Cheshire East Council has offered for Alderley Edge Parish Council to "become the first Parish Council in the country to own our own park".
Our new ward councillor Craig Browne has met with Michael Jones (Leader of Cheshire East Council), Peter Bates (Chief Operating Officer) and Stef Corden (Head of Communities).
Craig explained "We have been offered that the park will be devolved to the Parish Council on a 125 year lease with a covenant so that it cannot be built on, whether that be for housing or a car park or whatever.
"I think that's a really positive offer, personally there are lots of things I would like to improve in the park. I am already speaking to local businesses who have expressed an interest in maintaining or investing in some of the flower beds and some of the other areas of the park as well. I want to speak to the schools about this and I've had a brief conversation with the Allotment Society."
He added "These are things we cannot currently we do because the asset belongs to Cheshire East, if it belongs to the Parish Council if we wanted to run community events, whether its the May Fair or whatever, we wouldn't have to ask anybody the Parish Council could make that decision for itself."
Former parish councillor, Duncan Herald enquired how much money Cheshire East Council would give them saying "It costs a huge amount of money to run the park."
Cheshire East Council have offered it at a peppercorn rent but did not mention how much money they would give the Parish Council to cover the maintenance of the park. Craig Browne is waiting for the proposals.
The Parish Council showed a selection of images at their informal public meeting on Wednesday, 3rd June, of some of the ideas for improving facilities in the park. These included table tennis tables, outdoor gym equipment, a beach volleyball court, skateboard park and a youth bowlers club.
Do you think it would be a good idea for the Parish Council to take control of the park or do you think it risks becoming a white elephant and costing parishioners, through their precept, a lot of money to maintain?
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Can they provide us all the facts and figure. Also the complete conditions of continuing the services.
My old age have taught me, when something is too good to be true, then it normally is!
Don't worry, no decision will be made until we have received full details of the proposed transfer from Cheshire East. When the details are available, we will of course let people know.
At the moment, we are simply consulting on whether the village is, in principle, supportive of the idea of being in control of our own park.
The 'old' parish council was offered the park. It meant that, sooner or later, the P.C. would have to take on the full cost.
Not surprisingly we turned that down.
Ask yourself why CEC is offering the park to the new P.C.
Is it because CEC thinks only of how to help Alderley Edge?
Is it because CEC is so impressed with the new AEFirst P.C.?
Is it because CEC smells a chance to offload a costly facility from CEC paying to AEPC paying?
Forgive my cynicism!
As to meeting with 'le grand fromage' himself. Oh yes, we used to meet with Mike. He would arrive at a meeting, with Officers in attendance. A more charming chap you couldn't wish to meet. We would shake hands as he left. I counted the rings on my fingers and then I counted my fingers!
Remember that you are dealing with professional and very accomplished politicians, who have survived climbing the greasy pole to the level of CEC Cabinet!
Anything you are promised should be in writing, read by your solicitor and preferably signed in blood!
Sometimes a 'glass half empty' is a fair place to start?
Perhaps the populace might be consulted, when there is a proper and costed offer on the table?
I fear that the offer is more about taking advantage of new and naïve councilors and less about a desire to do good in the village.
Party politics is at work here - Michael Jones is the conservative leader of the council - the new PC just ousted all the tory candidates.
Much of what Duncan writes is valid - I have had hold of that pole and seen others climb it :-)))
The problem with cynicism is that it tends to paralyse any possibility of creative thinking. It is the antithesis of wisdom.
I am very impressed with your recent grasp of figures. You seem to recall how much the park costs to run, how much it would cost to knock down and rebuild the festival hall. I always had the impression you used to leave figures up to the other councillors. You didn't even know how much the proposed car park on the allotments was going to cost but you supported it without that information. It seems a shame that your scrutiny for figures was not better utilised when you were on the council, because all we seem to be hearing recently is just how wrong your council got their figures.
I find it amazing that someone with your experience and drive did not stand at the last Parish elections. Did you just get fed up of slipping down the pole?
Firstly, in spite of your earlier protestations, you now freely admit to cynicism. But I'll let that one slide.
Secondly, I'm still getting a whiff of 'electioneering' even though we are well past the finish line. I was really pleased to see you and your fellow conservative parish council candidates show up at the meeting last week. I guess it was a bit much to hope that you would be there to offer good will and support to the new guys. I'm sure it will take time for you to settle in to the new order, but I'm optimistic that, in time, your obvious passion and concern for this community will translate into positive and constructive comments and actions to support progress and improvement.
Regarding both your and Marc's comments around the village's relationship with CEC. I really don't think you should underestimate a) the value of building positive relationships with those with whom the Parish Council has to work to get things done, and b) the capabilities and wherewithal of the new Parish Councillors. They might be new to their elected positions, but one of the reasons they were elected (I think) is that they were able to read the mood of the electorate, and their credentials. And that includes their abilities to see (and make use of) opportunities to build bridges where the former Parish Council had quite clearly failed. They may not be quite as naive as your posts imply. And I am certain that they would not commit to an unpopular initiative without all the facts and figures clearly laid out.
I find your closing comment, Duncan, 'Perhaps the populace might be consulted, when there is a proper and costed offer on the table?' particularly ironic, under the circumstances.
whilst happily deleting the 3,000+ old PC emails, I happened on one that listed the £33,000, from back in 2012. My memory alone could not do it.
No one knew how much the proposed car park at Heyes lane would cost; but it was seen as the best alternative of all the possible solutions to the village parking problem and so had to be done. Of course if the cost had come out as some huge sum, we'd probably have had to backtrack. But we thought that we had to get on with it as soon as was practical.We has debated the matter for ages. We had done outline planning. But we wanted to get something done, instead of just more wittering on.
I await with eagerness the decisions and costings of the present P.C. Especially as everything is 'on the table'. Well apparently not an expansion of the car park in the park. Well obviously not a car park on Heyes lane. Funny old word 'everything', isn't it!
Where exactly is your evidence that the previous council got its figures wrong? Chapter and verse please, not just some moaning.
Also might you congratulate the previous council on getting the new Medical Centre going?
By the way Fiona, have you been consulted of late?
Have you not been reading the stories on this website? The figures for the Medical Centre and the Festival Hall have been found to be wrong.
You say "No one knew how much the proposed car park at Heyes lane would cost; but it was seen as the best alternative of all the possible solutions to the village parking problem and so had to be done." You were an elected councillor with responsibility. You should have known. How could you make the judgement that it was the best alternative with no idea of the cost. That is just ridiculous.
The improved floral displays (good luck Fenton!) and the possibility of all weather gym equipment and table tennis facilities in the bandstand are very attractive.
I agree with Mike Dudley-Jones that if people are provided with a quality facility they will use it, respect and protect it.
The "pop-up" five-a-side facility would be a great focal point for the children and youth of the village.
As to whether AEPC needs to own the park in order to make these things happen I'm not sure.
I share some of Duncans scepticism about why CEC should wish to offload it and would want to see a detailed cost / benefit analysis before making a judgement.
However, I am confident that, if there is a chance of making it work, the new PC have the energy, drive and support to create something of which The Village will be proud.
you write that the previous council got the figures wrong. I asked you (above) for evidence of that. So far you have not provided any. Have you just been swept along on a line of innuendo?
Let us take a single example please. The new Medical Centre. Even before the election, the cost of the Centre was known. The money to finance (mortgage) the building was in place. The income stream had been shown to more than meet the mortgage costs. Which part of that comes under 'got the figures wrong' please?
As for the costing of the proposed Heyes Lane car park. As I wrote above, deciding that something is the best option without knowing its exact cost is fine by me. (I had actually talked to builders about an approx. cost, but not released those conversations to the public as they were just a private chat, to give me some sort of idea; I would imagine that as a part of looking at the parking problem, the new P.C. will/has done something similar?).
Is there not something about knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing?
I have not criticised the new P.C. at all. Why should I? They will make as good (or bad) a job as we did and as did the P.C. before us. But I do ask for costings as soon as they can be provided. Along with a solution to the village parking problem. If the new P.C. comes up with a way of solving the problem, I'll be among the first to congratulate them.
Good Morning Claire,
I did indeed attend the meeting. Lots of ideas flying about. I will be pleased to find out which ideas will become P.C. policies.
I am happy to offer what support I can to the new P.C. Progress and improvement are fine by me. I look forward to seeing concrete and costed motions. Has there been some 'kite flying' so far, to try and tap into what the public feel? e.g. was the post about having a no-building covenant in the park a possible P.C. policy or simply an idea being floated? Nothing wrong with that. But please some definate proposals from the ideas.
You write that I underestimate relationship with CEC. How so? It took me long enough to get good relationships with CEC Officers and such made possible constructive activities.
I did warn against taking great care with the 'professionals' of CEC; 'put not your trust in princes'? That's based on my own experienses with CEC politicians. I offered my gentle warning, not to 'get at' the new P.C. but as a small piece of support for them.
If you do not study history, you will re-live it?
Oh dear, what a lot of scribing from me. I'll stop here, before you fall asleep!
All you have to do is read Lisa’s report of what Cllr Ruth Norbury said at the council meeting on the 3rd June. It is titled; Festival Hall refurb will have to be phased. Then take a look at her report titled; Medical Centre project likely to require another £500,000. Here Cllr Geoff Hall explains the figures and the reasons for the extra expenditure.
If neither of these reports are proof enough for you then I am not sure what evidence you require.
Quite simply, the only entity having the right to enforce this lessee's covenant will be the lessor, i.e. CEC. So if a future PC decided to build on the park, and CEC had no objections, the covenant would be of absolutely no benefit to the residents of AE.
You have said "Deciding that something is the best option without knowing its exact cost is fine by me." So if it is fine with you why are you constantly goading the new PC into coming up with "proper and costed proposals"?
Does that not seem a little incongruent to you?
Ruth is quoted as we have a budget of £540,000 'which is not enough to do what we want with the Festival Hall'.
I repeat then, does that mean that the costing of what the new P.C. wants is more than the costing for what the old P.C. wanted?
A little clarity please?
The evidence I am asking you for is a list of income and costs, to show whether there is a shortfall and if so why. Show me the money! I'd be happiest if you might produce the details, rather than quoting Ruth or Geoff.
By the way, I'm in no hurry to 'chase' the new P.C. but is there any timeline for a presentation of the P.C's thoughts/intention re. the parking problem e.g. will there be an attempt to build a car park or a solution without the need for a car park?
My own view is to get on with it. Agree with me or not.
The stated view of AE! is to produce business plans and costings, isn't it?
As ye preach, so shall ye do?
Overuse of incongruous? No inconsistency from me!
I have no wish at all to goad; just tell me what's going to happen please. I have always attempted to answer questions fired at me and explain as best I can. Is it so wrong of me to expect a similar courtesy ?
Where do we find your business plan for the Festival Hall? Then maybe we can compare the two. I hope you haven't shredded or deleted it.
I agree, you have always tried to explain, you just never seemed to have the information. I do applaud you tenacity in trying to justify the actions of a past PC on your own. Why is it a past PC? Simply because the electorate wanted change. They booted you out because they did not agree with your approach. It could be time to accept that.
I'm not sure why you are demanding figures from Fiona. Surely it is far more appropriate for her to quote Ruth or Geoff (or, indeed, any of the other Parish Councillors) from their own reports? Fiona is not (as I'm sure you are aware) a Parish Councillor herself. Why do you expect her to be in a position to 'show you the money'?
Perhaps I could ask you, while we are ramping up our question-posing, what exactly it was that the old P.C. had budgeted for the £540,000? As the old P.C. were notorious for playing their cards very close to their collective chests, I'm not sure it was ever divulged to the community how they reached their figures, and what, indeed, your plans were, and what those funds were intended to cover. As you quite rightly say, clarity would be very helpful and I expect you are in an excellent position, as a former Parish Councillor, to answer that particular question. Income and costs would be a great start.
Your last paragraph in your most recent post is, yet again, incongruous. In the first part of your closing sentence you claim you are in no hurry to 'chase' the new P.C., but then you demand a timeline. And, to be honest, I don't understand the last part of that sentence at all. i.e. "e.g. will there be an attempt to build a car park or a solution without the need for a car park?"
I thought, at the very least, we were all in agreement that a (long-term) solution to Alderley Edge's parking problem is needed. I believe the new P.C. (from what they said at the public meeting last week, which you attended) are giving this issue their full attention and have acknowledged its urgency. You claim to be supportive, but I'm afraid your posts suggest otherwise.
I am sure they will deliver on their promises of making the village a better place to live but we also need to appreciate the previous council didn't do a bad job in making decisions that have made this a great place to inhabit.
The continuous attempts at point scoring are quite frankly, becoming tedious.
I am not sure why you are singling out Claire for point scoring? I have always seen her posts a being very balanced. I am not sure that can be said of ex councillors.
Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry if my posts have been making you cross. And I'm sorry (for you) that your preferred candidates weren't elected this time round.
If there is a particular issue that I have commented on that you would like to challenge me on, do let me know. It's always fun to intellectually parry with new contributors. But if your problem is simply that you don't share my views on anything and you are finding my posts 'tedious', you can always stop reading them.
I am simply fed up of the continued attempts at point scoring by supporters of both sides. With some of the comments you would think the previous PC did an awful job and that the new PC can do no wrong. The village is a great place to live so they cant have done too bad in the past.
However, the new PC are now in place and its time to stop trying to make out the previous PC failed.
Mike I agree with you but approx 40% voted for the previous PC
I guess it like most things in life; there is no black or white. Some councillors performed well and some were found lacking (or not even living in this country). Some council decisions were good and some less so. Some actions were carried out efficiently and some were not. And that will be the same for the new PC.
What we do know with absolute certainty is that the majority of voters in Alderley Edge took the view that they wanted a total change in PC. I can only assume that was because they thought the old PC were not doing as well as they wanted them to. The same is also true of the Ward election.
I am pleased that you have pointed out that both sides are trying to score points, indeed that is true. I guess that is what happens in debate. What I find interesting is that it is only one councillor from the old PC who is trying to argue. Were he not, there would be no point scoring at all.
Personally, I am a little disappointed that you didn't address your first comment to me, I guess that is because you feel that Claire is the better point scorer.
here I am, being criticised for not being helpful and supportive to the P.C.
My first intention was to keep my nose out, rather than be seen as a 'blast from the past'.
However, will the following be seen as helpful?
1. The last P.C. voted to spend several hundred pounds on two new and state of the art planters, for London Rd. Would the new P.C. care to get that money spent now?
2. As you enter the village from the Heyes Lane end, on your right are metal railings. There is a lot of greeney poking through. The land on which the greenery grows is probably owned by a variety of organisations. In the past, the P.C. just got on with having it removed (without either a business plan or any H & S plan!). So there is a preceedent. Can that be done soonest?
3. Some time back, CEC announced a road sign cleaning program. Can the P.C. chase them up on getting it done in A.E.?
Just a few small suggestions to improve the look of the village centre?
Go on; tell me I'm not helping!
Oh yes; Martin do not blame me for 'point scoring'.
By the way; please stop banging on about the election. I don't. The new guys had a 58%/42% margin of victory. Quite enough to justify their activities now and in the future. I'm not arguing about that.
Also you might like to answer my question regarding who wrote the anonamous letter that you were posting through the doors of chorley hall lane two days before the election ? And who asked/told you to deliver them ?
the cost new planters were agreed upon by the ex-P.C.
They were never ordered due to the proximity of the election.
I have simply suggested that the new P.C. might decide to go ahead with the planters; or not as the P.C. sees fit. Do you have a problem with my suggestion?
Why are you banging on about the election still. Leave it alone. The voters decided and that is the end of it surely?
I have told you before that I had nought to do with the writing/printing etc of the flyer you refer to. As to who asked me to pop them through letter boxes? As I am no longer a parish councillor, I am no longer duty bound to answer questions, if I choose not to. If you choose to wallow in the past election, that's your right, but I have moved on!
Onwards and Upwards with the new P.C.
are you being your usual mischievous and roguish self re. the Parish Council precept?
As I'm sure you know, the precept has not gone up at all for the last few years.
So why suddenly have the CEC decided to ask if the Parish council should take it over?
As someone who is/has dealt with Manchester City Council on Asset Transfer I know they are always eager to offload costly community buildings and upkeep to reduce yearly costs. So in this case I think a great deal of thought needs to go into this decision, as to where you find the present and more importantly the future upkeep costs, and ensure this is all factored in before a final decision is made.
I was struck by what you said "My first intention was to keep my nose out, rather than be seen as a 'blast from the past'." I have always been a great believer in listening to your first instinct. They are often the best guidance.
If you do want to help, and I believe you do, why not arrange a meeting with Craig, he is a really nice guy, and help him to understand the various issues. After all, you both have a commonality in wanting to make a positive difference to the village. I would certainly respect you for doing that. Just in the same way I respect Mike Williamson for making the same offer.
It is an interesting question you ask about the anonymous letter. Let us not forget that there was another letter sent out to the residents of Horseshoe Lane that was signed by Duncan, his daughter Elly and his neighbour Martin Hallam. This letter was equally illegal as it did not provide the information required by the Electoral Commission. Elly and Martin are both solicitors, and as such would never do anything illegal as their careers would depend upon it.
Secondly, of course I am willing to talk with Craig. But I don't wish to give an impression of trying to interfere. If Craig wishes to ask me anything, that's fine.
If you follow the stuff on 'Forum' (where people seem less inclined to impersonate attack-dogs) you'll note that I have offered a number of suggestions that are meant to be helpful and there are 3 suggestions in my entry above. These suggestions are offered in a spirit of helpfulness. No sarcasm/irony/point scoring on my part; honestly.
If suggestions are deemed to be helpful, some feedback would be jolly. Or should we humble mere citizens not presume?
I'm pleased to read that it is not your intention to interfere and that you are claiming to be genuinely helpful. This news is encouraging. Can we therefore hope, if your 'number of suggestions' are not responded to directly, that you will not be 'banging on' (a popular expression of yours, it seems), demanding answers? As a former Parish Councillor, you will have a better idea than most people of the vast range of issues and challenges that our new Parish Council are facing. And of the expectations that are placed on them. They will have to identify each issue that arises, in terms of 'important' and 'urgent', and respond according to their own evaluation. As you are no doubt only too well aware, there are only so many hours in the waking day.
Personally, I think if you don't get an immediate and detailed response from Craig Browne regarding the re-staining of the benches in cemetery, or the removal of the barbed wire on the fence in the park that you identified in your 'forum' comment, then I would assume that Craig, as our new Ward councillor is busy getting his feet under the table and getting to grips with slightly more pressing issues. Like the parking challenges and rebuilding relationships with CEC. I do hope you will give him the courtesy and space to do this, without mithering him repeatedly on here.
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the new Parish Council have 'hit the ground running' and are doing everything within their power to deliver what they promised. Imagine if everyone on the electorate posted itemised wish-lists as you have done so far. It hardly bears thinking about...
If, however, you are able to post suggestions as to how you could support the new PC in achieving some of your identified issues (rather than advice), then that would be a whole different, and far more encouraging matter.
Do we assume that your comment "I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the new Parish Council have 'hit the ground running' and are doing everything within their power to deliver what they promised." means that you have canvassed everyone's view in the village?
What a strange comment.
Of course I haven't. But I do think that their well-attended informal public meeting, held less than a month after election, where they invited and engaged in discussion, and reported progress so far, was a pretty clear indication that they are.
Are you suggesting they haven't and they aren't? In which case, perhaps you could qualify those assertions?
As I said in a previous post I did vote for 2 of the younger candidates as I felt it was important that we had a balance between the past and the future but I won't get too giddy until I see changes that I think will benefit the village for years to come.
I have 2 young children and decisions made in the next 5 years are as important to me as well as the rest of the people in this village and the thought of the playing field being turned into a car park send shivers down my spine as we live close to this area and Chorley Hall Lane is busy enough (along with having a speeding issue) without adding more traffic to it.
I guess that you weren't at the Public Meeting at which the new PC gave us a very frank and honest update on what they had been doing since being voted into office.
They have (as Claire has rightly said) hit the ground running, but it is clear that the changes that we all hope for will be a marathon, rather than a sprint event, and there is therefore, much running to do.
One of the central tenets of the meeting was the fact that the Parish Council are a group of talented and enthusiastic individuals who are prepared to work hard (on an entirely voluntary and unpaid basis) to improve the lot of Alderley Edge people. But they will not do it without the on-going and ACTIVE support of the Village.
So, if (as you say) you intend to sit back and "wait for delivery" of solutions to your various issues and concerns then (might I suggest) you are rather more part of the problem than the solution.
If, as a resident of an area close to CHL, you don't want the parking problem resolved in your "back yard", then why not take up the new PCs invitation to engage with them and suggest where the additional parking places should be?
To be honest, just over a month after the election, I would be astonished and a little bit concerned if we saw substantial changes imposed on the village by the newly elected Parish Council. I believe the electorate voted for the current Councillors because they not only want consultation and transparency, but also long-term, well-thought out solutions to the challenges, that have been well documented. You mention 5 years in your post. That time frame is no doubt relevant to you and your family. Personally, I hope the Parish Council is thinking far more long term. I am the mother of a 16 year old. I am constantly amazed at how quickly time passes. It was about 4 years ago that I reacted to the previous Parish Council's proposal to pave over the allotments on Heyes Lane. I am interested in long-term solutions. Not just one that benefits me and my family. I'm trying to think 'big picture'. I'm sure you think about the legacy we leave our children (whether you continue to live in Alderley Edge or not)..?
You say that the idea of the playing field being turned into a car park 'sends shivers down my spine as we live close to this area'. I understand your reservations. But given the playing fields are (apparently) not ideal for their intended purpose, and the Parish Council are looking for a long-term solution that meets the (parking) needs of the whole of the village, can you offer a viable, long-term, alternative solution?
The use of the field for a car park is not the main issue I have, it's the increase in traffic on CHL. There are many occasions where I and many others have had to run across the road because some maniac has come flying over the narrow bridge at a ridiculous speed.
I do not know what the answer is and to date there don't seem to be too many suggestions as yet, however in the spirit of openness and the promise of listening to the village, I do hope once suitable sites have been identified, the village gets the opportunity to vote on its preferred option.
Alan, not sure your comments "part of the problem" make any sense whatsoever.
always a pleasure to engage with you.
1. Yes the previous P.C. did hold meetings in private. The 'full' ones were Tory Party meetings and as such private. Other meetings involved smaller groups e.g. the three of us that were working on improving the cemetery had meetings in the De Traff. No reason not to have a convivial meeting? Also emails were exchanged all over the place. As far as I recall, I put plenty of entries on alderleyedge.com telling the public what we were about re. the park and the cemetery (my own spheres of activity/interest).
2. Surely the new P.C. members are exchanging emails and having the odd meeting of smaller numbers/committees? I see nothing wrong with that. How on earth can the full P.C. have frequent meetings? Some work for a living for example.
3. I think you are suggesting that putting a car park on Heyes Lane would not be a long term solution. I must disagree. Taking 145 cars (or 175 or 200; depending on how much you might wish the cars to be squeezed in) out of the village strikes me as the only viable long term suggestion possible. Will your view on having a car park change, if a car park is proposed, by the new P.C., for either CHL Playing Field or on the ex-school field?
Oh well, let's keep our fingers crossed that AESG will accommodate a large public car park on the land they are about to lease from CEC. Do you think that AESG will/should?
Sorry if I appear to be making no sense - wouldn't be the first time!
The recent meeting was held to inform people about the progress made by the PC and to solicit their active involvement in some of the weighty projects that need to be tackled.
In essence, people were invited to become part of the solution to the problems rather than be part of the problem itself by sitting back, doing nothing and waiting for others to make things better.
In view of the remarkable situation regarding the apparent financial short-fall of, reportedly, £500k+ for the redevelopment of the, locally-listed, Festival Hall cum Medical Centre, allegedly signed-off on a "letter of intent" I do hope that you have kept a personal copy of what went on what at those "private" Conservative Party meetings which you referred to on this website.
To be perfectly frank, I think that the clock is ticking.
@ Duncan (you seem, yet again, to be the only one of the recently-rejected former PC Councillors who trouble themselves to answer legitimate questions on this website)... gasp... with regard to the "conversion" of the (locally-listed, now partially demolished) Festival Hall: were competitive tenders put out? If so, how many responses were received? What adjudication process took place. Were contracts signed? Where can the electorate view the results?
Duncan Herald can't possibly answer your questions as he has deleted all his emails. He will be able to give you chapter and verse on the cemetery, hedges or park; but when it comes down to the crucial stuff he has always been found wanting. He seems to have voted for things that he Frankly had no understanding of. In his defence I would say that he was not the only one.
I would like to see all councillors being personally and fiscally accountable for their actions, as company directors are. Then we may see a focus on the responsibilities rather than the rights that office holds.
to the best of my memory; yes there was a tendering process. I believe about 5 or 6 tenders were received. Then there was a long delay. Of the former tenderers, I seem to recall that at least one had gone out of business. Something else happened to reduce the number further. Sorry I can't be more exact, but I was not involved to that extent in the actual process and it was a long time ago.
I'm sure that the present day councillors will soon agree that individual councillors tend to specialise rather than be fully involved in every aspect of P.C. business.
I recall that of the remaining tenders, the one chosen was a reputable and local company and also the least expensive. Given those criteria, why would we not have chosen it?
If you seek details, may I suggest that you approach the excellent Clerk to the Parish Council, who knows everything about everything. I'm sure the present P.C. will permit her to release the info. you want.
You may care to know that at the time the then-P.C. took over the Hall, we were provided with a comprehensive list of the known faults with the Hall and a costing of putting them right. It was a sum in excess of £400,000 ! But we were a brave little group !
Now if you want info. on the park or cemetery, I'm your man! I prefer those areas where one can meet/relate with other human beings and get things done quickly. I never wanted to be an accountant!
Apparent shortfall of money. perchance compare the present list of works with a former list of works? I'm sure the P.C. will provide you with a detailed list of works and their costings. Then you can make up your own mind?
As to my deleting old emails. Call me old fashioned if you wish, but my view is that once I ceased to be a Parish Councillor, I had no 'right' to keep info. about the P.C. So I deleted.
I do wonder why my deleting stuff has attracted interest from various people: or have I got yet another 'secret axe to grind'? I'm getting right up there with Blofeld?
Pete; do you have a 'problem' with the former Tory party 'private meetings'? You surely wouldn't expect me to be privy to meetings of the local Labour party? or the local Lib.-Dem. party? or the local AlderleyEdgeFirst parry?
Hi Ho, let's look forward to the July P.C. meeting when, as they say, 'all will be revealed'?