Alderley Edge Parish Councillors were outraged to learn that 23% of their budget to (*identify ways to) transform the centre of Alderley Edge has already been spent.
They were particularly annoyed to learn that Cheshire East Council (CEC) is charging them £15,000 for work their officers have put into the project which has yet to achieve anything.
The Parish Council and CEC have held several meetings with Ben Hamilton-Baillie, who worked on the shared space scheme in Poynton, to discuss the redevelopment of the centre of the village.
Cheshire East Council had allocated £50,000 to this project and apparently an additional £59,000 is available from 106 monies.
At the Parish Council meeting on Monday, 12th December, Cllr Mike Williamson confirmed that CEC had engaged Ben Hamilton-Baillie to carry out a research project and draw up ideas of how the parish might address issues around London Road.
Cllr Williamson told fellow councillors "He has come up with some ideas and we will have a proper public consultation. To date they have spent £25,000 on doing this work. £10,000 has gone to Ben Hamilton-Baillie and £15,000 has been spent by CEC because they are billing us for all the work CEC officers are doing on this project."
Outraged councillors responded by saying this was "ridiculous" and "taking the mickey".
Cllr Sue Joseph commented that "A quarter of the budget has gone down the swanny".
Cllr Mike Williamson agreed, stating "They are using the money to pay their staff. We've asked for proper figures from them."
Apparently CEC had initially estimated that getting to the stage of a public consultation with Ben Hamilton-Baillie would cost about £5,000.
Cllr Matthew Lloyd said "The money spent on Ben will pay dividend, it is money well spent, it's the money spent by CEC which isn't."
Cllr Joseph added "By the time we get to public consultation the money will have all gone."
It was confirmed at the meeting that Ben Hamilton-Baillie's proposals will require some funding and the Parish Council do not know where the money to fund that will come from.
Cllr Frank Keegan remarked "We are in the ridiculous situation that we are going to have to ask them for a quote for how much they are going to charge us for a meeting."
The Parish Council have been in dialogue with CEC since before the bypass opened, to try and ensure the necessary traffic management is put in place to reflect the changes in traffic flows. They are also looking to address areas which have been neglected for many years whilst the focus was on getting the bypass built.
Back in October Cllr Matthew Lloyd told me "The Parish Council's discussions with CEC were initially focused on the possible redesign of a number of junctions but a more holistic view is now being taken to address a wider range of needs for redevelopment of the centre of Alderley.
"A very wide range of possibilities are being looked at, with no specific proposals to be made before public consultation. The initial thoughts are that any such redevelopment would be focused on the main road through the village, perhaps from the Ryleys Lane junction to the north through to the Macclesfield Road junction to the south."
One of the proposals being considered is a shared space scheme, however as Cllr Lloyd explained, it would not be like the Poynton one because Alderley faces different issues and any scheme in Alderley would need to accommodate on street parking on London Road.
The Parish Council were hoping to run an initial public consultation in November but it will now have to wait until 2012.
* This article has been updated to make it clear that the budget was for identifying ways to transform the village and not to cover any future works as well.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
How much will it cost ---- think of a number and add a couple of noughts on! There is a need for accountability - but those in charge of spending public money are never held accountable.
What is your point?
Councils, and Councillors, are held accountable at regular intervals : that is what an election is.
Sorry more: BTW Ann you are right in your assertion; they do waste money and little monitoring is in place AND actually, Frank Keegan admitted this when we met in the park some two years ago; he was there for a photo shoot with George Osborne to promote the Cafe in the Park......
Please DO NOT!!!!! Go down the route of Poynton. Shared streets are simply dangerous for blind people. As a Guide dog puppy walker, the pavements of Alderley Edge are difficult enough with all th "A" boards. With shared streets, blind people simply do not know where the pavement ends and the road begins, a dog cannot be trained to tell the difference, they are taught to recognise kerbs.
There are several blind people that regularly shop in the village, please don't even consider shared streets.
Frank is a strong personality but he is a great loss to CEC as he did have a good eye for finance and this I have heard from several councillors of different political persuasion. Fitzgerald is there for another 4 years and we have to put up with it. The cronyism continues unchecked and anyone who disagrees finds themselves elbowed out of cabinet, there is no democracy behind the closed doors at CEC, and I say this quite unhappily as a Tory voter.
When you say the public "do not see the books", that is not accurate. Every 3 months we publish Finance Information which is openly discussed in the Parish Council meeting, which in turn is open to the public. Finance papers are on public gallery seats for the public to follow. The media get the Finance papers, so it is not accurate to say the public do not see the books.
In fact the Audit Requirements are that we give only totals which are quite unintelligible to me, never mind the public. That is why AEPC insisted that we keep the format, about 7 pages including notes, so that there is a reasonable trail for public enquiry to follow.
If we get good suggestions we can find the money to implement the suggestions; AE is 2% of Cheshire East and we want 2% of their money, which is a big chunk.
I didn't know that the £109K was purely for consultants' fees/design work. The article doesn't make that clear and (especially as members of the PC are quoted in the article) perhaps the PC should make Lisa aware of this and asked that the article be corrected.
I'm passionate about the concept being discussed, but worry that with too little money allocated to the project, it will not yield the sort of benefits many people in the village are expecting.
A key part of this seems to be to evolve the village in tune with the changes to traffic flows through the village as a result of the bypass. I presume this to mean, at least in part, something to curb the high speed that some traffic passes through the village now there is less traffic. The speed at which traffic comes down Congleton Road of an evening will at some point result in a serious accident either for a pedestrian or a crash at the Macclesfield Road junction.
Changing the road layouts seems overkill to me when a speed camera or preferably a couple of those electronic signs that light up when you are going to fast would do the job (of which there are several around the Mobberley area). Perhaps the £25,000 already spent would have delivered better value for the tax payer had it gone on such measures.
I agree there is an element of confusion, and the main point that the Chairman was making was that, of the money spent so far, 60% was on internal recouping of Officer time, whereas we wanted more external expert opinion and then to have a proper consultation to finish up with a village centre which meets the needs of our residents.
The concept has been accepted at CEC that AE is a classic case for getting right.
Later in the article I do state "It was confirmed at the meeting that Ben Hamilton-Baillie's proposals will require some funding and the Parish Council do not know where the money to fund that will come from."
As the small number of people who have attended a Parish Council meeting in the past couple of years will know, at times it is difficult to fully understand the issues being discussed.
Whilst members of the press and public are welcome to attend Parish Council meetings they are not supposed to speak or ask questions, just observe.
The Parish Council obviously communicates with each other outside the public meetings and a lot of information they are aware of isn't brought into these discussions, some of which is of course commercially sensitive.
So at times I am only privy to a small part of the discussions on a particular subject making it impossible to have a full and accurate understanding.
My aim is always to report accurately on the discussions that takes place and the information I have, hopefully the insert above will clarify matters.
Members, including councillors, are always welcome to correct me, or add further information that I was not aware of.
Great job as ever.
The point is that there IS very poor management of public monies ; if Councils were run like businesses or indeed the housekeeping account more care would be taken. There is no TRUE accountability.
We know more cuts are on the way; even more reason why any money that is available should be spent wisely. Diane Smith’s job (other article)is an example of a necessary cut.
Mike Williamson talks on this site about not needing more devolution; it is precisely because of poor management, nepotism, profligate Councillors and Officers that devolution IS needed; in the form of the Localism Bill. Most of the recent issues raised on this site could be better handled with local input; an Officer from Cheshire East actually commented to me the other day that he didn’t understand why Alderley Edge, with ‘so many intelligent people tolerated the actions of the Parish Council’ (his words not mine).
Martin’s suggestions are very sensible and should be taken on board.
In the current economic climate, there just have to be better ways to spend that money.
With regard to the plan for the improvement of the village to make it safer, pleasanter and more suitable for the needs of everyone, including the disabled I agree that a' Poynton Plan' would not meet those needs but we do need to investigate what will.
There has been a comment in the recent past that the total amount of money to be spent in the village would be a few £millions and if that is so, then £37,000 is not too bad an initial outlay BUT I for one will believe in the £millions when i see a pig flying in from Cheshire East!
Please remember that it is Cheshire East that 'own' the highways etc. and it is they that get to spend the money.
As to the Poynton situation; I can only imagine that a deranged troupe of monkeys organised it. I have asked the opinion of several people in Poynton and their comments are not reproducible here!
P.S. I have also heard a lot of negative comments about the Poynton scheme.
I demand my £40.91 back from my Council Tax Bill.
However, local estate agents have been in the press in the past few weeks announcing that, even in this market, families are moving to Poynton because they reckon Poynton will become a "place to live".
Duncan it is not polite to describe CEC Highways like that. The lesson to be learnt, which we knew already from Utilities works in the village, is that we should not allow the timetables for any works to be dictated by Council employees. Working hours have to start very early, finish very late and minimise traffic delays. Quite simply, don't let the whole street be blocked off, but move in chunks.
Besides, AE is not the same as Poynton; we need some help at either end of the village in order to let pedestrians move more easily. Traffic coming from Wilmslow to Ryleys Lane peel off like fighter pilots. We need to slow that whole corner down.
Pedestrians at Macc Rd/Congleton rd, Chorley Hall Lane/ Mottram Rd need to be able to cross safely.
Those are the type of ideas we want, plus any comments on London Rd in general.
a). a coherent design/template (why not investigate whether an RIBA-sponsored competition would be feasible - this has the potential reduce the spend on consultants and will certainly encourage a wide range of ideas)
b). traffic management that prioritises pedestrians and local traffic over north-south vehicular traffic
c). a realistic budget
With reference to item b) above, the priority currently enjoyed by north-south traffic on the existing A34/London Road needs to be ended. The bypass has not in itself delivered the calmer, more pedestrian-friendly, village environment envisaged. Appropriate traffic-calming measures are needed to supplement it. For example: roundabouts should be introduced at Brook Lane, Ryleys Lane and Macclesfield Road junctions with London Road. In the latter case, it may be necessary to look at closing off access to George Street (and possibly even Chapel Road) at their junctions with a proposed roundabout. A mini-roundabout at the junction of Heyes Lane with London Road may also be preferable to the existing junction. A blanket 20mph speed limit through the village should be implemented, extending to adjacent, narrow roads such as Trafford Road, the lower section of Macclesfield Road, Chorley Hall Lane etc.
Martin... to the best of my knowledge Mr. H-B was involved in the Poynton plan... how much the Poynton P.C. were involved, I have no idea. We had nought to do with it.
As to 'our' not knowing where the money will come from... I thought that the £109,000 was enough to be going on with i.e. enough to make some physical changes, for the better, within the village. Now that money is down to circa £70,000, we may have to search around for other financing e.g. any 106 money tucked away at C.East. The P.C. have not come up with an uncosted scheme; we are still talking to C.East about what we think the village should have and until that firms-up, there is no costing; apart from the one-time/shrinking £109,000!
Brian... I agree with you about Poynton... I drove along Park Lane... it certainly slowed me down as I had no idea what was going on whatsoever...one little thought; if / when Poynton calms down and it all turns out to have been an improvement then I (and you) will have to munch humble pie?
Its worth mentioning that every C.E. Officer I deal with is constructive and helpful and informative... where exactly the spending decisions are taken is, I would think, somewhere in the political bowels of Cheshire East.
One last thought... I voted to turn down the 'Friends of the Park' planning application because I thought it was much too short on details... and where is the funding to come from to 'build' a cafe in the park?... apart from Susan H. can someone tell me please who are the 'Friends of the Park'? A group of like-minded local people? Local business people? You all know who the Parish Councillors are and how to contact us so can someone tell me more about the 'Friends'?
Merry Xmas
2) the SID is not a cheap option...so how many and where? where we don't put them, people will complain? We could of course put them up everywhere; but then the precept would double.There is a cheaper option whereby a temporary device is put at the roadside but it has to be manned (personned!) either by a waged person or by volunteers (and there ain't too many of them wanting to sit at a roadside for some hours per day).
3) Eventually C. East will reveal to us all their master-plan for the village traffic (first we invade Poland?) and put it to a public consultation and that is when you get a chance to influence what C.East do.
H.N.Y. Duncan Herald