The dispute over the Heyes Lane allotments continues as allotment holders refuse to vacate their plots and gather support via a petition.
In February, Alderley Edge Parish Council (AEPC) issued the Alderley Edge Allotment and Gardens Society (AEAGS) with a Notice to Quit the Heyes Lane allotment site on the grounds of development needs.
Tenants were given three months notice to quit the site by 28th May 2014 as they plan to build a car park on the site, to provide additional spaces for the new medical centre and revamped hall.
However, allotment holders at Heyes Lane are challenging the notice served by the Parish Council to quit and handed over a petition of just over 1000 signatures at the Parish Council meeting on Monday, 7th July.
John Tomlinson, Deputy of AEAGS and Chairman of the Heyes Lane Sub Committee, made a statement at the meeting, although he started by clarifying that he was speaking personally – as an elector and allotment-holder, not on behalf of the Allotments Society.
John Tomlinson said "There is a lack of trust in the Parish Council – allotment holders do not welcome the prospect of having the Parish Council as their landlord. I would like to explain why.
"Eleven months ago the Chair of the Allotments Society wrote to the chair of the Parish Council proposing a meeting to discuss the future of the allotments. The chair of the Parish Council has not even had the courtesy to reply to that letter.
"Councillors have spent Parish Council money without prior authority: £1,250 on a QC's opinion on allotment law, £1,000 on solicitors' fees revealed so far, some £160 on a train journey to London in connection with allotment law.
"In January 2013 two parish councillors signed the council's copies of the leases. They did so without authority. The Standing Orders state unambiguously that a document shall not be sealed on behalf of the Council unless its sealing has been authorised by a resolution. No such resolution has been passed, so the signatures are invalid and the validity of the lease is called into question.
"Allotment holders have received a letter from the Chair of the Parish Council dated 12 February, saying the allotments had transferred from Cheshire East to the Parish Council, when they hadn't. And he had no authority to write that letter on behalf of the Parish Council – no councillor (and that includes the Chair) has the legal authority to write on behalf of the council unless authorised to do so by the council.
"A further letter was sent to some allotment-holders on 7 March repeating the untruth that the allotments had been transferred. And that was after I had informed him that the transfer had not taken place. So even if he was genuinely unaware of that fact before he wrote on 12 February, he should not have been ignorant of it when he wrote his second letter. And he had no more authority to write the second letter than the first.
"The second letter also asserts that the Tenancy Agreement between Cheshire East and the Society ended with the transfer of the allotments. That is not correct – not only has the transfer not occurred, but the Tenancy Agreement is still in force.
It seems to me that some parish councillors are trying to bully allotment-holders into vacating their plots. I cannot say that the Parish Council is doing that – because the Parish Council as a legal entity has hitherto expressed no views on the details of managing the allotments.
"This Council is very ready to castigate others for breaking the law – speeding drivers, careless car-parkers, fouling dog-owners – but when it comes to its own actions, it seems that it does not see a need to stick to the rules.
"That is why I and many other allotment-holders do not like the idea of the Parish Council being given responsibility for managing allotments in this village."
Councillor Frank Keegan responded to the statement by telling me "The Allotments Society are struggling to accept life with a new landlord. It is a pedantic point about the Tenancy Agreement, which is still in force. It started with the Urban District Council, then went to Macclesfield Borough Council, then CEC. All of those changes were transfers of assets, so the rights of the Tenancy Agreement transferred. The difference now is that CEC has leased the asset to AEPC.
"I have double checked with our lawyers, with Cheshire East external lawyers (who did the paperwork) with Cheshire East internal lawyers (who instructed the external lawyers) and with the Senior Officer who briefed the internal lawyers, and the answer from all of them is that they confirm what we knew : the Tenancy Agreement is now between AEPC and AEAGS.
"Therefore, AEPC has the right to terminate the Tenancy Agreements - for no reason whatsoever - on 12 months Notice in writing, to start from 30 Sept in any one year. If we gave notice now, today, it would come into effect on 30/9/2015. AEPC has the right to conduct a rent review, in any year, on giving at least 3 months notice before the new Year, which is 1/10/.. AEPC issued Notice on 29 June 2014, that it is conducting a rent review, and we have until 30/9/2014 to give the new rent figure. The Society must sign an agreement to the new rent.
Cllr Keegan continued "AEPC has the right to inspect records - rent payable, waiting lists, names and addresses of plot holders - on request. AEPC has requested the information four times and they have not yet arranged to present the information. Failure to present the information could mean that AEPC issues a one month Notice to Terminate the Tenancy Agreement.
"They can fulfil the request within the one month notice, and that would stop the termination. However, we are inclined to believe that they cannot marry the financial records with the payment they have made to us.
"The Tenancy Agreement covers the situation of a disputed payment - for example, Cheshire East used to send an invoice for, say, £1,200 and the Society would pay it. However, the Agreement states that it is the duty of the Society to pay the correct rent 'whether legally asked for or not'. I.E., it is no defence to say that the council requested £1,200 and the Society paid £1,200. They should calculate the exact rents, and pay that exact sum.
"AEPC billed exactly what CEC billed the year before - we did that because the Society refused to reveal the details of the plot holders etc. Now, we are asking them to justify their payment - there have been quite a few new plots taken up, who are mainly under 65, and therefore the rents ought to be different.
"The Tenancy Agreements can be Terminated if they have failed to account for the proper rents. This is what is behind the posturing of the Society at the moment - however, we have lots of plot holders who are not on Heyes Lane, who want to work with AEPC and settle down to a working arrangement with AEPC."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
I have a suspicion that the plot of land will eventually (sooner rather than later) be developed for housing.
Frank Keegan didn't respond other than to insult me and when others objected to his insult he wrote that he would be in touch with me "very soon."
That was over a month ago and I haven't heard from Frank Keegan (I'm not losing too much sleep!)
My suspicions are based around the fact that on Frank Keegans CE disclosures document a few years ago, where he was required to disclose any gifts with value over £25, he had entered that he was in receipt of an unspecified gift from "Emerson Developments." No further details were given and I reserve the right to be deeply suspicious of that information until such time as I have better knowledge of what that gift might have been.
That aside, I have lived in Alderley Edge for a long time and I recognise that the Heyes Lane Allotments is a piece of land that have been worked by and enjoyed by the local population for many, many years. I know the names of families who have worked that piece of land for generations - long before the arrival of the perma-tanned lovelies that crave additional parking spaces so that they can be seen outside the expensive eateries and drunkeries that Alderley Edge Parish Council seems desperate to subsidise.
Splitting hairs but a good approximation is that 20% of the electorate chose to come out and show their support for retaining the allotments.
It seems that both sides are firmly entrenched in their opinions, and are not prepared to even consider other options.
Areas that I find particularly confusing include:
1. Why is a car park on the allotments now considered part of the new medical centre? We are desperate for a new medical centre, and extra car parking was never in the original plans, so why is this issue now delaying what will be an essential amenity for the village? The existing GP practice on George Street needs bringing up to current standards which is difficult within the existing building. Car parking for the village shops is a completely different issue, and surely should remain separate from this.
2. There seems to be some query over rents and accounts - what is the problem with making the accounts visible?
3. If the allotments truly need to be moved, where is the alternative site? Also, why plan to close an allotment site in the middle of a growing season - that to me shows a complete lack of understanding (and respect) by those who have issued the closure notice, particularly when the alternative site has not even been confirmed as available for use.
Seems to me like we need someone truly independent (if such a person exists) to mediate in this dispute, and come up with a plan that truly serves the needs of Alderley Edge residents, and does not have any hidden agendas or backhanders involved.
Any enlightenment gratefully received!
If we look at the case of the hall. On the one hand we have a building that we might lose and on the other a GP practice.
Most GPs are independent contractors to the NHS. This independence means that in most cases, they (the doctors) are responsible for providing adequate premises from which to practise and for employing their own staff. In other words they are a private company looking for new premises. This requirement is the main lever being used against the allotment holders.
We have the hall which although reasonably popular, again with private agreements i.e paid private functions (weddings), is not totally viable without a consistent and guaranteed revenue stream - the income from leasing part of the building to the gp practise.
To maximise this revenue stream additional parking will be required, but not from the doctors, as they have stated they do not need any more space.
So following the money - what are these additional requirements and needs for? Well we have the weddings etc (all private and commecial arrangements), but the biggy, will be for the parish council to issue more long stay parking permitts whilst not disturbing the workings of the gp practise, any paid private function and the odd local use.
So to summarise, we are losing your allotments to private, commercial and parish council needs. This bluff about losing the gp practice is nonsense.
The parish council have seen an opportunity to generate a long term income stream in the enlarging of the, and to be fair taking, some of the long term car parking pressure of the village. The bottom line - they are just to afraid to come clean and tell you.
The existing site is approx 90 x 60 metres I.e. 5,400 sq mts
The proposed site is approx 210 x 80 metres I.e. 16,800 sq mts
Three times as large?
All the above measurements are me counting strides and so are very approx.
I am writing this only to supply some exactitude, not in argument for or against anything.
That is very useful information, thank you. I do wonder if you might also know what is the cost of turning the Hayes Lane allotments onto a car park and relocating them? I also wonder if there is a projected figure for their annual revenue? I also wonder if you know how this is to be funded? I only ask this, because if you as a councillor do not have this information to hand, how can you possibly know that this is a prudent course of action for you to follow?
I would ask the same questions on the redevelopment of the Festival Hall. The annual account of AEPC seem to show that your revenue more or less matches your outgoings. No cash reserves. No assets either as I believe they are owned by the people of AE. So what financial institution is going to be brave enough to back these schemes?
In the words of Tom Cruise "Show me the money"
I think that our AEPC should be ashamed of how they behave. There is a strange arrogance and belligerence in their attitude to most issues. They treat people in Alderley Edge like a bunch of mindless cretins. But when it comes to their achievements - I struggle to make much of list.
I think that the people of Alderley Edge need a Parish Council who are open, honest and transparent. As we don't have a new Medical Centre yet, nor have we seen any plans and dates for a new Festival Hall or what it might be used for, why is this Heyes Lane Car Park so very very urgent? The doctors don't need it! We know that - and people in Alderley won't park that far away from the shops or the bar that they are in as nobody would be able to see their car!
I have asked this before and of course I have not received a proper open, honest and transparent answer but if, one day, the Heyes Lanes Allotment Holders are herded off their plots and the bulldozers move in to build this vital essential car park - and this new car park is NOT used as most of us in the Village suspect it won't be - would the Parish Council give the Village that they serve an undertaking that the the car park will be converted back into a green tranquil park with benches, flower beds and perhaps a fountain. Above all will they give their assurance that the space will NEVER be built on, either privately or commercially?
Surely they could do that?
The Parish Council can not give you any such assurance. This is simply because the development of the allotments and Festival Hall will require them to borrow the funds for the redevelopment. As none of the councillors are required or able to give personal guarantees, the loan will be secured against the assets, namely the allotment land and the Festival Hall. So when the loan is defaulted, as it will surely be, the lenders will own the assets. Who will be the lenders? Could they be a well known Alderley Edge property development company?
You do not get rich by being stupid; but stupid people make you rich.
No prizes for who redeveloped that !!!
Right I have just been to Germany and they have some relatively small footprint bolt together fabricated steel multi storey car parks . So you can get 4 levels in the space of 3 concrete ones . You can take them down , extend them etc etc...
Have a look on google maps at the SAP industries outfit in Walldorf near Heidelberg the car parks are so neat.
My point is , one of these could be easily erected on the South Street
Car park site , and also in front of Waitrose .sorted
No need to loose any allotments , ever , ever ever anywhere !!!!
If you wish to know about where the finance may come from, try asking Councillor Keegan; he is one of the three Parish Councillors entrusted with carrying out negotiations re. the Medical centre and he is the Vice Chairman of the Finance Committee and I am sure he would be delighted to answer your questions.
FYI, the Parish Council voted to have negotiations re both the Medical Centre and the Allotments dealt with by three of their number (in alphabetical order, Frank K., Mary M. and Mike W.) in order to speed things up. They then report back to the full Parish Council. If you should choose to attend monthly Parish Council meetings, you would be able to hear these monthly reports, as they are made in front of the public.
Further, the public have 15 minutes at the start of each monthly parish Council meeting when they can ask questions and even engage in some discussion. You would be welcome to come along and join in.
As far as I am aware, no monies are to be advanced to the Parish Council, by any property development company, local or otherwise.
In the long term, the assets i.e. the Medical Centre building, will be owned by the citizens of Alderley Edge.
Why would any loan be defaulted? The income from the various tenants of the Medical centre will meet the costs of repayment of loans. Its not just the doctors who wish to be tenants of the Medical Centre.
Mike,
I do take exception to being accused of treating my fellow villagers as 'mindless cretins'; like others, I try to make the village a better place than I found it; take a look at the park compared to as it was three years ago or go visit the cemetery and ask people who use it, how much it has been improved in the last year or so or ask what people think of the xmas fair each year as that too is organised by the Parish Council (and others).
As others, you keep on with the mantra that the doctors don't want car parking; I shall not name names, but I have been told that twenty parking places for the medics et al would be most welcome. Think about it; several doctors, several secretaries etc. and several patients. Where will they all go? Up the various side streets?
Graham,
you write that any danger of losing the gp practice is nonsense; I have been in meetings with the doctors and they have made it very clear that if they don't get adequate new premises, they will have no choice but to decamp.
Sandra,
I visited the proposed new site several months ago, with one of the long-term allotment holders; his view was that some of the soil was good and another part was not so good.
May I second that which Elaine wrote above?
Enough from me for the evening.
Best bet for the allotment holders is to get down to that field and start improving the soil NOW !
cor blimey; you could have knocked me down wiv a fever. A response that doesn't suggest that I am a bribe-taking, ignorant, pig! If you see a mature gent skipping through the village tomorrow, that'll be me!
A tad more data: the West St. car park is approx. 27 yards by 45 yards (taking one of my ministry-of-silly-walks paces as a yard). That's 1,215 sq. yds.; call it 1,200 (excluding the Tardis Toilet)! There are 51 parking spaces; call it 50.
Divide 1.200 by 50 and we have 24 sq. yds. per car space. Call it 25.
Divide 1,200 by 25 = 24 sq. yds. per car. Call it 25.
The Heyes Lane site is 5,400 sq. yds (see above).
So 5,400 divided by 25 = 216. Call it 200.
So the Heyes Lane site could hold 200 cars.
Throw in a decent amount of landscaping, seating etc. and call it 150 cars?
Would 150 parking spaces help life in the village?
Enjoy the weather.
Many thanks for your response.
Re the doctors, I take your word about what they said, but at the end of the day they are a private and commercial business that are employed by the NHS on a contract basis. Are you really telling me that they will up sticks from Alderley Edge, a wealthy conurbation just because they can't get their way over this building. I can assure you that they will either stay where they are or will find somewhere else - all companies (and they are), will have planned for the failure of this or any other project.
You also mention defaulting of the loan - I can well understand that the Doctors coming to a long term agreement, via the NHS, with regards to a viable long term financial agreement - there must be questions raised about any other commercial leasing arrangement as by their nature they are a risk.
Finally, the car park its self. So by admission this car park is not just for the use of the Hall but for general parking. As I have said previously, the Hall was a smoke screen to get a bigger car park without telling the residents.
So will the new car park be for all or will a huge percentage be made permit only?
Ha Ha, Guess most people in the village are now totally confused!!
1. Possible loss of Medical practice. What I have been told is that the present premises are becoming increasingly unfit for purpose, in which case there will have to be a movement away from those premises (George St.). I have been told that the medics have looked long and hard for a new site. The site must be in/near to the village, for obvious reasons. I am told that building onto the Festival Hall is the best (only?) solution.
The practice has a branch in Prestbury and one view put to me is that if the George St. site has to close (or be reduced) then the practice would have to concentrate on the Prestbury site.
I am only repeating what I have been told; the accuracy is for you to judge.
2. Others than the doctors to be tenants of the new build Medical Centre. I doubt that the Parish Council will accept just any old tenants. Pharmacy? Dentist?
3. Car park; I don't think that the Parish Council has tried to 'get a bigger car park without telling the residents' at all. There has been some confusion I guess as to a car park specific to the Medical Centre. a car park to be used by the whole village, a car park to be used by businesses, a car park for all of the above.
But there were 9 Parish Councillors plus numerous writers on this site and so possible confusion was only to be expected?
No decision has yet been made as to the use of permits in the proposed new car park, as far as I am aware. My own view is that there should be some permit parking; businesses need parking for both their staff and their clients; I'd hate to see any local business/employer re-locate due to a lack of parking!
If we see 150 parking spaces, will not that cater for all?
Hi Ricky,
welcome back from Arabia. Has the sun out there had an effect on you?
Thanks for your reasoned response. I think confusion has reigned as to the propose of the carpark where by Cllr Keegan has clearly linked the development of the hall and the enlarging of the carpark. Your statements have clearly broken that link. In other words the carpark is a desirable, some may say essential, requirement for the villages well being.
What I object to is how the arguement for the carpark expansion has been driven as an essential requirement of the halls succes, particulary by Cllr Keegan. Please refer to previous posts by the Cllr to see my point - many thanks.
A certain tennant regurlaly parks an old blue ford van illegally on Hayes lane leaves it there for hours on end causing an obstruction to passing traffic and pedestrians.
The land which the allotment occupies would make a great development site.