With all the debate which has been going on on alderleyedge.com about plans to replace the Heyes Lane allotments with a car park and suggestions that a car park could be located at Chorley Hall Playing Fields instead, I contacted Cheshire East Council to enquire whether this is a viable option.
I asked the Council to comment on whether Chorley Hall Playing Fields could be turned into a car park.
A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council said: "The Council has no intention to turn the playing field on Chorley Hall Lane into a car park. The Council remains committed to keeping the site as open leisure space.
"Cheshire East is looking to develop a place-based car parking strategy and will be looking at the needs of both local residents and visitors to Adderley Edge."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
It begs too many similar questions .. perhaps the outgoing AE Cllr could explain ??...
Does your basis of consistency mean, that if they were to turn Chorley Hall Lane into a car park, they would also have to turn Heyes Lane Allotments into a cark park? Of course not.
Or were you trying to call foul, if their answer to Lisa's question regards Heyes Lane Allotments was negative to your own party's position?
I totally agree with what you say. I think what is happening in Alderley Edge at the moment is totally fascinating. It feels to me like the people of Alderley Edge are really trying hard to stand up for what this village is really about. People either get it or they don't. I suspect you are one of the former.
I agree.
For the first time in many years the people of Alderley Edge actually have a choice.
If I read it correctly (and I think I do) there is a huge wave of support for AlderleyEdgeFIRST because, whilst they have an obvious and wide ranging mix of skills and experience, they have in their ranks level headed Alderley Edge people who live and make their living in the Village/
They are sympathetic to the needs and essential balance required to ensure that Alderley Edge retains it's individuality and doesn't disappear under a mass of concrete to become like every other town and village up and down the country.
Their main problem will be what I would call the "Unthinking Default Vote" in this area that inevitably goes to the blue rosette-wearing candidate.
I hope that AlderleyEdgeFIRST have demonstrated that at Parish Council it really ought to be PEOPLE before PARTY POLITICS otherwise we WILL lose our unique and special Village identity.
May I ask you a question please. were do you shop and how do you get there?
Much earlier in these threads you appeared to be a relatively new to the area "floating voter" who was going to some pains to seek out truth and righteousness.
More recently you seem to consistently post (almost unthinkingly) in favour of the Conservative "Old Guard"
You're not a fifth columnist are you?
I ask because I was actually impressed by the way in which you cast aside some of the more spurious and vacuous comments and appeared to be actually picking through the detail of the candidates.
I cant believe that if you look carefully at the profiles of people like Geoff Hall, Ruth Norbury, Mike Dudley-Jones, Rachael Grantham, and the other candidates that AEFIRST have offered, up you cant see that these people offer significant and welcome change to the moribund state of affairs that local politics has become.
What happened?
You don't say why you ask, where I shop, and how I get there, so I'll try to anticipate why and give you a full answer.
1/ I drive to numerous shops outside the village, mainly with free car parks, usually once a week. It is an easy and safe experience.
2/ I walk to numerous shops in the village, usually five days out of seven, and from October it will be every day.
In addition I walk in the village for exercise, and on occasions (unusual, but three times this week) I walk to collect my grand daughters from AESG. At times, I find walking in the village distinctly unsafe, because of the traffic and parking problems. That is my personal experience, but I do remember a post some time ago, when someone wrote, does a child have to be badly injured (could have said killed) before something is done?
Why do you ask?
I know you told us, Lawrence, that your successful business grew as a result of you recruiting (and recognising the value of) a mix of age and experience, but your comments on this site over the last couple of weeks suggest to me that you are 'reverting to type'. I do hope I'm wrong.
I'll answer Claires first, it is the short one. Sorry Alan, I'll try to make time tomorrow to answer yours.
I assume you have exempted, Mike Dudley-Jones and Geoff Hall, the two experienced businessmen AlderleyEdgeFIRST party candidates, from your tirade.
The sexist comments first.
My business has employed in the past, two female Sales Directors
Our Financial Controller is female, she has been with us for 17 years, she has one male and two female's staff working for her. One has been with us 16 years and the other 11 years, both competent and valuable members of our team.
Our Office Manager is female, she has worked with us for 16 years, and she would laugh at every word you have written about me
We have a female Brand Manager, who has been with us for 16 years (she joined the week after the Office Manager), and she has one male and one female working for her.
I have the upmost respect for my daughter-in-law's, Lisa has an impressive background, and displays her skills on this site, and my younger son's wife is a fully qualified Chartered Accountant.
I need no lectures from you Claire, I practice what I preach, equality.
Re: Successful businessmen you write:
"He appears to hold them in higher regard than those who have different professional experience and profiles". I have a wide range of family, and friends, with very different, non-professional and professional experience and profiles, to myself. I know where I came from; my father was a factory worker, and my mother a cleaner. She died 100 years old, just before Christmas, she too would have laughed at what you have written.
That's my tirade over.
"I asked the Council to comment on whether Chorley Hall Playing Fields could be turned into a car park."
Of course anyone at CEC in their right mind would say no! I would have said no too!
But a possible solution to the log jam that affects the Parking issue in Alderley Edge would be to use a very small part of those playing fields to solve the problem. No leisure facilities would be prejudiced and with the clever use of tree planting any change would be well concealed and landscaped.
But a 'reversible experiment' might provide us and CEC with more answers than mere speculation. I am fortunate to be part of a group of people who will explore why this solution could happen than being part of a group who have already decided that their answer is the only one worth thinking about.
I love all the new costings too that have suddenly appeared. It must surely worry people, when these are being revealed now.
In 2006 the Conservative manifesto for our Village was to make 'Parking' a high priority. That was 11 years ago...
Please give me strength.
I personally, don't have a problem at the school, because I come out of the front gates and there is the crossing with lights to cross towards the park. London Road becomes the problem. I know the schools are a significant problem, but If some of the cars parked all day in Ryley's Lane, Redesmere Drive and Brook Lane were parked in a car park on Heyes Lane, in my opinion it would reduce the problem. Please note I say reduce not eliminate.
You say it will do NOTHING, I think it will do something. I don't think I have heard anyone say a car park will fix everything.
I think a significant debate should be, should we charge on any new car park or should it be free. You are going to have a job to move anyone who gets free parking on the street to pay.
One must also consider that AESG is a private business and, as such, must not expect that the taxpayer should fund their obvious success.
They (AESG) appear to have influence within the village - Wilmslow Road / Lydiat Lane and they should declare their commercial interest before the people of Alderley Edge are stripped of their legacy.
The more I think of it, the more I feel that the previous AEPC have sold us all "up the creek without a paddle!"
I simply asked because I wanted to work out if you were a contributing factor to the traffic problems. Clearly you are not.
What I am now a bit more interested in is why you pick your granddaughters up from AESG. I got the impression in your early posts that you had happened upon AE and fell in love with it so chose to move here. Maybe you just followed your son or daughter here. I think they call it 'economical with the truth'. I think you have a great future as a local politician.
in your post above, you write that Conservative voters are 'unthinking'. Not nice ! Not exactly in accord with democracy eh ?
Then later you praise the candidates that AEFirst has offered up. Pity there arn't many actual policies that have been offered up?
Mike,
first you write that no-one wanted to turn CHL Playing Field into a car park; oh really? Then you write that a very small part of it could be turned into a car park: for how many cars? 20? 30? that's not going to solve a problem now is it? Then you write that it could be a reversible experiment; so if it doesn't woek, the concrete can be dug up? Oh really?
Then you moan about costings being revealed; didn't your AEFirst political party moan that costings weren't being revealed.
May I quote the only part of your post that I concur with? Give me strength !
Another further benefit for this village would be if the Heyes Lane Car Park were situated there, it would be just 2 minutes walk away from the rail station, ideal for the many car owners who need to park their cars somewhere in Alderley Edge to catch the train to Manchester, or wherever ?
I am not economical with the truth. If you got the impression that I "had happened upon AE" your impression was wrong. I wrote in a post to you "For eight years my wife and I regularly visited AE and we fell in love with this wonderful vibrant village set in some great Cheshire countryside. Then three years ago we moved here". That is why we live here. We also have a son, his wife and another granddaughter in a nice small town in Essex, which we do like but not as much as AE. We love both our son's families equally, we chose to move to AE precisely for the reason I said. Sorry, Martin, if you have another problem with me being factual.
Lisa's article says, A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council said: "The Council has no intention to turn the playing field on Chorley Hall Lane into a car park", that clearly is a decision they made. The point I made, is that it does not follow that they have to make the same decision on all leisure space to be consistent. In my opinion, it is the decision making process that needs to be consistent, not the decision. I have absolutely no idea of the process they followed to come to their decision, do you?
http://bit.ly/1HMh8kC
And we can keep the open spaces ... look to the future !
Can I invite you to read my comment again and confirm that I didn't say that Conservative voters are unthinking?
What I did refer to was the "Unthinking Default Vote" where people that have not bothered to look closely at the issues will simply tick a box because they always vote the way they vote. In this area there are a lot of people who have always voted Conservative and always will regardless of what is being offered, or not being offered.
My point was (and is) that if AlderleyEdgeFIRST are to be successful, they have to somehow overcome that by engaging with those people and making them see that there is a very real and very positive alternative to the "same old."
I was in the Village this morning and chatted with some of the AlderleyEdgeFIRST team who where out meeting and greeting the voters and I have to say that I was very impressed by the levels of support they seemed to be receiving from passers by.
Honk Honk!
I find your link fascinating, I had already looked, to see where your interests lay after your earlier posts.
In 1980, I started my first business selling Business Accounting systems (boring I know) to SME's on Apple IIe's and Commodore Pets, so even before IBM launched their PC in the US in 1981. Naturally, when it came to the UK, I became an IBM dealer, and by 1986 was using electronic mail via an acoustic coupler, and trying to run Novell NetWare and Microsoft Windows on AT286's, then 386 arrived. All seems crazy now, but look where we are today. Sorry, I don't know your age, that might all be too early for you.
Over the last three years, my current business, has moved from 100% physical product to nearly 70% digital downloads, and increasing. Instead of exporting to a handful of countries, we now have customers in 200 countries worldwide. All very challenging for an old man like me.
I believe in your vision, that the requirements for parking will change. When in the future is unknown, so I do not believe that in Alderley Edge we can yet abandon building a new car park.
When the Festival Hall is refurbished, perhaps you could consider presenting your vision. Don't know how many would be interested, I'd be there, and no doubt my son. So there's a start, two.
I walk my hound past and through the field most days,at various times of the day and it is an under used dead space.
You see the odd dog walker and that's about it.
No reason why it could not be a permit car park Mon-Fri 7am- 6pm.
Before anyone whinges!! I don't mean the pitch itself.
CHL as a parking location has been firmly ruled out. Lawrence pointed out some time ago that there are a number of issues with it. I entirely agree with him wholeheartedly for all of the reasons he has put forward plus a number more.
Waitrose, as is their right since they now are the tenant of the car park in front of their store, are now in control of it. In its existing form it has caused them operational problems which are obvious to anyone who has seen the attempts to navigate the parking by the delivery truck.
If we concentrate on sites over which AEPC has control, rather than a wish list of sites belonging to third parties, it boils down to the Park or Heyes Lane. The problem is bigger than can be accommodated in the park without taking away much of it. As a resident, not a prospective Parish Councillor, I do not see it happening which is right. It is communal space for residents of all ages.
The argument boils down to Heyes Lane. Allotments, not children's play space or community space. They are not being removed but relocated. 14 people against the rest of the community. I sympathise with the 14 but they will still get the pleasure of tending their Allotments. If Heyes Lane is not given over to car parking, many more of the residents of AE will have the disruption and inconvenience of street parking on a daily basis. After seemingly having an implacable opposition to this, it turns out to be more than a possibility for AE1. This was disingenuous of them. It undermines their credibility because it seems that they prefer not to publish their policies.
On one critical plank of their strategy, however, they are the same as the Conservative candidates: to a man,or woman, the Conservative candidates are volunteers and unpaid and this will not change if they are elected. Quite why AE1 needed to place so much stress on the fact that that their candidates are also volunteers is strange. Was it to create the impression that we might not be? Or was it because they have little else to offer other than delay? Or perhaps all they want is to prevent Heyes Lane becoming a car park, which would mean the apparent willingness to let it become in part a car park is not real? if you do not know what they intend before Thursday why do they deserve your vote?
Solve the problem of parking before it overwhelms the village and turns it into a nightmare.
I am sure you will agree that it would be quite easy to accommodate say 120 cars on a small part of the Chorley Hall Lane Site, without prejudicing the sports facilities. It would also give parents/spectators somewhere to park during the games that are played there. Because we might not be certain whether this addresses part or all of the parking issue or not it would make sense to lay a temporary surface for a period to see what reaction this new car park has. That way no 'open space' has been lost and if the 'experiment' fails it is reversible. This is being done all over the country.
I am certain that, if requested in the right way, all the help and advice we might need would be given to us by Cheshire East Council.
Under no circumstances would I or any of my colleagues put a proposal to the residents of Alderley Edge whereby we would suggest 'building a car park on the whole of Chorley Hall Sports Fields'. After all, we are not looking for a thousand + spaces.
I can see how it has been difficult for the existing Council to get the type of help I speak about as clearly any relationship between CEC and AEPC is somewhat thin. Whoever is sitting on our Parish Council and representing our Ward soon will need to 'repair' this quickly as it does prejudice any reasonable planning, discussion and debate.
I know that Craig Browne would achieve it - and we must all help and support him in this if we are to succeed.
Whoever 'we' is? Amusingly, I suppose it should read - whoever 'we' are!!!
Ruth Norbury will put me right!!
When will the PC have a legal entitlement to the land which is clearly .....not quite yet?
When will the PC have changed the status from 'green leisure to green concrete'?
When will they have proper costings? Who has tendered for the contact?
I know that the lawyers for the National Association of Allotment Holders working on AEAGS behalf were concerned that they had heard very little back from AEPC. I believe they were also concerned that what was happening here was creating a dangerous precedent for the United Kingdom nationally. But I may be wrong. Again perhaps someone could tell me.
I am not saying that nothing has been done because I am quite used to not being told anything by this Parish Council but in view of the bleating that we have all had to endure could we have the current, up to date situation given that we now know as if by miracle that 'parkers' are going to be charged 40p to park all day.
I'm so glad that you sympathise with the 14 allotment holders, but you seem to forget about the petition of 1800 whom are totally against it, as you didn't comment on it ,are their veiws disregarded?
a) 120 cars on a small part of CHL Playing Field? I do question your definition of small !
b) you write about laying a temporary surface over a (large?) part of CHL Playing Field;
another uncosted idea. Who pays please? What price?
c) You write that you are sure that your political party could get all the help and advice from
CEC, to get parking on CHL Playing Field. Also could you get the cost out of CEC?
How often do CEC have to say no, before you guys will accept it?
d) you write that the relationship between AEPC and CEC is 'thin'. Is this wishful thinking
on your part? I have an excellent relationship with CEC; both its Officers that I work with
and with the Conservative Majority on the CEC.
e) what do you mean by 'proper costings'? We have all been told what it will cost.
f) you are going on about vague legal matters. Do you truly expect the public to believe that
the proposed car park would go ahead without legality?
By the way, is the experiment of putting cars onto a car park (of some not exactly specified) part of the Playing Field now an AEFirst Party policy? Or have you 'gone rogue'.
Take care or 'they' might not let you back onto the mother-ship, when it departs !
The surface is normally leased by other towns/ villages.
I am certain it would be possible to find a compromise situation with CEC but until we are seeking their help it will be difficult to say. I have had too many conversations in my life where most were saying it cannot be done and the opposite was true.
How are the costings made up? Just stabbing a figure into a brochure very late in the day looks to everyone as being a bit odd. Could you publish a breakdown. Did all three tenders for the contract tell you the same?
Do the costings include the Lydiat Lane costs and any legal costs that might need to be paid to residents there. They are not happy - but then who would be when your Council tells you what will happen next and that you will just have to lump it. That sounds as if it could get costly.
Could we be shown the legal agreement that allows the Car Park at HL to now proceed. We have asked but the issue is always dodged.
As far as I am aware, you sprang a figure of £300K to pave over the allotments on Heyes Lane out of thin air on this site a few days ago. You were vague about what those costs were specifically for and haven't told us how that figure was arrived at. Does the figure come from a formal quotation from a contractor? How does it compare with other contractors' proposals, who must have been invited to tender? Does it include the cost of drainage? I understand there is a brook running through that piece of the land. Does it also include the cost of preparing the alternative piece of land you are proposing the allotments move to? If we, the tax payers of Alderley Edge, are expected to foot the bill, I think these are reasonable questions which should be answered. If you don't know the answers, then perhaps you can find out from your colleagues who do.
I would be very surprised if Mike's suggestion would be more expensive than the figure you have come up with. But he has, quite rightly, not picked a figure out of thin air to support his suggestion. He would follow an appropriate process in order to establish the costs IF it is decided that this is the direction the electorate would like the new Parish Council to travel.
As far as the existing relationship between AEPC and CEC, one only has to read minutes of PC meetings over the last few years and reports of meetings that Lisa has posted on this site, to know that some tense dynamics exist. Whilst you may have good relationships with the officers you have dealt with, that does not necessarily mean that those positive relationships extend to all of your fellow Parish Councillors.
Finally, whilst I know Mike can and will respond for himself, I'd just like to answer for myself your question: "Do you truly expect the public to believe that the proposed car park would go ahead without legality?" No, I do not. Which is why I would propose that the current Parish Council has been a bit previous in terms of its assertions, four years ago when this idea was mooted, up until the present day, when the issue of the covenant remains, as do questions around the PC's dealings with the National Association of Allotment holders. If you'd like to enlighten us as to the exact status of the PC's proposal, in terms of legality, I think we'd all be very grateful.
The petition is highly suspect for a variety of reasons: signatories were not told the full facts would be a start. It does not represent a majority view (as AE1 frequently assert) a fact made by other people posting on alderleyedge.com.
CHL has gone as a prospective site for reasons argued and stated previously.
The focus needs to be on what the PC controls and that keeps coming back inexorably to Heyes Lane. Even your own team are acknowledging this (starting with Ruth and followed by Mike and so presumably that is the official view of the AE 1 party)
But for me there is a much more interesting plan bubbling away in the background somewhere and that is the use of land on Wilmslow Road for the development of a sports facility that would be used by both AESG and the general public.
This would then free up the Lydiat Lane site (which is closest to the Village centre) for possible use as a car park - that site is large enough to use half as car parking and the other half could become (say) a skate park or something that would benefit the youngsters in Alderley Edge.
Can't seem to get to the bottom of what happened to the Wilmslow Road plan - it was trumpeted in a press release, and Gerorge Osborne gave his support to the plan.
Duncan seems a little vague on what happened to the plan but I think that Ruth Norbury has it in her sights so perhaps we may find out more.
Whilst your continued anecdotal 'evidence' is charming - we have read a lot about the conversations you have had with people you know - let's get down and dirty with some FACTS. It may be an 'inconvenient truth' (with a nod to Al Gore), but...
The petition carried out last summer gained 1875 village signatures. The village voting population at that time was 3711. Those wanting retention of the allotments was therefore over 50%.
Well over half of those responding to the expensive Parish Pledge (production and mailing costs nearly £4000) of November last year were for retention of Heyes Lane Allotment Site as allotments and a centrally-located Green Space.
If you are maintaining that the Petition is invalid because the question was not worded to your liking, then what is your defence of the results of the Parish Council's own 'Parish Pledge'?
If you are maintaining that Petition is invalid because there are signatures on it that belong to people who live outside the village, all I can say is that I have it on very good authority from one of the key Petition promoters, 'all signatures were from village voters and this can be asserted with confidence. I collected many of these signatures and I know the roads I worked in.'
It strikes me, that which ever way you look at it, the electorate have made their position clear. You are adopting a very risky strategy to simply dismiss what the above statistics are telling you, and assert that you are right, regardless. But I guess that strategy will be reflected in the outcome of the election on Thursday. That is the wonderful thing about the democratic society in which we live. No matter how many of your friends express 'shock' at 'nasty comments', this village can express its position with the resdients' vote. We have nine votes. We have nine AlderleyEdgeFIRST candidates and we have nine Conservative candidates. I know how I'll be voting. And I'm sure your continued and public dismissal (and denial) of the facts will persuade other residents in this village to vote in the same way.
Many thanks for your reply, but didn't aepc conduct their own survey and it failed to get a majority ?
I have to tell you that one of Martins Conservative colleagues who currently "serves" on AEPC has cornered the market when it comes to insults - some would say that there wouldn't even be an AlderleyEdgeFIRST had he treated people fairly and courteously. But no, he directly insulted me and several others on this forum and childishly liked to post barbed comments at people whilst referring to them by their surnames only (no Mr or Mrs) but that was at a time when the election was long away and surely he must have felt that people would have forgotten by the.
Interestingly, of eighteen candidates seeking election to AEPC only one has failed to give an interview on the forum and place himself, his record and his policies open to the scrutiny of the people of Alderley Edge.
I think his silence speaks loudly in support of AlderleyEdgeFIRST.
I have no doubt that Martin Hallam is a decent and honourable man who could contribute much to the Village, but he is jumping into a barrel that has a rotten apple in it/
Just a couple of points from me tonight....
Martin, you state that the petition against the car park on the allotments is 'suspect' due to people not being given the full facts. Can you honestly say the the parish pledge gave all of the facts? There is the small issue of the covenant protecting the site! For this to be trodden on as if it means nothing by the current PC sets an extremely worrying precedent.
Having received the latest PC blurb through the door today I see that the point being rammed home is that the festival hall will not be able to be modified as intended with inadequate parking. If this really is the case then surely this issue should have been resolved before ANY work was carried out? Was the car park included in the festival hall building plans?
Far from the literature received today making me want to vote the current PC back in it merely serves as a stark warning that future projects / developments may be started without the due consideration.
That's me for the night, however I would like to say that most of the candidates from both sides have really given it a go on here over the past few weeks. It's been very entertaining, mad-making and caused many a debate around the dinner table!
Good luck to everyone standing. Despite not agreeing with some it's great to see so many people wanting to do what they think is right for the village!
The petition much quoted in the AE1 posts here will be replaced by votes cast next Thursday.
The existing PC (all Conservative, I happily concede) have been resolute in pressing for the use of the Heyes Lane site. AE1 started by being implacably opposed to it but now have stated it can be used for parking. This is a swing through 180 degrees, which is a testament to the logic of the case for Heyes Lane promoted by the existing PC. Let them finish it.
Can you explain specifically why you think anyone is being aggressive please?
Which point did I miss?
I was replying to you specifically about the appalling behaviour of a Conservative Councillor.
I acknowledged that your husband may indeed be a decent and honourable chap - though perhaps a tad ill-informed judging by his subsequent post telling us that the current PC is all Conservative. Has anyone told him that for the last three PC elections nobody opposed the Conservatives and we were happy to have them in office, until they started to overstep the mark and some of them let their side down very badly by assuming things that they really oughtn't to have?
Iam so sorry to burst your balloon but asking people who sit outside The Botanist as people who care about Alderley is dumbfounding. My friend is not interested in what happens to My village as he came to people watch! then got asked would he sign a petition to save the allotments!
I think you may have read my post in the wrong way. What I was saying was quite the reverse. I was trying to draw a comparison with what a normal diligent person like your husband would do, with that of how AEPC seem to operate.
This is what I wrote:
"Let me ask you a question. If you decided that you wanted a bigger driveway to your house, would you comit to that without knowing its cost, without checking any legal restrictions, not knowing how many cars you have, or what you neighbours or family might feel? Assuming that you are not a very wealthy, narcissistic sociopath, I suggest the answer would be no."
So I hope you can now understand my comment in the context it was intended and that you will explain you error to all the people you have spoken to this about.
I note your point but there were only 101 responses to the Parish Pledge. Given that this was sent to every household in the Parish it is not a representative response. The figures for the responses were as follows:
Heyes Lane: 44 in favour, 56 against, 1 neutral
I have no difficulty or embarrassment in setting them out here. I suggest the lack of response from the overwhelming majority of households indicates indifference. It they feel that they should have answered or answered differently, they have an opportunity to change things on Thursday.
John
Your points are noted, too. The covenant was imposed in 1950, 65 years ago when no doubt the village was a wholly different place and less choked with traffic and parking. No one is being cavalier with it but the law recognises that covenants can be varied either by agreement with the beneficiary or where an application is made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for its modification or discharge. The former is done by negotiation and the latter under s84 Law of Property Act 1925. There is very little unusual about such applications.
I am clearly only a candidate (and a first time prospective Councillor at that) and therefore cannot speak for the PC or indeed for CEC who would have to deal with any such application (as freeholder). However, others who have posted on the site in other strings have alluded to covenants or trusts affecting CHL and (I believe) the Park. Whichever site for a car park is considered there appear to be some obstacles to overcome. I have made clear elsewhere the problems for CHL and note those made clear by others. I believe similar problems exist for the Park and both sets of problems are more intractable than those for Heyes Lane. The fact remains, there seems to be both more logic to using Heyes Lane for reasons amply rehearsed throughout alderleyedge.com by others as well as by me, so I will not repeat them here. In an urban area, few sites are trouble free or free from controversy.
Thank you for your best wishes in so far as they relate to me - I may well need them. At least I tried. If elected I will try to implement.
Where is your proof that a car park on the allotments will solve the on-street parking problems? Has there been an analysis of this, and where can I read it?
Firstly you are one of the people on this forum who does Not live in this village but has some sort of problem with Mr Keegan which means you feel free to comment on anything to do with this village. Totally wrong. You have no concept of the day to day problems with people blocking your gate having to rush out before 8am to put a cone near your drive in the hope that someone throws it down the road or drives over it to park! Then having to sit outside your house at the most peak times to explain you cannot get out as you can't make the turn without hitting the tree opposite! I have mentioned the disgusting comment made to Martin which upset my children by Fiona Braybrooke which I have already stated. please do not act ignorant.
Might I suggest leaving it until tomorrow to post.....it might all make more sense then.
I think you will find it was 44 for, 74 against and one neutral on the Parish Pledge response to the allotments. I think you will also find that the reason for the last of responses was because the publication did not actually ask for a response; there was no call to action.
I am also grateful that you have confirmed that there are still legal obstacles to overcome before the allotments can be paved over. Will you have a bit of a word with Duncan Herald and help him to understand this.
I am very happy to confirm I do not live in the village Jane. You say I have some sort of a problem with Mr Keegan, I do not have a problem, Mr Keegan does. He seems to have admitted a conflict of interest with a local property developer which means that even if by some miracle he is re-elected, he can't have anything to do with the development of the festival hall, medical centre, and if PE Jones are the contractors, the Hayes Lane allotments. So basically, a vote for Frank has become slightly wasted.
You have made an allegation that people have been nasty. You have even singled out an individual, Fiona Braybrooke. I have read her reply to your accusation and it is very clear to me that she has made good account of herself. I think an apology may be in order from you.
Try reporting them as blocked on the website, one at once of course !
Heyes lane:
140 spaces at £2000 per space £280,000
Transferred to med centre £280,000
Do the medical centre know that they now have this cost ? Given that they didn't want anymore spaces that are currently at festival hall I'm sure that this could stop the development!
If i saw this and was one of the doctors I'd be asking some questions as to who is paying for this.
Also there is no costing for the new allotment site at Lydiate lane.
But as one councillor as has been telling the conservative local party
" Lydiate lane allotments isn't going to happen..."
No surprise there...
It should also be pointed out that the National Allotment and Gardens societys barristers have failed to receive any reply from the PC legal advisers such is the concern that a PC can act in such a way to brush aside a covenant on the land.
only 'bout 3 days to go; stay awake at the back!
Some time ago I asked for the wording of the petition question. It was provided. I suggested that without the question being correctly framed, the result was invalid. So the whole 1800 thing became untenable. Others have picked up on this. What is interesting to me is that there has been little attempt to defend this accusation of 'sampling bias'. Instead there has been an attempt, I think, to obfuscate by the AEFirst apologists in an attack on the parish pledge document. To my mind these are two seperate matters. Perhaps it is a generation thing; my generation was taught that two wrongs don't make a right. Feel free to have a go at the parish pledge thing, but don't use that as some kind of justification for the faulty petition 1800.
Hi John B.
would you accept that changes to intended plans etc. will always happen? Situations do change.
It has been 'fun' hasn't it? What will we all do after next Thursday?
Claire,
it is not that the petition question was 'not worded to your liking'. It is that the wording was so biased as to discredit the 'result'. You write about your statistics being dismissed. I think you may be implying a dismissal of people rather than stats. Not so. If your stats. are wrong, as |I believe they are, it is you who risk denigrating people by asking them to acept a falsehood?
The sum of £300k did not, as you have written, 'come out of thin air'. It was put together by the Chaitman of the Parish Council and the Chairman of the P.C's Financial Committee. You may disagree with the figure, but to attempt to dismiss it so cavalierly, without figures of your own, is perhaps unwise?
You also 'complain' that the relationship between CEC and the PC has 'tense dynamics'. You are correct and that is because the PC fights tooth and nail to prevent anything that the PC thinks is not in the best interest of the village being forced upon the village by CEC.
You and others have questioned the legality of the PC producing a car park at Heyes Lane. The answer is simple. Take the matter to a barrister for Counsel's Opinion. Or has that been done?
Lastly for this evening. As a cold beer is crying my name from the fridge. Today whilst stuffing letterboxes, a lady asked me who was paying for 'all this'. I was able to tell her that all the work involved, by the Conservatives, was done by volunteers and that the printing costs were met by the Conservative Party. Not one penny came from public funds. The lady then asked me who was paying for the AEFirst political party. I was of course unable to help her. Might someone from AEFirst H.Q. answer for the lady please? Oh how I hope that AEFirst has a mysterious benefactor !
Hi Alan,
you suggest a few spaces on Heyes Lane and a few spaces on CHK Playing Field. I disagree, which will not surprise you at all. Is your suggestion risking a nibbling away at both sites? So under some future group, both might be at risk?
"You and others have questioned the legality of the PC producing a car park at Heyes Lane. The answer is simple. Take the matter to a barrister for Counsel's Opinion. Or has that been done?"
Yes it has and the current parish council are in error as per the letter received in December 2014 by the National Allotment Society.
The conservative leaflet I received today was a below the belt attack and scare mongering tatic to say say that only the consertives can deliver the medical centre.
As you are well aware donations for elections are well regulated in this country for national and local elections.
I would like to add that the allotment society has no link financial or otherwise to Alderley first.
I am however happy to confirm to state that I have given them £30 towards Alderley edge first printing costs.
I've also been delivering their leaflets.
I think I've been quiet transparent so far.
We'll have to agree to disagree then.
I took a long look at CHL playing field yesterday and would suggest that it would be relatively easy to provide approx. 80 (though maybe more) parking spaces whilst still providing sufficient space for a full size football field AND a seven a side pitch alongside it.
I would also suggest that at Heyes Lane it may be possible to take a ribbon of land in parallel with the Festival hall to provide parking two rows of parking along the length from the Talbot Road - Heyes Lane footpath boundary to the far perimeter.
However, I have had my lips wetted by the prospect of the availability of land at Wilmslow Road that you and your Conservative Chums have gone very quiet about since the Press Release in which George Osborne stood four-square behind a plan to release this land for a state of the art sports facility that would provide for bot AESG and the general public and thus potentially free up two other sites to be used for whatever the Parish deems best.
But apart from a bout of good old selective memory syndrome and an honourable desire to protect the identity of a snout you haven't been very forthcoming about where we are up to on this issue.
It seems now that you want Thursday out of the way, hopefully get yourselves back into office and carry on with the plan to convert Heyes Lane allotments into a gated apartment complex - via the way of a short term, under utilised car park project.
All just in my humble opinion of course.
Interestingly you ask about AlderleyEdgeFIRST and who's backing them. I've seen a couple of rallying-cries to try to raise a few quid here and there. I know a couple of folk who have responded positively because they want to get behind them and give these talented political goslings the opportunity to spread their wings, muster into a formation and HONK HONK their way to success!
Looking at the Conservatives, I see from your DPI's that you all get five hundred smackers to help keep the wolf (or the goose) from the door.
I took the figures from the PC minutes. I reported them as they appeared. It is true the report referred to 18 pre printed letters, the content of which was exactly the same. I have no idea whether they were from some of the same people who also responded (in the negative) to the Parish Pledge.
I did not confirm that there is a legal obstacle to overcome. I do not know if there is one as for all I know it may have been dealt with. I was responding to a statement from another user of this site in relation to the covenant.
Fiona Braybrooke
As for your response to my wife: there is no doubt the comment by you was directed at me. The addition of the insult was unnecessary to make the point you claim to have been making. Insulting or pejorative language has no place in what should be an adult debate.
Rather (un)surprisingly... none of them has come out to SUPPORT him, either.
Dump him now; it's every man for himself... He can't even be bothered (after being a conspicuously loud, arrogant and frequent voice on this website) to post an election statement.
Time to kick party politics out of local "government".
The petition is the subject of comment by others on this site as well as by Jane and by me. For that reason it is not just Jane and I, but others as well who think it is dubious for a variety of reasons. I do not think the evidence is either anecdotal or charming.
In relation to the Parish Pledge, there were 101 responses and 54 were against but as your post under reply makes it clear there are 3711 registered voters in the Parish, so the response number is 1.5%. Clearly of those who were in favour (44) they represented only1.19% but before you reiterate the small majority against the Heyes Lane car park, do bear in mind 97.31% made no return (bar one who was neutral) from which it can interpreted that they did not feel strongly enough to make a return. That is a majority.
Of course the only vote which matters is the one on Thursday, when the petition and the Parish Pledge can consigned to history.
I keep seeing references from you and your family to an alleged insult posted by Fiona Braybrooke.
Knowing Fiona as I do as a long-standing resident of Alderley Edge, I believe you to be "confused."
I have tried to re-read all of the postings that Fiona has made and I cant find anything that goes beyond the general cut and thrust of the debate in which we are all engaged.
Can you please (specifically) point out which remark it is that has caused the grave offence claimed ?
My comment was directed to you, not at you. I was asking what you would do as an intelligent, capable man (which you seem to be). I was trying to show a contrast with what the PC have been doing. So let me state for the record that I do not think that you are very wealthy, narcissistic sociopath. I do think that you could regard the behaviour of the outgoing PC as exactly that.
I also note that you did not personally complain to me about this. You are a very successful lawyer and I would have thought if you really thought I insulted you I would have received something in the post threatening legal action.
From what your wife says, it was her and your children who were upset and not you. It does seem to me from what they have posted that they do get upset really easily. That is not my responsibility; they are your family. What does concern me is that Jane has been going out onto the streets of AE and saying to people that I insulted you.
I am sure that the parking situation on Horseshoe Lane is very annoying for you and your family and like any man you would try to do everything in your power to solve that for them. Your aspiration is to be elected to the PC. Is that in the hope that you can get yellow lines and enforcement on your road, justified by the unpopular implementation of paving over allotments, with little regard for any other resident of AE?
What has happened to you? Many people have admired you for your diligent work on the parks and open spaces. When did you decide it was a good idea to get so vocal on things, that were not of your making, that you quite clearly have no understanding of or information on?
I would stick to being a solicitor as your career in data analysis will be very short lived.
what is a DPI please ? Something personal interest? Who should be giving me 'five hundred smackers'? If that is meant to be money, then I know nought about it ! The only '500 smackers' that I know about is the £500 relocation grants offered to the allotment users of Heyes Lane.
As far as I know, no parish councillor receives a brass farthing for her/his efforts; I certainly don't ! So if that is a rumour you are starting, then consider it scotched at birth !
As for the AESG land thing. It is a deal between AESG and CEC. The only spin-off for the P.C. is that the deal frees up the old St. Hilary's piece of land, to be used as a new allotment site. So the P.C. is not directly involved in any new facilities re. AESG
The DPI is the "Declaration of Pecuniary Interest" that you are required to make as a Councillor - Yours is linked under your name in the list of Councillors on the AEPC website.
Confusingly, some of the Councillors list a "sponsorship" by The Conservative Party and Frank Keegans details that he receives £500 pa toward his election expenses, paid in perpetuity whilst he is a Councillor.
I assumed (I think reasonably) that this would be the same for all of you.
Going back to the "AESG land thing." Don't you think that this is a very interesting development in so far as it has great potential to free up Lydiat Lane and or Chorley Hall Lane for other use.
And in doing so a state of the art sports field would be made available to AESG and (more importantly) the general public.
But no, for some reason that hasn't been made clear, AEPC are blindly considering what appears to be a very unpopular plan in a way that has ruffled many feathers.
A right-thinking Parish Council would be all over this like a rash!
I'd like to take issue with you over your statement posted yesterday at 10.01.pm that (quote) "the Allotment Society has no link financial or otherwise to AlderleyFIRST"
Sorry Fenton, ............ The President of the Alderley Allotment Society is none other that the leading light from AlderleyFIRST, namely, Mike Dudley-Jones, the person who published and promoted the AlderleyEdgeFIRST posters, so clearly there IS a huge connection there.
Hi Duncan,
I fully endorse your comments yesterday about the 1800 / 1850 poll signatures that were gathered in a very deceitful and unbalanced way, namely the following ..............
NO mention that the existing Allotment Holders were offered a larger site within the village ?
NO mention that every Allotment Holder was offered £500 compensation to move ?
NO mention that out of the 27 plots, only 14 were tended by Alderley residents ?
If the poll had been an honest document, then the result would have been different !
So, the poll is null and void and does not stand further scrutiny.
Fenton is correct! There is no connection.
And I have made it very very clear in these posts that I intend to resign as the President of the Alderley Edge Allotments and Gardens Society when AlderleyEdgeFIRST are elected on Thursday and we can get on with finding out where we all stand. After all, nobody really knows, do they?
Yes - I am an optimist but - if it were not to happen on Thursday I am enough of a 'team player' to allow you to carp away to your heart's content.
In passing, although I believe I have made the point before, the President of AEAGS plays no part in the running of the Society affairs.
They wheel me out when they need someone to present the prizes at the Annual Show in August!
I would imagine that the £500 election expenses is a matter of the CEC Councillor post.
I repeat that I do not get a penny for salary, wage, expenses, et al. Nada, nil, zilch.
Nothing from the Conservative party or CEC or the PC.
Such as I am, you get me for free.
Why do you write that the AESG land activity has not been made clear? I write yet again that the deal is between AESG and CEC. If you wish to know details, why not ask them?
I prefer to wait and see. I'll build on foundations rather than early hopes.
Martin,
thank you for the compliment. As to 'things not of my making'; if something becomes a PC policy, whether I was for or against, I must support it as that is the nature of loyalty?
Similarly if a question is posed, then I am honour bound to answer it; to the best of my ability. If I did not, might you accuse me of 'secrecy'?
My apologies for a delayed reply. I decided to take the day off (alderleyedge.com) yesterday and I suspect regular readers of this site enjoyed my absence almost as much as I enjoyed the break. Still, with just 3 days to go to 'lift off', I thought I'd better get back in the saddle. Love a mixed metaphor...
I'm struggling to understand the logic of your first point to me. You talk about 'stats' and 'people' and refer to the petition as being 'discredited' because the 'biased wording' nullifies the result. Am I correct?
I do find this all a bit rich, given the wording of the subsequent 'Parish Pledge', about which Cllr Williamson was quoted as saying at the time "I am quite confident that the overwhelming majority in this village supports the construction of the medical centre and the provision of parking space on the Heyes Lane allotment site and we are going to prove that."
But he didn't did he?
At the time, I and many other people welcomed the prospect of a formal survey to ascertain, once and for all, unequivocally, what the majority of the residents of Alderley Edge wanted. I remember commenting on this very site how important the wording of that survey would be. That it would be inaccurate to imply, for example, that the completion of the new Medical Centre depended in some way on the creation of a new car park on the allotment site. And what did we get? We got a document that can only really be described as a shameless piece of self-serving promotion, with just one 'solution' proposed and, in tiny print on the back page, a half-hearted suggestion that people's opinions were invited. No deadline. No explanation as to how the data collected would be collated and reported and used by the PC to inform the direction they decided to move.
And I believe that exercise in futility not only failed in its intended objective, but cost us, the tax payers, nearly £4,000.
With regards to the £300K figure that was produced to reflect the costs of the proposed car park. You claim it has not 'come out of thin air' but fail completely to ask the questions I put in my previous post. I'll copy and paste them here again, in the hope that this time you can answer them:
"You were vague about what those costs were specifically for and haven't told us how that figure was arrived at. Does the figure come from a formal quotation from a contractor? How does it compare with other contractors' proposals, who must have been invited to tender? Does it include the cost of drainage? I understand there is a brook running through that piece of the land. Does it also include the cost of preparing the alternative piece of land you are proposing the allotments move to? If we, the tax payers of Alderley Edge, are expected to foot the bill, I think these are reasonable questions which should be answered. If you don't know the answers, then perhaps you can find out from your colleagues who do."
I did not say I disagreed with the figure ('caverlierly' or otherwise), I simply asked for clarification as to how it was reached.
With regard to the relationship with CEC and AEPC. Earlier in this thread you say in a response to Mike D-J, "you write that the relationship between AEPC and CEC is 'thin'. Is this wishful thinking on your part? I have an excellent relationship with CEC; both its Officers that I work with and with the Conservative Majority on the CEC."
but then, later in your response to me you say "You also 'complain' that the relationship between CEC and the PC has 'tense dynamics'. You are correct ...."
Which is it please?
Can you not give me a straight and unambiguous answer to my question around the current legal status of your plans to build on the allotment site? I'm sure many other voters are keen to know the exact position before they decide where to place their 'x' on Thursday.
Finally, and on a more cheerful note, whilst on my run through and around today, I was really heartened to see so many 'AlderleyEdgeFIRST' posters displayed in the windows of houses across the village. Big houses, little houses and on all the roads I ran on. I guess Mrs Hallam is right. Not everyone who reads this site comments on it. I'm truly encouraged by this and ever more optimistic that on Thursday the shiny future of this village will change for the better. Honk honk!
re. costs; I don't think the lady had any intention of suggesting ought underhand (neither for the Conservatives or the AEFirst party). She simply asked a question. I answered for the Conservatives only of course.
Re. the Counsel's Opinion; care to share with us what it claimed re. the legality or otherwise of the PC turning Heyes Lane site into a car park?
Have we all finished delivering leaflets? My feet are less keen on democratic elections than they used to be !
Today, as it stands, you have a connection with the Alderley Allotments Society and today, as it stands, you are their current President of said Society, so why are you trying to alter the facts ? ............
probably you have the same blinkered idea as your colleagues had with their flawed, biased and discredited "result" from the 1850 signatories who were hoodwinked into signing without being given the full facts that should have been offered ?
I am not sure where your posts are leading but I am certainly not confused. I stand by what I said a no doubt do you, so on that we shall have to agree to differ. To directly answer your question Alan, I see no reason for adults to make personal comments (in Fiona's case to me) when engaging in a debate. Such comments are calculated to be demanding and to annoy rather than further the debate.
My prospective candidacy for the PC is driven by a thought that I can assist the community and the PC, not as you (Fiona) rather insultingly infer, out of self interest. If your response to my comment is to add further insults then, in the time honoured cliche, I rest my case.
Unfortunately, we do not know each other, otherwise this charmless exchange might not be taking place and might not have occurred in the first place. Interesting as it may be for readers not directly involved, I suggest we leave things currently where they are and throw no more petrol onto the fire.
I have no wish to be a data analyst so my career would never even start let alone be short lived. I respect anyone who wishes to analyse figures but it would do nothing for me. Clearly you have much the same approach to legal work as you would not get far making unsubstantiated statements, let alone statements tinged with irony. I assume you were making an attempt at humour or sarcasm or both. Either way, your point has been missed by me and having spent a day in the rain yesterday, I am determined to spend some of today in the sun, when I am not working at my day job, so forgive me for not asking for clarification. No doubt you will deliver it, though.
Here is his post:
Today whilst stuffing letterboxes, a lady asked me who was paying for 'all this'. I was able to tell her that all the work involved, by the Conservatives, was done by volunteers and that the printing costs were met by the Conservative Party. Not one penny came from public funds. The lady then asked me who was paying for the AEFirst political party. I was of course unable to help her. Might someone from AEFirst H.Q. answer for the lady please? Oh how I hope that AEFirst has a mysterious benefactor !
AlderleyEdgeFIRST has been funded by ourselves. Each one of the candidates and supporting team have made a contribution based on what they can afford.There has been no levy. We do not have a benefactor but we do have some very kind and generous people in this Village who believe that what we are doing is right. They also believe that the way we are doing it is right too. We thank them for their faith in us all.
The quality of our printed material I believe has been exceptional and bears comfortable comparison with the mighty Conservative Party printers who the Village seem to think have not covered themselves in glory!! I would have to agree with them! Perhaps something as small as how a leaflet might look could give everyone an early indication as to how we tackle matters?
Our leaflets cost about £240 each including printing and artwork so we have spent around £800 so far.
We have another leaflet still to publish which is ready to go and has cost £210
We estimate that our total spend will be £1500 - but I should say that this does not include any contribution towards celebrations! Honk!
Some of us have funded all these costs through our own accounts and await some reimbursement but it has taken 6 weeks to open our Natwest account as these accounts are heavily regulated and take time to come into effect.
If anyone wants the details Sort Code 01-00-13; Account Number 11843128.
We have £705.00 in our account before reimbursements.
We want everyone in the Village to know that we are doing this because we believe what we are doing is right. We believe in each other and we believe in our desire to maintain the highest standards of behaviour. We have all the skills needed to do a fine job.
The wishes of this Village will be respected - and everything will get better.
AGAIN you miss the crucial point.
You say .....
"Why do you write that the AESG land activity has not been made clear? I write yet again that the deal is between AESG and CEC. If you wish to know details, why not ask them? I prefer to wait and see. I'll build on foundations rather than early hopes."
But as a Parish Council, when a plan of this importance is put forward for your Parish by CEC, isn't it reasonable to expect that you (collectively) would be pushing hard for it's implementation?
By "waiting and seeing" we could have Heyes Lane concreted over completely unnecessarily.
For anyone that doesn't understand why I am labouring this point, please click on the link...
http://bit.ly/1ze1OKG
Thank you for your response although I am still at a loss to understand what was said that caused such offence.
Certainly I see nothing that approaches the sort of insults or rudeness meted out by Frank Keegan before he disappeared.
the PC has no authority over AESG and CEC re. their deal.
You'll note that AESG has chosen not to get involved in this debate?
Yes the PC supports the land swop deal (it provides much land for allotments) and the building of a sports building for the school (as it may/will be partly available for the public ) and there may be a facility for drop off/pick up, to get the cars off the roads. But its not yet set in concrete, as far as I know i.e. no-one has told me of finalised details.
Can you not contact the school and/or CEC Planning, to satisfy your questions? Surely that can make matters as clear as you wish? Just two 'phone calls?
I am 'in purdah' until after the election and so I can't find out details and give them to you, if that can then be interpreted as my 'bribing' the electors.
Hi Mike,
I'm sure that the lady who asked me the question will have read your answer with interest.
You end your post with 'everything will get better'. That is essentially the whole of the AEFirst party's political manifesto is it not?
Perhaps just a few simple words can mean a very great deal to people. I hope so because we do intend that 'everything will get better'.
It would appear that a great many people have put their faith in us to serve them well in the future. I hope we are given that opportunity on Thursday.
I wrote a response to you at 12.26 today but it has only recently been posted (in the correct timeline) as Lisa Reeves wanted to clarify something with me. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention, as this site has been a hive of activity today, hasn't it?
And Mike, your few simple words mean the world to me and, I know, to many others who love this village in which we live.
I am not Frank Keegan and should be judged by what I do and say not by what others might have done or said in the past.
I am delighted that you are trying to distance yourself from Frank Keegan. I had the feeling you were a wise man.
I also think you ARE being judged by what you say, and what your family say. I don't think berating a young lady for perceived insults that do not exist looks great for the Hallam clan. However, you do. It might lead people to question your own judgement.
You obviously are not the sort of person who likes to accept that they have made a mistake and apologise for it. You carry on with this ridiculous assertion that I have in some way insulted you. Actually I feel insulted by you and your wife. Jane has given testament to the fact that she has slandered me on the streets of Alderley Edge. You have continued this in writing your libel on this site.
I think I need to consult a solicitor on this.
I'm astounded that Duncan Herald did not know what a Declaration of Personal Interest is: I posted a link to the Statutory Rules for Councillors on this site months ago, in a thread in which he was participating but, surely, when one becomes a Councillor one is made aware of the legal obligations? It was probably in that pack of hand-outs you received when AEPC was created.
As I understand it, (I am not legally qualified but have sought qualified opinion) should a serving, or former, Cllr. be found to have been less than squeaky regarding DPIs then the penalties are severe; we put our trust in them, they are elected to serve us. It is not possible to run with both the hare and the hounds and furthermore, fellow Cllrs. who were aware of the transgressions of their colleagues but did not put their hands up may well be accessories. Oh dear.
I have no axe to grind with any of the AEPC Cllrs. (the lady Cllr. who said that Alderley people were "too lazy to vote", was perhaps bordering on being the exception); however, when a CEC Cllr. from Alderley, who had been sacked from the Cabinet and been through a prolonged scrutiny to check his denial of Personal Interest regarding developers, was cleared, yet subsequently, at an AEPC meeting changed his mind and decided that, actually, he did have an interest, after all, with those same Developers; this confirmed my suspicions. Why would an Alderley CEC Cllr vote to remove Green Belt protection from land in Wilmslow and Handforth?
As it happens, the land in Handforth now turns out to be the same Strategic Green Belt upon which the new Handforth Village will be built; the last fields separating Cheshire from Manchester/Stockport? Surprisingly, the developer turns out to be the same one in that Cllrs.deny/declare saga. I'm sure that is just co-incidence.The land in Wilmslow is the Royal London site, where Offices, an hotel and "mixed use" buildings are proposed. Currently grazed by cattle.
Hey; who was the first Cllr. to threaten legal action against his electors on this website?
None of these facts are new- everything is already in the Public Domain; my only source is the internet; all I have done is bring together what has already been said by many other people.
Vote wisely, rather than do what you may have always done: there is absolutely no need for party politics at this level- all that is required is for honest, independent people, who will serve you, rather than seek to impose their will on you to stand for election. I believe that such individuals have come forward.
I am also suspicious of the new Conservative candidates that have put themselves up for election as they either don't know what has gone on before, or they don't care.
I will leave it to them to explain which it is.
"probably you have the same blinkered idea as your colleagues had with their flawed, biased and discredited "result" from the 1850 signatories who were hoodwinked into signing without being given the full facts that should have been offered ?"
How were so many people hood winked? Perhaps some kind of Jedi mind tricks were used...
I am not distancing my self from anyone. I will stand or fall by what I say and do, not what others do or have done. If the voters of Alderley Edge find no reason to vote for me or have reasons not to vote for then so be it.
I stand for what I believe to be right for Alderley Edge. The beauty of democracy is that the people who matter have the final say on Thursday.
I will respect their decision and look forward to either improving matters for the people of Alderley Edge, or criticising the the failure of others to do so, as is my democratic right. I will of course be doing whichever of those applies as a voter in this Parish.
Incidentally, I see you know Fiona Braybrooke, whereas I do not. Your connection to this whole affair gets more intriguing by the day.
Would love to present a view of the future , happy to catch up in coming weeks
best
Vin
This thread does little justice to the talents of people in A/E ; the narrow minds of single issues like parking and the poor level of debate cast a plague on both current and future incumbants of AEPC.
There are more issues here than where you can park your car !!!!! The pricing out of young people from housing is an obvious one. Come on lift your game .... The revolution is just around the corner
V :-)
I'm pleased you are up for doing it, and I will happily fund the hire of the Festival Hall. Just a bit sceptical on how many others will be open to a different vision.
When you are ready to get together, please just e-mail Lisa, and she will forward to me. For obvious reasons I don't wish to publish my e-mail address here.
I look forward to meeting with you.
Lawrence
Why the following disclaimer:
"None of these facts are new- everything is already in the Public Domain; my only source is the internet; all I have done is bring together what has already been said by many other people".
Are you scared of the legal action!!!!!!
My fundamental point is that if a deal is done over Wilmslow Road, it frees up land at Lydiat Lane for The Parish Council to use.
The land could perhaps be used for car parking - providing more spaces than Heyes Lane.
Heyes Lane would not need to be converted to a car park. Allotment holders wouldnt need to be compensated.
If Alderley United could be persuaded to move from Chorley Hall Lane to the new facility (and why wouldnt they as CHL is and always was a poorly drained field) then this effectively releases another space for other use.
The possibilities thrown-up by Wilmslow Road are many and varied and would allow much better joined-up thinking and forward planning about use of critical space in Alderley Edge.
Voters can be forgiven for thinking that there is clearly something amiss here, given the undue haste at which AEPC want to concrete Heyes Lane whilst this well-developed plan lies in the background.
And I'm afraid it's simply not good enough to suggest that this is between CEC and AESG - read the Press Release and you will see that AEPC is clearly behind it.
Link - http://bit.ly/1ze1OKG
So many questions flung at me; I'll try to deal with some. I'll also try to avoid the 'you said', 'no I didn't' stuff.
Hi Alan,
yes indeed, the deal between AESG and CEC will indeed free up land at Lydiat Lane for the PC to use. Always providing that CEC don't change their mind about leasing the land to the PC.
So far you and I agree (now there's a rare old state?). But why might you wish to cancel the proposed car park at Heyes Lane (to save the allotments used by 14 A.E. inhbitants) only to transfer a proposed car park to Lydiat Lane. I thought the main thrust behind the 'save Heyes Lane' was to preserve a green space? Is your suggestion simply swapping one losr green space for another lost green space? If so does that conflict with the AEFirst party? Also your suggestion would mean no extra parking spaces for the ill people using the new medical centre.
The idea that the PC wish to concrete Heyes Lane in 'undue haste' just doesn't hold water; the project has been under debate for literally years.
Hi Vin,
yes it would be a good idea to build some affordable housing for young people. Name your sites please.
Hi Pete,
actually I am quite clear as to what a 'Declaration of Personal Interest' is. But as you only used the initials and there are other meanings to DPI, I left it to you to explain to any who did not know. Having spent years of my life trying to get students to be always as exact as possible, I do tend to dislike inexactitude ! As to any lingering doubts, I have never declared any adverse DPI. Apparently I'm not worth any 'presents'; humiliating for me isn't it?
Fellow Councillors who are aware of the transgressions? Evidence please otherwise you may be thought of as rumour spreading; and you surely wouldn't want that?
That's enuff from me for the time being. If I'm not being too boring, I'll respond to the other questions later. Brekkers time now.
Lets again make it very clear that The Medical Centre and the refurbishment of The Festival Hall will go ahead regardless of whether the Heyes Lane (Heyes!) Allotment is converted into a car park - the Management of the Medical Practise made it quite clear that there is ample parking provided in the plan.
Duncan, there are several "Thrusts" to the argument over Heyes Lane. A big one (as far as I am concerned) is that the land was covenented to the people of Alderley Edge by the Stanley Family for use as a recreational space - AEPC continue to pick their way through a very tricky legal path in order to extract the land from the covenant - hence you are correct in saying that the Heyes Lane site has been the subject of debate for literally years!
There have been comments on this forum about the covenent being (in some way) out of date, or inappropriate, or speculating that the Stanley family really would have liked a car park on the land.
We dont know why the family left the land to the people of Alderley Edge or why they chose to honour us with several other acts of benovolence. But their wishes should be respected, and so it's a point of principle - if we let you steal the Allotment today, what will you steal tomorrow?
The Lydiat Lane land does not form an essential green barrier between existing and encroaching development. It is not currently "public" land but could be freed-up for public use. As such there would be no existing "interests" in the land and it would be (so to speak) a blank canvas.
I am dead against the use of any green space for parking, but until such time as we can encourage more people to walk into the village or we can provide them with good, regular and reliable public transport, or driverless taxis (credit Vin Sumner) I have to accept that we have to accomodate peoples Bentleys and Overfinches somewhere.
1. you 'quote' the management of the medical practice; would that be a certain gentleman?
2. I keep writing but it is as if some people do not wish to hear, so I'll repeat myself. In meetings where I was present, the doctors were pleased with the idea of more parking. They did not demand it but the idea was welcomed. A touch of sophistry there?
3. You say that the PC 'continues to pick their way through a very tricky legal pathway'. Indeed so. It has been done by legal advice. If the voters decide that they do not want a car park on Heyes Lane, then so be it. If they choose to have one, then the legal steps have, I believe, been taken/put in place and so a car park the public will have.
4. No one is 'stealing' the allotments. They will be leased to the PC and thus to the people of Alderley Edge. There is no 'us and them', we are all 'us'.
5. Why do you 'pick on' Bentleys and Overfinches'? Why can't the owner of any/every car in
A.E. have the parking space they want? You inflamatory devil you !
Hi Charlie,
welcome to the fray. I guess the single main topic is car parking: to have or not to have. Car park or no car park. Where to have a car park? Allotments in which place?
You still have about 30 hours to put other topics up for consideration.
Hopefully after the election, we shall resume civilised relationships. The first round is on Mike !
1) I quote "The Management of The Medical Centre" because in an article on this wonderful website when this whole debate started (back in the mists of time) a statement was made a spokesperson for The Medical Practice making it clear that ample parking provision was included in the design plan.
But you seem to have a particular person in mind and make an oblique reference to a "certain gentleman." Who do you have in mind?
2) You say you keep writing that in meetings where you have been present, the doctors were pleased with the idea of additional parking. Forgive me but I have never read that from you before - can you give an example of where you have stated it previously? I only ask because it is in direct contradiction to their official statement.
3) We seem to agree that there has been a long and expensive legal battle paid for ( I assume) from the public purse. You suggest that the legalities are concluded but I read and hear that there remains an outstanding challenge so it trundles along.
4) The site was bequeathed to the people of Alderley Edge, they already own it. The covenant was held on their behalf by the Borough Council who handed over stewardship to The Parish Council who embarked on the long and bitter battle to remove the covenant and misappropriate the land. If you are successful in acquiring the land from the people for the people can we assume that parking will be free because it would be unreasonable to make them pay for land that they already own?
5) I only pick on Bentleys and Overfinches because they are the marques that I see regularly parked on the double-yellows outside Gusto - I can hardly imagine that these people will park half a mile away and walk to the bars and restaurants.
You still didn't respond to my suggestion that, if Wilmslow Road were available as Frank Keegan and Mike Williams seemed confident it would be, it frees up other sites for consideration in the grand scheme - an opportunity to do some proper joined-up thinking that will better serve the people of Alderley Edge into the long term.
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory, just a lowly searcher after the truth.....wherever that may be!
Declarations of Personal Interest: you have both posted on this in the recent past and in particular in relation to the existing PC. Have you questioned AE1 about this in relation to their candidates? A casual scroll through the interviews and news feeds on alderleyedge.com seems to indicate that Geoff Hall, Christine Munro, Mike Dudley-Jones would all have significant conflicts to declare.
It would reflect balance if you made the same public enquiries of them and the electorate saw their answers before tomorrow. If they are able to do, familial connections should also be disclosed as the rules require.
I suspect that you would want this in the open as fair minded people and I have not seen much from either of you in relation to AE1 on this topic here. If I have missed it, feel free to direct me (and other readers) to it.
Best of luck to everyone tomorrow - as a counterpoint to the various postings Fenton Simpson and I bumped into each other last night and he crossed the road to say hello and wish me well. I had not met him before but it shows that after all this has settled down we can go back to being decent to each other.
Vote wisely!
Equally important is the legal requirement to Register any Personal Interest on the Council website. Examination of both CEC and AEPC websites will tell who has... or in this case still has not registered; the penalty is quite severe, by the way..
I have no doubt that any newly elected Cllr (independent of party-affilliated) will register and declare any interests as soon as they have read the legal requirements in the rules for Councillors.
As you correctly point out - "a casual stroll through the interviews and news feeds on alderleyedge.com" will show that the AlderleyEdgeFIRST candidates have already declared their interests and involvement in different projects that have, and will be to the benefit of the Village. If you know differently please enlighten us.
The interest expressed in the DPIs of the existing PC stem from concerns that have been the subject of an enquiry into one Councillor and his interests in a company that are central to much of the Building and Development work carried out in the Village.
But you already knew all of this, didnt you?
as the vote is tomorrow, shall we decline into a gentle goodnight now?
I have mentioned the doctors' liking for more parking before. Honest. As we are just about over, please excuse me from wading through huge numbers of posts to 'prove' it. Pass it 'on the nod' this once?
Lastly, if the Wilmslow Rd site (aka AESG site) is available; I just don't see that such would impinge on other sites. Until we actually see what is done with the AESG site.
Hi Ho. May the best (wo)man win.
As long as that includes me. Or else I'll just go into a sulk !
Cheers,
Duncan
You could go into a sulk Or start counting uncasted votes in your support and carry on acting as a winner!!!!
This argument has been made in the past, on this site that good people of Alderley Edge who did not vote (support a petition / respond to Parish pledge) are in favour of the status quo.
Declarations of Personal Interest: you have both posted on this in the recent past and in particular in relation to the existing PC. Have you questioned AE1 about this in relation to their candidates? A casual scroll through the interviews and news feeds on alderleyedge.com seems to indicate that Geoff Hall, Christine Munro, Mike Dudley-Jones would all have significant conflicts to declare.
It would reflect balance if you made the same public enquiries of them and the electorate saw their answers before tomorrow. If they are able to do, familial connections should also be disclosed as the rules require.
I suspect that you would want this in the open as fair minded people and I have not seen much from either of you in relation to AE1 on this topic here. If I have missed it, feel free to direct me (and other readers) to it.
Best of luck to everyone tomorrow - as a counterpoint to the various postings Fenton Simpson and I bumped into each other last night and he crossed the road to say hello and wish me well. I had not met him before but it shows that after all this has settled down we can go back to being decent to each other.
Vote wisely!
The point I was making was that Messrs Taylor and Dixon have spent a lot of time examining DPI's in relation to (amongst others) Frank Keegan, Duncan Herald and (though I am only a candidate) me. In the interest of fairness and balance, may we have the same searching examination of how AE1 candidates will deal with their DPI's if they or any of them are elected?
Your attempt to deflect the question implies that perhaps they do not know or do not care for the electorate to know, or it could mean there is nothing to say. Either way, I suggest the facts, such as they are, should be made known to the electorate.
I notice none of the AE1 candidates have responded yet.
It will not be possible to make a DPI unless elected, of course. However, that misses the point I made, which is that you and Martin Dixon have both been quite determined to root out conflicts of interest. Martin persisted in asking me and and I answered him even though I am not a member of the current PC. His questions were very intrusive but in the interests of openness I amswered them. I have seen no such pursuit of the AE1 candidates nor any statement from any of them as to how they would deal with them, save for in passing a comment by Mike Dudley-Jones that he would resign from the post he holds with the Allotments Society. I am not sure that will actually cure the conflict but it is a matter for him.
In the interests of balance and fairness, the same questions should be posed of the AE1 candidates candidates.
I note your attempt at deflection but really the answers should come from AE1 and until they do, as a candidate and as a voter, it is a legitimate question to ask.
Subject, I assume, to people being able to see through your cheap ploy of delivering leaflets to Chorley Hall Lane residents only - with inflammatory quotes from me & Mike D-J regarding discussions on potential parking around the football pitch on Chorley Hall Lane.
You have twice in the last month said that AlderleyEdgeFIRST are keen to kick children off the football field at Chorley Hall Lane.
Now you are distributing an illegal campaign leaflet (ie no details of who is responsible for its issue or funding), bad-mouthing us again.
I hope the Conservative Party is aware of this leaflet (and also the one you wrote only for Lynton Lane/Horseshoe Lane residents) as all campaign costs must be declared and accounted for.
So does the scurrilous document addressed to residents of CHL that completely misrepresents what has been said and makes no mention of the fact that The Conservative Parish Council have carefully considered Chorley Hall Lane as a car park but were put off because it was a bit muddy.
To prey on what they hope will be the "Nimbyism" of CHL residents is contemptible and demonstrates better than AlderleyEdgeFIRST could ever do that they are not interested in the greater good of the Village, arrived at by consideration and consultation, they will just play with peoples hopes and fears in order to achieve their own aims.
I think Duncan (in particular) has done himself no credit today.
I actually think that Duncan has had one on the worst days of his life today. How many times have you seen people complimenting him on his previous behaviour. I think both you and I are included in that. So to be found out twice in one day for posting cr*p through peoples' letterboxes must be an embarrassment to him.
Duncan, I really wanted you to be on the new PC because you would have been sitting alongside so many people who you would have relished. You could have been on the most popular, productive parish council in decades. But you seem to want to consistently show your incompetence. Frankly Duncan, I think you have been mixing with the wrong people.
the information in the leaflet informed the residents of Chorley Hall Lane (and surrounding streets) of the approval of yourself and Mike (AS AEFirst candidates) for car parking on the Chorley Hall lane Playing Field. Surely you have no onjection to those residents being told about what you are considering doing? The quotes used were taken from your (and Mike's) writings on alderleyedge.com. Why do you judge your own party's quotes as inflammatory?
For your information, I did not come up with the idea for this leaflet, nor did I write any of it nor did I print it; I was asked to help with the delivery and I agreed.
The leaflet was not produced by the Conservative Party or by the Parish Council. I believe those who produced it might be called 'concerned local people'; isn't that how AEFirst came into being?
Alan
you write of the leaflet as scurrilous. In what way please?
you write of the leaflet being a misrepresentation of what was said. As the leaflet simply uses two quotes from two of the AEFirst candidates, where is there any misrepresentation? Do you deny that the two AEFirst candidates have written of their approval of parking on CHL Playing Field?
You say that 'the Conservative Party carefully considered Chorley Hall Lane as a car park'. Thankyou for that. We did consider carefully and reached the conclusion that it was not the most suitable site. Certainly not because 'it was a bit muddy'.
You write that it is 'Nimbyism'. How exactly is that any different from you guys wanting a proposed car park moving from Heyes Lane, because of the allotments there?
Martin
you write that the leaflet is c*ap. Do you deny its contents are accurate? Do you deny that the quotes used are accurate? Has AEFirst done any of its much vaunted consulting with the people who live on Chorley Hall Lane?
To those of you who have stuck with reading all this; may I offer my congratulations on your stamina. You may agree with me that the 'fury' shown by AEFirst supporters shows that they feel they have been 'caught out'? After all, their 'mantra' has been openess/clarity/truthfullness/consulting. But they do not seem to like the inhabitants of Chorley Hall Lane being told of AEFirst considerations that if implemented would make life rather less enjoyable for those inhabitants.
In my opinion it's scurrilous in that it is....
1) Illegal - as it doesnt carry the correct party affiliation and publishing detail.
2) Inaccurate - as it picks selectively from statements made by candidates about other sites that "could" be considered alongside Heyes Lane for possible parking solutions.
3) You admit to having considered CHL as a possible car park. Did you do the honest and decent thing in your leaflet and point this out before you wrongly accused AEFirst of wanting to steal playing space from children?
4) Did you leaflet Heyes Lane residents to advise them that the Conservative PC were mounting an attack on a piece of land that was bequeathed to the people of Alderley Edge and which stands as a green barrier between encroaching development?
5) With regard to Nimbyism - it is one thing for a resident to hold dear the things that are close to them, but quite another for a representative of a Parish Council to exploit that concern in the cynical manner that you have done.
We could continue to debate these things back and forward but frankly Duncan I have lost any appetite to engage with you further because I no longer feel that I am dealing with an honest and decent man.
A valiant attempt to defend your actions which I must say surprised and disappointed me.
Let's deal with each of the specially targeted leaflets that you have been hand delivering in turn. First of all, the one addressed just to your neighbours, signed by yourself, Martin Hallam, and your daughter, Elly Herald. In it, you say "Whilst we would of course serve the village without self-interest we would always be an advocate for the issues that face our road." Well, as someone who doesn't happen to be a neighbour of yours and who doesn't live on your road (which I thought was private anyway?), I take exception to this promise. In fact, I'm not even sure what it is you are trying to say... Is it 'Everyone is equal, but some are a bit more equal than others."? If not, why send the special letter to your neighbours at all? Perhaps you could explain to me and other readers of this thread exactly what the purpose of the special letter to your neighbours was, please.
Now, on to the leaflet that you were hand delivering yesterday to residents of Chorley Hall Lane (a number of whom had AlderleyEdgeFIRST posters displayed in their windows when I ran past last weekend). I believe there may have been some electoral rules in question about that document. I'm no expert, but I understand that any printed election materials that are distributed by a candidate prior to an election have to display the name of the publisher and promoter of that material. Otherwise, I believe it is an offence. I've seen the leaflet you were pushing through people's letter boxes. There is no indication who authored it, who printed it, or indeed who distributed it. We only know it was you because someone saw you. So now to say (because you must be aware of those rules and realise you have been caught out) 'It wasn't me. The big boys made me.', which is, in effect, your defence, is disappointing to say the very least.
One thing I do understand is why you might want to distance yourself from a document that is clearly designed to scare-monger. I notice that whoever authored it chose not to quote any AlderleyEdgeFIRST candidates saying they would consult with, listen to and respond with respect to all the residents of this village. I'm sure I could lift some choice Duncan Herald-isms from this very site and paint a very unattractive portrait if that was my objective. I'm pleased to see AlderleyEdgeFIRST continue to maintain their position on the moral high ground.
"An imprint must, by law, be added to campaign material to show who is responsible for its production. It helps to ensure that the campaign is transparent.
What do you need to include?
On printed material, such as leaflets and posters, you must include the name and address of:
• the printer
• the promoter
• any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter)"
So obviously the leaflets you posted on CHL were unlawful. Equally, the leaflets you distributed on Horseshoe Lane and Lynton Lane also unlawful. I would have thought the two solicitors who signed them with you might have known that. Anyway, you all know now.
I do live in the Stockport borough. If your question as to my interest in AE is genuine interest I am happy to answer. If you contact Lisa Reeves she will give you my email address.
1. Craig Browne Interview with Lisa Reeves, as posted on alderleyedge.com: ‘’A new car park will provide a short-term solution; however, in the long-term this isn’t sustainable, as we cannot keep laying more tarmac every few years.’’
2. A3 promotional leaflet ‘’Vote for Alderley Edge First’’ with Candidate Profiles, Craig Browne: ‘’I want to see the Parish Plan priorities actually implemented, including not just the Festival Hall, but also protection of our green spaces’’.
3. A4 promotional leaflet ‘’Vote for Change in Alderley Edge’’ Leaflet: ‘’ more rigorous protection of green spaces’’
The above also sets aside that Chorley Hall Playing Field is not (and will never be) convenient enough to ever be a viable solution to any of the villages major parking problem contributors (schools, train commuters, offices, shops etc.).
The CHL Playing Field is a significant community asset in its current form. Regardless of current uses or whether any other football field is developed in the future, we (and indefinitely we will) wish to enjoy the CHL Playing Field as a near village centre ‘’public’’ green space as it is – kick a ball, run, sit, fly a kite, fly a frisbee, walk a dog etc. etc. These activities are distinct and separate from the activities undertaken in the linked park / playground area. This space is not just used by a Football Club but is accessible (and is used) by the community as a whole. Entering a car and driving to an edge of town field (that could not be guaranteed with any certainty would be available for general public use) does not promote a vibrant village. We as a Village should be promoting the current and future benefits of this area as a public village green space that is accessible to all in lieu of suggesting its conversion (of even part of) for other means. If this was lost (or even part lost) it would be gone forever.
Re-post below also of my previous comment that was attached to a different article on this website (it was referred in a comment above and does have relevance here also).:
‘’Astounded that the destruction of further green space is suggested in some posts above for car parking. Chorley Hall Lane (CHL) playing field is one of the Villages greatest assets. It is near village centre green space that is available to all and is fundamental to the success of Alderley Edge village (and would be to any village for that matter). It will become even more crucial / essential in its current location and form as the village may grow and expand. CHL Playing Field combined with the park balances the whole commercial aspect of Alderley Edge and is a town planning / village ideal. This is not just a football field but a public open space that is accessible to all and is used for any outdoor recreation / past time (not just for football) flying a kite, runners / training, dog walkers, children + teenagers + adults sitting and enjoying the space, holding village events etc. etc. Please do not suggest or consider the destruction of (even part of) such a valuable community asset and one that could never be re-established in such a location.’’
Your post is heartfelt and considered, and we are left in no doubt that you are opposed to the use of the playing fields on Chorley Hall Lane as anything other than what they are currently used for. Your position is very clear.
However, I have to respectfully disagree with the request 'Please do not suggest or consider the destruction of (even part of)...'. I believe the reason that AE1 won a landslide victory in the recent election was because they promised that they would consider EVERY possible solution to the existing village parking challenge (including the allotments at Heyes Lane and the playing fields on Chorley Hall Lane, as well as other options that have been mooted on this site before). It's obviously something the residents of this village feel passionate about, and not surprising that different people have different levels of attachment to each of the possible options potentially available. I know that not everyone is going to be happy with whatever solution AE1 settle upon, but at least I can be assured that they will take EVERYONE'S point of view into careful consideration before they reach that decision. I think we have to trust in those people that we have now elected, that they will do what they said they would do, and consider EVERY option before deciding the best way forward.