambleside where they have a combined cinema and restaurant and its thriving. Whilst the demographic is obviously different, small cinemas are very popular. Certainly the Regent in Marple goes from strength to strength.
    I’m sure something like that would be well
    supported – but not another Indian restaurant please!

  10. je suis charlie says:

    From memory, the application only on tripped-up on appeal because of a technicality that could have been dealt with fairly easily. I hope we don’t end with more sheltered accommodation, but if that what’s needed and providing we get some nice shops to bolster the village, that would be great.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>