Keith, Graham and Iain

Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle & Gatley Learn more

Lib Dems press on with Tatton CPO

by Iain Roberts on 7 October, 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.

The Lib Dems have approved a Compulsory Purchase Order for the former Tatton cinema site in Gatley.

The Lib Dem team have welcomed the planning application to develop the former Tatton cinema site in Gatley, but we aren’t taking anything for granted.

Months ago we got the council to start work on a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for the site. There were two reasons. First, we hoped it would encourage the owners to pull their finger out and bring forward a development proposal – and that’s happened. Second, we don’t take anything for granted and we want to have a back-up plan.

After all, there has been an approved planning application for the Tatton before, after which nothing happened.

At Stockport Council’s Executive meeting on Tuesday we approved the formal CPO, and if real development on the Tatton site doesn’t happen, we’ll be using it. There are no absolute guarantees, but it gives us the best chance of making something happen.

   19 Comments

19 Responses

  1. phil says:

    15 years since closure and this still rumbles on.Quite unbelievable that a simple redevelopment has been allowed to drag it’s heels. In the last week we have seen the boarding covered in posters and bags of rubbish including broken beer bottles strewn around the pavement, oh and yes the ongoing second hand car storage area.
    We need this completing NOW and not at the next elections. I am at the stage where I personally couldn’t care what they build on this site just as long as the area is neat and tidy.

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Phil – elections have nothing to do with it. It’s a private site and we can only do everything we can to sort it out as quickly as possible, either through a CPO or through the current owners developing it.

  2. bruce says:

    When the original plans were submitted years ago the Libdems opposed them to a man – including Mark Hunter – and they orchestrated the campaign against the development. That is why Gatley has had this eyesore for so long.

  3. Anne Davidson says:

    Picking up on the mention of cars for sale near to the Tatton. I have reported this many times and they are still there, just adding to the eyesore.

  4. Mr S Powell says:

    15 years of Councillors dragging their feet – the lack of development for this site is down to the Libdems and Mark Hunter in Particulsr – no wonder he didn’t get re-elected at the last election.
    Gatley does not need a redevelopement – which would lead to further gongestion in the Village – what we really need is the site to become a car park- why don’t the Councillors realise this ?? – why not have a local poll and ask the residents ??

  5. Iain Roberts says:

    Bruce – I think we’ve been over this a few times, and I always try to correct the errors. No, the Lib Dems did not orchestrate a campaign against the previous development – you’re thinking of the Conservatives, when Mick Jones won by 17 votes on a “stop the Tatton development” campaign, then when the planning application came he (then a councillor) was the person who actually put the case against the development to the committee.

    However, the reality is that the majority of residents were opposed to the 2008 proposals but views seem (as far as I can see) to have changed this time round.

    Anne – we’ve had them investigated a few times, but I don’t think we’ve found evidence of the law being broken.

    • bruce says:

      This Farce IS down to the libdems and typical of your party to blame everyone else but the libdems. No wonder you have decimated everywhere

  6. bruce says:

    Iain did your party ever circulate any leaflets opposing the plans?

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Bruce – not that I remember, but it’s possible. During the election campaign we certainly didn’t, and the Conservatives certainly did. (You say we’ve been “decimated everywhere” but last I checked we were the largest party in Stockport and hold all three seats in Cheadle and Gatley!).

      We can talk about what happened 7 years ago (when none of the existing councillors were on the council) or we can get on and sort the Tatton out. Which would you prefer?

  7. Lois Evans says:

    You have not responded to my comments about the further traffic congestion this proposal will cause. Please tell us your plans to alleviate the current traffic problems in Gatley and explain how this planned development will prevent more chaos. Bet you can’t

  8. Art lampkin says:

    Just think how much the company that owns the site have made in the past 15 years with the price of land and property that has happened since then and had to do nothing. Not a bad way to make money.

  9. Judi says:

    The real problem here is the fact that the developer submitting plans doesn’t mean that they will do the build. It could be another delaying tactic. That is not the councils fault. I well remember Mick Jones and his anti Tatton development campaign several years ago. But then, we all remember things differently. The priority is not to go over old ground but to press on the CPO as quickly as is legally possible. Perhaps we should really be blaming this government for making it so difficult.

  10. Iain Roberts says:

    Hi Judi, I agree, and it’s why we’re pressing on with the CPO. There are legal issues – we can’t CPO if the owners can persuade a judge that they’re actively developing the site – so no guarantees, but we’ll do everything we can.

  11. Iain Roberts says:

    Lois – you’re right: any possible use we can come up with for the Tatton site will result in a small but significant increase in traffic. If we want to leave the Tatton as it is, there’ll be no increase in traffic.

    I don’t see a way round that – we need to decide which option we prefer. Personally, I think it’s more important to develop the Tatton and bring the site back into use, but I accept not everyone will agree.

  12. John Ellis says:

    What does a ‘compulsory purchase order’ actually mean? And what will be the likely outcome of such an exercise?

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>