Updated: Alderley Road remains closed as flooding delays investigation (since reopened)

657c562be9dd6fe13e9174c542fc97b8

As many drivers will have noticed, Alderley Road remains closed as Cheshire East Highways have not managed to carry out a drainage investigation which was scheduled for Saturday 22nd and Sunday 23rd February.

One of the main roads into the town was closed at the weekend to enable Cheshire East Council to investigate the flooding issue on Alderley Road, which occurs each time there is heavy rain.

However, the section of Alderley Road from the Harden Park Roundabout to Fulshaw Park South was flooded again at the weekend, for the 13th time since last July.

A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council said "The roadworks have been delayed by heavy rainfall causing flooding on the road.

"The investigation work has therefore been postponed until the flooding has subsided."

Speaking about the volume of traffic diverting down Fulshaw Park at the weekend, a spokesperson for Cheshire East Council added "The official diversion doesn't divert traffic along Fulshaw Park. The official diversion is – A34 Pendleton Way/ Birrell Way, onto the A538 then diverting back on to Alderley Road.

"What we suspect has happened is that road users have tried to find alternative routes avoiding the official diversion."

Although the photo above of the signage taken on Sunday would seem to suggest the diversion is via Fulshaw, which would explain why lots of cars were turning up there.

Drivers are advised to avoid the A34 Wilmslow Bypass in the morning rush hour if possible, as it as been very busy the past two morning. It took me 20 minutes to travel from the Harden Park Roundabout to Wilmslow High School on Monday, 24th March, where I came off and went the back route, luckily this morning I could see the queued traffic as I came round Harden Park Roundabout so I went back into Alderley Edge and via The Hough.

Tuesday, 25th February 5pm - I understand from on of our readers that the Council has now reopened the road.

Tags:
Alderley Road, Cheshire East Highways, Flooding, Road Closures
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

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

Tony Haluradivth
Tuesday 25th February 2020 at 12:47 pm
Cheshire East are lying as that is where the Diversion signs WERE placed on Sunday. They are NOT looking good over this. Plus it was dry and sunny for most of Sunday and no one was there from Highways ALL day.
Peter Hallmark
Tuesday 25th February 2020 at 12:58 pm
I'm interested to know which businesses are open as usual between the signage and the roundabout.
Stuart Redgard
Tuesday 25th February 2020 at 4:30 pm
Tony Haluradivth

I followed the diversion signs on Monday afternoon and they took me along the route described in the article. So either:
1) Somebody moved them and they were but back in the correct place by Monday afternoon.
2) They were never moved and somebody else is lying, or
3) Some other explanation
David Smith
Tuesday 25th February 2020 at 4:56 pm
The pictures say it all.
What a load of Muppets we have running our daily lives around here.
The Muppetry even extends as far 'down' the chain of 'workers' as the wallies who put the road signs out.
BUSINESSES OPEN AS USUAL!!!!
What BUSINESSES are ther between those signs and the roundabout a few yards ahead in the photograph?
The only business that should be going on is that of sorting out the flood. I suppose 'Health & Safety' dictates that a raft[sorry about the pun] of signs have to be displayed 'just in case'.
I would suggest contacting Noah who might be able to offer some advice and who will most likely predict that it will not be long before we experience a plague of frogs followed soon afterwards by a swarm of locusts [moving as I write, slowly towards us, from West Africa!
Tony Haluradivth
Tuesday 25th February 2020 at 7:50 pm
Stuart Redgard you seem to be doubting what I am saying and doubting mine and other folk's experience of the stupid diversion at the weekend. If you read the "Reader letter" from Pete (4 stories down) you will see that the diversion WAS leading people down Fulshaw Park ALL weekend. Pete called the Police and CEC useless out of hours team. I presume they then sorted this out early on Monday morning to cover their incompetent posteriors As with many CEC diversions they were no doubt set up badly by workmen who didn't give two hoots (,excuse the pun) so as I say in my remark they WERE telling porkies ...(read Pete's letter)
David Smith
Tuesday 25th February 2020 at 8:49 pm
Tony & Stuart:
I think the best way to solve the diversion issue is to interview residents along the disputed route and get an informed and factually correct opinion as to WHEN they noticed a stream of vehicles trying to wend their way along this crazy diversion.

I might also add an observation as to the incompetence of whoever has been trying to clear this lake. When it flooded towards the end of last year I was passing by and noticed a yellow-clad 'workman' poking a pole down one of the grids - as if this would somehow have a meaningful effect and induce the waters to suddenly start draining away. Cluelessness in all its glory.
Lisa Reeves
Tuesday 25th February 2020 at 9:01 pm
If you look at the photo above, taken Sunday, the signage would seem to suggest the diversion is via Fulshaw Park, or maybe drivers just misunderstood it?
Tony Haluradivth
Wednesday 26th February 2020 at 10:10 am
Thanks Lisa...that is exactly how it was. I believe that many diversions are left up to the crew who go out with the cones. When CEC were redoing the roads through Mobberley the work was subcontracted out to a road gang from Notts' their diversion (past the Frozen Mop ) ran in a complete circle and ended up near to the beginning (just before Mobberley). When we asked one of the team what was going on he admitted that none of them knew the local area....that might answer Stuart Redgard's "conundrum" ;))
Pete Taylor
Wednesday 26th February 2020 at 1:18 pm
@David Smith; Tony doesn’t need to “interview residents” along Fulshaw Park.... that’s where I live! CEC, despite what they may now say, produced a map showing which signs were to be placed where... they sent all traffic up Fulshaw Park South and Fulshaw Park, to emerge back onto Knutsford Road only 200mtrs from the King’s Arms!
David Smith
Wednesday 26th February 2020 at 2:00 pm
Thanks Peter - I hadn't a clue where any of you live so have no inclination to doubt what you say. It's really a case of nobody at any level from Cheshire East all the way down to the chap who stood in the rain and stuck the signs on the road caring whether what they are doing is correct or whether there might be a better way.
Tony Haluradivth
Wednesday 26th February 2020 at 6:52 pm
Thanks for coming back Pete I read your very eloquent letter and your observations are 100% accurate. As Stuart Redgard seems to be CEC Highways number one fan on here perhaps he may want to come back and defend them again...(your letter should be compulsory reading for that elusive "investigation team" ;)
Stuart Redgard
Wednesday 26th February 2020 at 11:40 pm
I stand by my original comment. As I said then and will reiterate again now, I followed the diversion on Monday.

I have no knowledge of what happened before my journey on Monday.

I have no knowledge of what might have happened on Sunday as I was not there in person. Nor did I know of when the photograph was taken until Lisa’s comment Nor do I have any knowledge of anybody lying. I just commented on what I knew from personal experience and what I thought might have happened. NOT WHAT DID!

But Tony seems to think he knows exactly what happened. My question to him is do you have personal experience of having to use the diversion? Why do you believe that CEC is lying? Did somebody actually ly to you and if so who?

Saying somebody has lied on a forum like this could be classed as libel. To win a libel case you only have to prove your case “on the balance of probability”. It is beyond doubt that Tony stated that CEC had lied. See his comment above.

I’d be very interested to see the outcome of the case if CEC decided to take Tony to court for libel.
Tony Haluradivth
Thursday 27th February 2020 at 6:37 am
Stuart wake up and read every one else's comments here (including the Reader's Letter from Pete) regarding the crazy signage . I used it (the cockeyed diversion) on Sunday if you were bothered to READ my comments. Cheshire East suing for libel ?? ROFL as my Grandson would say ;)) I see that going down really well with Council Tax Payers especially after last year's call to put the same Council in special measures.Your post is bordering on the delusional. I will thus ignore any further comments from you and treat them with the contempt they deserve.
Kareem Masdoon
Thursday 27th February 2020 at 7:13 am
Having followed this story with great interest and am also in full agreement with Pete Taylor's original letter it is odd that there is but one contrary voice on here.
Stuart we live on a Close off Fulshaw Park and can confirm that everybody is correct here in stating that the diversion WAS indeed clearly directing traffic down Fulshaw Park over the weekend. (This is further confirmed by Lisa's photos I think that is more than enough evidence for you surely). I can confirm also that someone in CEC does seem to be lying as Tony asserted. (He has not named anyone). I phoned the Council first thing on Monday to find out what had been going on. I spoke to a charming young man in the Call Centre who then phoned the back office at highways for more
information. Their spokesman stated that the signage was NOT directing traffic down Fulshaw Park..and that the diversion was NOT confusing motorists and that we must be mistaken. Some would say that is being most economical with the truth and I would concur. I suggest that by the time you were on that route they realised their mistake and had probably deployed a team to set up the diversion correctly. When the Council teams make a hash of things (which they DID in this case Stuart) it would be better for all if they just put their hands up rather than insult our collective intelligence.
Duncan Herald
Thursday 27th February 2020 at 10:35 pm
Welcome Laura Crane.
Will you keep us up-dated ?
Be good to hear from you.
David Smith
Friday 28th February 2020 at 10:38 am
As to how on earth the diversion was pathetically sent down this route is probably best explained that it was most likely selected by someone in an office miles away who had never heard of Cheshire, let alone Wilmslow, and looked on Google maps to see what roads were 'available'. This information was then sent by Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or some other moronic modern means of communication to the duffers wearing hi-viz yellow jackets on site who then just did as they were told despite perhaps knowing that this could be a mistake but couldn't be bothered to question a possible error. The 'duffer-in-charge' whose job should be to check on the validity of such arrangements obviously failed to do so and should be sacked or transferred to filling in holes in roads somewhere less hospitable - like Siberia!
David Smith
Friday 28th February 2020 at 9:45 pm
Sorry to post another comment - but... reading Lisa's posting and the statement from the CEC spokesperson that - "The official diversion is – A34 Pendleton Way/ Birrell Way, onto the A538 then diverting back on to Alderley Road" it would seem obvious that this refers to the diversion route for traffic coming to this flood from the Whitehall Bridge roundabout, the one you can see in the distance in the photograph above. The spokesperson has not given details of the diversion route for traffic approaching the flood from Wilmslow. This spokesperson needs to be asked what was the official diversion route for traffic approaching the flood from Wilmslow and why the signs were placed to indicate a turn right into Fulshaw Park South instead of a U-turn back towards Wilmslow. So there is some description of events here that is at cross-purposes with what actually happened. As the diversion signs were laid out there is NO OTHER road to which they could be pointing - the only road at this location is FULSHAW PARK SOUTH!
David Smith
Saturday 29th February 2020 at 9:58 am
I think I now understand this fiasco!
The CEC spokesperson in Lisa Reeve's posting was referring to the road signs for traffic approaching the flood FROM the Whitehall Bridge roundabout where traffic is diverted down the A34 bypass.
The traffic diversion/road closed signs at the flood, in the photograph, should have been placed by the King's Arms roundabout to direct traffic for Alderley Edge down Knutsford Road and then along Brook Lane towards Alderley Edge. In this case BUISNESSES OPEN AS USUAL would make sense at the King's Arms location.
A problem in a general sense with these sort of road signs is that they are generic and not location specific. The signs should have been at the correct location for a start - by the King's Arms roundabout - and then clearly show NO ACCESS TO ALDERLEY EDGE AND THE A34 BYPASS. PLEASE FOLLOW DIVERSION ROUTE.
This would require location specific signs that would have to be specially made and therefore costly as they might only be used once.
The signs at the flood by Fulshaw Park South should have read NO ACCESS TO ALDERLEY EDGE AND A34. PLEASE GO BACK TO WILMSLOW AND FOLLOW DIVERSION. NO ACCESS DOWN FULSHAW PARK SOUTH.
All this proper signing of a diversion is just too much trouble and beyond the capabilities of the contractors who are tinkering with the problems on our roads. I get the impression that these highways personnel only work daytime Monday-Friday, so any issues out of these hours will just have to wait.
If Cheshire East cannot provide 24/365 cover for serious situations like this incorrect diversion event, then such cover should be written into any highways contract that is entered into with the likes of Ringway Jacob.
Stuart Redgard
Monday 9th March 2020 at 11:30 pm
In the early hours of one day last week, I could not sleep, so picked up a book and read the following.

“It is hoped that, as you read about the many aspects of the issues explored in this book, you will critically evaluate the information presented. It is important that you decide whether you are being presented with facts or opinions. Does the writer give a biased or an unbiased report? If an opinion is being expressed do you agree with the writer?” (ISBN 1 86168 302 2)

I’d already read the article by Peter, which I did not comment on. What I did do, was to evaluate a comment made by Tony on this article. So, I’ve done what Tony suggested and gone back and reread the “Readers Letter”

This is my critical evaluation of the information presented.

“Well the thrirteenth inundation since last July is currently ongoing.” - Is this fact or an opinion. I don’t know.

“Allegedly investigations are being carried out by CEC Highways into why we have had all these floods since the by-pass was built; but there was not a soul around when I went for a paddle this morning.” - Is this fact or an opinion. I don’t know, but my opinion is that it is an opinion as I doubt that Peter was on-site monitoring the situation continuously.

“They have put in place an utterly stupid traffic diversion which routes vehicles into Fulshaw Park South, which is a cul-de-sac with a Traffic Regulation Order forbidding vehicles from entering, except for access to properties. There have been possibly thousands of cars trying to find a way out of this nightmare, doing u-turns, reversing at high speed, going up dead ends and private driveways, blowing horns and generally getting cross; the only exit is via Fulshaw Park a narrow, unmade, Private Street, also with a Traffic Regulation Order. The traffic should really be diverted onto Knutsford Road at the Fulshaw Cross (King's Arms) and then onto Brook Lane.” - Is this fact or an opinion.. My opinion is it’s a combination of both.

“They have put in place an utterly stupid traffic diversion ‘ - an opinion not fact.

“Fulshaw Park South…... is a cul-de-sac” - an opinion not fact. It has two separate entrances and exits onto Fulshaw Park and Alderley Road.

“There have been possibly thousands of cars” - an opinion not fact.

Fact: There are Traffic Regulation Orders for Fulshaw Park and Fulshaw Park South. But my understanding (opinion), is this does not mean that they cannot be used as diversionary routes,

“Fulshaw Park a narrow, unmade, Private Street” - an opinion not fact. I have seen no evidence to prove beyond doubt that it is a private street. What is not in doubt is that it is an unadopted highway.

“Evidently water is pumped into the Brook from tanks near the railway bridge over the bypass (anyone remember what a load of trouble that job was, contractor went bust and there were months of delays) the bypass flooded within weeks of being opened and, iirc, larger pumps and tanks had to be retro-fitted.” Is this a fact or an opinion? I don’t know. I believe its mostly opinion and based on little fact. What I do recall, is that the opening of the Handforth & Wilmslow section of the bypass was not delayed due to the contractor going bust. The southernmost section was delayed because of the works on the bridge carrying the railway lines over the road. What I do know (fact), is that the construction of this bridge was not part of the contract to build the road. It was a completely separate contract issued by Railtrack and it was the delay with this contract that delayed this section of the road opening. I also don’t remember the road flooding within weeks of it being opened or larger pumps and tanks having to be retrofitted.” But I could be wrong. My memory isn’t what it used to be.


Now let’s look at why I commented on this article.

I do not know when or where the diversion signs were placed. What I do know is, that on Monday, I set out to travel to Alderley Edge from the centre of Wilmslow and was diverted back into the town centre and onto the A34 via the roundabout on Manchester Road.

I believe that claiming somebody is lying without providing specific and factual evidence is not fair and possibly libellous and offensive. And that is why I doubt what they are saying.

The photo which I am told was taken on Sunday, does not show the whole picture. Can anybody actually confirm without doubt when the diversion that I took was put in place? Only CEC can do this.

I am not CEC Highways number one fan as Tony Haluradivth seems to believe. This is his opinion, not a fact. I have no knowledge of us ever having met.

Tony Haluradivth says that “I used it (the cockeyed diversion) on Sunday”. His previous comment did not say this. It stated, “that is where the Diversion signs WERE placed on Sunday.”

I do read peoples comments but do not automatically assume they are factually correct. Neither would I expect someone to believe my comments, but to critically analyse them.

This is what I do when I read both articles and comments on this site.

Tony says that my comment “is bordering on the delusional. I will thus ignore any further comments from you and treat them with the contempt they deserve”.

He is perfectly entitled to that opinion. My opinion is that Tony borders on the delusional and his comments spread disinformation and are based on little to no fact. I will not ignore any further comments from him. Instead, I will treat them with the contempt they deserve when they are not based on fact or what in my opinion may be biased or offensive.

Kareem Masdoon states that she is “ in full agreement with Pete Taylor's original letter “

Having demonstrated that this original letter contains factual errors, does she still stand by her comment?

I believe that it’s OK to disagree with somebody else’s opinion. However, making factually incorrect statements and passing them off as the truth is NOT acceptable to me. I believe it is important to test everything and see what is factual and what is not. What’s left is therefore opinion. Opinions can be unbiased, biased, unintended or deliberate disinformation.

If I have been offensive then I apologise. But what I cannot do is to prevent people from taking offence with what I’ve written. There is a big difference between being offensive and taking offence.

And finally: Who’s Laura Crane?
Duncan Herald
Tuesday 10th March 2020 at 1:06 pm
Hi,
Laura Crane is the new Cabinet Member, for Highways and Wastes; see 27th Feb. above,
Pete Taylor
Tuesday 10th March 2020 at 7:04 pm
What a very strange post by Stuart Redgard! Let's see if I can address some of HIS opinions.

There have been thirteen floods since last July, some of us local residents have been counting and have photographed many of them. Fact.

I obviously did not spend all day paddling about in the flood but I was informed, that day, by my local Councillor that the Highways investigations had to be abandoned because of H&S concerns; it was considered to have be too hazardous attempt the survey, due to the strong current and water level. Fact.

Fulshaw Park South IS a cul-de-sac, that is why there is a no through road sign on the single entrance from Alderley Road. There is no way out other than by entering a Private Street, which is not a public highway. I know it is a Private Street because I have lived there for 22 years and have the deeds, covenants and site plans, it is designated as such on the plans. Fact.

How many cars travel along Alderley Road from Wilmslow on a Sunday? Certainly many hundreds, if not more. They ALL were diverted along Fulshaw Park, there was a sign at the junction Alderley Road and FP South, (see my photograph above) and there was a sign on the corner of Fulshaw Park directing cars along there. I have a copy of the diagram which the Highways contractors used when they laid out the signs. Fact.

You said "I do not know when or where the diversion signs were placed." Fact!

The Traffic Regulation Order, enacted by Macclesfield Borough Council, dated 25th January 1974, is specific in saying that motor vehicles must not enter except for access to properties. As Fulshaw Park is private the roadway it is owned by the frontagers; originally there were gates at each entrance and they could be closed by the residents and there was usually only one open at any time, only one gate now remains, which the residents have chosen to close permanently. Fact.

Water from the by-pass attenuation tanks is pumped into the old course of Whitehall Brook, if you for some reason, think this is an opinion, you could check either the CEC maps or look at the Hydrological Survey completed for Royal London in their planning application. I spent an hour with a Senior Highways Engineer on site, in the mud, examining the blockages to the Brook. Fact.

You say that your memory is not what it was regarding the delay to the rail bridge... check the archive of the local papers.


Local resident Kareem Masdoon agrees with my original letter because it is entirely factual.

You seem to have gone out of your way to be offensive to three correspondents; perhaps this was because you posted your opinions at 11:30 pm and were, perhaps, "tired"?

Incidentally I do not know either Tony or Kareem.
Kareem Masdoon
Wednesday 11th March 2020 at 8:59 am
Hi Pete thanks for that. Stuart Redgard's post is indeed very odd. He is obviously one who just refuses to back down when evidence is clearly presented to him. Lisa Reeve's photo could not be clearer really. He should heed the words of my daughters favourite Disney song and jyst "Let it go" ;))
Kareem Masdoon
Wednesday 11th March 2020 at 9:05 am
And as Stuart Redgard likes separating fact from "opinion" his opinion/assumption about me being a female could not be further from the truth. (Mr is the title I see on all my mail)
Stuart Redgard
Thursday 12th March 2020 at 5:48 pm
#Kareem.

I apologise for getting your gender wrong, which I assume could have been taken as offensive, But I assure you it was just a simple mistake.
Stuart Redgard
Thursday 12th March 2020 at 8:01 pm
# Pete & Kareem
Strange and odd are terms that I don’t have a problem with. They are just opinions that you are entitled to have.
# Pete
Having reviewed your comments, I will concede to the following. There would appear to be a number of different definitions for the term cul-de-sac. Some that support your reasoning and some that support mine. So both of our interpretations can be considered as factually correct based on which definition is used.
You have also provided more information which has helped to clarify some, but not all of the claims made in your original letter.
What I will not concede to is your opinion that your letter was “entirely factual”.
I have no doubt that you believe that it is.
I have no doubt that you believe that you hold documents and have seen archives of old newspapers that you believe prove this.
I haven’t seen those documents so I don’t know what they show. I might interpret what they show differently than you. I have experienced this situation in my previous career.
I don’t believe everything I read in the newspapers or in online articles. I not saying that you do. What I am saying is that I have seen examples where authors have inadvertently got things wrong. Any truly competent professional would accept that they do not do everything perfectly all of the time.
I am quite happy to review any additional information that you might want to share but don’t intend to go looking for it myself.
I don’t believe that I have gone out of my way to be offensive, My opinion is that you are taking offence. As I have said previously, there is a difference between being offensive and taking offence.
I have already apologised to Kareem for misinterpreting his gender which could well have been taken as being offensive.
I did not comment on the post that contains your original letter. My original comment on this thread was to challenge the comments made by Tony. It was Tony who then made reference to your letter, and appears to believe that it is “entirely factual”.
As Kareem suggests. I’m quite happy to let it go if you are too.
Tony Haluradivth
Wednesday 18th March 2020 at 6:51 am
Yes Stuart let's all let it go as I think you are the lone voice of dissent on here and it is looking odd. There are bigger concerns out there and as you have a different opinion on what constitute "facts" than most I suggest you suspend that scepticism at the moment with regard to medical opinion over CoVid 19 . My son in law is a medic' on the frontline in Manchester and says they are on a total war footing . Some humans are not listening to news and advice and are presenting A&E for the most trivial conditions. (A mouth ulcer yesterday). Staff in hospital are going to be isolated from their families in Hotel rooms he says it will be like being back in the army. I know who I am going to believe.

Add Your Comment

Share what you think of this story. In order to post a comment click here to sign in or register to become a member (it's free and will only take one minute).