Local residents were recently invited to have their say about proposals to make part of Chorley Hall Lane one-way and to create 18 new 24-hour parking spaces.
Having been contacted by several residents who raised concerns about the safety of the footpath over Chorley Hall Lane railway bridge, Councillor Craig Browne has been working with Cheshire East Highways to explore options for making it safer for pedestrians and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs.
They considered various options, including installing traffic lights or making structural alterations to the bridge but these options were not feasible due to the limited budget.
Therefore the proposal put forward is for a one-way system between Greenlands Walk and Carlisle Street, heading towards London Road.
This would enable the footpath over the bridge to be widened and create 18 new on-street parking spaces. The cost to implement this scheme is around £10,000.
Just under 100 residents replied to the survey, of which 82% agreed that the footpath across the bridge is dangerous and 61% agreed with a one-way system as a solution to the problem.
People's view over how long the limit should be on the new parking spaces was split, with 'no restrictions' being the most popular at 37%, followed by 'up to four hours' at 33%.
Councillor Craig Browne said "Whilst I am pleased with the outcome of the survey, I do acknowledge that 33% of respondents did not agree and will try to address their concerns in the final scheme."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
In my view the present proposals will not work and will potentially increase the danger to pedestrians using the footpath over the bridge.
I live locally to Chorley Hall Lane and I have done so for over 40 years. I use the footpath over the bridge frequently, sometimes 2 or 3 times a day in all weathers and at all times of day to walk to and from my allotment on Chorley Hall Lane.
I know from personal experience that too many drivers drive too fast over the bridge with little thought for the pedestrians using the footpath and that too many large 4by4s drive in the centre of the carriageway on the bridge forcing other oncoming drivers to pass too close to the footpath edge. In addition, too many HGVs use the bridge illegally as a short cut to avoid either the village centre or the traffic in Riley’s Lane. None of this is new, it has been happening for years.
Clearly the main issue here is pedestrian safety and any funds available, however limited they are, should be directed at this issue exclusively. However, the Parish Council has clearly decided to use some of the available funding to also address one of its other pet priorities, parking. In doing so it has, in my view, increased the risk to pedestrians.
The plans on Alderley Edge. com shows two red hatched areas on the footpath side of Chorley Hall Lane bridge as proposed new 24 hour parking bays. The plans do not make it clear how many parking spaces are proposed so I checked this with Craig Brown and he told me that there would be 6 spaces on the village side of the bridge directly opposite the houses numbered 23 to 29 Chorley Hall Lane and 14 spaces on the Ryley’s Lane side of the bridge opposite Greenlands Walk.
The problem here is that the pavement that is already too narrow, it is not wide enough for two pedestrians to pass each other and often forces pedestrians to step into the road to do this. This happens more frequently if children or push chairs or dogs on a lead are using the footpath and this is a regular occurrence as people use the bridge to take dogs and children to the football field and park.
Locating car parking spaces alongside the pavement and not widening the footpath will force pedestrians who need to pass each other to step into the road on the outside of the parked cars thus putting themselves at greater risk than is already the case.
I have spoken to Craig Brown about this and asked him why the Parish Council are not intending to widen the footpath but are intending to put pedestrians at greater risk by locating car parking spaces alongside the existing narrow footpath.
The answer he gave me is that it costs less to provide the car park spaces than it does to widen the footpath. I think this shows clearly which of the two issues, pedestrian safety or the car parking, the Parish Council thinks is the most important here.
I do not underestimate the risk to pedestrians on the bridge but in the 40 plus years I have used the footpath I have never known of any accident to any pedestrian using the footpath on the bridge.
In my opinion, if we can’t afford a properly funded and planned solution to protect pedestrians we would be better doing nothing until we can, rather than rushing to implement a badly planned, underfunded and potentially more dangerous scheme just because it includes a few extra parking spaces. Sorry if my comments are a bit late.
Unfortunately, much of what you have written above seems to be based on a misunderstanding of our recent, brief conversation outside Wienholts.
To begin with, the drawings show the length of the proposed parking areas (in metres). Based on the length of an average car, this equates to 14 spaces on the Ryleys Lane side of the bridge and 4 spaces on the London Road side.
The primary issue however, is pedestrian safety. What I actually said to you was that it is cheaper to close off part of the carriageway (thereby extending the pedestrian area) than it is to widen the footpath. That the scheme also allows additional parking to be created, is a bonus.
There will be no parking on the bridge itself (which would anyway be a violation of the Highway Code), but part of the carriageway will be closed off, using bollards, to make a safe area for pedestrians to cross the bridge, including those with wheelchairs, pushchairs etc.
Currently, it is impossible for anyone with a wheelchair, pushchair or mobility scooter to cross the bridge without having at least two wheels on the road surface. The proposals will address this situation and at a low cost.
I agree that traffic lights may appear a preferable alternative, but at a time when I am pressing CEC to spend money on a car park, zebra crossing, roundabout, park improvements, plus several other smaller schemes, that alternative simply isn't feasible.
We can look at other improvements, e.g. traffic calming, going forwards, but the current scheme, if it goes ahead, will be funded through S106 monies which have a very clearly defined purpose. I hope this helps to clear up some of the points we discussed, as well as any misunderstanding.
Kind regards,
Craig
The narrow pavement is not great, I've pushed a buggy and walked over it a fair deal the last 10 years. That said, to implement a low cost solution that appears to address the phantom of village parking as much as anything else is not the right approach. If you want to see a local example of uncertainty lowering car speeds then have a look at Poynton. I second Marc, the one way system will only encourage drivers to speed thus endangering pedestrians.
We do seem to be addressing issues raised by outspoken minorities. With that in mind:
Where have all the trees gone that used to line London Road? Even in my relatively short tenure in the village we seem to have lost a couple. Someone suggested a few years back that the gaps be filled with some poplars using bypass / jubilee money - I think it would look lovely.
Have you consulted all the resident of the Lakes and Eaton Drive estate?
With all the parked cars, school drop off and collection. You are putting school children at higher risks.
Mr Browne, I'm sorry to remind you that being the councillor for Alderley Edge is full of nailbiting challenges.