Car park extension would add 35 spaces


Cheshire East Parking have finally completed their assessment of a possible extension to the Ryleys Lane car park which currently provides 39 parking spaces.

It is estimated that 1,200 sq.m of parkland would be required between the existing car park and Wilmslow Road to accommodate an additional 35 parking spaces. The cost estimate for this scheme would be c. £150,000 plus VAT, including:

- CAT scan of the site, to identify any underground services (£600)
- Clearing the site of small trees, hedgerow and vegetation (£4,000)
- Removal of mature trees, roots and stumps (£2,000)
- Base materials to form new level (£19,200)
- Kerb edgings approximately 100m (£1,200)
- Semi-permeable tarmacadam including sub-base (£100,000)
- Surface water drainage works (£14,000)
- Lighting, service trenches and cabling (£6,000)
- Line bay markings (£1,500)
- Signage (£600)

Councillor Craig Browne said "The Parish Council remain open to the possibility of a joint venture with CEC to enable the scheme to go ahead; however, any change of use to the parkland (public open space) would be contrary to Cheshire East (and National) Planning Policy unless alternative and improved public open space can be identified elsewhere. A possible extension to the Beech Road Play Area would satisfy this."

Negotiations and discussions with Cheshire East Council will continue.

Parking , Parking, Ryleys Lane Car Park


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

Fiona Doorbar
Monday 3rd July 2017 at 5:07 pm
An extension to the Beech Road site to accommodate parking would be good as there's no parking provision at this site (as pointed out by residents when I suggested this area for a skateboarding amenity)
Maybe this is the perfect solution. Extra parking and turn the unused Beech Rd park into a skatepark for our teenage population.
Roger Birch
Monday 3rd July 2017 at 8:40 pm
Surely any extension to the Beech Road play area involves intrusion into the green belt. Doesn't this also need approval?
Jon Williams
Monday 3rd July 2017 at 9:09 pm
"A possible extension to the Beech Road Play Area would satisfy this"
This does not mean a car park, it say's play area ! it doe's not need a car park as we walk to it
Fiona Doorbar
Tuesday 4th July 2017 at 7:04 am
The play area that's there isn't really used very much and as mentioned above, those that do use it walk to it. There has been considerable money spent on the main Alderley play area for under 10's this year, no more funds should be allocated to play equipment. What is needed is something for our teens.
Jon , you have underlined my argument (in a previous article)that a skatepark on the Beech Road area does not need parking (because if the people who use it now walk then teenagers definitely will!)
My comment above was merely added yesterday to prove the point that it is the idea of providing an amenity for teenagers to use that is the problem. Parking used as an excuse to reject the notion yet again.
Roger Birch
Tuesday 4th July 2017 at 9:49 am
Why are Craig and yourself even raising the issue of the Beech Road playground when the topic is the Ryleys Lane car park?
However, it would help if your views were clarified. In the first post, you state "An extension to the Beech Road site to accommodate parking would be good" - and then turn round and state in the second that "parking used as an excuse to reject the notion yet again"!
I could also take issue with your comment about the playground being 'unused' - but the issue is parking.
Surely a more relevant issue in relation to parking is how 48 parking spaces were removed just over 12 months ago from the area alongside the Beech Road playground to provide 6 houses (with extra cars) - and now the PC want to bring even more traffic onto roads simply not designed to take it.
Craig Browne
Tuesday 4th July 2017 at 12:10 pm
Hi Roger,

Thank you for your queries. The Ryleys Lane Car Park cannot be extended without taking away recreational open space (i.e. parkland). Planning policy only permits this where recreational open space of a similar scale can be created or improved elsewhere; hence the suggestion that extending the Beech Road Play Area would be one way of satisfying this requirement.

I have checked the planning history and the demolition of 32 garages on the land north of Beech Road was approved under delegated authority (i.e. it was not "called in" by my predecessor) on 18th July 2014. As this was approximately 10 months before my election as Ward Councillor, it is not really my place to comment; however, the officer's report is still available and you can read it by following this link:
Kind regards,
Duncan Herald
Tuesday 4th July 2017 at 1:59 pm
The Ryleys Lane parking extention is a fine idea, (imho) that has been floating around for several years.

Questionable as to whether the land which would be built on is actually used as parkland ?
A simple change of definition ?

The proposed costings seem rather high; are there any experts out there to 'rule' on that?

What provision would be made, to 'protect' the footy area?

Mention is made of 'under 10's, and of 'children' and of 'teens'. Am I the only one that bangs on about the need for facilities for the over-60's ? It seems to be crown green bowls or nothing?
Donald Strathdee
Tuesday 4th July 2017 at 5:32 pm
There is no provision in the costing for ticket machine(s).
There needs to be spaces allocated for short term parking, without them the spaces will be filled all day by rail users commuting into Manchester and the village shops will not benefit
Roger Birch
Tuesday 4th July 2017 at 5:52 pm
Hi Craig
My comments about the removal of the garages was not intended to be a comment about the existing PC - merely pointing out the fact that they have gone and hence all the cars that were there must now be garaged elsewhere - mainly, I suspect, on the old Council estate judging by the numbers of cars now parked on the road.

Furthermore, surely the Beech Road playground is also 'parkland' - so why is taking this any different - especially when it's further away from the Station and the village - unless, as I said, your use of the word "extension" means taking away green belt.

However, regardless of whether your suggestion is to take parkland or, even worse, parkland AND 1200 sq m of green belt for a car park (the existing parkland would be reduced because of the need for a road to go through it and create risks for children then using the existing facilities), it still comes back to my comment that to put an 'alternative' to 35 extra spots in the Ryleys Lane car park onto the Beech Road playground would create even further problems on the roads on the estate.
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 5th July 2017 at 9:40 am
Hi Roger,

not to mention that a car park at Beech Road, would be of little or no use to the village traders? Or to village employees?

Hi Craig,

35 new spaces: is that a net gain or must we subtract any from 35 re. such as alterattions to the existing R's lane car park?

£150,000. Would that cost be met by C.E. or would the Parish i.e. us, have to pay?
£150,000. That's about £4,280 per parking spot. Is that usual?
If C.E. are paying, then bang on folks. If its the Parish, then ???

What is the current 'state of play' re. putting parking on Chorley Hall Lane playing field or on Heyes Lane allotments; which are policies you considered from time to time in the recent past?

Hi Fiona,

if a skateboarding area ever looks like happening at Beech Road, do you envisage C.E. paying for it? Or the P.C.?
Stewart Dyer
Wednesday 5th July 2017 at 10:10 am
There is clearly some confusion here. Apologies if I have got this wrong. I don't get how "A possible extension to the Beech Road play area" could be interpreted as a car park. I assume, correct me if I am wrong, that this would create additional play area at Beech Road to replace the area on a Ryleys Lane which would become car parking.
Fiona Doorbar
Wednesday 5th July 2017 at 11:58 am
Hi Duncan, Who funded the new play equipment in the park? How was Handforth skatepark funded?
How would your suggested improvement for older residents be paid for?
I don't know the answers sorry.
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 5th July 2017 at 2:44 pm
Hi Fiona,
when I was a 'PC person', money for the errection of children's equipment was ontained by getting C.E. to cough up section 106 money and money for improving park planting etc. came from my saying please to the helpful C.E. Officers.

Keep-Fit equipment for 'mature people' would I'd assume come from C.E.
If C.E. can fork out for children, teens, adults, then I do not see how 'Oldies' can be left out of the equation? Wouldn't you agree?

In your attempts to get a skateboard facility, have you not had 'advice' from the A.E's. C.E. Councillor? or the P.C.? Or the CE. Officers. That's partly what they are there for surely?
Craig Browne
Wednesday 5th July 2017 at 3:38 pm
Dear all,

Stewart is correct and it would appear that some people have got a little confused about this. There has never been any intention to provide parking at or on the Beech Road Play Area, only the suggestion that extending this play area could potentially compensate for the loss of recreational open space necessitated by extending the Ryleys Lane Car Park.

Duncan, my understanding is that none of the existing 39 spaces at Ryleys Lane would need to be lost in order to facilitate this work. As the article above states, the Parish Council remains open to the possibility of a Joint Venture in the event that Cheshire East does not wish to fund the project in its entirety; however, discussions on that theme are ongoing.

The cost estimate per space (carried out by Cheshire East Parking) is in line with that carried out previously by ARCUS Consulting when Chorley Hall Lane was under consideration; it is also considerably less than the cost estimate (again carried out by ARCUS) for Heyes Lane, which came in at c. £6,000 per space, although that is perhaps not surprising as it would involve installing a culvert to deal with the stream that runs across the allotments.

Finally, Fiona, the improvements to the children's play area in the park were funded by the S106 agreement raised on the Oak Park development (in lieu of the recreational open space taken away in the form of the former bowling green). There are S106 agreements in place that were raised on other developments and I am currently trying to access the funds from some of these to enable further improvements to take place.

Kind regards,
Kelvin Briggs
Wednesday 5th July 2017 at 4:30 pm
So much time and effort from so many evident to create incremental parking spaces in the park. Let's s do it!
No doubt the Parish Council and Allotment Society are continuing their 2 year plus dialogue . Looking forward to them working together to create Parking spaces and a great public area on Heyes Lane allotment site. Tired of hearing about the barriers to achieving the project, keen to another improvement to support the Festival Hall stage events and shoppers have an alternative car park when visiting the village.
David Hadfield
Wednesday 5th July 2017 at 5:12 pm
Well said Kelvin (above)
I think this Car Parking fiasco is just going round in circles.
This Parish Council were elected to sort the mess out but all they're doing is procrastinating, as usual.
The Heyes Lane Allotments is the one and only sensible choice !!!
(but, oh no, let's have another survey, another discussion, another meeting) !
Fiona Doorbar
Wednesday 5th July 2017 at 5:13 pm
Great news Duncan , The Carrs park now has the outdoor equipment (I think you were in favour of in a previous article)
installed and free to use. You were right C.E jointly funded this project. Thanks for your reply.
I recently visited a park in North Wales about the same size as Beech Road and it had a skatepark and outdoor gym. That would be great eh!
Alan Brough
Thursday 6th July 2017 at 9:38 pm
I think people need to take a step back, a deep breath and have a considered think about what is happening in Alderley Edge viz parking.

It is clear from the way in which on-road parking is extending along Ryleys Lane, Brook Lane, Macclesfield Road, Congleton Road, Heyes lane, Mottram Road and others that, no matter how much green space we sacrifice to provide car parks (anyone hear the ghost of Joni Mitchell?) we will never satisfy the avaricious appetite of the deadly Parkingasaurus.

Walk, use public transport, get on your anything but DONT concrete over green spaces - it's hard enough keeping it out of the clutches of Planning Departments and Developers without falling for the "Need more Parking" stupidity.
Geoff Hall
Friday 7th July 2017 at 7:25 pm
I note that a number of residents continue to argue that the previous plan to create a 140 space car park on the Heyes Lane allotments is still the best option for solving the village's parking problems quickly.

Sadly it is not.

The PC has by law to find an alternative site for any displaced allotments.

The previous PC proposed a new allotment site on Lydiat Lane. The Lydiat Lane site belongs to Alderley Edge School for Girls, and would only have become available if a land deal between AESG and Cheshire East Council had been completed. Those negotiations came to nothing, so the Lydiat Lane site is no longer available. (There were also legal access problems to the Lydiat Lane site which were never addressed.)

At the present time neither Lydiat Lane, nor any alternative site, is available.

It is also worth pointing out that the previous claim that the 140 space car park could be built for £280,000 was never substantiated. An independent assessment carried out by Arcus (the consulting engineers who project managed the building of the Medical Centre ), on the instructions of the present PC, concluded that the cost would be in excess of £600,000, and possibly as high as £800,000, due to the drainage problems on the Heyes Lane site.

In order to avoid being dependent on any one site the present PC has targeted a number of possible solutions - including creating more on street car parking - and of course the extension of the Ryleys Lane car park, previously ruled out as an option.

It would of course be great if we all gave up using cars, and maybe the day will come quite soon when we no longer do, but for the moment....
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 12th July 2017 at 10:01 am
We seem to mention the 'stream' that runs through the Heyes Lane allotments.
It occured to me that I've never seen it; I wonder how many others are in the same position. So this a.m. I went to the site to have a look.
Remember (see above) that 'drainage problems' might be at a cost of up to £200,000.

There appears to be a fairly small ditch in which is some mud and a little standing water (I'm
willing to be told that there might be actual running water at other times of the year).

Since there are at least 3 standpipes in the allotments, there perhaps isn't any year round supply of water from the ditch/stream?

This ditch seems to run parallel to Heyes Lane, about 20 feet in from the lane. So it presumably also runs under the houses at either side of the allotments.
If so, did that cost circa £200,000?

If 'covering' or diverting this ditch/stream is the only drainage problem at the allotments, up to £200,000 seems a tad expensive a cost? If a car park is build on Heyes lane, perhaps the stream could be incorporated as a 'water feature'?
If there are other drainage problems, may we please have them described to us?

Perhaps the 'Arcus' report could be put into the public domain? I assume the Parish Council paid for the report i.e. the citizens of Alderley Edge paid for it and so I can't see why we might not be allowed to see it. Perhaps a few copies could be run off and made available?

I believe that Fleet St. in London is built over the River Fleet; if London can build over a river, Alderley Edge can surely build over a ditch/stream?

To me. politics is the art of the possible and not the art of reasons for not doing something !
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 12th July 2017 at 12:38 pm
Hi Geoff,

you write above that the Lydiat Lane site is 'no longer available'. Certainly the breakdown of negotiations re. C.E. seems final BUT what is likely to be the fate of the Lydiat Lane/AESC 'field'?

Have there been any discusion between either C.E. or the P.C. with the school, about possible use?

As far as I can tell, the school has little or no use for the 'field'.

Might it best suit the school to simply wait until the land eventually goes to Planning for house building?
Or might the school be interested in offering a lease, for use as a allotment site? Say for arguements' sake, a 25 or 50 year lease? Which would free up Heyes Lane for a car park. Not to mention that the Lydiat Lane site is actually larger than the Heyes Lane site?

As my dear old granny used to say, 'if you don't ask, you don't get'!

Can you inform us as to whether there have been talks or whether there might be talks or whether the P.C. is perhaps mulling over any possibility?

By the way, as I strolled around the Heyes Lane site today, I was mildly offended by the sign stating 'allotment users only'. I thought that the site was owned by C.E. i.e. by the citizens of C.E. Has some bye-law been passed keeping a peasant like me away?
Fenton Simpson
Monday 17th July 2017 at 5:09 pm
Hi Duncan,

You shouldn't feel offended as it wasnt meant for you, if so I would have put your name on it! I’m joking of course!

We have had some unfortunately increasing unpleasant incidents on all 3 allotment sites in the last few months:

Beech close- fly tipping at the bottom on the site and green waste being dumped over the site boundary dogs on the loose and fowling.

Heyes Lane- members of public using the site as toilet, in broad daylight!

Chorley hall lane- dog fouling and abusive language from the public walking through the site. (there is no public right of way through any of the 3 sites)

Daytime theft of tenants property(mobile phone).

Night time visitors at 130am (they were caught on camera). Shed windows being broken, green house glass being smashed and dumping of green waste.

So we have had to take extra measures to protect our tenants and their personal property. We have also engaged with the Police to have some extra patrols and try to sort out Two other issues:

Large groups of teenagers smoking cannabis in the Chorley Hall Lane playing fields on Friday evenings and leaving the field a mess with litter.

Similar activities in the park band stand/table tennis area and Network Rail lay bye.

The allotment Society welcomes visitors who are friendly and interested in growing or simply want to take a turn in the sunshine but we have to reserve the right to restrict access some when a small number of people, children/teenagers and adults spoil it for the majority. I walking through HL on Sunday and spotted a visitor taking photos of flowers, I certainly wasn't going to ask her to leave.

In the 10 years I've been on the Chorley Hall Lane we have been very lucky compared to other allotments within CE. The old Cheshire east and MBC signs are still up which say "no public access and no dogs"(apart from HL).

The majority of allotment sites across the country are locked all the times to prevent mass theft of gardening equipment, even when tenants are attending their allotments.

With regards to the stream on Heyes Lane, it runs around the back of the old bowling green through the allotment but disappears underground half way and I believe it then goes underneath the large house nearest the main gate. It is usually a foot deep with water with various water loving plants, frogs and insects present.

It also help to drain the allotment site when its wet but it could do with a good dredge this year. Both sides of the site point down towards this stream. If you look at to topography of the vilage it could be the lowest point. This would be why it would cost £600k to £800k to turn the whole site into a car park, it really isn’t that easy.

I hope that helps to explain the signs and stream situation.


Duncan Herald
Tuesday 18th July 2017 at 1:50 pm
Hi Fenton,

thank you for your response.
Would you know whether there is any chance of my (and others perhaps interested) getting a lok at the Arcus report?

Hi Geoff,

if you happen to read this, may I ask the same question i.e. can the public (me) have a look at the Arcus report please?
Craig Browne
Tuesday 18th July 2017 at 5:11 pm
Hi Duncan,

The report was presented at the community consultation event held at the Methodist Church, early in 2016; however, if you missed that, it was also published on this website shortly afterwards ( You can also find a copy on the Parish Council website using the following link:
Kind regards,
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 19th July 2017 at 1:38 pm
Hi Craig,
thank you for your prompt response.

I followed the link re. 'Arcus' report.
I am unclear however as the report's figures seem to be suggesting a total cost of just over £173,000.00 of which the only mention of drainage is a figure of about £18,000.00.

Where do I go, to find the £600,000.00 - £800,000.00 figures?
Geoff Hall
Wednesday 19th July 2017 at 5:32 pm

You just go on the AEPC website, click on Council, then on Car Park Review.

You can then see all the car park costings which the Parish Council made public in January 2016, including the one for 142 spaces.
Duncan Herald
Wednesday 19th July 2017 at 9:53 pm
And it says £173k in all including about £18k for drainage.

Where is the £6000k - £1800k ?
Craig Browne
Wednesday 19th July 2017 at 10:48 pm
Hi Duncan,

As Geoff has pointed out, the Arcus cost estimate for a 142 space car park at Heyes Lane can be found on the Parish Council website, but for ease here is the direct link:
Kind regards,
Mike Dudley-Jones
Wednesday 19th July 2017 at 10:53 pm
Order of Cost Estimate Heyes Lane Car Park (142 nr spaces)
Mike Dudley-Jones
Thursday 20th July 2017 at 5:32 am

After finding the information you needed I wrote it out in my comment reply and then sent it - without any other words.
Just a one line response must have seemed somewhat abrupt but it was not my intention to be so.
I hope you have found the information you seek now.
Jon Williams
Thursday 20th July 2017 at 7:11 am
£150000 plus vat
I would have liked to have seen some "best value" bids for the work, after all, it is OUR money
Geoff Hall
Thursday 20th July 2017 at 10:26 am
This was a costing exercise, not an invitation to tender. Clearly, if we were going out to tender, then we would first secure multiple bids.

We asked Arcus to use their expertise to assess the cost of all the different car park options. There is no evidence that this had ever been done before.

I think most people in the village have long since grasped this. The information was, after all, published in the Parish Council newsletter in December 2015, presented at two public meetings in early 2016; it was publicised on at that time and has been freely available on the Parish Council website since January 2016.

So, it is very hard to understand how any of this can come as news to anyone who has a serious interest in village matters.
Duncan Herald
Thursday 20th July 2017 at 5:14 pm
I lack understanding of one thing, which is where have you got the figures of £600,000 to £800,000 to build a car park in Heyes Lane, when the 'Arcus' report gives a figure of only £173,000 ?

If I'm missing something, please point that out to me BUT so far the three different people who have replied to me above have not explained/answered my question.

The question is very simple and surely can be answered by "anyone who has a serious interest in village matters" ?
Craig Browne
Thursday 20th July 2017 at 6:28 pm
Hi Duncan,

If you go to the Car Park Review section of the Parish Council website, you will see that there are several cost estimates listed, all of which were prepared by Arcus. For ease, you can find them by following this link:

The last report listed relates to a possible 142 space car park, with an estimated cost of either £645,966 (traditional tarmac) or £801,986 (semi permeable). If you still have difficulty finding it, please drop me an email and I will attach the document by return.

Kind regards,
Duncan Herald
Friday 21st July 2017 at 10:02 am
Good Morning Craig,
as ever thanks for your response.

I went to the link; it contains 4 different costings:
three are dated Nov. '15 showing costings of £222k, £173k, £645k & one is dated Jan. '16 showing £801k.
A tad confusing ?

Given 142 spaces claimed, the cost per parking space would be between £1230 and £5600.

To save me (and perchance others) wading through all the figures, can you perhaps outline what caused the great increases (£173k to £222k to £645k to £801k) ?


Craig Browne
Friday 21st July 2017 at 11:27 am
Hi Duncan,

It is very simple really: the first two figures relate to a car park of 44 spaces (£173,333 being for traditional tarmac, £222,205 being for semi-permeable); the latter two figures relate to a car park of 142 spaces for comparison (again, £645,966 for traditional tarmac, £801,986 for semi-permeable).

This is apparent from the gross surface area at the top of each cost estimate: 1,534 sq.m in the case of the former and 5,550 sq.m in the case of the latter (which is also described as "cost estimate Heyes Lane Car Park (142 nr. spaces)".

I should perhaps add that we also asked (CE Highways contractor) Ringway Jacobs to provide cost estimates for the same two projects, but they were unable to beat the estimate provided by Arcus.

Kind regards,
Alan Brough
Friday 21st July 2017 at 3:13 pm
Hi Duncan,

Now that you have been "walked through" the professional costings of the various schemes
outlined for Heyes Lane, perhaps you could explain to us the figure of "No more than £300k" that you quoted widely during your time on the PC for the provision of a 145 space car park at Heyes Lane.

Please don't think that my question is (in any way) mischievous, I'm just anxious to ensure that, given the huge disparity between your figure and the professional one, the pro's have not missed a trick.
Michael Taylorson
Friday 21st July 2017 at 6:59 pm
Hi Alan,
I am shocked at your inaccuracy , the actual figure quoted in the election broadsheet was £280,000 ! Coming in at at £2000 per space . I would like to see , in the spirit of openness and accountability the costings and estimates that confirm this figure .
Alan Brough
Friday 21st July 2017 at 11:11 pm

You must forgive my confusion over the figures.

There were lots of numbers bandied about back then, and I suppose that they differed only depending on which fag packet they were written on the back of.

I feel sure that Duncan, being a man with a quizzical desire for the absolute truth, will be able to elucidate.
Steve Scholes
Saturday 22nd July 2017 at 7:49 am
The judges were particularly impressed with the Chorley Hall Lane allotments and commented on the real sense of community there. We are delighted that the allotments are to be given a separate award this year.

After the Britain in Bloom team made the above statement i think Duncan is busy demanding a recount
Duncan Herald
Saturday 22nd July 2017 at 9:42 am
Hi Steve,
I am misunderstood! Twas ever thus !

Allotments are a good idea; though I freely confess that I have no desire to become a 'horny handed son of the soil'. But just because I 'don't get it' doesn't alter the validity of allotments by one iota.

What I see as the 'problem' is that many (most?) local people and traders want a large car park. If it were possible to get a large car park and not need to build on allotments, that would get my vote every time. But where in the village can such be obtained?

I repeat that traders state clearly that the lack of parking is what contributes to a reduction in footfall.
If you have an idea as to how all the circles can be squared, then please describe it.

Back when I was a P.C., the nice folk on C.H.Lane allotments would offer me huge and tasty blackberries as well as an apple, when I talked with them. I'd like a re-count on that, before I come down with scurvy !

As for the 'Britain In Bloom' stuff: credit to the folk who put in a lot of hard work. I hope they can find the time to keep going at it.
Duncan Herald
Saturday 22nd July 2017 at 12:43 pm
Hi Alan,

allways good to hear from you, in your cheeky-chappie persona.

I think you may have slightly missed my point: the actual costs are not exactly what bugs me; its that I have to ask and ask to get the info.
If it had been me and a question on the costings had come in, I think I would have tried to give the full info up front.
Thus revealing that there were 4 different costings and why they were different and how many places were suggested for each costing etc. etc. One question and one answer eh? Seemples !
Craig's entry of July 21st does just that, in two short paragraphs (not sure about 'apparent' )

As to former costing:
1. Try searching the P.C. back records in case its in there
2. We were given a figure, back in the day, by the former Finance Chair
3. Was the type of car park described back then the same as the present? so one can
compare like with like?
4. History is interesting BUT today is more interesting ?

Do you have a clear idea as to what the latest large car park intention/s may be?
Alan Brough
Saturday 22nd July 2017 at 2:30 pm
Hi Duncan,

The fact is that all the information you asked for was readily available on the PC website and has been the subject of previous discussion on this forum - including the difference between the four options that have been priced. In short, the cost of a 145 space car park is either £645k or £801k depending on the type of surface. This differs wildly with the "no more than £300k" figure that you are on record as having quoted to the people of Alderley Edge via this forum - interesting that instead of telling us where that figure came from you send me away to search the archives.

On the point that you made in response to Steves post - is it not the case that land could be available adjacent to the railway station? M&S wish to build there but shouldn't CE Council refuse development of anything other than
the (supposedly) much needed car park.
Duncan Herald
Saturday 22nd July 2017 at 5:39 pm
Hallo Alan,
you chide me for sending you to 'search the archives' but isn't that what you have advsed me to do?

I still maintain that a swift and full answer to my first inquiry would have saved us all much time? Why shouldn't the elected chaps/chapesses answer a question directly; I have a dog but I don't bark myself ! (actually that sounds rather harsher that it was meant to).

As for land by the rail station and what might happen to it; is that not something that (alas) the 'big boys & girls' will decide ?
Michael Taylorson
Saturday 22nd July 2017 at 8:25 pm
How pathetic is this response, you and your daughter signed up to this apology . I am certain that there will be NO recourse to this. Please provide definitive costings to the car parking fiasco provided by the previous administration , You have provided nothing ,
Duncan Herald
Sunday 23rd July 2017 at 3:16 pm
M. Taylorson.
1. At no time did my daughter serve as a Parish Councillor and so has no responsibility for any costings then or now.
So perhaps you would care to apologise to her; or do lttle words like 'Fact' and 'Truth' not trouble you.

2. On the subject of you, perhaps you'd care to tell us of how you increased the parking for the general public?

3. Exactly what car parking fiasco were the previous Parish Council involved in? Had the general public chosen to re-elect the previous Parish Councillors, there may well have been a new/large car park in existance by now.

4. When asked earlier from where I got my parking places figure from, I replied very simply 'from the previous Chair of Finance'. I had no reason to doubt his word. Just as I have never suggested in any way that I dis-believe any member of the present Parish Council. I may disagree with some of their views but I have never doubted their intended veracity.

If you cannot apologise to my daughter, do not trouble to communicate with me again as I shall not respond.
Paul Wadsworth
Sunday 23rd July 2017 at 4:48 pm
You could tarmac the whole of Alderley for that.
Sue Joseph
Sunday 23rd July 2017 at 5:17 pm
Mr Taylorson.
What a bad tempered poorly written comment including a totally uncalled for and inaccurate comment regarding Duncan's daughter who was never part of the previous PC nor had any part in any of it's plans. I think an apology is due to her from yourself.
Craig Browne
Sunday 23rd July 2017 at 9:00 pm
Hi Sue,

I hope you will forgive my interjection.

I believe Mike Taylorson was referring to a leaflet put out during the last election campaign, which claimed that it was possible to deliver a 140 space car park on Heyes Lane Allotments for the cost of £280,000. The leaflet featured all nine Conservative Party candidates on the reverse; whilst not all of them were Councillors at that time, they presumably endorsed the claim.

The independent cost estimates we have received (and published), suggest that the figure of £280,000 is a gross under-estimate and we have been able to find no evidence to verify its accuracy. It appears from his response, that Duncan chose to simply believe what he was told by a colleague, rather than exercising independent analytical thought.

Personally, I wish we could all move on from reprising the same arguments. We are a relatively small community of c. 4,000 residents and therefore too small to be polarised over such issues. In order to overcome such polarisation of our village, the current PC has suggested a compromise which although not perfect, would enable us to move forward.

Things would be achieved much more quickly if everyone stopped trying to point-score and came together in support of that compromise.

Best wishes,
Alan Brough
Sunday 23rd July 2017 at 9:49 pm

I'm not sure that you're quite right.

Mike appears to be expressing some anger and frustration at the fact that the previous PC, of which Duncan and yourself were part, had misled the people of Alderley Edge in regard to the costing of their preferred option for a car park in the village.

Elly Herald was a Conservative candidate who made it quite clear that she supported the proposals for Heyes Lane .

We now see that the previous PCs costongs were (at best) wildly inaccurate and misleading and therefore I think Mike ( and others) are entitled to express anger at something that could have cost the taxpayer several hundred thousand pounds more than they were led to believe.

I think that that sort of scrutiny is a good think. Don't you agree?
Kirsteen Peel
Monday 24th July 2017 at 12:11 pm
Well said Craig. I don't suppose I'm the only one who is heartily sick of the snide little digs and backbiting from certain elements...
Duncan Herald
Monday 24th July 2017 at 12:34 pm
Hi Alan,

If we accept that all candidates for political office (yes I accept that Parish Councils are not exactly fully political) accept responsibility for what went before, the House of Commons would be a much quieter place? Given that a lot of new M.Ps, of both major parties, are clearly not accepting that which went before? So wh expect a P.C. to be any different?

You'll doubtless recall that the 9 Conservative candidates at the last P.C. election included new candidates and so who knows what might have changed re. car park funding?

Hi Craig,

Will you accept that the main proposal of the previous P.C. re. car parking was to build a car park at Heyes Lane and that costing may well have had to be upped?
I believe that had the voters re-elected the Conservatives, the building of a car park would have gone ahead. That however is in the world of 'might have'.
Is this costings business, whilst of interest itself, secondary as to whether or not a car park will be built and where?

You seem to suggest that I was wrong to accept the word of a colleague; who happened to be both the Chairman of the Finance Committee and a qualified accountant, instead of 'exercising independent analytical thought.
Have you not chosen to accept the several costings from your own chosen expert? Did you apply independent analytical thought to their figures? or just accept them?

I am happy to concur with your wish to move forward. I suspect that the detailed nit-picking of politic-freaks (including me) is boring to most readers!
Since we are now down to the 'he said', 'no he didn't', I'm content to move on.

May I ask that some time soon, you might outline what you see as latest details of the compromise solution, on this platform,
Verity Williams
Tuesday 25th July 2017 at 12:42 am
I'm with Alan Brough here. The very nature of popularity means demand outweighs supply. As with all other popular places, while AE remains a popular village no amount of parking can be sufficient. Besides, the high street is a 5 minute walk, or 0.3 miles, from top to bottom. There are at least 4 public car parks, plus on street parking, in that stretch. That is without considering the on street parking on the residential roads of the village, all within 5 - 10 minute walks.

Though certain types of proposed parking raise another question - are residents happy for the village of AE to become a town? A multi-story car park, or fields of tarmac, hardly feel appropriate for a village of c. 4,000 residents. Nor would they be attractive. The appeal of AE lies in part in its small and pretty feel. While no one wants to stand in the way of evolution or progress, it is important that any developments to the village add to what makes AE appealing in the first place. I'd argue fields of tarmac, let alone multi-story car parks, detract from that appeal.

It feels there must be alternatives to developing more car parks in the village, such as a park and ride scheme.

Perhaps a campaign to encourage more walking / cycling / use of public transport would be money better spent. It would certainly be better for health and the environment.

Alternatively, the town of Alnwick in Northumberland could hold another parking solution to help turnover. All parking is free but drivers must display a parking disc marking their arrival time when parked in any parking bay in the town. The disc is available to buy for £1 throughout the town. This disk makes it clear to wardens how long a car has been parked and when their limited time is up.

If offices need full day parking for their staff, that's something they could take up with their landlords, as all other businesses tend to do. Work parking spaces are not a public right, but an additional cost consideration for businesses as part of their rent.
Vin Sumner
Thursday 27th July 2017 at 12:31 am
Given even the government late adoption of idea of electric only cars , the village should plan for a different future .. lets get rid of cars and pollution and make it a great place to live . Come on councils think to future not tomorrow
Geoff Hall
Thursday 27th July 2017 at 1:14 pm
Vin, you can't just leave it to the "councils". If you have insights into the future (and I can well imagine you do) please get involved with the group of residents who are working on the Neighbourhood Plan. The group needs your active support - and that of other members of the community.
Best wishes
Vin Sumner
Thursday 27th July 2017 at 8:39 pm
Geoff , you are right I should, but at moment time precludes and its hard to make regular commitment. Having said that, I would be happy to contribute help to enable the group to visualise the future as we are doing with Manchester and other cities, with a view to real relevant consultation of residents about what plans really mean for them from traffic to noise to light ..... If there is any exiting 3D model or LIDAR scan of the village ... that would be a useful start.
George Marshall
Sunday 30th July 2017 at 8:35 pm
Why are AE residents so obsessed with parking? It's a small village. If you live here, walk. We should start a "parking enthusiast society" it wouldn't be short of members... ;)
Sue Joseph
Tuesday 1st August 2017 at 6:16 pm
Many of us who live in the Alderley Edge area would love to walk to the village or use public transport but are unable to do so through disability. There were two disabled parking spaces at the side of the Library which were removed (very sensibly due to parking on both sides of the street) but this led to the loss of one of the spaces when the road was remarked. It is very difficult to park in the village if one is disabled without causing obstruction by parking on double yellow lines (which is legally permitted) As far as I am aware there are only the three spaces at Waitrose and the one previously mentioned in the village itself which are not adequate.