Hazel Grove Forum

A Suburb in Stockport

10 10 / 10 from 9 Reviews

Post Reply

You are posting as a Guest

You are not logged into an account. There are many benefits to registering an account with us, such as the ability to edit your posts.

Register Login.

Items marked with an astrix (*) must be filled in



Format Codes Disabled | Smileys Disabled



Code Image - Please contact webmaster if you have problems seeing this image code  Refresh Refresh Image
Powered by Web Wiz CAPTCHA version 4.03
Copyright ©2005-2013 Web Wiz

By clicking submit you agree this complies with our Standards.

Artie_Fufkin posted..

[QUOTE=OliverJohnstone]It's a complex issue - the Council has done some good work in terms of recognising the importance of Stockport as a key transport gateway between Manchester and London.

However, the capital needed to regenerate the town centre dwarfs the Portas Pilot award. It could be used, however, to improve existing areas i.e. as you have mentioned through signage etc. We recently approved a plan to create a Business Improvement District which levies a precept on businesses to be used on project withint the area in which they are located (the Town Centre in this case).

With the Council there is a lot of investment going into Stockport town centre - alot of money invested from central government too (a fact the Liberal Democrats never seem to mention is Govt investment in the town). Too little is said about why businesses aren't moving to Stockport though i.e. our unoccupied office space is still quite high.


The Business improvement status is ridiculous. The idea that business can pay more business rates for something that should be done anyway is plain daft. I'd have supported it if all non-residential space was included but I note the council (with the greatest non-residential property) was exempt! The literature was great too, it explained that the likes of Argos will pay a lot more as it had a higher rateable value yet Argos are considering closing Stockport on account of the rates being too high for the income generated.