Reader's Letter: Plan for Chorley Hall Lane car park is totally ill conceived, bias and dangerous

I am writing to you as a resident of Greenlands Walk, off Chorley Hall Lane, Alderley Edge, and a father of two young children, to object as strongly as possible to any proposal to put parking in or around the playing fields on Chorley Hall Lane. I would go as far as say any plan to do so is totally ill conceived, bias, even dangerous and will result in both a tragic loss of a valuable space within the community as well as create a long list of worrying problems.

To begin with I am concerned about my personal use of the playing field being completely compromised and made very dangerous by 100 cars coming in and out of the car park on a daily basis:

• Exercising

• Taking my daughters (both under three years old) to play with a kite, football, frisbee or any other game so that they can run around in a safe environment away from the cars. Their favourite play spot is the tree area right where the car park is proposed.

• Watching the Alderley United junior football teams just as part of the community and being a football fan.

• Please see photograph above of my daughter playing exactly where there could be a car park, or at least dangers from moving cars.

Moving on from that are the much more worrying concerns on the proposal that I have outlined below:

Increase of Traffic

• Chorley Hall Lane is already a dangerous road where cars cut through and often speed.

• Since moving into Greenlands walk 6 months ago, I have encountered countless near misses with cars coming over the bridge and down the hill at excessive speed. My next door neighbour has already had one family car written off on the road pulling out and being hit by someone coming over the blind hill.

• The parking along Chorley Hall Lane already causes a majority of it to be like a one carriageway road with parked cars. This has been proven to be very dangerous for children stepping out from between parked cars and with more traffic on the Lane it will increase the dangers to everyone

• Alderley Edge traffic is like no other in the area, with more 4x4s and SUVs per car than I would say anywhere else in the country that take up a lot higher percentage of the road.

• 100 spaces with each space being used on average by 5 different cars per day is an extra 1000 car journeys per day along an already dangerous road. That's just the successful parkers, you cannot count the cars who fail in their attempt to park.

• More traffic on that road will increase the chances of cars meeting on the bridge which is a death trap with that footpath. See next point.

Rail Bridge not fit for purpose

• The bridge is a blind bridge where a driver cannot see over the top.

• Please see the attached photograph of my partner, struggling with a pram along the pathway that goes over the bridge. Notice how little room for error there is from her part or the driver of the Range Rover. One slip from her or incorrect manoeuvre from the driver and they are all dead. Imagine the danger when cars are passing each other as shown in another attached photograph.

• The pathway is not wide enough for two people to pass without someone stepping onto a very thin road, not wide enough for two cars to pass.

• The pathway measures as little as 63cm in places.

• Any car park down Chorley Hall Lane will increase the traffic going over that bridge, as well as the number of pedestrians walking across the bridge causing people to have to cross each other and walk into the middle of the road.

Position of Proposed Car Park Entrance

• If you stand where the entrance of the car park will be, to your left is the blind hill which already causes a lot of problems that you do not get long to see cars coming.

• To your right is a blind turn down Chorley Hall Lane and an entrance to a substantial housing area via Blackshaw Lane, made worse by parked vehicles obscuring the view.

• It will be a very dangerous manoeuvre to pull out into that road.


• Alderley Edge and cocaine use go hand in hand. Where you find wealthy people on nights out you will find a strong cocaine trade. Since being a resident here 3 years, I have witnessed drug deals taking place in Waitrose Car Park and come across countless users in the various bars along London Road.

• The Car Park away from the high street, provides a perfect area for drug dealers to sell to the public and therefore putting very dangerous individuals very close to where families live.

• Range Rover's are one of the most stolen cars to order according to my insurance broker. A car park off the main street in winter will be an easy target for car crime as well as drug crime.

Cost Comparisons with Heyes Lane

• From the little information made available so far, I have seen it put forward that it is cheaper per space to put 100 cars in CHL than it is to put 44 in Heyes Lane.

• Of course it is. That's simple economy of scale and an unfair comparison to make. I would imagine putting 100 spaces in Heyes Lane will be a comparable cost.


• I note from brief research on the comments section of the story on Alderley that a former counsellor raises the issue that drains were dug into the playing fields that would have to be tarmac'd over for the car park.

• Has the cost of removing, altering or putting in new drains been factored into the cost analysis of the Chorley Hall Lane site?

• If flooding is problem on the field, has an environmental study been done to investigate how the car park will change the flooding problem? Will it cause problems for local residents? Will the car park flood.

Preferences of the Parish Council

• I note that both the Parish Council Chairman and Vice-Chairman live on Heyes Lane and would be only human if they too don't want these above problems on their back door.

• How many of the Parish Council or Alderley Edge First members have allotments of Heyes Lane or are in some way linked to it?

These are only a few points that spring to mind as soon you mention putting a car park on Chorley Hall Lane and how worrying it is. I am sure the more information given about it the more problems there will be. When you start looking at the comparison between the two sites as a wider debate then you cannot compare the two. It seems the welfare of a handful of allotment holders on Heyes Lane has been put above the recreational space and safety of children in Chorley Hall Lane. For the sake of my children alone I for one will do everything in my power to make sure such a terrible decision isn't made and am confident that there will be a very strong opposition to this proposal from the wider community.

Best regards

Tam Byrne
Greenlands Walk

Editor's Note: Alderley Edge Parish Council are holding a parking review meeting at the Methodist Church on Chapel Road at 7pm on Thursday, 14th January.

There will then be a follow-up meeting. also at the Methodist Church, on Thursday, 11th February (time to be confirmed) when the Parish Council will present the feedback they have received.

Alderley Edge Parish Council, Chorley Hall Lane, Parking , Parking


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

Jon Williams
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 12:32 pm
A very well put together letter and all true, just maybe the new P.C. may take note of this.
Simon Vaughan
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 1:40 pm
It's amazing to me that a green space that can be enjoyed by the whole community is thought to be worth less than the allotments that are enjoyed by the few. It's simply selfish.

I would love to know how many of the Heyes Lane allotment users have gardens as well as their allotment!

For a village the size of Alderley Edge to have three separate and sizeable allotment areas is excessive, and not reflective of the modern times and challenges we now face.
Neil Stelling
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 3:22 pm
While out walking yesterday I saw a long line of cars parked along Mottram Rd past the junction with Squirrels Jump. These drivers were happy to walk an extra few minutes into the village centre.

So for the all-day parkers, perhaps we should expand our parking vision to a 10 minute walk radius of the village centre ?
Jon Williams
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 5:28 pm
Yes, they have been parking there for a while now, the line will stretch to Mottram soon !
Peter Watson
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 5:28 pm

You make some interesting points. Maybe you could discuss it with the four Parish Councillors that live less than 200 metres from your house.
Tam Byrne
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 6:05 pm
I agree Neil,

Why do we need more village parking anyway within the immediate vicinity of the village? By creating more car park spaces, more cars are going to come in and the traffic will generally get worse. You still wont be able to find a space just more cars around. We should be encouraging people who dont live in the village to park outside the village and walk in or take a bus. Keep it exclusively for residents, make people not want to come to Alderley by car.
Tam Byrne
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 6:09 pm
Peter - I am sure I will.
Sue Joseph
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 6:44 pm
If you try to keep Alderley exclusively for residents it will die and our High Street will be a ghost of its former self, the businesses will disappear as will our supermarkets and food shops. We are a community of only about 5500 people including children and that number of people cannot sustain the shops and businesses in the village at present.
I TOTALLY agree with you regarding the points you make about parking on the playing field on CHL and the dangers this will cause.
Whilst in an ideal world we would never build on green spaces sadly we often have to compromise and in my opinion the best place for a necessary evil is on the site on Heyes Lane.
Extra spaces could be made on Ryleys Lane car park and the suggestions of drive letting, encouraging car sharing etc should be encouraged. However none of these initiatives would fully address the problem. We need a car park in as safe and logical place as possible and that is Heyes Lane.
Tam Byrne
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 7:44 pm
Fair point Sue, I didn't mean miles away btw, just a decent walk from the village. I've lived in Wimbledon Village in London, a similar environment, with no car parks people just know they can't park around the village unless they nab a spot on the common. It doesn't stop it being a very profitable street of cafes and restaurants. Not a car park in sight.
Jaki Pariser
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 9:58 pm
Allotments = car parking
Playing fields = car parking
Please let's keep the playing fields. We do NEED parking spaces and the allotment users ( a minority ) should move to alternative plots and free up the space for the majority.
Peter Watson
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 10:32 pm

I think you have just solved the parking problem in the village. Just tell people that the can't park in the village. Get them to take the tube instead. Genius.

I may have spotted a little hole in your logic, we don't have such a developed public transport system or the desire to walk anywhere.
Fenton Simpson
Thursday 7th January 2016 at 10:43 pm
Jaki, where do you suggest they move to ? We do have a large park and its 20 mins to the edge.

Who are the majority ?
Chris Harper
Friday 8th January 2016 at 7:54 am
Hello – To Whom it May Concern

My name is Chris Harper, in this comment I firstly wish to provide information about myself and then the reasons behind the publishing of a leaflet and the proposal for forming a group to support and protect CHL Playing field. I will then also publish the leaflet that has (and is) being distributed to houses within Alderley Edge (this process is continuing therefore we do apologise if you are yet to receive). This post is relevant to the letter / article above and for which we fully support


Chris Harper, Married, aged 38 with 2 Children, one boy aged 4.5 who attends Alderley Edge Primary School and one further boy aged 8.5 months.

I live on Redesemere Drive and my property backs onto the proposed parking at CHL playing field, I have lived at this property since 2013. We work hard and made large sacrifices to move to this area and this particular property. The overriding reason for our move to Alderley Edge was the park / playground and open grassed area (specifically CHL Playing Field) within the centre of the village and these being easily accessible (not just from my property) but by most / all of the properties within this village. We understood the ‘’hub and environment’’ that these areas would offer to meet and make new friends and for our children to also meet, enjoy, play and grow with other children in the area (and the same for their own children in many years to come).

I am pleased to be completely open and transparent about my proximity to the CHL Playing Field. We do not agree with this proposal simply because we back onto CHL playing field, we have stood back from this (understanding the pending comments that may be levied and the parking issues generally within the village). We have spoken to others and assessed the proposal separately - as residents, a father and mother of two young children, and as those with an interest in the village (that will grow bigger and outwards) and who wish for it to become even better. Further, our proximity to CHL Playing Field allows for us to be acutely aware of the many people who use and navigate on and through CHL Playing Field on a daily basis (not just the football players), something that many in the village may possibly be unaware of or do not see regularly – this whole area is widely used and appreciated.

The position has been taken to distribute the leaflet within the village to try and raise more public awareness about the potential plight of CHL playing field. CHL playing field has been targeted with an excessive provision of spaces to minimise the impact at other better suited sites (i.e. Heyes Lane Allotments). With CHL playing field being the only open public facility in the village and enjoyed by many individually there is unfortunately no such one organisation or custodian to protect and stand up for it. There is the football club however there is more to this area than just a playing field and football club. It is still an essential community public amenity area even without the football club on site. Further and following discussions with various residents within the village it became apparent (and it seems due to the timing of release over the festive period when many residents either away or dealing with other more pressing family matters) many were unaware fully of the car parking proposals and the very short notice for the proposed public meeting.

Another major driver for this leaflet release was that the current Parish Council made clear in various literature and press throughout their election campaign (and continue to do so now) their desire to be open and transparent about all matters. As our property backs onto this proposed development at CHL playing field, being an Alderley Edge resident (claims are made in the Parish Update that consultation / process has included ‘’discussions with residents, including the Heyes Lane Allotment holders’’) that we may have been given the courtesy of sighting and or commenting on the proposal prior to release. We formally confirm that at no stage have we been consulted on this proposal in any format and our first knowledge being the article on In the order of such openness and transparency we will also be requesting that the current Alderley Edge Parish Council members (and who have presented the carparking review and strategy) make clear and declare to all Alderley Edge residents in all future correspondence any potential conflict of interest i.e. for example home address and any past or present involvement with allotments (or other proposed site) within the village or elsewhere.

The delivery of the leaflets is an on-going process and the intent is to continue to deliver throughout the village. A group is being formed of which I would be only one contributing party and as above forming this group is considered key as CHL Playing Field is an open public facility enjoyed by many individually and as such has no one organisation or custodian to protect it / stand up for it. We would also see that such group may continue indefinitely to protect this area for the future and provide for further improvement of this key village amenity. We would welcome contact from any other any other concerned residents who wish to be involved and or who can assist, please email .

Thanks Chris and Family

Copy of Leaflet below:

Save Chorley Hall Lane (CHL) Playing Field / Recreation Area (Rev 1)

You may be aware that the current Parish Council has released a proposal to construct 100 Nr car parking spaces at the above location. This would be a significant loss of area within the only open public recreation space available to ALL in the centre of Alderley Edge village. Please note that the sketch that has been provided within the Parish Council literature showing this proposal does not appear to have been completed on an accurate site survey drawing and when also adding for landscaping buffers to adjacent properties and design development (typical in schemes of this nature) it is likely this proposal could encompass a greater area than that presently indicated. Such 100 Nr number of spaces is a large and excessive number of car parking spaces for this location.

(Picture of CHL Playing Field Carparking Plan - will not copy to

Combined with the park / playground Chorley Hall Lane Playing Field is a valuable and open community area widely utilised not just for football. The whole area is utilised by the village for various recreation activities while also providing a buffer and balance to the Commercial aspects of the village centre that it is directly opposite. With developers eyeing up greenbelt areas on the outskirts of the town (i.e. for example nearby land at the end of Blackshaw lane) such central green open public recreation space will become even more essential and fundamental to the enjoyment of the whole village. Please consider other villages – nearby Wilmslow for example has Carnival Field, The Carrs, various playgrounds etc. etc. Alderley Edge only has CHL playing field as a central public playing field / recreation area and this proposal seeks to take a substantial part of this space. If this area (even part of the total area) is lost for car parking it will never be replaced.

Conversely and as part of the village car park proposal the Parish Council has shown to provide a significantly lesser amount (to that of CHL) of only 44 Nr car parking spaces at the Heyes Lane Allotments site (taking only ¼ of the total site area). Such a small allocation is at odds with the location of this space and the likely demand given it is in close proximity to the train station for park and riders, office parking (Queens Court, Bridgeford House and Barrington House being only 3 examples of substantial offices facilities close by and with limited existing on-site car parking provisions), major restaurants and the village generally. Heyes Lane allotments is also directly opposite the newly constructed Festival Hall and Medical Centre that clearly would benefit from additional and convenient adjacent parking for their proposed operations – one wedding of 100 Nr or so guests may consume all and more of the proposed spaces (without then considering the facilities own employees, medical centre team plus patients and other potential users as highlighted above). You may also wish to visit the near complete Medical Centre and Festival Hall to view for yourself the proposed limited onsite car parking provision for this facility – it may also differ to that indicated in the plan provided in your Alderley Edge Parish Update for the Heyes Lane allotment site (i.e. less to be actually constructed). Further given the location of the Heyes Lane allotment site this site will also have lesser highways, safety, security and operation implications / costs than that of the isolated CHL site.

Please also refer to you will note councillors addresses in this section, 2 Nr of whom reside on Heyes Lane. If you then also ‘’click’’ on the name of each councillor you will see their ‘’General Notice of Registrable Interests: Town or Parish Councillors’’. Mr Mike Taylorson who appears to lead the Car Parking Review and Strategy and Mr Mike Dudley Jones both hold allotments within this village. Mike Dudley Jones is also a former President of the Alderley Edge Allotments and Garden Society resigning when appointed on the Alderley Edge Parish Council. Conflict of interest when trying to obtain unbiased solutions / strategies for village car parking?

References are made to total costs in the Parish Council Update literature, ‘’cost per space’’ and the ‘’lowest cost site’’. These references are a ‘’red hearing’’. Typically, as the number of car parking spaces increase the capital cost per space will decrease (circulation space becomes more efficient, one off costs are spread over more spaces etc.). Unless the two sites were of a comparable carpark number it is therefore inappropriate to compare these options (100 Nr spaces CHL versus 44 Nr spaces Heyes Lane) on a ‘’cost per space’’ basis. Further a low capital cost will be irrelevant if on-going revenues are also low – payback periods will be extended with significant increased interest cost and with on-going future lower revenues (substantial monetary sums lost over the number of years that this facility will be in operation). It is clear that the demand for parking at Heyes Lane will be greater than that of CHL and therefore Heyes Lane possesses an opportunity for greater total revenue earn. The Parish Council goes on to state that the CHL site would be ‘’low cost long stay’’ parking for those working in the village, when therefore factoring in the total revenue potential of each site, is CHL truly the lowest cost site?

In addition, one of the worst maintained however best located (adjacent schools, train, offices, shops etc.) and most widely used car park area at Ryleys Lane barely gets a mention in this parking review. This area must also be considered as one of the key parking options (including for long stay). It could be extended both outwards and upwards (multi story – noting that London Road is substantially higher than the area adjacent as it extends up to pass over the railway) etc. etc. With suitable screening there may be limited impact on adjacent spaces / village generally, omitting traffic flow through the village looking for parking and while then thus minimising the impact on the other two sites detailed above.

This is far from a ‘’balanced’’ or ‘’fair’’ proposal for the village – It largely appears to be the movement of the problem from and protection of the Heyes Lane allotments (26 Nr allotment holders reported at Heyes Lane and two other substantial allotment sites existing within the village) and instead targets and takes a significant area of the only remaining free to use open public green / recreation space from the whole village.

This public green space will not be recovered or replaced if lost. It is crucial that we all individually ‘’stand up’’ on this matter, please do not think that others are doing it for you or that this proposal may not happen, each householders voice must be heard now. We therefore implore you to write your objections to the proposal of 100 Nr car parking spaces at CHL playing field direct to the Alderley Edge Parish Council at also copying to Alderley Edge Ward Councillor for Cheshire East Craig Browne and marking for the attention of Councillors Mr David Brown (Deputy Leader of Cheshire East and responsible for Highways) and Mr Ainsley Arnold (Cheshire East responsible for Housing and Planning) both at PA to the Cabinet . Please then forward separately your email to . You may also wish to regularly refer and comment on relevant articles at

Please also ensure your attendance at the meeting proposed on 14th January 2016, 7 pm at the Methodist Church (and the further follow up meeting proposed for 11th February 2016 at same time and venue).

If you can please assist as part of a local group to co-ordinate and object to this proposal and ultimately the protection of CHL playing field for the indefinite future (from simply dropping a leaflet to residents or to experienced legal input) please email:
Mark Russell
Friday 8th January 2016 at 9:21 am
I seem to remember back at the beginning of the start of the allotments being muted as a new car park, it was found out that several allotments were "co owned" by the same family. Not that im one for conspiracy theories, but id be interested to see how the loss of the 25% to the new idea of car park spaces leaves the current allotment holders. IE do all the current holders still have spaces down there, just a couple less each?? Food for thought..........
Paul Hutchinson
Friday 8th January 2016 at 10:01 am

Lydiatt lane was suggested in the past, apparently there would be more space available as well.

However it looks like one of the current PC lives on there and may not appreciate extra traffic or allotments at the end of his road.
Duncan Herald
Friday 8th January 2016 at 10:30 am
re alternate site for Heyes Lane allotment holders.

The offer of the Lydiatt Lane site was first put forward a good while ago.

I visited the site in the company of an allotment holder who confirmed to me that allthough the land (field) varied in quality from place to place, it was a fair offer (I paraphrase rather than try to recall an exact quote).

Cheshire East and the AESG were involved in a 'swop' arranement whereby the AESG got a lease of a piece of land near the school, on which they could build a new sports building (possibly to be partly used by the community) and in return would lease the Lydiatt Lane site to C.E. and thus to the P.C., to be possibly used as allotments.

The Lydiatt Lane site is larger that the Heyes Lane site and is approx. the same distance from the centre of the village as the Heyes Lane site (if my memory serves me well).

yes some of the Heyes Lane allotment holders would be discomforted; but many of us can't think of a 'better' way forward.
Tam Byrne
Friday 8th January 2016 at 11:09 am
It would be great if everyone who wanted allotments could have them. In urban areas they are essential for young and old to enjoy gardening and growing. In a rural area like ours, where back gardens are common even if limited within the village centre, I don't see how anyone could are argue that losing one allotment site (of which there are more) can in any way be compared to losing a playing field. Hopefully Sport England and the Cheshire Football Association may lend some support.
Alan Brough
Friday 8th January 2016 at 12:25 pm
Tam (and others)

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that CHL will be lost as a football pitch / recreational facility and certainly the majority of us would oppose that.

The suggestion is to use a relatively small part of the playing field to provide some of the car parking that some people think we need.

In converting a part of CHL, the issue of drainage would have to be addressed and in doing this it would make the playing field a much better and much more useable amenity.

I walk regularly around CHL and it is almost always waterlogged to a greater or lesser degree.

Back in the day when I played football for Alderley St Philips, matches were often postponed due to a waterlogged pitch - I'm pretty sure that this wont have changed.

Others have commented that CHL is a rat run (cut through) and the railway bridge is narrow. I believe that there is a strong argument to make the lane "one way" from it's junction with Carlisle Street - this would immediately improve road safety and allow the widening of the pavement over the railway bridge - something that I think should happen regardless of car parking etc.

A number of contributors mention that alternative sites have been identified for the Heyes Lane allotment holders - what they fail to recognise is that some of the allotments holders are elderly and perhaps unable to travel (with equipment) the additional distance to Lydiat Lane or wherever.

In order to solve the "problem" of parking there will have to be compromise and I believe that the PC have recognised that in their proposals to use land at various sites WITHOUT taking away the primary function and purpose of those sites.

Some of the comments on this thread are pretty uncompromising and are obviously made to protect self interest and not the greater good of the Village and ALL of the people in it.

Just my opinion.
Tam Byrne
Friday 8th January 2016 at 1:06 pm
Fair points Alan,

There are many arguments as to why the CHL site isnt suitable in any way for a car park, whatever size. I saw on the other discussion that when the sizes are worked out, there is going to be around 9m from edge of car park to white line of a football pitch - with no possibility for the football club to rotate the alignment of the pitch to aid with maintaining the grass quality. So whilst it would still be possible - it almost is.

Why not make the whole allotment area on Hayes Lane into the big car park - close to the Festival Hall - and take a strip out of playing field in the top corner of CHL park - giving it to expand the CHL allotments? You would be able to help some of the allotment elderley there so they dont have to leave the village and face probably little resistance from anyone regarding a corner of the CHL park. An idea put to me by a neighbour this afternoon.
Martin Dixon
Friday 8th January 2016 at 1:11 pm
Tam / Chris

So it is basically a case of Not In My Back Yard.
Duncan Herald
Friday 8th January 2016 at 2:38 pm
Good-day Alan,

1. you write that elderly allotment holders may not be able to travel to the Lydiatt Lane site. (a) for every one that might have to travel further, surely there would be an equal number that would have to travel a shorter distance?
(b) the Lydiatt Lane site is approx. equal in distance from the centre of the village as the Heyes Lane site.
(c) the present allotments on Heyes Lane have parking room for about two cars. If a new allotments site was formed at the Lydiatt Lane site, as it is a larger area, car parking for all allotment users might be possible.

2. you write that the car park on CHL Playing Field would only take a '..relatively small part...'. I must disagree; I fancy a car park (as in the diagram) would take a sizable chunk of the total green area.

3. When you suggest altering the roadways, who do you think might pay the costs of that? It surely can't be the Parish Council.

4. Come to that, have we (the general public) been informed as to who will pay for any new car park?
Paul Hutchinson
Friday 8th January 2016 at 2:51 pm
Martin Dixon

Well it certainly won't be in yours will it
Tam Byrne
Friday 8th January 2016 at 4:21 pm
Martin - the space isn't fit for purpose of a car park and shouldn't even be considered. And to be honest no I don't want to scrape my daughter off the road one day thanks no. The risk of that if there is a CHL car park will seriously give us a discussion about staying.
Craig Browne
Friday 8th January 2016 at 4:36 pm
The proposals have been designed to reflect our ideas on a multi-site approach. Each site deliberately addresses a different need, identified through our recent review. In summary:

Chorley Hall Lane (long stay parking for workers and commuters, most of whom will arrive before 9am and leave after 5pm, therefore with almost no turnover of spaces during the day);

Heyes Lane (short stay parking for users of the Festival Hall and/or Medical Centre, most of whom will stay for no more than a couple of hours, with a high turnover of spaces);

South Street (short stay parking for shoppers, most of whom will stay for no more than a couple of hours, leading to a high turnover of spaces);

Ryleys Lane (medium stay parking for users of the park & local restaurants, some of whom may stay for up to three hours, with some turnover of spaces).

Conversely, a single site solution would require different regimes in operation in order to satisfy the range of needs identified; it would likely cause confusion and be hard to enforce effectively.

Our ideas are not a fait accompli and we actively encourage everyone to provide feedback in a formal way, at the public meeting on 14th January, via our online survey, or at the library.
Max Wright
Friday 8th January 2016 at 5:17 pm
Everyone seems to comment on each others comments but as yet no one seems to have a sensible point against the suggestion I made which I will post again.

If the village is prepared to sacrifice green space for parking, why not extend the Ryleys Lane car park into the Park, loss of amenity land is the same but the car park is near the village centre, the station and the school. Allotment holders and property owners impacted nil and the village retains a space for a full sized sports field.

The existing entrance to the car park is off a well lit wide road, it would be near to the main road through the village so nefarious activity would be difficult or at least easily policed. A car park that close to the village centre, well priced, would be heavily used and bring extra revenue to the village as opposed to being half empty if out in the further reaches of the village.
Stephen Justice
Friday 8th January 2016 at 5:58 pm
First I think some of the objections are exaggerated for likely personal perspectives.

But then I must say that the number of vehicle users, shop, restaurant and office workers, shoppers and restaurant goers is not just a few more than the handful of allotment users and even the larger group of parkland users but more like many, many thousands more.

On top of which there are probably as many as a few thousand locals like me who do not park much in the village centre but do walk in to use all the excellent facilities which those many drivers need to get to in order to provide their services.

Our parish council has done its best to look at a fair solution - unlike predecessors who always seemed suspiciously selfishly motivated, however I think numbers alone show that we must simply get real and move the allotments and lose a bit of grass too for that matter.

Alternatively we must abandon parking restrictions and the same handful who moan about new car parks will have to keep silent about "inconsiderate" parking.
Chris Harper
Friday 8th January 2016 at 6:06 pm
Evening Craig and all

Thanks for this information, it would have been good to have included this within the car parking details in the parish update.

We do have a comment the majority of "workers and commuters" are at the Ryleys lane and Heyes lane allotments end of town due to the train station and large employers plus are also close to the main village with good street access, we are therefore at a loss why then CHL playing field would be seen as a solution for this.

Further there are numerous car park management systems that can and will (autonomously) manage time in and out and payment, there is no issue in managing short stay and long stay in the same car park (everybody's friends "parking eye" would I am sure be pleased to offer free advice on this)

Martin Dixon
Friday 8th January 2016 at 7:44 pm

I don't want you to scrape your daughter off the road either. So why would you, as a father, move into a death pit? The pavement, that was there when you moved in was not abel to accommodate a buggy. The turning out of your house has already seen your neighbour's car being written off. There are cars parked all around your streets that are causing mayhem. I love the photo of your daughter flying a kite in a spot that nobody has yet proposed to build a car park. What is really important to you?
Alan Brough
Friday 8th January 2016 at 9:03 pm

Your comment on the kite flying picture got me thinking. The style of photography seems strangely familiar.
Duncan Herald
Saturday 9th January 2016 at 11:02 am
Hi Craig,
when you put out the consultation/voting chance, will it include the option of Heyes Lane 100% converted to a car park?
Claire MacLeod
Saturday 9th January 2016 at 1:05 pm
Hi Tam

Your article (and, indeed the headline) claims that the plans to convert a part of the CHL playing fields is 'totally ill conceived, bias, even dangerous'. You then go on to say it is 'a tragic loss of a valuable space'. I suspect, given your location, your concern is founded more around the latter than the former. Might I suggest, it's not a 'loss of valuable space'? The proposal offers a 'change of use of valuable space'. Parking versus leisure activity.

I, too, like the picture of your daughter flying a kite. However, would she not be able to fly the kite in the public park, only a few metres away? People vociferously defending the protection of the playing fields seem to conveniently forget that the park, designed specifically for leisure activity, is within spitting distance. I believe it also has a children's play area. Let's not forget that the Parish Council's suggestions protect the football pitches.

I like the sensible suggestion of making CHL one way to reduce dangerous traffic flow, speeding and allow for the pavement over the bridge to be widened. I also like the idea that the Parish Council have taken time to think through the various parking needs and come up with proposed solutions to meet those needs. Solutions that, inevitably, require compromise by many residents (including you and your neighbours, and allotment holders). Given that the proposed car parking on CHL would be long-term for village workers, that would greatly reduce the volume of traffic travelling to and from the site throughout the day.

It is my understanding flooding affects both CHL and Heyes Lane sites. The brook that runs through the site at Heyes Lane is rarely mentioned. However, I suspect inevitably drainage issues will impact both plans.

Finally, your comments about the drug dealing in the village presenting another risk relating to the proposed car park really astonished me. I don't recognise the village you describe. Drug dealing in Waitrose Car Park? 'Countless users in the bars'? I'm not naive enough to deny that there are people who indulge in drug use in the village, but I have lived here for the last seven years and grew up in the area and I have never witnessed overt drug-dealing or use. Perhaps you are better at spotting it than I? I don't understand why you think a car park on CHL increases the likelihood of illegal, drug-related activity. To be honest, that strikes me as a somewhat alarmist position to take.

I agree with Martin Dixon. There does appear to be a touch of Nimby-ism going on here...
Vin Sumner
Saturday 9th January 2016 at 1:46 pm
Hi All
1) Can I ask again that we think beyond the car; sorting "parking" or more appropriately "transport/mobility" issues for the village should surely not be a debate between which green space to give up, or who can muster most voices for and against. The talent that exists across the village must be able to be more creative and come up with ideas that will not only make getting around easier, reduce pollution ( suggest someone tests air quality near the schools for example ) , improve health and make the village a better place to be for people not cars. A bit more walking , cargo bikes , drive parking , mixed use ..... incentives not too park ......
2) @Craig can we have a "formal" online alternative/supplement to the 14th meeting. Whilst there is comment on this an other threads here ; it has no sense of being a consultation exercise by the PC. Perhaps you could initiate such a call for comment with the acknowledgement that it will be considered by the PC. This would reinforce your commitment to open consultation.
Vin Sumner
Saturday 9th January 2016 at 1:51 pm
@Craig .. just noted you mention "online survey" ... can you tell me where that is , must have missed it
Donald Henderson
Saturday 9th January 2016 at 4:15 pm
An excellent overview of the situation.
It does seem to me that we are being held hostage by the few. As I have acknowledged in another post on, the Heyes Lane site was bequeathed to the people of Alderley. By that I would expect it to indicate everyone in Alderley and not just the "few" allotment holders. Alan Brough has indicated that there are 27 plots of which just 21 are taken by Alderley residents - some of those are underused or not used at all. He doesn't say if there are families occupying more than one plot but even if this is not the case that is just 21 residents benefiting from a large area whilst many times that number benefit from the CHL field.
Heyes Lane site is no more than 5 minutes walk from the station and the 3 large office blocks. CHL is at least 10 mins by the shortest route across sodden field, wet path and park (unlit in dark winter months) and 15 minutes via dangerous footpath over the railway bridge on CHL. I know because I've timed myself this afternoon.
I look forward to the meeting on Thursday and fervently hope it will not turn out to be a shouting match, but will be a reasonable discussion with arguments for and against supported by verifiable facts an figures.
Tam Byrne
Sunday 10th January 2016 at 5:08 pm
I don't think anyone disagrees that CHL would benefit from being one way from Fosters Chip Shop junction down over the bridge to Greenland Walk in that direction. Allowing space to widen the pathway over the bridge and either side. Possibly putting a rail up as well.
Paul Hutchinson
Monday 11th January 2016 at 12:51 pm
Putting the parking issues to one side, shouldn't that bridge be sorted out anyway, only yesterday I nearly had my arm ripped off by the mirror of a complete nutter coming over the bridge at an excessive speed.
Marc Asquith
Monday 11th January 2016 at 5:15 pm
One problem here is non-experts coming up with solutions. Making CHL one way is likely to make it a death trap. Traffic research shows that introducing uncertainty makes motorists slow down and take care - hence the Poynton solution. One way streets take away the uncertainty and lead to higher speeds. Making CHL a one way street would lead to people shooting over the bridge with reduced caution - leading to a much worse situation. Greenlands is badly placed and would most likely suffer a greater risk.
Martin Dixon
Monday 11th January 2016 at 5:36 pm
Marc Asquith

I totally agree with you and you make a very important point. I would add that reducing the width of a road by having parked cars along it also acts as an effective traffic calming measure by creating that feeling of uncertainty. Putting double yellow lines on a road often increases the accident rate.
Paul Hutchinson
Monday 11th January 2016 at 6:39 pm
Could it be made single lane just over the bridge with traffic lights, then the footpath could be widened?
Jon Williams
Monday 11th January 2016 at 7:40 pm
Martin Dixon:
Re, Reducing the width of a road by having parked cars along it also acts as an effective traffic calming measure by creating that feeling of uncertainty. Putting double yellow lines on a road often increases the accident rate.

Sorry, but speaking as a life long cyclist I would say that having parked cars along CHL is a bad thing as you are forcing cyclists to ride in the centre of the road and holding up traffic, not to mention the risk of drivers opening car doors as a cyclist passes.
Martin Dixon
Monday 11th January 2016 at 10:48 pm
Jon Williams

Please don't feel that you need to apologise for agreeing with me.
Guy Johnston
Tuesday 12th January 2016 at 3:30 pm
If you take away the vested interests of the allotment holders i think the Heyes Lane location is a more sensible and useful location for parking.

If there is a need to relocate all the alloments to the other site in the village those that move should be offered a reasonable relocation allowance to cover their expenses so they are not out of pocket.

The additional parking will also make the newly refurbished hall much more sustainable and capable of accommodating bigger events without clogging up the surrounding streets.

I do not think it is beyond the wit of the Council to engage a decent landscape architects to design a car park that blends in with the location, with trees and hedges and includes a small park and play area? It does not need to be a 100% black tarmac supermarket style car park.

Let us hope sanity prevails
Carol Chadwick
Tuesday 12th January 2016 at 5:07 pm
Can't it just be put to a vote.
Sue Joseph
Tuesday 12th January 2016 at 5:59 pm
The original plans for the Heyes Lane site was for a grasscrete surface with landscaping, flowerbeds etc. The allotment holders were offered new allotments on Lydiat Lane or the other two existing sites and a £500 resettlement allowance which with the exception of (I think) one allotment holder was rejected.

A lot of figures as to costs of the proposed sites have been published but I haven't seen any plans as to where the PC are to raise the money. Are Cheshire East to fund them or will the PC have to raise the funds themselves by raising the precept or in any other way?
Mark Francis
Tuesday 12th January 2016 at 6:25 pm
I have read all comments with interest so I will keep my view short and to the point! The Parish Council and Alderley Edge residents must consider the long term solution for parking. Granted there maybe an immediate fix required to remove parking from the streets but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that parking solutions need to be planned for the next 10 years and not the next 1-2. This perhaps may need more radical thinking and I look forward to hearing residents views at the meeting on Thursday.
Duncan Marr
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 10:12 am
The Parish council are to be congratulated on their serious study.
However in a democracy, the following questions are relevant;
1) Are we agreed that all residents of AE will benefit from improved car parking facilities? (The answer must surely be YES)
2) How many individuals will be negatively affected by redevelopment of allotments, and how many of these people are residents of AE?
3) Are there alternative sites for allotments which would not be appropriate for car parks? (Here again the answer must surely be YES)
4) Are allotments in 2016 as relevant to most of the residents as are open recreational spaces?

I believe firmly that the answers should point in the direction of redevelopment of allotments rather than to encroach upon irreplaceable recreational spaces.
Melanie Connor
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 12:22 pm
Duncan - lots of space to put extra allotments. So why don't they look at them like we did.

As for CHL glad to see the against growing and it's based on the very reasons we discounted CHL in the past.
Heyes Kane is ideal as its next to the Festival Hall & the Medical Centre so ticks all the boxes.
Plus I'm all for drive sharing - that works well in Wilmslow and other places locally.
I find it funny that Mr Dudley Jones feels that attacks on the PC is wrong. Well I'd just like to remind what he & his attack dogs have done & still do.
It's tough in politics. As one man said to me - when the communist party were the party of opposition in Italy they were brilliant it wasn't until they came into power that they realised its not that easy & were appalling.
Jon Williams
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 12:42 pm
Very well said Melanie and all true
Alan Brough
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 2:51 pm
Melanie Connor,

Forgive me if I keep repeating the same thing but you and others are either not taking any notice or choosing to ignore information for purely political reasons

Whilst you were a member of the PC, the plan for the refurbishment of the Festival Hall and relocation of the Medical Practice was conceived and drawn up.

That plan included adequate parking for the users of the Festival Hall and the Medical Centre. Indeed, so frustrated was a representative of the Medical Practice at repeatedly hearing members of your PC falsely connect the Festival Hall project with the takeover of Heyes Lane Allotment for car parking that he made a statement on this forum to confirm that the design plan DID provide adequate parking provision.

The current PC has outlined a proposal that a further 41 parking bays "could" be achieved at Heyes Lane - this in addition to what was provided for in your plan.

There are a very large number of people who disagree with you that Heyes Lane should carry the burden for all of the Villages parking needs. The reasons for this are many, various and (in my opinion) sensible and have all been done to death on this forum in the past.

You can say what you like about Mike Dudley-Jones and his fellow Parish Councillors but they have absolutely delivered on their promise to properly research the issue, offer properly costed suggestions and consult with the people of Alderley Edge before any decisions are taken - this in stark (and for you) embarrassing contrast to the way that things were handled in the past.

I'm not sure who or what "attack dogs" are but find it a tad hypocritical that last week you posted a couple of messages on this forum about an appalling litter problem in the village and it being a "damning indictment" on Alderley Edge - this in the very same week that a number of Parish Councillors and volunteers had given generously of their own time to tidy up the Village and plant winter / spring bedding in the tubs on London Road.

I think your comment about it being "tough in politics" is interesting.

In the run up to the PC Elections last May, Alderley Edge First promised to put "People Before Politics" and told us that there was no place for Party Politics in Village matters. The people of Alderley Edge agreed and voted overwhelmingly to install nine villagers, with no obvious party political affiliations, to take responsibility for Village affairs.

So, maybe it is tough in politics, but if we can keep politics (and politicians) out of Village affairs, life might be much more straight forward.
Fenton Simpson
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 6:02 pm
Purely relating the this article, last Sunday there was 5 or 6 cars parked on the side of the football pitch in the same spot as the proposed new carpark.

This tells me that a car park would be used by the football club and get cars off Chorley hall lane. Especially when there is a big match on. I have seen in the past many cars parked on Chorley hall lane for the football a match time.

The new car park could then be used in the week for non resident workers who would pay and help maintain the remaining (large) green space.

However the lane does need some work doing to it now regarding traffic flow, doubt one way would work, but traffic calming methods would slow it down and make it safer for all.
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 6:25 pm
Hi Alan,

have you read tonight's posting from the P.C. ? It seems very sad.

Might you now wish to re-draft what you've written here this afternoon?


Melanie Connor
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 7:50 pm
I distinctly remember the current PC being elected on no car parking on Heyes Lane - the irony is laughable.
Now the precept is being increased by 50% because they have overspent and not as was promised by us to deliver the whole package at no cost to the villagers. They really are a worry.
I'm glad people have had a tidy up but still people are complaining about it. It's got to be kept up.
I was at a meeting today where somebody asked me what had happened to the village. By now we would have a fully operating car park & businesses would be thriving.
Anyway I know a lot have contacted CEC re CHL and also the police so let's see what they come back with.
All I will say to fellow residents - floodlights!!!!
Fenton Simpson
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 8:10 pm
Melanie the current PC have not overspent on the project they inherited a shambles of a project which you were part of.

The precept was raised previously under the conservatives for some reason, which I have commented in the other article.

You are not taking any responsibity for your past actions or non actions.

It's getting tiresome that a few of the old councillors has some form of selective amnesia and then go on make personal attacks. But I wouldn't expect anything else...
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 9:16 pm
1. you seem to wish that experienced people (who happened to be ex-P.C.)should not involve themselves in today's problems. Why ?

2. How can you twist the present problems as if it were somehow the fault of the last P.C.?

Responsibility lies with those who curently wield the authority. Can you not ascribe even a teeny amount of 'blame' to the present 'in-charge' people?

Responsibility Deficit Disorder?

may I suggest that you stop trying to 'blame' others and instead try to put this mess right; I'm sure that all would try to help.
Alan Brough
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 10:21 pm
Duncan and Melanie (two birds with one stone)

I think that you should hang your heads in shame for your comments.

Can you honestly explain how you feel that the former PC is in no way responsible for the necessity to increase the Parish precept when their budget for the Festival hall failed to include such frivolous luxuries as proper disabled access, basic Health & Safety provision or security fencing?

I cant get annoyed at the fact that the people of Alderley Edge may, on a temporary basis, have to stump up an extra £2 per household per month in return for a state of the art Public Hall and Medical Centre that will serve us long into the future, and will in (relatively short) time become a nett revenue earner.

It is not unusual for Parish precepts to change in line with expenditure on major capital projects of this type - as identified in the article, the previous PC also used the tool.


I am intrigued to know who these people are that come up to you in the street and in the park and elsewhere to protest about the parlous state of the Village since you left office.

It's curious that (unless I'm mistaken) none of them have taken to this excellent and well-read forum to make the same points.

Your last comment about floodlights takes the biscuit. You seem to be saying that if there are going to be floodlights glaring into peoples homes, make sure those homes are on Heyes Lane because we don't want them lighting up our back yards.
Duncan Herald
Thursday 14th January 2016 at 9:35 am
Hi Alan,
re. your comment that the last P.C. failed etc. etc.
Can we please stop looking backwards as it only angers those who are already fed up with old P.C. v new P.C. Also the old P.C. only seems to be mentioned when something has gone wrong with the 'today problems'.
As you have raised the matter, allow me to say that:
The old P.C. handed over a bank account in the black.
Who wants a security fence, which is expensive and not needed.
What 'basic H. & S.'?
Why is the pharmacy being fitted out when it is supposedly (as far as I know) a 'shell contract'?
Were the lifts installed as a legal need or because they were thought to be a 'want'? Expensive things lifts!

By the way, why has the contract with the pharmacy still not been signed (it was not as of the last time I asked, about a week ago). If the P.C. is out of money, has it tried to approach the pharmacist to look again at his previous offer to put a large sum of money up front in return for a reduced rent? You have not heard of that? You/the P.C. only had to ask!

The works decided upon and the costs involved are 100% the responsibility of the present P.C., as they signed the contracts. Several people have written on asking to see the comparative works/costings/etc. of the previous and the present; alas these have not been forthcoming. How on earth can you ascribe blame (to the old or to the new) without the financial facts?

You remark (somewhat distainfully?) that people have not written on Why would they when they may as well expect insults in return? I don't mind insults, as I have developed a thick skin whilst being a Parish Councilor!.

I do hope that the new and younger Parish Councilors are not too upset at some comments; no doubt they will become used to the 'rough and tumble' eventually eh?

Why do people approach Mel. (and I) ? perhaps because they see us around the vilage but either do not see the new 'boys and girls' or do not recognise them?
Martin Dixon
Thursday 14th January 2016 at 12:05 pm

I also think it is shameful the way that Duncan and Melanie conduct themselves. They seem to behave like small children who are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. They attempt to shift blame onto others and refuse to accept their complicity.

They seem to believe that if they were still in office, had not been booted out by the electorate, that everything would be perfect in the village. The overwhelming evidence to the contrary does nothing to change their deluded view.

I would personally like to see an independent audit carried out on the figures for the Festival Hall, Medical Centre and Heyes Lane Allotment developments. It needs to be established what is truth and what is fiction. How were costings derived and how did that influence decisions made.

I think that if the full cost of the schemes had been known at the initial stages a very different course would have been taken. I think it is more likely that the FH would have been demolished and a Medical Centre built in its place with a substantially larger car park.
Fenton Simpson
Thursday 14th January 2016 at 1:11 pm

1. you seem to wish that experienced people (who happened to be ex-P.C.)should not involve themselves in today's problems. Why ?

I have not problem with anyone, old PC included, as long as its constructive. I would be interested to how many of the previous council have volunteered to help on any the projects started by the current PC.

Fair play to Mike Williamson so took time to hand over the medical project back in May.

There is more to "involving themselves in today's problem" than just making comments on this website.

2. How can you twist the present problems as if it were somehow the fault of the last P.C.?

I'm not twisting anything. (a typical response from yourself) Which present problems are you referring too ? I might then make a further comment.

Also in reply to your comment earlier. I've never had a "hissy fit" in life. I'd suggest you don't twist the truth.
Lesley Smith
Friday 15th January 2016 at 5:28 pm
I am a resident of Chorley Hall Lane and have been a resident for nearly 8 years. I see on a day to day basis the parking problems and understand the need to address it.

However, Chorley Hall Lane is not a solution. If you were to stand on Chorley Hall Lane bridge for any given time you will see how dangerous it is to walk over the bridge with pushchairs and worse if you have a pushchair and a toddler. I do not even know how you would get a wheelchair on the pavement so they use the road. The traffic is far too fast as the road is used as a cut-through and an accident will happen soon. Many cars come over the bridge in the middle of the road and at peak times it is much worse.

So to put a car park with 100 cars will surely make this situation so much worse. The football pitch is a lovely green space for the young footballers and dog walkers. What's to say also that once you start with a car park that you will in a few years expand the number of spaces?

Has anyone thought of:

1. Moving the allotments from Heyes Lane and increase the number of allotments off Chorley Hall Lane, that would give you more spaces on Heyes Lane. It would keep the space green and there is access already for the allotment holders.

2. The green space on Horseshoe lane lends itself to parking, a pedestrian crossing could be put on London Road, like they have near Waters in Wilmslow for people who use the car park. The people who work in the village could use this car park and free up the village spaces for shoppers.
DELETED ACCOUNT False Name (Louise Gray)
Friday 15th January 2016 at 7:50 pm
Thanks for the sound comments Melanie and Duncan. I might be a minority but I was sad to see the last PC ousted in May and I would have placed a sizeable bet on them not raising the precept by 50% this year and for several years to come. It is not just £2 per month, (as one person commented) we will pay 3quid and we are not in a top band. I do not pay it gladly unlike one commentator. Why do they need the security fence? It is a valid question. Heyes Lane allotment holders are selfish NIMBIES in the most extreme form. Some do not even live in the village. Some of the plots are a disgusting rubbish strewn eyesore. This is not downtown Chicago with gardens at a premium. This is about a couple of old blokes with a spade holding the village and business owners to ransome. I for one did not appreciate the man with the crazy hair leaning on our buzzer waking our baby one dark night (he was like one possessed in order to sign the wretched petition. ) I declined, and sent him on his way and I live on Heyes Lane. The previous council offered these "stick in the muds" an alternative site. I am not happy to sub them with my hard earned money. Frank Keegan's proposals looked sound enough to me and I for one do not appreciate being 30 pounds a year worse off because the new pc may be out of their depth with the village finances.....
Claire MacLeod
Friday 15th January 2016 at 9:55 pm
Hello Louise Gray

I just couldn't resist responding to your post. It is so bizarre and overwrought. Let's take your comments point by point:

a) " I might be a minority but I was sad to see the last PC ousted in May". Yes, Louise. You are undeniably, indisputably in the minority. The election results proved that. Resoundingly. The outcome of the elections last May have often since been described as a 'landslide'.

b) " I would have placed a sizeable bet on them not raising the precept by 50% this year and for several years to come". I'd hazard a guess you're not a betting woman, are you, Louise? Nor an accountant, I suspect, for that matter. If you read the article relating to the increased precept you will see that the Chair of the Parish Council commented " I can see it went up by 71% in 2010/11 and then back down by 26% the following year." What makes you so confident the previous PC would have enough funds and not have to raise the precept 'this year and for several years to come'?

c) "I do not pay it gladly unlike one commentator". How community-minded of you, Louise. The increase in precept is clearly explained "to cover the cost of running the Medical Centre and Festival Hall in the short term." These are facilities which have been developed to provide for the entire community. The funds are not, as you imply, for 'a couple of old blokes with a spade'. (How you would draw that bizarre conclusion is, frankly, beyond me.) Why should the whole community not pay for facilities that are being provided for them? Who do you suggest should pay for them? Have you found a secret money tree in the locality? Or do you perhaps believe in the money fairy?

d) "Why do they need a security fence?" Really? It just gets better and better. Perhaps the clue ('security') is in the name? I believe you are a regular visitor on this site, Louise, so surely you haven't missed the numerous articles/ posts that make clear that a security fence was a condition attached to the approval of the plans for the development and it was, I believe, one of the items that the previous Parish Council in their wisdom neglected to factor in to their budget? This is one of the factors that contributed to the signficant short-fall in funds. I would counter, this is NOT a 'valid question'.

e) I am not going to dignify the rest of your post with a response, as your remarks just seem to evolve from sublime to ridiculous. It is quite apparent that you have a personal issue with allotment holders, but I'm not convinced your impassioned post will convert many of those who sympathise with them. Quite the contrary, in fact.

f) Finally, I cannot sign off without noting your resounding endorsement of Frank Keegan's 'proposals' (which I would prefer to call 'diktats'), and your quite unfounded accusation that "the new PC may be out of their depth with the finances". Again, if you had kept yourself informed over the last few months, you would understand that not only have the Parish Council inherited an enormous challenge in terms of completing the Medical Centre and Festival Hall on time, that inheritance including financial short-falls and planning oversights, but they have done so with enormous dignity and competence, never once stooping to 'slag off' their predecessors. I, for one, take my hat off to them.
Fenton Simpson
Friday 15th January 2016 at 10:05 pm
I think this possibly the most mis informed and misleading post I've ever read on this website.

But this is still a free county and your entitled to your opinion.
Claire MacLeod
Friday 15th January 2016 at 10:17 pm
Thanks, Fenton ;)
Paul Hutchinson
Friday 15th January 2016 at 11:11 pm

your comment -Yes, Louise. You are undeniably, indisputably in the minority. The election results proved that. Resoundingly. The outcome of the elections last May have often since been described as a 'landslide'.

Why do you see the result as a landslide? When you average the results between the two groups 875 people voted for members of the ousted PC and 1186 voted for AE 1, which as a % works out to be circa 58% of those who voted chose AE 1st and 42% voted for the old PC, however 32% of the village didn't vote at all.

So, not sure Louise is in the minority at all. One thing I am certain of, is that your response to her post will irritate people as much has her post has clearly irritated you.

There seems to be a recurring theme on posts regarding the new PC in that as soon as anyone makes a negative comment about the them - certain individuals attempt to either belittle the poster or blame whats gone before.

Anyway its 41 months until the next election, so plenty of time for AE 1st to live up to its manifesto.
DELETED ACCOUNT False Name (Louise Gray)
Friday 15th January 2016 at 11:21 pm
Well Claire as Fenton said it is a free world and I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. You perceive my remarks to be ridiculous as you do not agree with them . Well I may not stoop to you level to ridicule your remarks, I may not agree with what you say but I would defend your right to air them ( to paraphrase Voltaire) . And just to address some of your points, the election was a resounding victory for the AF party (I would not deny that). BUT it was a pathetically low turnout for a big village so you feel I am a real minority, from looking at these forums I have seen a strong endorsement fomenting now for the using of some of the allotments for parking. You think misguidedly that I have a personal issue with the allotment holders (strange paranoia) because I believe giving them up for some parking is a good idea. Do the new PC have
a personal issue with the said holders because they too have mooted the idea? I commented on the messiness of some of the plots so what? Others have made similar comments on these forums. And yes the precept increase will hit this low wage earner hard. The Precept WAS put up by 71% in 2011 but Mr Keegan held true to his word and it was lowered to very insignificant amounts subsequently. This year the main Council Tax freeze will finish so we are all in for hefty increases . Perhaps this is a drop in the ocean for some but I would never be so presumptuous to tell folks to put up and shut up. And we will have one of the highest precepts for a few years to come and this is unacceptable as we do not know for sure if it will come down again Finally there are payments made into Council Coffers by developers into a fund which CE holds and I believe our PC is entitled to claim a big chunk. Has this avenue been explored before these tax hikes? It is very easy to assault the council tax payers with a hike as there is a criminal penalty for non payment. And Claire please do not assume I am the only one living in the village who is complaining about this rise ( a fair few in our group were unhappy in the Pub tonight about this). Perhaps they too will vent on these boards so you can see there is some dissent. And Fenton I am NOT Mr Keegan's PR spokesman as you implied on the other thread, quite bizarre really to think he had some supporters outside of your little bubble....
Claire MacLeod
Friday 15th January 2016 at 11:38 pm
Hi Paul

If, according to your figures, 58% of those who voted were in favour of the new PC, with the non-voting public apparently not bothered enough to indicate a preference, then I would suggest that Louise is, indeed, in the minority. But we can agree to differ. The 'landslide' I referred to (I've just Googled the definition of the word, and Google tells me "A landslide victory is an electoral victory in a political system, when one candidate or party receives an overwhelming majority of the votes or seats in the elected body, thus all but utterly eliminating the opponents.") was the fact that the entire previous Parish Council were replaced by the existing Parish Council. As in, not one of the original Councillors remained. We can bicker about whether 58% vs, 42% is a landslide or not. The result remains the same.

I'm sure my post has irritated (some) people. As, no doubt, Louise's did (myself included). I don't mind people expressing their opinions. As Fenton has rightly said, it's a free country, and we live in a democracy where individuals are encouraged to express their opinions. Thank goodness. I just feel compelled to respond when I read comments that appear to be ill-informed (unless you agree with Louise, that the increased precept is designed to in some way subsidise 'a couple of old blokes with a spade').

I'm sure I'm not alone when I express my complete confidence in the new Parish Council. So far, they have done exactly what they promised to do (which was not to 'not build a car park on the Heyes Lane allotments') - be transparent and consultative in their approach. As I said, I take my hat off to them.
DELETED ACCOUNT False Name (Louise Gray)
Friday 15th January 2016 at 11:39 pm
Thanks for that Paul. There is a popular new craze doing the rounds in our Universities at the moment to silence those whose viewpoints one does not agree with by protesting against dissenters and not "platforming them" to use the parlance. This attempt to stifle debate is a sorry state. It seems to have spread to the Guardian as there is uproar this week by their complete neglect in reporting the Cologne attacks and closing some of their comments section. I am glad it has not reached Alderley which provides a lively platform for debating village affairs. However there are still some commentators who just do not like seeing any opinion which may conflict with their own it is a shame if they are taking it personally
Paul Hutchinson
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 9:13 am

Its a fact that AE 1st won the election and I personally voted for different members from each party based on a blend of youth and experience. What I am trying to draw your attention to is that on average 875 residents did not vote for the new PC and 32% of the village did not vote at all.

Who knows what the result would have been if the other 32% had voted?

Furthermore if we had known what we know now, I suggest the outcome would have been much closer, if the manifestos from each party are were - this party wants to tarmac the allotments and this party wants to part tarmac both the allotments and the playing field.

There are are a couple of hundred of houses on CHL and the 2 estates just off it, these are in the main occupied by families and speaking to a number over the last few weeks both on the streets and the schoolyards, its clear how their view of the new PC has changed over the last few weeks.
Duncan Herald
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 9:19 am
Hi Louise,

I think that you begin to see why I use the term'attack dogs' ?

The more you question the P.C., the more the A.D. will 'go for you'.

It is not easy to reason with them as they have an entirely different view to you, as to what constitutes democracy.

You're in good company.

Perhaps you should feel sorry for them? They came galloping over the horizon, promising 'tender loving care' all round. Then they were devastated to find that 'it ain't that easy'.
Now the poor souls have increasingly to defend the indefensible. Which is why they attack the former P.C. I do wonder why they dwell so much in the past; is it because it was so much easier to be critical when in opposition and so much harder to justify themselves when there is no one else to shuffle off the responsibility onto?

Live Long and Prosper.

We do love preservation do we not?
S.T.A.D. (Save The Attack Dogs). Join now, before they drift into extinction !
Take up a collection; but don't forget to increase the donations by 50% ?
DELETED ACCOUNT False Name (Louise Gray)
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 1:38 pm
Hello Duncan

I have only just joined the comments section having sat quietly to see how the new pc would respond to the urgent demand for parking. I have no intention of attacking individual councillors personally but as a pc they are not above criticism (that is directed at Claire Macleod who seems to think they are). Indeed some of our newly elected citizens were vociferously opposed one year ago to the use of the H lane allotments as a car park. You and your colleagues were berated many, many, times on these forums over the plan. Fast forward 1 year and our new pc has come to the same conclusion that the previous pc reached. It is unavoidable, where are elderly users of the Medical Centre to park? There has to be proper provision. Claire and her friends may be living in Cloud Cuckoo land if they think it will never happen. I may not have been clear in my earlier post as she perceived my comments about the old blokes with a spade being the cause of the precept rise , well I know they are not,(I was being a tad facetious,) but I stand by my objection to the rise none the less. Claire's tone is one of "How dare you object" well Claire I am not the only person in this village who is unhappy with the prospect of the tax hike (not everyone posts on this forum FYI, it took me 10 years to do so! ) Now back to the allotments, we DO all "sub" the digging , and tilling and unsightly blue tarps assorted cones and picturesque tesco bags adorning said allotments through general rates do we not? And some of the plots are overgrown, unloved and untended. This is not just a winter feature it has been ever thus. Claire objected to the fact I called the old blokes with a spade "selfish nimbies" holding the village and business owners to ransome over the parking). One allotment user used to leave his old blue van parked for hours on the double yellows sometimes parked on the pavement, how selfish! And looking back through the history of the forums one poster has described the allotment holders as a "dogs in a manger". So Claire the allotment holders like our pc are also not above criticism. I am also not unique in objecting to the messy state of some plots. 1 commentator from 2013 derided them as an "eyesore". What do Claire and Fenton say to the new councillors of AE 1st who have had a volte face and may have reached the same conclusion as our last pc? I would hesitate for the moment to use the "hypocrite" word. As our new pc moves forward into this year they probably appreciate as Obama did that once the hype dies down the process of governing is a lot harder than it looks from the other side, with that in mind I wish them the best of "British". Duncan I wish you too the best of luck and genuinely appreciated and thank you for all your hard work in the past on behalf of AE (that is directed at Melanie and Mary M and all the other guys on the old pc too,) and I enjoy reading your posts :)
Duncan Herald
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 4:15 pm
Hi Louise,

I am impressed that you and I both know the word 'tad'. Linguistic culture lives in A.E.
Peter Watson
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 5:37 pm
I was at the Car Parking Review meeting on Thursday evening and heard a few new pieces of information that I thought put a new light on the arguments around using the allotments as a car park.

1. It seems that if you were to grasscrete over the entire site the cost would be around £800k; which is around £5.7k per space. This is a far higher cost than we were told prior to the election.

2. The previous PC suggested that car park would be funded from the £200k excess from the medical centre development. However, what we now know is that there will be no excess, on the contrary an extra £500k has had to be found in order to complete the development.

3. The drainage problems in the area of the allotments are complex and require considerable work. There is a strong possibility that building a car park would alter the water table in the area and cause flooding in the houses around Devonshire Drive.

4. CEC have said that they will not support development of the whole site due to the covenant.

So any argument about "a few allotment holders" or "not in my back yard" seem to be rather inconsequential in light of the greater cost and problems with this possible site.

Just to be clear, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not a big fan of building a car park on CHL either, however it does seem to be a far cheeper site.
DELETED ACCOUNT False Name (Louise Gray)
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 6:50 pm
Hi Peter,your comment is interesting and does create pause for thought (and thanks for not attacking me). I come from Heyes Lane and for the last 14 years have hoped and prayed that it could be tidied up and be a pleasant green space in our great village. I walked past today at 2:00pm from the village and sorry to say it is depressing. The rotten old shed spewing it's contents into the hedge, the same old mess with upturned plastic bins, cones in various places. Granted a few plots are used but generally it resemble the old bomb sites around South East London where I grew up. Someone once suggested a few spaces for cars and a tidier, green space with a fountain? Perhaps I feel it looks so unpleasant at the moment a car park screened by trees would be a preferable option. Can the PC not persuade a private company like Parking Eye to be an investment partner in some kind of scheme.
Chris Harper
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 9:47 pm
Evening Peter and others

The cost for a whole carpark at Heyes lane was circa £646k (Tarmac not grass Crete - and Tarmac being the preference) as stated in that same meeting (and by Geoff hall in another post on here at £630k).

Unfortunately the whole village is being miss led on the costs, they are not being taken on comparable numbers of spaces and certain scopes of work appear to be excluded. Taking CHL costs for example, Costs to repair the drains at CHL and also drainage works that are likely to be required to the field due to the introduction of the carpark may not have been included, costs for the highways + bridge works (one way being the possibly only solution to get prams etc. safely across the narrow bridge and without even considering other disability provisions that may be required) will need to be added along with the Tarmac path through the chl playing field (taking more green space we presume), CHL allotments and to the park (all with lighting) that the parish council stated would be required to make it a viable long stay space (I.e. Route to the train and office buildings - if you do really think people will elect to pay and park this distance away).

Add these necessity items and CHL is certainly not the cheapest option and will generate far less revenue.

It is unfortunate that we were not given any opportunity at the parish meeting to raise any questions on the costs (and no one could see the circa four line summary that was shown on the projector). There are so many questions that remain and more information needed to fill in the survey however it seems there is no platform for these to be raised with the parish council (and certainly not in a public forum where the answers need to be).

Further the very fact that the only way you will know about the parking survey is if you read this site and the specific parking meeting article, visit alderley edge parish council website (can't say I know anyone who goes to this on a regular basis) attended the parking meeting ( estimated only 120 people were there) or visit the library shows how this consultation is not so much a consultation as people may want you to believe it is. (You may correct me if I am wrong, but the parish update leaflet containing the parish council proposals for car parking (and that was stated to be posted to all residents) did not inform that you must then complete the survey at the library and or the online form for your voice / opinion to be heard? It only informed of the public meetings and therefore based on 120 attendance at the first meeting do very much expect a great many (and probably the main village demographic) will therefore simply not be aware.

And with respect of covenants - when the query was raised at the public meeting 14/01/2016 if a covenant existed at CHL playing field the answer by the speaker was "we do not know". A betting man / woman would have to assume that there is covenants given those at the park and the manner chl playing field became to CEC control.
Peter Watson
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 9:55 pm
Hi Louise

I am not sure who Parking Eye are but I find it very unlikely that any privately run company will invest any money in AE as land is expensive and returns are uncertain. I am really interested in the fact that you are so fond of Mr Keegan who wanted to turn this green space into a tarmac space. I might suggest that you engage with the Parish Council in a positive way and help to make the village a better place.
Peter Watson
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 10:10 pm
Hello Chris

Ok so with tarmac it brings the cost down to £4,614 per parking space. However it does not negate any other point I made.

I think you have some great, positive points to make and that is great. Is there any chance you could find a way to do that without the thesis. Less is more Chris.
DELETED ACCOUNT False Name (Louise Gray)
Saturday 16th January 2016 at 11:18 pm
Oh dear Peter you kind of ruined your last two posts with such patronising, condescending "put downs" to myself and Chris,( and I thought his points were valid and were NOT a thesis" ) How pompous! I just want those allotments to look a bit more decent is that such an issue.?Walk by Pete and take a good look at them tomorrow and tell us how picturesque they look. A few years ago a friend of mine offered to one of the allotment holders her car, her help along with me and my husband in removing debris and unwanted rubbish from the site to the dump in ,Knutsford. The man failed to take her up on our offer all we could deduce from this was a weird kind of hoarding mentality. I am very keen to make this village a better place and have helped with various events over the years. Most days walking along
Lane I will pick litter as I go, but I do not expect a scout award from Arkala I just do it along with others because I like living in this village. And why don't you google Parking Eye they are one of the biggest Parking contractors in the UK. (Lidl in Wilmslow, Aldi in KNUTSFORD , Macc' Hospital have all contracted parking to this company to name but three. Oh and a few other folk supported Frank Keegan in his plan for the allotments if you are "really interested " in finding out why you could canvas them perhaps.....
Mike Dudley-Jones
Sunday 17th January 2016 at 9:32 am
Peter Watson and Louise Gray

Your posts on Satursday at 5.37 and 6.50 respectively do a very great deal to help those who did not attend the Consultation Meeting on Thursday to understand the situation surrounding Heyes Lane issue. We have simply presented the facts and those who did not attend can read those in our Consultation Document

There are some considerable challenges surrounding Heyes Lane and we must all tread carefully now that we know some of the costs involved - and the problems surrounding the water course and culvert. Personally, I feel comfortable with the proposal to place an extra 44 car parking spaces and a vital access road on 25% of the Heyes Lane Allotments space otherwise the huge investment we needed to make in the Festival Hall will be wasted.

I would also like to see the remainder of the area at Heyes Lane turned into a beautiful Park with trees, a small lake and ducks - Festival Gardens - at some point in the future. I would like to see the War Memorial ceremonially moved to the centre of that park And yes, I am the ex President of the Allotment Society! What I don't believe we need is a huge slab of Tarmac.

As a Parish Council, we are not 'in charge' in this Village of ours and genuinely have no vested interests. We will wait for as long as it takes for the Village residents to tell us what they would like us to do for them. We are not here to do anything 'to' anyone. B

There will be an opportunity to exchange views at the Feedback Meeting to be held at the Methodist Church on Thursday 11th February where we hope we will see a packed house. We will continue to be 'transparent' and show everything straight. We will outline how we intend to gather as comprehensive a feedback as possible even if it means further meetings in March and April.

We felt that it was important not to turn last Thursday's meeting into a hostile exchange where perhaps people might say things that they might regret. It was a time to state the facts. We did that.
Fiona Braybrooke
Sunday 17th January 2016 at 10:26 am
Hi Louise.
I would be really interested if you could kindly point me in the direction of any article in which AE1 have quoted that they are totally opposed to turning the Heyes Lane allotments into a car park and that this was part of their campaign strategy in the run up to the elections
Duncan Herald
Sunday 17th January 2016 at 10:33 am
Louise, Peter et al,

alas we are still no nearer getting to see lists of works (done and wished for) with costings or full details of costs at the various projected parking sites etc. etc.

Why the reticence? After all, sooner or later, every penny of costs will come from your pockets ! Unless there are grants etc. as yet not revealed to us !

Is there perchance a spelling problem with the word 'transparency' ?

If anyone out there would like to occupy some available time, why not trawl through's records (since last May) and make a (long) list of unanswered questions, prevarications, back-tracking and double-speak ?

I do believe that many of us are quite willing to assist the P.C. but it is almost impossible so to do ? e.g. the constant snide attempts to slubber anyone who does not show total approval of the P.C., by the 'apologists' for the P.C.

By the way, as so many 'first-timers' are appearing on, might a few more of the parish councilors also contribute here ?
Mike Dudley-Jones
Sunday 17th January 2016 at 11:20 am

All the costs and detailed costings are available to you if you go to our Consultation Document or ask for the breakdown. It runs to many pages.
DELETED ACCOUNT False Name (Louise Gray)
Sunday 17th January 2016 at 12:39 pm
Hi Fiona,just this ( I did not accuse the entire AE1st Party as campaigning on the No Car Park on the Allotments , however individual councillors may have been very anti and did they change their minds completely as they stood for election, I am not so sure?) On Monday 29th September 2014 at 10.54 pm MIke Dudley-Jones stated on these forums "No concrete on Heyes Lane!" (Even though the proposal at the time was for "grasscrete") When the time came to elect our prospective councillors I did not put a X next to Mr Dudley-Jones for this very reason. Whilst I am sure he is a lovely man who no doubt cares for our village he has made it abundantly clear in the past that he is firmly opposed to any plans for a car park on the allotments at the same time he was keener to promote the Chorley Hall Lane option. Perhaps he has changed his views as the process of governance tends to either make elected officials more pragmatic on the other hand it may cause one to be more entrenched in their views. I strongly believe for good or bad that the issue of the allotments on Heyes Lane and the action group which was set up to save them provided the impetus for the formation of the AE1st party( not such a bad thing for democracy)
DELETED ACCOUNT False Name (Louise Gray)
Sunday 17th January 2016 at 1:05 pm
Perhaps a row of fast growing saplings to screen the allotments from the road , maintaining a nice green lung. Then the allotment holders can make "merry hell" with the muck , they can load the site with as many plastic bins/cones tarps and this unhappy resident would not have to look at the site again. I can just admire the new trees and I will the shut up about any car park option. I only agreed with the original PC's plans for a green car park as the Heyes Lane Allotments are not a site of great beauty and have never once seemed so in the 15 years walking up and down our lane. I am not the only commentator in the past who has noted this, however not once in all the hysteria over the last few years over the"Save Heyes Lane" campaign have I seen a supporter say on these forums, "Yes some plots are an eyesore, the tenants could tidy them up a bit and remove the unsightly plastic detritus". It would have gone a long way in appeasing this resident. Oh and by the way Fenton Simpson, it was not you who came around and annoyed us with the petition that night it was a man called John Sanderson? Sorry I got you confused :) Whilst I have enjoyed my first weekend foray on to these boards I have a report to write up, but I will be "lurking"....
Duncan Herald
Tuesday 19th January 2016 at 11:37 am
Mike D-J,

I thank you for having the politeness to reply, BUT;
I have asked if I (and others) might have sight of the 'report' that you received from the Consultants whom you used re. looking at parking sites. The document to which you referred me is not that. So I ask again, please let us see the report and tell us what it cost and tell us who carried out the survey for you (Arcus?).

It would be nice to see other Parish Councillors joining in, in this 'organ'.
Peter Watson
Tuesday 19th January 2016 at 2:17 pm

Would it not be a good idea just to email Mike and ask for what you require.
Duncan Herald
Tuesday 19th January 2016 at 5:32 pm
Hi Peter,

No. The financial figures that I and others have requested sight of can be surely in the public domain. Just myself knowing them is rather limited don't you think?

I simply can't understand why finances are kept so hidden away. If the people wish to see the figures, then why oh why should the figures not be seen?

The list of works together with costings for the work alrerady carried out on the F. Hall.
The list of works still to be carried out on the F. Hall plus costings.
The cost of the consultants' recent works; after all we were told that £5,000.00 had been 'earmarked' for consultants' work, so why not now tell us either 'yes that's what was spent' or 'no it was cheaper than that'. Its the 'secrecy' that seems so pointless eh ?
Peter Watson
Tuesday 19th January 2016 at 9:20 pm

I have tried to help you find the answers to the questions you pose. I thought that would be helpful. I now see that I have wasted my time. You just seem to want a row.

I find it hypocritical that you, as a member of the public, demand answers now, when two years you should have, as an elected representative, been doing much more than that.

Please Duncan, just draw a line under it all and let it go.
Mike Dudley-Jones
Tuesday 19th January 2016 at 11:13 pm
I have recently answered a request from a resident for sight of the detailed costings we have received to make some basic evaluation of the affordability of each of the sites we are examining as we attempt to improve parking in our Village. Having sent the many pages to that person I followed the transmission of the information with the following letter:

'You will have seen that I have sent to you the detailed cost breakdown of the figures that we presented at our presentation on Thursday 14th January.

It has puzzled me somewhat as to why you would need these figures? Is it because you perhaps doubt that we had them or is it because you want to turn back to us and say they are incorrect in some way?

Perhaps I can help in this regard. They are an indication of the basic affordability of each of the sites we have presented as offering us, as a Village, an improvement in our parking situation. These figures will give us all enough information to make a judgement on affordability.

They are 'limited' in scope in certain areas. For example, it is well known to us that were the Chorley Hall site to be adopted there would be considerable extra costs involved in perhaps changing the traffic regime, introducing effective traffic calming measures, improving pedestrian safety, and installing payment regime instrumentation to name but a few. But in our judgement, whilst this may cause the final cost to increase, it will not double or treble the cost.

The same could be said of our proposal to build an access road and extra car parking on Heyes Lane. Drainage costs here, like Chorley Hall Lane, are a concern. Both sets of costings have contingency costs built into them but it may not be quite enough. It is only when a more detailed examination of the project takes place (which we have chosen not to pay for at this stage) will we actually know but again these final costs won't be double or treble the costs we have proposed.

However, the Village may choose to recommend that we focus all of our attention on Heyes Lane and build what the last Parish Council 'told' the Village was the perfect car park. After all, they said, it will cost £280,000 and 140 cars will be parked at £2,000.00 per space. Incidentally, these spaces were to be for long term parking only at £0.40 per day still leaving the Festival Hall somewhat 'landlocked' - but I won't bore you with the past.

Our basic affordability costings show that this is nonsense and a complete car park for about 100 cars on Heyes Lane will cost around £630,000 - £800,000. I say for about 100 cars because we doubt whether the whole site could be used with the huge problems and costs that are involved in addressing the culvert and water course which sits in the middle of the plot. Indications are that the last houses built recently on the east of the site are causing water table concerns as the Heyes Lane water struggles find a place to go.

You must also remember that as Parish Councillors we are not in charge here nor do we control what will happen. We put ourselves forward to the electorate as a group who felt that the last Parish Council actually did believe they were in charge and did control what will happen. By wiping out a Conservative Council in a year when their Party was enjoying a landslide nationally meant that we created history without a single false promise. I can absolutely assure you we have no intention of stepping into their old shoes!

You may have our word that we will not take any action unless and until we have a majority response from our Village residents. This will certainly mean that the next Feedback Meeting on 11th February will be something of a starting point for what will eventually be a 'referendum' to reach the consensus and mandate we would need to proceed. It is the Village who will decide - always- whilst we are the Parish Council.

What happens if we do nothing? In my personal opinion, every residential road in the Village will have cars parked outside most houses all day during the working week. Chorley Hall Lane will fill up too as will Redesmere and the other Lakes estate roads. The cars will be legally parked and will have every right to be there. From time to time though they will be parked badly and drives will be blocked causing upset - and the lack of Police enforcement will allow the problems to grow.

Then the 275 houses at Alderley Park will be completed and we will be asked to accommodate a further 250-350 houses ourselves perhaps in the green space behind Chorley Hall to the south west of the Village.

Solving our car parking I believe is an unrealistic dream. Improving the situation may be the most we can all hope for. That said, my colleagues and I understand your concerns.

The answer I fear does not lie in the basic affordability study and costings I have sent to you though.

Do please call me - 07900 162260- if you want to sit down and chat these issues through. I will be delighted to give you as much time as you need. I want you to believe that you can trust us to 'do it right'. We live here too!

My best wishes
Kirsteen Peel
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 7:08 am
Well said Peter!
Martin Dixon
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 9:28 am
Absolutely correct Peter. Spot on.
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 10:22 am
Hi Peter,
no I do not want a row; just a few clear answers to a few questions. I am simply asking for a list of works and itemised costs for the F. Hall together with sight of and costs of Consultants.That simple.
When I was an elected representative, I 'kept an eye on' the park and (later) the cemetery. I constantly posted on this 'mighty organ' what I was doing and what I hoped to do and (where applicable) costs. I asked folk what they wanted to have done. I was such a good little Councillor eh?

Mike D-J has kindly writeen a 15 paragraph message; alas no figures for the two questions I asked, in that long message.
.He asks why the figures are needed and wonders whether I want to say that they are incorrect. No. I simply would like to see them. So would others. Why not?

He kindly added that nought will happen without a majority of the village. A majority of what? The ones who can complete the on-line form? Or a real majority of all the villagers? Which will never happen, for or against, as a large % won't actually vote!

I am very pleased to see the promise of a referendum stated again. perhaps we might save on the costs of that, by 'doubling up' with Mr. Cameron'e 'Europe referendum' ?
Mike Dudley-Jones
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 11:11 am

Tell me where you would like me to email the costings provided for us from Arcus Consulting and they will be sent to you. I hardly think we need to post pages of costs on this site.

I will arrange for them to be available to download from the AEPC website for others who might want to examine them in detail. However, what I said in my last post here is relevant. It might be worth reading it again.

(The costs are now available to view here on
Malcolm McClean
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 12:51 pm

Your tenacity is commendable. Had you taken a similar interest in the back of the envelope calculations done in darkened rooms by the previous PC, perhaps you wouldn't be sitting at home now deleting 3000 emails and shredding your documents.

Your crusade to discredit the PC is actually casting a shadow over the good work that you did for many years on behalf of the village.
Peter Watson
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 2:13 pm
Duncan, I agree with you, you were diligent in your duties looking after the park and cemetery and I have given you credit for that previously. It is important to give credit where it is due.

My point was that you currently seem to be somewhat pugnacious in your endless requests for detailed information and that seems hypocritical in light of your lack fortitude in gaining relevant financial information when you were an elected representative.

I hope that clarifies things.
Lisa Baldwin
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 5:10 pm
Hi All

I have read the above comments with interest and also a little bit of amusement and as a local resident wanted to state my views also.

I think everyone who is blaming the previous PC needs to stop the niggling gripes and in some of the above.. I can only describe as rants .. Stop the personal attacks against previous PC and members of our community.

This post is about the current PC car park plans and not previous issues to which you might have experienced.

For those saying they haven't been consulted over the current plans ... Just wanted to point out that this is exactly what the PC doing now... Hence the 'consultation meetings'.... Of which everyone is welcome to attend and if you had attended the last meeting you would have seen that a lot of your concerns were addressed.

The Chorley lane playing fields seems the most controversial .. Due to the loss of some green space... However I do feel there is already an ample playing park in Alderley edge right next door... Plus a massive woodland -the edge - where there has been enough fresh air and green space for all for many years now.

There is also a massive field near beech cottages where you can fly kites and play football all day long should you wish.

Also wanted to state that after visiting Chorley lane playing fields at 1 pm last Sunday on a clear day there was not one person or family on the green space which makes me feel it isn't as widely used as people are stating.

The PC aren't wanting to take the whole space.. Just the boggy section.. Where I struggle to see it possible to kick a ball or fly a kite anyway. They want to keep the football pitch also.

And for those concerns over the footpath over the bridge if you read the consultation plans fully the PC are going to make this bridge safe in one way or another.

Plus a new Tarmac path will be put from the new long stay car park on Chorley playing fields through to the station area and park.

The facts are:

Astra Zeneca are building nearly 300 homes on their site.

The parking situation in Alderley WILL get worse.

We need a solution

After visiting the meeting last week and hearing the PC plans for phase 1 and phase 2 I am happy that they have taken on everyone's best interests.

If we don't reach an agreement then nothing will be done.. Commuters to Manchester will continue parking on our resident streets.

Enterprise in the village with our important independents will die.. As no one will be able to park short term to shop with them.

No solution is going to make everyone happy. However if we stop all the bickering and look at the facts perhaps we will see the wood for the trees.

I would actually also like to thank the PC for the efforts that they have already made to reach this consultation phase.

Lisa Baldwin - Devonshire Drive resident
Melanie Connor
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 6:16 pm
Martin - do you live in the village - if so what part or do you have an allotment on Heyes Lane? "The people I talk to" say no you don't. If not do they have no where near you to play?
It is not childish saying the truth but if the truth hurts so be it. I will continue as a resident to say what I feel, I have been Chairman 3 times, have lived here for most of my life and know a good number of people thank you. Residents come to me for help & to discuss issues. Perhaps you are keen to keep us quiet as we might out the incompetence of the incumbent PC who really are doing that all on their own. Cheers
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 7:11 pm
Hi Guys,
I want to know what has happened since May and what is happening now and what may happen shortly.
I take a close interest in the village wherein I dwell.

I am now bored with asking pertinant, clear, simple questions that do not get answered by those who can answer if they choose. So goodbye to questions; let someone else take up the cudgels if they so wish.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?
Claire MacLeod
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 7:50 pm
Hi Duncan

Perhaps you didn't see Mike D-J's post above?


Tell me where you would like me to email the costings provided for us from Arcus Consulting and they will be sent to you. I hardly think we need to post pages of costs on this site.

I will arrange for them to be available to download from the AEPC website for others who might want to examine them in detail. However, what I said in my last post here is relevant. It might be worth reading it again."

For goodness sake, what more do you want?

I have to say, I agree with both Peter Watson and Malcolm McClean's comments above. I'm also happy to agree with you on one thing. I, too, am bored, and delighted that you have decided to take a break with the questions. Seriously, they were starting to wear us all down. And not in a good way.


I have struggled a little to make sense of your post, but I get the impression it is a thinly veiled insult to Martin because "the people you talk to" claim he doesn't live in the village (and, therefore, his opinion is invalid?). You then go on to say you "know a good number of people", have been Chairman three times, and that "residents come to me for help and to discuss issues". Do these residents understand that they might be better placed to come to the current Parish Council for "help and to discuss issues"? Have you suggested that to them? I suspect not. I suspect, instead, you have told them, as your post suggests, about "the incompetence of the incumbent PC".

Given what we now know about the precarious financial position that the current PC inherited, might I suggest you are skating on very thin ice? The current PC have been exemplary in not slinging mud and passing blame, although from what I understand they could well, and justifiably, have taken a different course.

Bearing in mind that specific unfounded accusations might be deemed libellous or defamatory, could I ask you to elaborate to us how, exactly, you believe the current PC have proved their own incompetence?

To be honest your post simply suggests to me that you remain bitter for being ousted at the last election.

I agree with other posters that it is now time to move forward. No one wants to read posts that just continue to sling mud back and forth. But, conversely, nor can a post as inflammatory and unjustified as yours go unanswered. It would be great if you (and Duncan) could decide to become part of the solution. I'm sure everyone would appreciate it.
Martin Dixon
Wednesday 20th January 2016 at 9:34 pm
Melanie Connor

I have never made any secret of the fact that I do not live in Alderley Edge. I do have many friends in the village and I visit regularly.

One thing really struck me in your post. You said "It is not childish saying the truth but if the truth hurts so be it." I assume you mean your truth, what you consider to be truth. I, or anyone else will have a different truth. Truth is really the way we all see things; our opinions; our perception. You only have to look at all the different opinions on this site to understand that there is no universal truth. So I guess what you are really saying is 'It is okay to have an opinion and if others choose to be offended by that opinion then that is their business'. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I also understand that it works both ways. It is the basis of respect and debate. Believing that your truth is definitive is simply arrogance.

I have neither the desire nor the ability to keep you quiet; how could I possibly achieve that. My opinion is that your 'truth' does indeed 'out incompetence'.
Kirsteen Peel
Thursday 21st January 2016 at 8:48 am
Melanie Connor's post of yesterday evening beggars belief...

Maybe it is time that the former AEPC members, who were comprehensively ousted by this village's voters, "went to play" (to use her phrase) somewhere else rather than trying to undermine the efforts of those currently in post?

I for one would contribute to their bus fare!
Duncan Herald
Thursday 21st January 2016 at 9:49 am
Whilst I am 'touched' at the recent offers to make figures available, I see that Lisa has just extracted them. Very well done Lisa; you are clearly more of a 'tiger' than I am.

Can you now get released the details of works and costings re. the F. Hall re-development.
Just a thought!
Mike Dudley-Jones
Thursday 21st January 2016 at 1:39 pm

I offered to send you the figures that you asked for. Lisa did not have to 'extract' them from me, as she would confirm to you. She asked for them - as you did - and they were sent to her.

It was that simple.

(Click here to view the figures on

Now that you have the detailed figures I wondered if you felt able to give your reaction to the estimated likely cost of the Heyes Lane site as a complete car park when you see that it would cost somewhere between £600,000 and £800,000. I wonder who quoted you the £280,000 cost that you presented to the Village less than a year ago? Do you still have that 'estimate'?

I mean - could you send the details of it to Lisa - or would she perhaps have to 'extract' it from you!

Enough now!
Duncan Herald
Thursday 21st January 2016 at 1:50 pm
whatever made you think that the estimate of £280,000 originated with me? Such was handled by the then 'Chair of Finance' and the then 'Parish Council Chairman'.

Any chance of seeing the list of works, with individual costings, since May, re. the Festival Hall?
Mike Dudley-Jones
Thursday 21st January 2016 at 10:07 pm

Where is your loyalty? How dare you distance yourself on this site from your responsibility! Do you think the costings I have presented on this site came from me?

No - they came from the small team that I am a member of and those people we trust to be our advisors. They come from people who seek to show it straight . A group of people I might add that I am immensely proud of and a group that I respect for their honesty and integrity beyond all else. Never ever mince words with me again on this subject. I won't have it. We are who we are and I believe we stand very tall indeed, and I care not a fig for your opinion any more.

Duncan, please do not try to answer me on this. There is nothing you can say.
Duncan Herald
Friday 22nd January 2016 at 9:59 am

the term you want is not 'loyalty' but 'collective responsibility'. I cannot believe that all of the present P.C. are all fully aware of every aspect of the PC's business; otherwise why do individual parish councilors have individual job titles? I would not expect each councilor to be fully informed on every topic, as that would be a waste of effort/time. Don't you agree?

I've said that I do not intend to b 'question-master general' any longer; I'll hand on that particular baton to whomsoever wishes.

Let's leave the subject of monies out of it, for the time being, as that clearly has an irritation factor seemingly built in. Allow me to return to a much smaller matter that illustrates where I bekieve the P.C. has 'got it wrong'.

The big 'sort-out' of the park, last March/April/whenever revealed a lot of nasty barbed wire in the palings fence between the bowling green side of the park and the AESG courts. I described that, here on this 'estimable organ', added that I'd approached the Officers of 'ansa' who told me that they had no record of putting the barbed wire there. Before I had time to approach the AESG governors, the good voters of A.E. hoofed me into the long grass.
I wrote, on this space, that I'd appreciate being told if/when the parish councilor for the park or a.n.other, might look into all this, with the aim of hopefully getting the dangerous barbed wire removed.
As far as I know, I have not received any acknowledgement nor any confirmation. Surely at least a 'its in hand' or 'we'll look into it' ot at least 'not P.C. business'.
So I tried to be a helpful member of the public, toward the new P.C. but got no encouragement whatsoever. Can you not see that this just irritates members of the public, when on the one hand you suggest that the public should join in with you but on the other hand do not respond when the public tries to do just that.

Before anyone tells me to 'do it myself' please consider:
1. we pay a P.C. precept to get the P.C. to do this kind of thing (imho)
2. if I had got onto C.E. myself, I dare say I would have been accused of 'interfering' or 'not able to let go'. ?

Enough already. But I haven't accused anyone and I haven't insulted anyone and I haven't mentioned what hard-working and 'on the side if the angels' people the last P.C-ers were !
Peter Watson
Friday 22nd January 2016 at 3:08 pm

I can see where you are going wrong and probably why nothing has been done. It is about using the correct method of communication. If you were to contact the PC directly then you would get more joy. You see, this is not a site run by the PC. You will find it far more productive to have a one-to-one conversation, either in person, on the phone or by email with a member of the PC rather than doing none of those things and then complaining about being ignored.

I suppose though I am making the assumption that your purpose is to resolve the problem, rather than some self-serving and increasingly tedious attempt at political point scoring.
Mike Dudley-Jones
Saturday 23rd January 2016 at 8:20 am
For those reading this thread, in my recent post here I used the word 'loyalty'. That is what I meant to say - and it does not need changing.

In this Parish Council we do each understand and each hold ourselves responsible for the decisions and statements we all make because we communicate on a daily basis.

Nobody in our 'football team' will ever leave the pitch and say " we lost because the people in my team are useless".
Duncan Herald
Monday 25th January 2016 at 10:00 am
Good Morning Peter,
If the Parish Council did not use this 'organ' then I'd agree with you. BUT as the Parish Council do use this 'organ' when they have something to say, you can't blame a member of the public (me) for using the same 'organ'. In any case, using this is a way of passing information to as many people as possible.

I am astounded that in a post where I go out of my way to simply report a possible improvement and ensure that I do not ascribe any blame or responsibility, you still accuse me of 'political point scoring' ! Might one wonder whether at the sight of certain names (myself, Melanie, Louise etc.) there is no real attempt to reason, just a knee-jerk attack? Oh well, jerk on guys!

One last attempt to show what a fine, upstanding and constructive chap I am!
There is an aspect of traffic problems that was commented upon some time ago; the way some cars come into the village from the AESG end at a rather unsafe speed. Coming out of Heyes Lane can thus be a tad scary?
Back in the day I met with some Highways chaps and put two ideas to them.

First idea: a narrower road would slow down traffic (they agreed with me) and so could (in theory) a pavement be built, where there is no pavement on both sides of the road, along London Rd., between approx. Ryleys Lane and Heyes Lane. They opined yes and a secong pavement would still leave the road wide enough for traffic.

Second idea: apparently when a car moves from one surface to another e.g. tarmac to cobbles, most drivers automatically slow down. Under the tarmac of London Rd. are the original cobbles (probably). I asked whether the tarmac covering could be removed from a stretch of London Rd. (say 5 yards either side of the 'peak' of the road over the rail line) and the cobbles 'reinstated'. Their answer was that a 1 sq. yard could be tried, to see whether a wider operation was possible.
At the time, there was insuffucient political interest and so nought came of it. Is nowadays perhaps more receptive to such ideas?

There y'go then. I await either constructive reasoning about these ideas or an explanation of how I am simply being more devious than ever in scoring political points.

a reading of 'Ozymandias'?
Jon Williams
Monday 25th January 2016 at 10:41 am
I would to see our village looking more like Poynton
Alan Brough
Monday 25th January 2016 at 5:21 pm
I would like to see our village looking more like Tresco in The Scillies.
Jeremy Bygrave
Wednesday 27th January 2016 at 12:16 pm
I read the above with a degree of amusement and dismay. If those concerned would put as much effort in doing rather than defending I'm sure we'd all be in a much better position.

For what it is worth I think we should have no parking. Alderley is/was a residential village, not a commercial centre. Provide more parking, more people will come, more traffic problems, but also more businesses, so the need for parking and so on. Basic rules of supply and demand.

If a business can't succeed in the village given its current infrastructure then so be it. There are plenty of towns nearby, much better suited for dealing with high levels of traffic, that would welcome the businesses and extra footfall.

It is very 'NIMBY' of me, but isn't that the whole point of democracy!

All that aside (as I know no more parking is probably just a pipe dream of mine), has anyone done traffic flow and requirement studies, comparing the impact of the various solutions? A basic understanding of the village alone would suggest there is a serious flaw in CHL parking. It is at the opposite end of the village to where the all day parking is predominantly needed and the general inflow of traffic. This would seemingly result in the majority of traffic being forced through the village or down past all the schools on a daily basis causing further chaos.

I'm not really hearing many reasons for NOT maximising parking at Heyes Lane over CHL?
Mike Dudley-Jones
Wednesday 27th January 2016 at 1:26 pm

Thank you for your post here. It sounds to me as if you were unable to attend the initial presentation we made to the Village and other stakeholders on Thursday 14th January 2016.

I outlined the cost of Heyes Lane as a complete car park site for around 100 cars as being between £600,000 and ££800,000. The reason I gave for only calculating 100 cars was because of the huge complications of a water course and open culvert in the centre of the site and our professional advisors suggested that this number might be more realistic in what would be a complex build.

These costs would amount to some £320,000 - £520,000 more than the figures presented to the Village in early May last year. As a Parish Council we have not explored this option seriously as their remains a covenant in position and Cheshire East would not be prepared to grant permission anyway.

All of this information is available for you to see on including the detailed costings of all the proposals we have put before the Village.

(Editor's Note - costings are available here -, Consultation document and feedback form are available here -

We are meeting again at the Methodist Church on Thursday 11th February at 7pm to present the results of the Feedback which is also available for you on our website.

Nothing is set in stone and as a Parish Council we will wait to hear what action the Village would like us to take in these matters.

Your opinions and advise therefore are invaluable.
Lesley Smith
Wednesday 27th January 2016 at 7:21 pm
After walking around the village quite a bit with my dogs I was wondering if in the short term residents would see any use in the "Rent My Space" or "Just Park" schemes. They enable people to rent out their drive or space they don't use for someone to park in for the day. They could make some money too. I use it in London and Edinburgh and it is very useful and a safe way to park.
Duncan Herald
Thursday 28th January 2016 at 9:24 am
Hi Lesley,

I asked around and seemingly this practice is fairly common in A.E.

Do you think it might encourage people if the 'going rate' were public? I've no idea how much it is.
Lesley Smith
Thursday 28th January 2016 at 7:18 pm
Hi Duncan

I do actually as it seems there are not many, in fact I can only find 2 offering spaces in Alderley Edge and the cost is £125 per month and the other £9.70 per day. I really think this may help in the short term if there are other people joining in. Maybe a contact could be made within one of the big employers and ensure if at all possible for the same person to use the same space each time so the householder knows who is renting the space?

It would also be good from a security point of view if a car is on your drive all day?
Jeremy Bygrave
Thursday 28th January 2016 at 11:20 pm
Hi Mike

Thanks for the reply.

I couldn't attend the last meeting, nor can I attend the next one on Thursday unfortunately. However I have left feedback on the website and read the costs' post and the general proposal documents. None of which seem to consider traffic flow or indeed the huge potential issues presented to the Windermere Drive estate if a CHL solution is put in place. Given the human instinct to take the cheapest and quickest route, surely this estate will fill up well before the CHL car park?

The projected cost don't really seem to provide any guidance. Everything I have read amounts to "here are some of the cost, but we don't know the rest". If someone in my business came to me with a plan of the same vein, they would be given a very short response. The PC or the community simply can't make decision on such bit part information. (Something I fear will happen with the European Referendum - but that is a different issue)

With regards to the covenant can you clarify whether it covers the whole allotment or part of it? Am I correct in thinking that the using the whole area has not been fully considered because of the covenant but the proposal does have c44 spaces on part of the Heyes Lane land?

The logical solution, if indeed there needs to be more parking, is to significantly extend the Ryleys Lane car park. Less residential impact, less traffic, better location etc etc. I have asked the question whether this was considered but not yet received a reply?

The whole thing seems pretty poorly thought out at the minute but that is just my opinion and I suppose the purpose of the feedback process the PC is going through.
Mike Dudley-Jones
Friday 29th January 2016 at 12:38 am

Thank you for adding a little more to your previous post. Again, much of what concerns you has been answered at the first presentation - but will need to be re- addressed after the next Feedback Meeting - as there will be considerable gaps in the knowledge for those unable to attend.

We felt it was important to make certain proposals which we felt do address part of our parking problem. It has generated a great deal of comment both here on and in the feedback responses we have received and it has caused all stakeholders to think clearly about what makes best sense.

It easy to criticise a Parish Council if you believe that they are going to impose something onto the Village community they serve. But I have to say this again and again - we are not in charge here; we are not here to do anything to this Village of ours. We are attempting to stimulate thought, discussion, debate and decision so that we are able to use our meagre resources to do what the Village would want us to do.

You are critical of the costs we have presented for the various options we believe are possible and you would be right in saying that they are largely incomplete. But, at this stage, we deemed it unnecessary to spend any more on professional advice until we had achieved some greater direction from the Village. The spend on discovering the affordability of the options we have presented is significant but to have carried out a complete costing would seem imprudent at this very early stage. In any business, I have run, spending unnecessarily would have also got 'a very short response'.

The de Trafford Estate covenant, I understand, covers the whole parcel of land currently occupied by the allotments. It was bequeathed to the Village for 'recreation'. Our desire to build an essential access road and lifeline to the Festival Hall from Heyes Lane on 25% of the space is our main priority. To add some 44 parking places to that access road seems sensible as that amenity will become a white elephant without this. If the Village agrees - we are then in a position to ask the de Trafford Estate for their blessing for such a proposal and our discussions would lead us to believe that Cheshire East would then grant planning consent.

We would then carry out a much costlier assessment of building costs but the experience of our professional support team have lead us to believe that our 'affordability' study is accurate.

The Ryleys Lane Car Park would always seem the logical place to develop our longer term parking by bringing it into a proper state and to extend it
across the boggy unused end of the Park to the London Road. It was perhaps our very first thought many months ago. It will not happen. Cheshire East have made it quite clear that it will not be allowed - nor will a large car park covering the whole of Heyes Lane allotment site be allowed either, despite what the Village has been lead to believe in the past.

I note the fact that you think that 'the whole thing has been pretty poorly thought out at the minute' - and I am, of course, disappointed that you feel that way. I am hoping that, now that I have added a few further facts to ponder, you might perhaps concede that it is far from an easy ball of wool to unravel!!! Personally, I think we have done well given that the wool is in a proper 20 year old tangle!!!

If you hit on the perfect solution - please let us know! Jeremy, I say it all with respect. Thank you again for joining this debate. It was never going to be easy. Please don't think that we will rush into anything.

I am sorry you are unable to be at the Feedback Meeting. We will post/ publish all of the feedback. We will play it straight and hopefully cheer you up.
Jeremy Bygrave
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 at 3:56 pm
Thanks Mike for your in-depth response. It has cleared up quite a few issues, not least the more obvious solutions of Ryleys Lane / Heyes Lane being kiboshed by Cheshire East - (and I therefore rescind my comments of it being poorly thought out ;-) Is there no way this can be fought?

With regards to costing, I sympathise with your 'chicken and egg' position - what do you price up fully without getting feedback from residents first who in turn need more detailed costings to make valid decisions. However, I do think there should be a clearer indication of what the other work will be needed (even if it isn't costed) - gut feel suggests that the additional costs for CHL could more than the actual car park build fees to just accommodate the actual traffic.

All this aside, a car park on Chorley Hall Lane would cause chaos and significantly detract from the appeal of the village itself which leads me back to my very first post, do we really need to continue to expand the village by provision of another car park? The short term benefits are obvious but the long term damage would be much worse.

My business was based out of two offices in Alderley and when it got too big and parking became an issue we moved to Handforth. Very few of my staff spent money in the village, bringing in their own food and whilst Waitrose may miss out on a few sandwich sales each week from those who didn't, I think the village, side streets and roads are a much better place without the c15 cars we had.

Which brings me on to my final point, not one of my staff would have paid £5 a day to park. To a man, they would have just found alternative parking even if it was further away. So in my business of c30 people a car park no matter where it was would not have take one car off the road.

Can I ask anyone on here from the PC to answer the below - simple yes / no will do:

1) Has there been any location analysis of where people who park their cars come from and go to?
2) Has anyone done any research on what the people who need parking actually want?
3) Has there been any report in to the traffic flow changes caused by putting the car park on CHL?
4) Has anyone drawn up a list of likely additional work required to put parking on CHL, even if it has not been costed?
Duncan Herald
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 at 5:21 pm
Hi Jeremy,
just to add a little to your bit about C.E. kiboshing large scale parking on Heyes Lane.

A teeny bit of history: why history? Edmund Burhe wrote 'Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it'. If Burke ain't your bag, similar was written by Santayana & Churchill (and probably your milkman!).
Back in the day, when a large car park on Heyes Lane was the preferred choice, C.E. 'gave us to understand' that they would not prohibit it. Yes I know that 'gave us to understand' is not exactly worth the paper its not written on!

So there has been a change from 'all of the Heyes Lane site' to only a 'part of the Heyes Lane site'. I dare say that a similar variation has/will involve the C.H.Lane site.

It may be influenced by the exact wording of the question, who put the question and to whom the question was put; Officers, portfolio holder, C.E. cabinet, the 'Leader'.
No doubt change will continue and it will all 'come out in the wash'.
p.s. no point scoring intended.
Fiona Braybrooke
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 at 10:46 pm

What are you blithering on about re. Heyes Lane? Don't be cryptic; tell us.
Peter Watson
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 at 10:58 pm
If anyone has any idea what point Duncan Herald is trying to make would you be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us. How about sticking to the present and future.
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 3rd February 2016 at 10:22 am
Is my point so difficult to see?
C.E. used to say that a full size car park could go on the Heyes Lane site and now we are told that they say no. Who can say that they won't say yes again?
If there are a large number of A.E. residents preferring the large Heyes Lane site, then why not carry that message to C.E. ?
The past said it was possible so why shouldn't the future also say yes ?
Let the will of the people decide eh?
There you are; past, present and future all lined up! And no blethering.

Peter: perhaps you agree with Henry Ford that 'History is Bunk' ?
Peter Watson
Wednesday 3rd February 2016 at 2:25 pm
Thank you Duncan, that makes a lot more sense now.

However CEC never said that a car park could go ahead to the best of my knowledge. And certainly did not agree to vary their lease. In fact if you read the report of a CE cabinet meeting on 11th February 2015 you will see what their decision was.
So sadly your argument does not really stand up. If you have evidence to the contrary, rather than hear-say or speculation, please make it known.
Jon Williams
Wednesday 3rd February 2016 at 3:21 pm
So why do we have a plan for a "smaller car park" then ?
Tam Byrne
Wednesday 3rd February 2016 at 8:53 pm
Jeremy has made the best point in the 120+ so far.

The village doesn't need more parking. It's a village. The more you feed it to grow the more it will grow. Maybe it's just at capacity and there is nothing wrong with that. Parking a problem in Alderley? Don't park in Alderley. Keep the allotments (with the little bit of development to aid the Festival hall do you must) , keep the playing field. Keep the village a village. As a relatively new resident I moved here because of the appeal of the smallness of it. We have Handforth and Wilmslow around, ample parking there and transport into the village.

People are concened about more houses - Alderley Park or whatever it's called. Just make sure they have ample parking up there and good bus network.

If people can't park then tough. You will live. Do a few circles and you will find a spot. In the 3 years I've been here it's not been a problem I had really noticed. I only stuck my oar in when I heard about CHL idea.
Helen Gaughan
Thursday 4th February 2016 at 10:32 pm
Tam ... My husband and I both live in the village and have businesses in the village ... Davey Lane ( where we live ) has been experiencing a rise in the most atrocious , selfish and occasionally illegal parking on what is a very narrow lane . In terms of our businesses we have experienced downturn in trade specifically because customers have experienced problems finding places to park . This is a thriving 24 hour village with much to offer . For this to continue we have to offer what the customer/consumer of 2016 wants ... And that is easy access to what they want . Unfortunately educating the masses in the benefits of using public transport won't work .... This is a pipe dream ..... The customer/consumer of 2016 wants to park close to be where they want/need to be immediately , and will drive on elsewhere or ( worse still ) park atrociously/selfishly/illegally . Business owners ( In particular Individual Restaurant Company who have opened Piccolinos lately ) must take responsibility for adequate parking provision . Likewise all 3 village schools must take a tougher stance with parents who park without consideration for others , thus placing children in danger . Credit must be given to EVERYONE on the current PC , AND to the previous PC who are striving to find a COMPROMISE from which everyone will benefit , as such loss of green space can be kept to a minimum and the needs of businesses , employers/ees AND customers and visitors to OUR thriving 24 hour village can be met.
Tam Byrne
Friday 5th February 2016 at 8:36 am
So first off get more parking enforcers on the street to ticket or tow anyone parking illegally. Towing being more effective than ticketing.

That should help you on Davey lane and discourage people from causing problems.

Car parks don't necessarily equal less cars around the village parked badly, it more likely just means more cars coming to the village. The more you build the more come. I'm not buying that the high street needs more people to come in order to survive. It's the most thriving village in the north probably.
Alan Brough
Friday 5th February 2016 at 12:44 pm
Hi Tam,

I think your point on enforcement is well made.

Most evenings you will see cars parked illegally outside "Gusto" whilst there are plenty of parking bays available in South Street.

Do we really want to give up a Playing Field or Allotment in the knowledge that these lazy individuals will continue to flout the rules anyway?
Tam Byrne
Friday 5th February 2016 at 6:00 pm
Exactly Alan - tow the cars off with a £300 release fee and they won't do that again. A £30 or even £60 ticket isn't much discouragement around here.
Lesley Smith
Friday 5th February 2016 at 6:41 pm

I don't know about any evening its most days, also most days there are people parking on zig zags next to both crossings which is illegal and dangerous. Either they are lazy and disrespectful or they don't realise it is illegal to park on zig zags. I agree with you Tam.
Helen Gaughan
Friday 5th February 2016 at 9:57 pm
I agree Tam .... A £30 or £60 fixed penalty is nothing but pocket money to these people who park illegally/inconsiderately . These people need to be inconveniened , and towing would do that . Like I said a COMPROMISE is what's needed . I'm sure all interested parties have completed the parking survey , and I'm sure that the meeting on the 11th will convey people's thoughts/ideas/concerns .