Parish Council to seek injunction against allotment holders who refuse to move

allotments

Alderley Edge Parish Council is proposing to close the Heyes Lane allotment site at the end of January by which time they intend to have created some plots at the new Lydiat Lane site.

Whilst some Heyes Lane allotment holders have agreed to vacate the site, about sixteen have not so the Parish Council intends to get an injunction against them if they refuse to move off the sites by January 31st.

Councillor Frank Keegan told fellow councillors that by the end of January Alderley Edge School for Girls, who own the site at Lydiat Lane, will have signed the lease with Cheshire East Council for Wilmslow Road where they are planning to build new sports facilities.

The Parish Council will then look to put a planning application into Cheshire East Council for a storage hut. Cllr Keegan explained "That's the only bit that needs planning. We don't need planning permission to dig up allotment plots."

Cllr Mike Williamson said "We need to bring Heyes Lane to a close. I understand feelings are strong but we need to bring it to a close.

"Subject to us getting agreement from the school to get on to Lydiat Lane, what I'd like to propose now is we bring a resolution to the Parish Council meeting in January which will basically formally close the site at the end of January, because by then we have Lydiat Lane up and running so people can move there.

"So I want to propose that we get our solicitors to write a letter to the remaining tenants, as seven or eight have already said they will vacate the site, re-instate our actions, remind them what we have done to date ... and require them to be off the site by January 31st and if they are not we go to court to get an injunction and move them."

He continued "If they wish to continue to run an allotment we can move them to Heyes Lane or there might be spaces on the other sites if they prefer to move to Chorley Hall Lane or Beech Road."

Parish Councillors agreed that they will get their solicitor to draft a letter which is then sent to the sixteen tenants who have not yet agreed to vacate their plots.

Cllr Mike Williamson added "Hopefully that will bring the matter to a close."

Tags:
Alderley Edge Parish Council, Allotments, Heyes Lane Allotments, Lydiat Lane
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Vin Sumner
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 1:30 pm
I think this is a sad day for the village when injunctions are threatened; I had understood that there was some sort of consultation going on , but I guess I missed the small print.
Jonathan Savill
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 1:42 pm
I take it that the resulting feedback of the "Parish Pledge" Survey revealed majority public support for the car park?
Jon Williams
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 1:48 pm
This gives them plenty of time to move
Ian Miller
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 2:59 pm
Regardless of whether AEPC is acting lawfully and all the other as yet
unresolved legal issues relating to this matter, how does AEPC propose to solve the question of access to the land off Lydiat Lane for the small number of Heyes Lane allotment holders who have, allegedly, agreed to move there? Access at present is a pedestrian only footpath along a narrow unmade dirt farm track which runs behind a number of houses on Netherfields. The nearest public road, which is residents only parking, is at least 200 metres away.

Also, have those residents whose houses overlook the Heyes Lane allotment site considered how the level of lighting which will be required on any new car park will affect their privacy and the view from their homes? Not to mention the associated traffic noise and the intrusive effects of any CCTV crime prevention system which may well be required on the car park.
Martin Dixon
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 3:13 pm
On one hand the PC are asking for more responses to the "Parish Pledge' survey; on the other they are ploughing ahead with there plans regardless. I find their actions totally incongruent.

They seem to be resorting to bully boy tactics to get their own way, without any regard for the fact that they have not proved any legal right to do what they are doing. Where is the legal permission for change of use of the allotment site?

I think the PC are treating the residents of AE with utter contempt.
Ed Johnson
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 3:15 pm
As it helps provide the village with this http://bit.ly/1w9vvIS - then I'm all for the change....and so are hundreds of others in the village.
Donald Henderson
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 4:31 pm
Ian, the track down to the new site is no narrower, nor longer, than the track to the Chorley Hall Lane allotments - if a tractors etc can access the field then so can cars. A few lorry loads of hard core is all that is needed.
With proper landscaping and tree planting, the Greencrete car park, sitting as it does below the level of Heyes lane, should be well screened from neighbouring houses and the road. Perhaps the Council could publish an architect's impression of the new site to alleviate some of the concerns.
It IS sad to see more and more space being given over to the motor vehicle, but we all drive (well most of us) and they ain't going to go away. Daytime parking in the village is a serious issue - this afternoon the Festival Hall car park was full and that is before the new surgery is built. All day parking takes place on Heyes Lane, Mottram Road, Ryleys Lane, Brook Lane, Trafford Road to name but a few - many of these are further away from the village centre than the proposed new car park too.
I don't expect it to be used in the evenings as much but so what - most town car parks aren't. What the Council must NOT do is impose a prohibitive charge for all day parking.
With regard to the petition, it may have 1800+ signatures but a doorstep survey is notoriously misleading as only one side of the case is presented.
Richard Fitzwilliam
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 4:58 pm
Why is “Whacky Backy” Keegan even commenting on this when Emerson are the developers and he has a clear conflict of interest?
Trevor Leech
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 5:25 pm
After twenty years here I've just qualified for my Residents Card, but seen enough to know the score. I've followed this saga in detail from the start, knowing what the outcome would be.
Money talks in this village and we all know where it comes from and where it goes. It would make a good film. Any thoughts on cast?
Working title? The Might Garden?
Fiona Braybrooke
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 7:27 pm
Where is the permission for change of use and where is the cost of the redevelopment into a car park? Who is funding this project? Will it be the Emerson Group?
David Carey
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 7:44 pm
Can somebody remind me when the AEPC elections are (providing they don't have a secret ballot of course) so we can begin to get people elected onto AEPC who actually represent the views of the people in Alderley Edge.
Martin Dixon
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 7:55 pm
Trevor Leech

I think a good title for the film would be "The Retirement Fund" or "How to Succeed In Local Politics Without Really Trying". I would love to cast Donald Pleasence as the lead, sadly he is no longer with us, he did make a spectacular bald villain though. So maybe it could be Ralph Fiennes with the Voldemort makeup. Or even Tom Hardy playing it a little like 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

I have just had another thought. AEPC intend to go to court to seek an injunction. In order to be successful they will need to prove to a judge that they have the right to evict the allotment holders. That will be a really interesting court case. How on earth will they do that? How much of the people of AE's money will they spend? When they lose, will they then just get on with developing the Festival Hall and the medical centre, that they have all the authority to do, and stop trying to ride rough shod over the wishes of the lovely people of AE?
Pete Taylor
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 9:28 pm
All of this really does smack of increasing desperation to re-develop the Festival Hall as quickly as possible. In the short term clearly the allotment site has been ear-marked for an area for the developers to store their materials, equipment and workers facilities. Yet it seems that the required planning application, for some parts of the redevelopment, will not be heard until after demolition has started. What if CEC planning officers refuse to grant that permission, what if it goes to appeal?

Is this not a very good argument for Councillors not to be both on the Parish Council and the Cheshire East Council? There is clearly a lack of checks and balances here, never mind the unanswered questions, which others have posed, re the relationship between Councillors and developers.

For some reason I'm reminded of Lyme Green.
Pauline Anderson
Tuesday 9th December 2014 at 11:12 pm
Did Mike Williamson really say, or was he misquoted:

"If they wish to continue to run an allotment we can move them to Heyes Lane or there might be spaces on the other sites if they prefer to move to Chorley Hall Lane or Beech Road." ????

I agree with previous posters that the deadline has not passed (and never will, because one was not set) for the consultation responses to be recorded and a decsion to be reached. It does answer previous posts regarding how responses were to be recorded and by whom, and who would make the decision. It's not going to happen, it was merely lip service. There has been no intimation regarding how many responses have been received. For me, that makes the printing of the leaflets a misuse of parish council funds, as is the use of PC funds to appoint a solicitor.
Claire MacLeod
Wednesday 10th December 2014 at 11:37 am
The 'consultation' is a joke. Even the Parish Pledge pamphlet makes it clear that the decision to proceed with these unpopular plans (the car park, not the medical centre) has been made and the results of the 'consultation' already predicted. A fait accompli.

But as previous contributors to this site have already commented, how can it be seen as a proper consultation if: a) no deadline is set for people to respond by b) there is no formal arrangement to record and publicise the response (by an independent adjudicator, not the AEPC who are clearly biased in favour of an outcome in favour of their existing plan)?

To now announce that they will take out an injunction by the end of January (again, apparently regardless of the outcome of the 'consultation'), simply serves to confirm that the AEPC are hell bent on continuing with their proposals. They are showing a complete disregard for a significant proportion of their electorate who remain opposed to their plans.
Martin Dixon
Wednesday 10th December 2014 at 11:59 am
I think one of the big problems with the plan for Hayes Lane Allotments is a lack of trust in AEPC.

I noticed on another string on this site that Cllr Frank Keegan himself disclosed, in relation to his involvement as a Councillor an CE Council, "When an occasional application was submitted for Emerson in Alderley Edge, I declared an interest and left the room." This is of course what members need to do in line with the 'Code Of Conduct'. This shows that Cllr Keegan has the necessary honesty and integrity required of his office.

AEPC have the same 'Code of Conduct', as posted on their website. So why, after declaring an 'Interest' in Emerson, does he get directly involved in parish council matters that involve Emerson? Surely Cllr Keegan can see that his actions create a lack of trust. Even if he does not recognise this, do the rest of the PC not see it?
Richard Fitzwilliam
Wednesday 10th December 2014 at 12:09 pm
Pauline it gets better than this.

If memory serves, the councillor who used PC funds to appoint said solicitor and travel to London (on expenses) to see them is the one who has a conflict of interest with the builder doing the work. Misuse of funds in this scenario is a whole lot worse. If correct I’m sure it’s all above board, however the facts can be interpreted differently.
Vin Sumner
Wednesday 10th December 2014 at 2:57 pm
Next parish council elections are in 2015 , guess at same time as the other election ! in early May ... so time to get a village based ( not party ) slate organised ...
Fenton Simpson
Wednesday 10th December 2014 at 5:43 pm
The injunction threat may be good news for us. The court will have access to all the information and will find that the PC has no power to change the statutory status. But at what cost to the tax payer ?

I have just had a call from a journalist who tells me that the cost of the injunction will be passed to the allotment society. Whether this is true or not it shows how low the PC will go to prove their point.

Fenton simpson
Chairman AEAGS
Martin Dixon
Wednesday 10th December 2014 at 8:18 pm
Fenton

I think you are very right. For AEPC to put this in front of a judge is a really effective way of testing their case at tax payers expense. I don't see how anyone can expect the costs to come back to your door though.
Claire MacLeod
Wednesday 10th December 2014 at 9:45 pm
Surely the judge will determine who is responsible for the costs, dependent on the outcome?
Pete Taylor
Wednesday 10th December 2014 at 10:25 pm
@ Vin Sumner; Wilmslow Town Council (thanks to two by-elcetions) now have two non-party independent Councillors, the electorate became fed up with WTC not listening to the voters and with their CEC Councillors voting against an amendment which would have kept swathes of the Green Belt out of the clutches of developers. These Councillors toed the party line and Frank Keegan did too; even though the land in question was outside his constituency, he voted to remove Wilmslow land from the Green Belt.

It is time to kick party politics out of Parish/Town Councils and also to stop Councillors serving on both Parish/Town Councils and on CEC at the same time, this way there are no checks and balances- we have seen the result, it does not work.

See Amendment 1 here: http://bit.ly/1DlRiwX
Martin Dixon
Thursday 11th December 2014 at 1:58 pm
Below are some excerpts from a rather long consultant's report used to support the planning application for the Festival Hall / Medical Centre. The full version can be found at http://bit.ly/1BAGdeV

I do think it makes rather interesting reading and certainly casts doubt on the need to turn the allotments into a car park.



"TRANSPORT STATEMENT TO ADDRESS PARKING

Sanderson Associates (Consulting Engineers) Ltd have been appointed by Emerson Development (Holdings) Limited and have prepared this Transport Statement on behalf of the Alderley Edge Medical Practice in support at a proposed medical centre at Festival Hall on Talbot Road. Alderley Edge.

The development comprises of a medical centre with 16 consultation / treatment rooms, a pharmacy on the ground floor. a physiotherapy suite and ancillary facilities. It takes the form of an extension to the existing Festival Hall. A new entrance. foyer and toilets are also proposed for the Festival Hall to accommodate the extension.

Vehicle access and egress to the site is proposed from the existing access and egress arrangement already in place. The proposals involve a new car parking layout providing 45 spaces including 3 disabled bays.

The overall requirement based on LPA parking standards for staff and the above actual generation for patients, would be 12 staff spaces and 13 parking spaces for the patients giving a total requirement for 25 parking spaces for the Medical Centre. On the basis of this assessment 25 of the 45 parking spaces being provided are likely to be occupied by users of the Medical Centre, leaving 20 spaces available for any weekday users of the Festival Hall.

The Festival Hall and surgery are considered complementary uses for the 45 proposed car park spaces because the busiest time for the Festival Hall is weekends and evenings when the surgery is closed. The only activity during surgery time is a daytime bowling club group of 10-15 people in the winter months.

For the existing GP Practice no parking is provided and all parking is on street or in the pay and display car parks. The current surgery has 1 dedicated space for a Doctor and 2 disabled bays on street. All existing staff and patients travelling by car have to use the on-street and pay and display car parks to the south and west of London Road. Using the same method as used in the assessment for the proposed situation an estimate of parking associated with the George Street surgery can be made. For the average of five consulting rooms used at the existing surgery there would be 3 patients per room some 15 people which after applying the model split gives 10 patients using a car and parking in the vicinity of the existing surgery. Taking the number of existing staff as 18 gives the equivalent of 9 cars for staff (1 car per 2 staff). The overall total is therefore 19 cars parking on street or in the local off street car parks.

It is therefore concluded that there are spaces available around the Festival Hall which are presently available for people visiting the proposed medical centre. Furthermore assuming a like for like demand with regard to the foregoing calculations between the existing GP practice and proposed facilities would mean there is little change overall in the parking situation in the village area given the existing GP practice has no parking of its own at the moment and this would relocate to the Festival Hall. However. spaces around George Street and South Street would be freed up for visitors to the village main street area and these could accommodate those currently using the Festival Hall."
Duncan Herald
Thursday 11th December 2014 at 4:22 pm
Hi Martin,
thanks for this; it should settle once and for all the disagreement between those who write that the Medics did not ask for parking spaces and those of us who wrote that they did.
There is no mention here of the allotments becoming a car park but why would there be as this document surely has nothing to do with the allotments?
It should also be noted that this document claims that there will be a need for on-street parking; that would be unpopular with the people who live on the nearby streets wouldn't it?
As for 1 car per two staff; an optimist at work there?
You write that the document 'casts doubt' on needing to turn the allotments site into a car park; I see the document as showing a great need for a car park there. It all depends on how one interprets a document I guess?
Martin Dixon
Thursday 11th December 2014 at 6:09 pm
Hi Duncan

As my father used to say, "there's none so blind as them 'at won't see".
Duncan Herald
Thursday 11th December 2014 at 9:27 pm
Good Evening Martin,
please allow me to pose a few questions to you.
1. Are you prepared to say to the people who live on e.g. Stamford Rd., that they must put up with a constant turnover of cars throughout the day, once the Medical Centre is opened ?
2. Once the people living in Stamford St. etc. realise this and obtain a residents' permit system, where will the patients' cars go? If it is likely that many of the patients will be either/or elderley and infirm, do you expect them to park a long way away and hike in?
3. As you seem to be opposed to any form of car park on the allotments site, do you accept that the present crisis in car parking in the village needs at least another 100 spaces? Please suggest a site for these cars.
4. Are you suggesting that, as the document above suggests, all the parking needed for staff and patients should be in the area around the festival Hall? In which case where might you suggest that the many cars that have always parked in those spaces go to?

It is easy to say 'no' to things, but damnably difficult when your 'no' is followed by a request for an alternative.

I suggest that I do see; what I see is no alternative to the allotments becoming a car park. Let us also not forget that a bigger site is being offered to allotment users.

By the way, are you aware that one of the C.H.L. allotment users, has had his allotment trashed? I do hope that it is reported to the police.
Fiona Braybrooke
Thursday 11th December 2014 at 11:08 pm
Duncan. Can I ask a question. So,when the planning permission for the medical centre at the festival hall was submitted did you actually appose this due to lack of parking? It would seem by your comments that parking would be an issue? The Sanderson Associates that,submimted their report on behalf of,the Emmerson group,which surely was an intergal part of,the planning application felt that this was not the case hence the planning application was approved. You keep saying that the new doctors surgery is not linked to the new car park on the allotments but it would seem that your are now linking them?
Martin Dixon
Thursday 11th December 2014 at 11:21 pm
Duncan

As you ask me a direct question, I will give you a direct reply. The report that I posted quite clearly shows that all the necessary parking for the medical centre and the festival hall can be accommodated within their car park. It also leaves space to spare, so there is no need for any additional off road parking.

The document I posted was part of the submitted planning application. As this was an application within the parish, I assume that you read and considered all of this information before you voted for or against the application. I have no information as to how you voted. I can only assume by your earlier post that you apposed the application on the grounds of the lack of necessary parking.

It is safe to say that CEC accepted the application in its entirety, which is why work will commence on the new medical centre in January. They were convinced by this report. You seem less convinced currently. Why the change of heart?
Richard Fitzwilliam
Friday 12th December 2014 at 10:08 am
Communities & Local Government Minister, Robert Neill, in a Written Answer given to the House of Commons on 17 October 2011.

“The planning application process relies on people acting in good faith. There is an expectation that applicants and those representing them provide decision makers with true and accurate information upon which to base their decisions. However, under section 65(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it is an offence to issue a false ownership certificate knowingly or recklessly.”

Prior to the planning application councillors can be found on this site saying the sites were linked as additional parking was needed. Were decision makers therefore provided with true and accurate information?

“If a local planning authority feels that an application does not accurately or fully describe the proposed development, or that it is in any way misleading, it is entitled to ask the applicant to amend it or rectify any omissions before it agrees to process the application.”

Would be very interested to know how councillors voted for this matter, as those who are, and have been, saying additional parking is required are therefore in breach.
Jeffrey Dennis
Friday 12th December 2014 at 11:32 am
Whilst the argument regarding car park provision rages on, I must say that the most important comment regarding this thread in recent days is Donald Henderson's point: "what they must not do is to impose a prohibitive charge for all day parking."
Unless all day/working hours parking is cheap, people will avoid the car park and continue to double park/illegally park all over the village.
In conjunction with cheap all day parking APC must work with Cheshire East Council and other relevant organisations to ensure the provision of additional double yellow lines where appropriate and the strict enforcement of existing traffic laws.
Graham Jackson
Monday 15th December 2014 at 7:33 am
@Martin,
Anybody who believes that a Parish Councillor is behaving incorrectly can be reported to the Monitering Officer at CEC using the link below; the form will then be forwarded to CEC's Audit and Governance Commitee. If CEC fails to investigate, it's at this point that the Local Authority Ombudsman can be informed.

http://bit.ly/1zUsFbT

The Council’s Audit and Governance Committee is responsible for considering any complaints that either a Cheshire East Borough Councillor or a Town and Parish Councillor within the Cheshire East area may have breached the relevant Code of Conduct.
Duncan Herald
Monday 15th December 2014 at 10:36 am
Hi Martin,
1. you write that all the parking needed by the Medical Practice and the Festival Hall can be accommodated within the Hall car park (I haven't exactly quoted you). I can't agree. There will be less parking spaces post-building than there were before. The Hall car park was often full, when there was no medical Centre. There will be in the Medical Centre also a pharmacy and a pysio etc., all of whom would like parking space. The number of the general public and businesses who used to use the Hall car park will want to do so again. Are you perhaps hoping to squeeze a gallon into a pint pot?
2. you ask whether I read and considered all the planning documentation (again I'm not exactly quoting you).? I am not a lawyer, architect or builder; so I did not understand fully the contents of all the documentation. Nor did I 'get' everything that came up in meetings. The prime consideration was to get a Medical centre built; sort of 'at all costs'.
3. there seems to be some wish, by those who want to keep the allotments, to tie together the planning for the Medical Centre with parking on the allotments site. Why would the two be conflated?

Hi Fiona,
you ask about the 'doctors surgery' and linking to the proposed car park. I do not say that there can't be a Medical Centre without a car park; but I clearly say that a car park is the best answer to all the space/parking difficulties that would otherwise arise post-building.
I don't think that you'll agree with me on that.

Hi Jeffrey,
to the best of my knowledge, there has not been any definitive scheme for pricing parking spaces. I suggest that you make your own views on pricing known to the P.C. (by writing to the Clerk?). I happen to agree with you; as the car park will be 'owned' by the P.C. i.e. by the people of Alderley Edge, then there should not be any need to make a huge profit.
AEPC does work with CEC re. yellow lines; some have been laid down this year e.g. on the road out of the village up by the De Trafford Arms, up Macc. Road and there will shortly be some on Lynton Lane. All made possible by the AEPC 'getting onto' CEC.
As to enforcement? That's for the police and PCSOs; you could always 'chase up' the police
or the Police and Crime Commissioner?

My usual comment; I write as an individual (who happens to be a parish councillor) and am not in any way representing parish council policy.
Joshua Pendragon
Monday 15th December 2014 at 11:53 am
As someone who could be convinced of the need for a car park, I have no entrenched opinion. Here are some observations of these discussions followed by some straightforward questions to address them. There have been anecdotal justifications for the car park throughout, though none without bringing in the FH and MC, and arguments in favour of the allotments have been equally simplistic (to put it a trifle unkindly: 'parking good' versus 'green spaces good'). As these beliefs are simply held one way or the other there seems little point in arguing with either side, but to ensure that processes are followed in a transparent manner.

1. Previous planning request clearly states that all necessary parking for the MC and FH has been catered to, and no stipulation that further staging space for construction was specified. Therefore, unless that was a specious claim, there is no need to discuss the MC or FH in relation to the allotments at all. The only way for them to be relevant is if a discussion is also had regarding some form of misrepresentation in the planning permit.

2. So far, the only clear things applied for of which I am aware regarding planning (aside from the irrelevant MC and FH) is to build a shed on the site. Planning has not been applied for a car park. While intentions have been stated, it has not even been established how many places the speculative car park would provide.

3. I have not seen it demonstrated (though it may have been) whether or not there are any restrictions of use on the lease from CEC, although the terms of one peppercorn are amusing.

4. The worrying issue of conflict of interest has been raised and it is the PC's responsibility to address this, or people will be forgiven for thinking the area will be used as a staging ground during construction work and then all the objections raised to the car park in relation to the allotments will be used to demonstrate that the car park proved unpopular after all and some other purpose will be found to use the under utilised land, and that this model will roll out in the same manner in Macclesfield.

5. Concerns have also been raised regarding the validity of the consultation exercise, including assessment, time frame, and triggers of change of policy.

All of these issued can be partially addressed by the PC answering these questions (without mentioning the MC and FH except when specifically included):

A. What, if any, are the limitations on the lease of the land from CEC?

B. Will there be site access to construction from Heyes Lane, even though the planning states otherwise?

C. Will the allotment area be used for storage and management support of the construction?

D. If so, when will this begin and when is the car park envisioned to open?

E. What steps have the PC taken to ensure there is no conflict of interest?

F. If one conflicted party was one of the 5 votes cast in favour of the project and this is logically voided, this would mean only 4 out of 9 PC members voted in favour. If true, how will the PC either justify this or redress this?

G. How does the PC consider the consultation exercise valid despite the points raised above, or can those issues be rationalised, or do they consider it a failed experiment?

Pardon a last ignorant question: I thought car parks were in the remit of the CEC. If the PC wanted to get a new car park, wouldn't they apply to the CEC for one? If so, wouldn't the time for this be when it was still in CEC's hands? Again, sorry about my ignorance in these matters (and time traveling), just curious.

These are simply the concerns of an un-entrenched observer about due process, and others may also find the air cleared by answers to the first 7 questions above and get behind the actions of the PC. I apologise if I missed other data that came out in other threads, this post is offered with only the most harmonious intentions (although point 4 above is a wee bit impish).
Joshua Pendragon
Sunday 21st December 2014 at 5:30 pm
It is a busy time but I'm disappointed not to get a reply. Not even to A regarding any use limitations on the lease of the land from CEC, which should be straightforward. No general reply as to the temporary use of the site prior to the car park (B, C, and D). No effort to address allegations of conflict of interest (E and F). What has been the result of the consultation exercise?

There are no doubt quite brief and sensible replies to these questions, questions which have also been submitted to the PC. I am simply asking as a neighbour what to expect. Thank you for your patience.
Martin Dixon
Sunday 21st December 2014 at 11:14 pm
Joshua

You have made some very insightful observations and asked some very straightforward questions. The same questions have been asked, in other ways, by many other people. None of us have had answers; so please don't take it personally.

I wonder if you might get some of those answers by attending the next council meeting and asking them directly at the beginning of the meeting? Members of the AEPC have no requirement to answer questions on alderleyedge.com but they do have an obligation to do so in a council meeting. The questions and answers will then be minuted and members of the press who are present will be able to report on them.
Joshua Pendragon
Monday 22nd December 2014 at 5:59 pm
Thank you for your kind comments, Martin. Regarding the responsibility of PCs at meetings, they are supposed to respond, which is broader in interpretation than 'answer'. That written, today I received the reply below for which I am most grateful, from which you may draw your own conclusions. As ever with such things, nothing generates more questions than a response, but it is a helpful reply:
What, if any, are the limitations on the lease of the land from CEC?

The Lease from CEC refers to the land remaining as allotments. When the transfer was offered, the PC explained to CEC our intentions. The Lease was accompanied by a letter from CEC explaining that nothing in the Lease would prevent the PC from seeking permission from the DCLG to change the use. The PC has consulted DCLG, sought the Legal advice which we were required to do and is now confident that we can proceed. CEC have indicated that this is a matter for AEPC and support our plans. CEC has agreed to make land available to AESG who in turn will lease land to the PC which will allow us to create a new Allotment site on Lydiat Lane, to replace Heyes Lane.

B. Will there be site access to construction from Heyes Lane, even though the planning states otherwise?
At the time of the Planning Approval being granted for the Medical Centre, the PC did not control the Heyes Lane allotments, and there was no proposal to either use access from Heyes Lane to the construction site, nor to create a building compound.

C. Will the allotment area be used for storage and management support of the construction?
The PC would like to see something like this, to reduce the impact upon residents of Stamford Road and Talbot Road. However, as yet, there is no planning consent for such.


D. If so, when will this begin and when is the car park envisioned to open?

E. What steps have the PC taken to ensure there is no conflict of interest?
I am not sure what you mean. Each Councillor is responsible for notifying the Clerk of any matter on the agenda in which they have an ‘interest’. We are required to ask, at each meeting, that Councillors declare any interests. Emerson/Jones who are building the Medical Centre, refurbishing the Hall and will be contracted to construct the Car Park, were chosen by competitive tender in a process run by the PC and PCT in 2010. Arcus, our Agents, were selected by Tender in 2012.


F. If one conflicted party was one of the 5 votes cast in favour of the project and this is logically voided, this would mean only 4 out of 9 PC members voted in favour. If true, how will the PC either justify this or redress this?
No Councillor has any conflicted interest. The Quorum as laid out in our Constitution is three Councillors. Although only five Councillors were in attendance on the 39th Sept meeting, all Councillors have previously expressed their support for the PC actions.



G. How does the PC consider the consultation exercise valid despite the points raised above, or can those issues be rationalised, or do they consider it a failed experiment?
The Leaflet sent to each person on the Electoral Register was an attempt by the PC to explain the rational for our actions and intentions. At the time of the Planning Process for the Medical Centre, parking was a contentious issue, as was access. The urgent need for a new medical Facility meant that Planning Approval was granted. It was pointed out at the time that the existing George Street practice has no parking provision, so why should that be a reason to abandon the plan? We now have an opportunity to improve access to the site and provide additional parking for the MC, Hall and Village. We have invited the electorate to tell us what they think. I think that approach is valid and legitimate.



In your first response, you pose many questions which we have asked ourselves. For example, yes we would like to see the car park used as a pick-up and drop-off site for the many school buses which come through the village each morning and afternoon. There may be as many as 150 spaces on the site, which will not look like a supermarket car-park; more like a National Trust Car Park with trees and shrubs. There will be no tall lamp posts, any lighting will be low level, low impact design. The permit system will allow annual contracts, with suitable window badges. Other parking will be ‘all-day’, with fees set to encourage use. The South Street car park will remain as it is, in terms of spaces and layout, but will become a short-stay car park to encourage turn-over.
Joshua Pendragon
Monday 22nd December 2014 at 10:17 pm
Further assurance from PC Mike Williamson with a quick emailed reply to a follow up question that: 'I can give you a categorical assurance that as long as the current PC remains in office, there will never be housing on any part of the Allotments or Festival Hall sites'.
Fiona Braybrooke
Monday 22nd December 2014 at 10:54 pm
Still no mention of how much the concrete will cost or who will be funding the car park?
Jon Williams
Tuesday 23rd December 2014 at 10:32 am
Why does everyone expect questions to be answered on here ?