Parish Council Propaganda

Why is the Parish Council wasting money on posting promotional leaflets to residents? The residents are overwhelmingly opposed to the tarmacking of the allotments and no amount of glossy leaflets are going to change our minds. If it is really part of the consultation phase, and not a promotional leaflet, why isn’t there a free post return form?

We had 4 at our house, o.k. there are 4 of us but !

As I am recovering from being under the weather, I thought I’d take the time to send the PC the following long and tedious feedback:

Good day.

I have just received the Parish Pledge through the post this morning which prompted the following thoughts.This brochure represents part of the PCs promised consultation exercise regarding the Heyes Lane allotment/car park question. I am part of the ‘rest of the community’ with ‘no long term vested interest’ in the question, and am providing you with my thoughts and feedback as requested.

Living as I do at Cottage Lawns, I would naturally prefer a view over allotments than a view over a car park, or temporarily worse, a site entrance and staging ground for the construction of the excellent medical facility planned. Naturally, I would also prefer that the preferences of the allotment holders could also be catered to.

That said, I could readily be convinced that such changes would be necessary for the common good. I could also be convinced that the ways that these changes were planned and implemented were in the best interests of the community. I separate these into two discrete categories because one might approve of a concept and not approve of how it is accomplished.

Watching this debate unfold as an outsider only having lived in the area a couple of years, one thing that has struck me is that I get the feeling that the PC determined what was necessary and how it was to be accomplished (as is their role, and I am always grateful for sensible local governance) and then has tried to sell me their conclusions rather than ensuring I am aware of the issues involved. Indeed (again, as an outsider), I don’t think that the PC is aware how disingenuous they are appearing in handling this affair.

Take the leaflet I received today. Ostensibly, this brochure represents the PCs intended efforts to make their case but doesn’t represent itself that way, rather it reads like a Your Parish Council at Work leaflet. What I would have benefitted from most would have been a no nonsense Parking in Alderley Edge fact sheet, detailing how many parking places there are, how many are permit parking (and what that means, exactly), and a summary of concerns conveyed to the PC to which the creation of a new car park is the logical response of a responsive council and the timeline of how it will be implemented. Instead, the issue was deliberately conflated with the popular and much needed Medical Centre and Festival Hall projects, without even referring to the ways in which they actually are interrelated (such as ease of site access and site management afforded during the construction phase). The number of parking spaces is provided, although one could be forgiven for thinking that there will be 150 pay and display spaces and there will also be permit spaces. One could also be forgiven for having no idea how many of the spaces will be used for permit purposes and how many pay and display as this information isn’t provided at all. It suggests that the South Street car park will be able to accommodate more short term parking, but again, doesn’t specify numbers. This leaflet seems to represent either a missed opportunity to justify the car park with information contextualising the decision, or a public relations exercise aimed at the ‘wondering what that fuss is about but don’t really care’ demographic.

I’m afraid that the well meaning PC has earned a bit of wariness on the part of the reader.  The PC received legal advice regarding the proceedings related to statutory and non-statutory interpretation, and that this ‘advice clearly shows’ that no consent was needed from DCLG for any change. While this is a good thing, nothing was shown and therefore nothing is clear. That there was even any hesitation about making the legal advice public, presumably advice obtained with public funds, is disturbing.

If I had received any real justification I could have been swayed easily but I have not been. If I had been told those data that could populate the following table:

                          No. PaD   No. Permits Date
Current Hall
Current South St

Planned Hall/MC
South St

New Car Park

Further justifications might include:
—The creation in the new car park of a pick up point for school children rather than the treacherous violation of double yellows and no crossing lights all around the train station
—Savings negotiated with the the contractors and construction firm by the provision of easier site access and site management space
—As the Medical Centre’s parking needs have already been incorporated into in the plans and is therefore irrelevant to this issue, a statement from the Hall Manager saying that the new services provided at the Hall itself will require x number of parking spaces and that these must all be pay and display to cater to events

Mind you, as a Your PC at Work leaflet it isn’t bad, and I appreciated being updated for which much thanks. I am sorry to have gone on so long, as I’m under the weather distractions are needed, again for which much thanks.

Josh

Excellent response Joshua

I particularly enjoyed the final line of the leaflet;

“We have heard from a small number with long term vested interests , we really want to hear from the rest of the community”

Translation;

“Nearly everyone we have heard from so far disagrees with concreting the allotments so we’ve done a mail shot at public expense in the vain hope that car park fans are incapable of using the internet”

Re: New car park.
According to a sign near the hall the result of the survey was 50/50, but that’s not an overall view of the village, just the ones who were asked, if all the village had to reply it would more than lightly be about 75/25 (75% for the new car park).

With respect (and I’ve read some of your other posts, Trevor, so I do mean this respectfully, as opposed to the unhelpful ‘with all due respect’), your assessment of 75/25 is considerably more speculative and presumed than actually obtaining signatures from half of the constituency.

Two points: 1. Those signatures were obtained from people who were only given one side of the story. 2. How often does half the constituency make their position known at all, let alone one side of a question?

Your reply suggests the belief that most people want the car park, and that it is an awkward few who are just making a stink about it, despite the petition.

If this belief is the dominant one of the PC, in addition to those data I thought would be useful above, I would like to know what response during the consultation exercise would be sufficient for the PC to reconsider the current plans. If nothing would be sufficient, so secure is the belief of support for the plan, then it isn’t a consultation, but a dictat after all.

Again, I appreciate local governance and only offer these views in the spirit of the consultation exercise.

Josh

We’ve had 3 at our house,one addressed to all of us woul suffice.
My mother left Alderley in May and died in October,even She has had one.
Total waste of OUR money!!!

A fair point, but also fair is the PC’s ability to say accurately that every registered voter was sent information as part of the consultation exercise, without which the exercise would have little real validity in contextualising replies (i.e., all voters were contacted and the PC received 17 replies critical of the current plan). Mind you, there are other aspects about it, such as its lack of real data and that it doesn’t exactly scream ‘Have Your Say’ at you that may weaken its validity in any case even while providing plausibility.

Josh

The Parish Council have done exactly as predicted and misled the voters by implying that the proposed car park is part of the plan for the Medical Centre,

To state that a petition with more than 1,800 signatures is ‘a small number with long term vested interests’ is, at best, disingenuous.  At worst, it is a deliberate and cynical misrepresentation of the facts. 

I’m sure the absence of a date to respond by is not an oversight.  However, for a valid ‘consultation exercise’ surely it should be a requisite?

I would append your last sentence, substituting ‘a response deadline’ for ‘it’ to the end of my last post.

Good Morning All,

As one of your Parish Council (we few, we happy few) I’ll do my best to respond to those points raised which I think I may be able to help with.
Firstly allow me to remind you that some time back the P.C. set up a sub-committee of three councillors, to deal with matters pertaining to the whole allotments situation; if you wish detailed answers to questions that only the three can answer, then I’m sure they will reply to questions directed specifically at them. In alphabetical order they are Councillors Frank Keegan, Mary Maczkowiak and Mike Williamson.
Firstly to Joshua; the legal opinion you mention is available on the P.C. web site and has been since November 19th.
Secondly I do not think that I can debate with those people who are convinced that there should not be any alteration to the Heyes Lane allotments, for any reason. Most of the arguements have been stated and repeated but entrenched views are unarguable with. That is not meant as a criticism of those who hold the unalterable view, as that is their right in a democratic land.
Joshua you are right that the P.C. determined what should be done with the Heyes Lane allotments. Somebody had to after all. There was much internal debate. I for one was not keen on what at first seemed a draconian action but my view evolved the more we talked about it. I won’t here go over all the arguements, but I came to believe that there is a drastic need to extend available parking and besides, the alternative allotments site offered is just as near to the village and significantly larger.
As to the amount of parking currently available in A.E. Please remember that parking/Highways etc. is under the control of Cheshire East, not the P.C. For example, the change in arrangements for the South Street car park is a C.E. initiative. If you wish to know more about how that came about, perhaps you might consult your C.E. Councillor (Councillor Frank Keegan) who can probably detail for you how that matter was brought about?
Joshua, the data you request on parking can be had from C.E. I for one don’t have the data, as parking is a C.E. thing. In previous entries on ae.com I have provided data, gathered by my wandering about and measuring/counting. Anyone can do that of course.
As to how many spaces and of them how many will be p & d or permit etc; as far as I am aware, that is as yet unsettled. The total number will depend on how scenic/green the car park should be (say 125 - 150) or whether you’d like to see ‘pile ‘em high & sell ‘em cheap’ (say 250- 300).
Has the P.C. been ‘secretive’? No! Come to the monthly public meetings; you have a chance to stand up and say what you wish and to ask questions. Read the many entries on ae.com. Of course we could send out a monthly newsletter; then we’d get lambasted for wasting public money?
Is there a fair-to-both-sides way of consulting the people who live in the parish? I don’t think so, short of the stupid cost involved in talking to everyone in the parish!
I have asked people as I met them. That means a lot of dog walkers and a lot of park users, so my sample is probably biased. Some say that they don’t know enough about it all. Others say they have not heard of the matter! Others say that they don’t really care. The majority I talk to say that they are in favour of turning the Heyes Lane allotments into a car park. Their response varies from ‘its a shame, but for the greater good’ to ‘its an eyesore only used by a few people, so pave it’.
Lastly the criticism that the P.C. have misled the public by claiming that the proposed car park is needed only for the medical centre. Sorry if I offend, but that is nonsense. I for one have repeatedly ‘banged on’ about the proposed car park having several justifications i.e. spaces for patients and staff of the medical centre & spaces for business people (to get them out of the village centre) & spaces for shoppers who wish to be in the village longer than an hour or two & commuters (to get them off the streets) etc.
O.K., enuiff from me!
If you wish to engage with me on this, I’ll do my best to respond. Please be rational and polite; my parents did not produce a conniving, retard !

No offence taken, Duncan.  Particularly as you misquoted me.  I didn’t say ‘only for the medical centre’, did I?  The PC is misleading the public by implication.  The car park is not NEEDED for the Medical Centre.  We all know the vast majority of the community are in favour of the new Medical Centre.  The car park is a separate issue and should be presented as such.  And I am certain that shoppers (and/or restaurant users) will not park there and walk into the village.  They didn’t when there were parking spaces next to the Festival Hall.

Hi Claire. No intent to quote you.
Is there a need for parking spaces for the use of the medical centre? Approx. 20 spaces for the patients at any given time, is what we were told by the practice.Also would it not be helpful to provide spaces for the workers at the medical centre? Otherwise where will all these people park? In the surrounding streets? Let us hear please from the people who live in those streets. How long will it take them to get a residents only situation set up?
Shoppers and workers currently have to park on streets well away from the village; have you seen Rileys Lane lately?
Please comment also on the proposed new allotments site being as near to the village as the Heyes Lane site and that the new site, being larger, will take people from the allotments waiting list.

And would you, in turn, on behalf of the Parish Council please explain how a petition with more than 1,800 signatures is ‘a small number with long term vested interests’?

Thanks for the helpful reply, Duncan, I appreciate it.

Claire,
as has been said elsewhere, the question put to people re. ‘your’ petition was not unbiased. Probably some would say the same of the P.C’s leaflet. I have no idea how to fully consult people without huge expense. So a bit of a face-off alas.
Hi Josh.,
I await your detailed response, with bated breath; go for it.

Duncan, my reply is in the main thread, which you’ve seen since your last post, and touches on both the sense of civic duty of the PC as well as its projection of its homogeneity of perspective. I only have two words to add which in most circumstances would be off topic: proportional representation.

Hi Joshua,
sorry about the delay in replying to you. Amongst other things, I was bitten by a dog and the bite became infected and so I’ve been wandering around in a daze of antibiotics, painkillers, anti-inflammatories and a wee drop of malt!
I am curious as to what is your meaning of proportional representation. Traditionally the P.C. is a first nine past the post system. Are you advocating lists of candidates per party/group and thus appointments from the lists in some way? Bit of an overkill for
a parish council?
Come next May, the voters of Alderley Edge can express their wishes. I shall of course modestly turn down a dictatorship if it is offered to me !
Hi Claire,
you write that the proposed car park “is not needed for the medical Centre”; if the entire car parking space at the Hall, post building works, is turned over to the staff and patients of the Medical Centre, you may be right. But why should the general public and other users of the Hall and other employees of pharmacy etc at the Hall, be denied parking?
As to your point re. 1,800 signatures; it is claimed by those who don’t agree with your petition that the question posed was biased. Just as those opposed to the parish council’s position claim bias. I guess that there just isn’t any possibility of agreement there
By the way Claire, I do not usually speak on behalf of the parish council, only on my own behalf. The only time I’ll claim to be pontificating on behalf of the P.C. is when the P.C. have debated upon and voted upon a particular matter.

In 2011, Alderley Edge had a population of 4,638, so 1,800 signatures is a small number in my book.

Duncan, just spotted your reply here, for which much thanks (the topic seems to have migrated to a different thread), and wishes for a speedy recovery. Remember, they always offer the crown three times when declined…

With regard to the comment that
People will not use the Heyes Lane car park they will have to if proper parking restrictions are enforced in the side roads i.e double yellow lines. I assume the people on this forum who object constantly are not themselves affected adversely by parking in the village and or have a business.