Since September 2014, when PCSO Sarah Stanley started working in Alderley Edge, it has become clear to her that parking is an everyday issue for the village.
PCSO Stanley has being issuing advisory notices and Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) in the village to try and raise awareness of where motorists should not park and how to park appropriately.
However, the police say it is now "time for some hard hitting action", so from this month PCSO Stanley will be focusing on the main problem areas and issuing £30 non endorcable fixed penalty notices to offenders who cause unnecessary obstructions - whilst drivers will be issued with a fine there will be no penalty points aded to their licence.
Over the last seven months PCSO Stanley and PCSO O'Brien have issued 15 FPNs, 51 advisory notices and numerous verbal warnings.
What do you think about the PCSOs issuing non-endorcable fixed penalty notices in the village?, will this stop drivers from causing obstructions when they park? Share your views via the comment box below.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
This is still not enough in 7 months ! also the Police should do more, like they used to years ago.
Some one is going to be hurt, crossing between parked cars, and access for collection of tomatoes from the nursery at Fields Farm will be made impossible.
We have a wonderful, thriving village, that people want to visit, and work in. However, we are strangling it with parked cars.
I have lived here for most of my life, and have never known the parking problems that have been evident over the last year.
Sad thing is, it isn't abating... at all!
Hi Jon, the police, in my view, have pretty much abandoned parking stuff alas.
Hi Phillip andf Nick, the Parish Council have stated as clearly as possible that if/when re-elected, the plan for a car park taking approx. 140 cars, on Heyes Lane, will go ahead and the hope is that such a car park will drag cars out of the village, to relieve the stranglehold.
"Remove abandoned vehicles causing obstruction or danger."
But nothing listed at all about issuing Fixed Penalty Notices. The FPN powers from Cheshire's website are;
"CSOs are authorised to issue Local Authority Fixed Penalty Notices for offences in respect of:
Dog Control Orders.
Dog Fouling.
Littering.
Truancy.
Graffiti.
Fly Posting."
And lower down it says they have the power to
"Stop a pedal cycle being ridden on a footpath and issue a fixed penalty notice."
http://bit.ly/1NQFyHP
So might it be that the FPNs issued by these PCSOs are not just non-endorsable - but non-enforcable as well?
These days with decriminalised parking - isn't it mostly local authority traffic wardens that have the power to fine drivers for parking offences? It's no longer in the remit of the police.
Any one day and night you could issue 100 plus notices ... until that happens .. Just waste of time
The proposal by the Parish Council for parking on the allotment site in Heyes Lane should be adopted and implemented immediately so that the residents can have their streets returned to them.
I have asked on numerous occasions, and never had an awnser, where is the money coming from to support this car pack project? where is the costing anaysis and tender process?
some more cinical than I might think this was just a pedge with no real substance to it.
I have seen a number of tickets issued of late but its only the tip of the iceberg.
Lets see what the clampdown brings
Pad and pen at the ready
Make it £100 for each ticket and maybe a tow-away vehicle should be used to inconvenience the inconsiderate drivers ?
Double parking on Meadow Brow also means that refuse and emergency vehicles have no access which is both dangerous and highly inconvenient for residents.
The PC give the go ahead for all these and the Village is busy from 8am till gone midnight virtually every day,very good for the business's and saves having a dead Village.
If you create the monster there's no good whinging about it!!!
it may be only a small thing, in the overall parking mess that is Alderley Edge, but I have been told by 'Highways' that there will be yellow lines for Eaton Drive, in the foreseeable future; some at the junction with Ryleys Lane. How far into Eaton Drive, I alas could not find out.
There is a nice space/field next to the boys school which would make a good car park and stop some of the madness on that road. Perhaps the private school should take some responsibility in this matter ?
Quite often there is a long line of cars parked along Davey Lane between the Aldeli and the railway bridge corner on the double yellow lines. It's almost impossible to drive 2-way past them safely.
I think, though, because they stay in the car, there is some technical issue about being able to give them tickets - so where do we go from here?
My own view is that the schools must act more responsibly in ensuring parents don't block up the village at drop-off and pick-up times. We must work with them to create alternative places where the congestion has less impact.
On Sue's post I agree that the PC are limited on what they can do but we do have a Member who sits on both CE and the PC councils and has done for many years.
re. your postings above.
1. you ask 'where is the costing analysis and tendering': are you being a little disingenuous? You and others of your 'group' have put up a long delaying process on the conversion of the Heyes Lane site into a parking lot for the village, including a need for legal options. That is a major contributory factor in the delay which you now criticise. Having and eating of cake? Now there is an election to fight. As the work to prepare for an approx. 140 space car park may be costly and as the Parish Council is about to enter the time of purdah, it is unlikely that there will be much advancement of the car park project until after the election. If a Conservative Parish Council is chosen by the voters then the Heyes lane car park plan will speedily go ahead.
2. May I support Sue's note that all things to do with planning is a CEC matter. The Parish Council does what it can to avoid the worst of what planners can do but in the end, the planners will do as they see fit!
We didn't really hear much on the car park issue following the results of the parish pledge survey which failed to support the assumption that majority of the village was in favour of the development. I assumed incorrectly that they were going to let sleeping dogs lie on this issue; nothing notable in the AEPC minutes in Jan/Feb and March is not yet posted.
To my surprise though I note from Duncan Herald's comments above that this is not the case and it still remains their ambition to press on with the development.
I take it then that the Councillors see the May election as a second bite of the cherry? in other words if re-elected they see this as tacit approval of the scheme.
As for your comments on delaying process by the allotments and gardens society of course we don't want to lose that site but we are insistent that the PC follows the correct legal process and not the current ham fisted bullying approach.
As your comments "may be costly" in reference to creating a car park on Heyes lane I can only assume that there is no costing analysis.
I'm not being disingenuous I'm sure lots of people would to see it and then make their minds up one way or the other.
It just seems odd that such a big project has no detail behind it.
Thanks again Duncan for contributing to this discussion.
you are right in that this thread about the PCSO has been' carparkjacked'. Oh well, let's bang on regardless?
There has not been any intent to abandon the Heyes Lane car park plan; I can only speak for myself here, as I do not have any authority to speak for the Parish Council.
My original belief was that the people renting the allotments would, probably with sadness, give up the Heyes Lane allotments site and move to the proposed new allotments site at the old St. Hilary's field site, for the 'greater good' i.e. that the village needs a new and large car park more than it would worry about a comparatively small number of people having to move sites. I was wrong; the allotments holders dug their toes in and fought, as is their democratic right.
The Conservative candidates for the May 7th election have made it as clear as can be that the plan for a car park on Heyes Lane is part of our manifesto. So a Parish Council that is Conservative would be taken as evidence that the majority of voters are either for the car park or at least not against it.
Please allow me to repeat some facts in this discussion, that are sometimes ignored;
1. the proposed new St. Hilary's site is approx equidistant (in a south direction) from the centre of the village with the Heyes Lane site (in a north direction); I know 'cos I paced it out.
2. The proposed new site is approx twice the size of the Heyes Lane site and so can accommodate all the tennants from Heyes Lane plus all the people on the waiting list for an allotment. Yes I did pace it out!
3. I visited the prioposed new site, some time back, with a chap from the allotments who told me that the land was mostly o.k. (no I won't name him; why cause someone aggravation?).
4. To help meet costs of moving, all the current allotment holders at Heyes Lane have been offered a £500 payment each.
As for the compensation money, of the one tenant who has removed themselves from Heyes lane, they were told that they couldn't have any compensation due to "legal reasons".
"The Conservative candidates for the May 7th election have made it as clear as can be that the plan for a car park on Heyes Lane is part of our manifesto. So a Parish Council that is Conservative would be taken as evidence that the majority of voters are either for the car park or at least not against it."
Surely that would be true only if that point was the ONLY ONE in the manifesto?
If you are saying that it is an all or nothing manifesto then, by continuing to ignore the vast amount of disquiet voiced thus far, you risk losing a huge amount of your traditional supporters to the free-thinking independents, who are not tied to any party whip, or dubious allegiance to wealthy cash-for-honours party sponsors.
It might be a wiser, more popular move to start a re-examination of the whole situation and carefully examine every eventuality. Making these discussions open, transparent and well presented in a new style of Parish Council and Village relationship would be the route I favour. Thankfully I am proud to work closely with a Group of refreshing people who think the same way as I do and I know we will work hard to find the best possible solutions.
AlderleyEdgeFIRST, I am delighted to say, is a serious and realistic alternative to our existing Conservative Parish Council.
You might like to know that Parking in the Village was on the 2006 Conservative Parish Council manifesto too. But then so was the future of the Festival Hall and the Park!
It is time for a change - as so many would agree.
Have the PC challenged these schools at all about the inconvenience that they are causing to the residents (and to folks trying to drive thro' Alderley during the rush hour)? If so, what response did you receive?
Thanks for clarifying, I hadn't clocked that it was embedded in the manifesto.
Try to navigate your way through Chelford Road, Chorley Hall Lane, Brook Lane and even Congleton Road and you will see that the drivers do not care what obstructions or dangers they cause with their inconsiderate abandonment of their vehicles. The Police are not interested and the Local Authority decide to build a carpark on Heyes Lane - senseless!!!
This seemed to mix pleadges from his CE seat and PC seat so I'm confused as to what he claims to deliver in what seat.
With regard to the compensation for inconvenience payments to the Heyes Lane allotment holders as far as I am aware we voted on a figure of £500 per holder and that was included in the budget. There may be some delay of an official nature but as far as I am concerned that money is due to the allotment holders and will be paid as soon as possible.
I very much regret that the car park is necessay but as can be seen from the above posts we are at crisis level with parking in the village. The person who mentioned parents dropping children off is probably correct but the main aim of the car park is to relieve longer term parking which should alleviate some of the problems on residential streets and the attendant double parking of parents.
As the councillor who regularly consults with the PCSO I can assure people that the police do take the issue seriously and are trying to make a difference. This article was intended to warn that a more proactive approach will be taken and offenders wil be targeted harder. There are a signicant group of people who are completely oblivious to the safety of others and who regard parking tickets as an occupational hazard, peer group pressure from other parents and the schools may help.
I agree that the schools should take some responsibility but know that they regularly send out letters to parents pointing out the danger to their own and others children. The new playing fields at AESG will help as there will be parking there for parents dropping off and collecting.
Cllr Joseph I feel that is a bit rich coming from a councillor as one of your colleagues is mostly responsible for the unpleasant comments and threats of legal action.
The same attitude is also on display at parish council meetings if someone tries to comment.
What if I were to ask you why you should have a say in our village when you don't live here ? That is exactly the attitude of one of the current parish councillors.
Might I suggest that you address your own in-house 'unpleasantries' before criticising others who post on this site.
http://bit.ly/1aaHRIL
Please let us be calm; can we all try to be wondefully civilised and debate without possible insults? Or as my mama used to say, "play nicely".
May I try to answer some of the recent points? May I say as usual, that I write as an individual, not as a direct Parish Council spokesperson.
1. Fenton: you ask why the possible cost of the car park is not in the budget. It seems that you may be saying that if it is not in the current budget then it won't happen. But would you not agree that a budget is a guideline, not something set in concrete? If the voters of Alderley Edge decide to return a Conservative Parish Council, then in my opinion there is no reason why the car park cannot be costed, tendered and got on with asap.
2. Fenton. You write that an Heyes Lane tennant wished to leave and asked for his £500 relocation monies but was told no, for legal reasons. As you know, I am not closely involved with this matter but as far as I know, what happened is: the Parish Council were advised (legal advice?) that if one person left and was given their £500, then another person could occupy that allotment. A legal minefield? As I understand it, when all are gone, then all that qualify will get their £500. if you need exact details, my advice is that you write to the Clerk to the Parish Council and ask.
3. Pete. Are you suggesting that in some way every part of a manifesto should get a separate vote? Surely not? Surely all manifestos are an all-or-nothing at election time?
Wealthy cash-for-honours party sponsers? Alas we don't have any of those around here. Since the Parish Council can't give so much as a GCSE, why raise the matter at a Parish Council election? As to national elections: as far as I recall, all the major parties give out honours to their backers; twas ever thus?
You ask how a ar park at Heyes Lane will help with the drop-pff and pick-up at the two schools. As far as I am aware, I have never suggested that it will. Are you throwing in a red herring? As far as talking to the schools, I did have a converstaion some time ago with the Headteacher of AESG. I was told that the school had sought permission of the Council to open the front gates to create a drive through for drop-off and pick-up. It was refused. People out there are always trying to put things right.
4. Mike. You write that nobody used the old festival hall car park. Might you try specsavers? I actually did a survey some while back on the usage of the F.H. car park i.e. i went and counted, on different dayts, at differeent times of day and of course there were odd empty spots but I can assure you that it was well used indeed!
You write that everything should be re-examined. This car park matter has been ongoing for over a year; have you not had plenty of time to re-examine? Where are your group's alternative proposals?
May I ask a single question here? If your group end up with a majority, will you cancel all plans to build a car park on the Heyes Lane alotments site? Yes or no will do.
Lastly, you seem to me to imply that you (your group?) are not happy with the proposed future of the Festival Hall. Please be specific about exactly what you do not like.
There will be canvassing starting soon. I will be one of those on the doorstep. I'm perfectly happy to debate any/all of the matters raised. I won't debate any matters that I know nothing or little about. I look forward to some verbal cut and thrust in a democratic manner. Or as I am in the park, walking my dog, most mornings around 9.00-9.30, please feel free to come up and engage.
With this to Mikes comments paragraph:
"Lastly, you seem to me to imply that you (your group?) are not happy with the proposed future of the Festival Hall. Please be specific about exactly what you do not like"
You seem to suggest that the allotment society or other group has an issue with the festival hall re development and Doctors surgery moving.
Nothing could be further from truth, the allotment society doesn't oppose the redevelopment and I've never heard of any other group of people oppose the plans. It's also abit late to oppose them now as the work has started !
The redevelopment plans for the Doctors move to festival hall do not require additional parking or losing Heyes Lane allotments, your comments are starting to sound like scare mongering which I expected better from your good self.
Again, how much is the car park going to cost to build ? Or current properly costed estimate and who has provided this esitmate?
Again thank you for continuing contributions to this discussion.
the last of this evening.
1. you question the need for a car park on Heyes Lane as not needed for the Medical Centre. I have repeatedly stated that, in my opinion,the car park is needed for a combination of reasons viz. to take cars out of the village and for the medical Centre (where else will cars of people using the Medical Centre go? There won't be room on the reduced number of spaces at the hall post re-development. Must the cars be parked along the nearby streets? And then where do the cars go once the inhabitants of those streets get residents only parking?) and for the use of employers and for the use of shoppers who will stroll the short distance from the Hall to the village centre, etc.
How many spaces do you estimate will be needed, at any one time, for the doctors, pharmacy, other tennants of the Medical Centre/Hall, users of the Hall etc.Instead of repeating 'not needed' please name numbers.
2. I keep saying that costing will occur, once the election is completed. It would have been done long ago, if your group had not delayed it by your hard fought opposition.
3. I have still to hear a reply to my question 'if you win the election, will your group cancel the car park and re-instate the small number of allotments'? Yes or no please.
4. I look forward to reading your groups' alternative solution to the village's ever growing car parking problems and of course both how you will consult on that and the costings for it!
Jon; thankyou for the kind words. Remember, the Conservative party is a broad church and I'm sure we would welcome a man of your clear good sense!
Sleep well everyone; it'll be a fine day tomorrow.
The Medical Centre Management have made it abundantly clear that the design plan for the new Medical Centre / Festival Hall provides more than ample parking for both staff and patients.
They further disassociated themselves from any suggestion that the building of the new Medical Centre was (in any way) conditional upon the acquisition of Heyes Lane Allotments for car parking.
So, debate all you like about the need for additional parking in the village, the inability of the Police or PCSO's to deal with the dangerous and flagrant disregard of parking restrictions, the complete lack of any discussion about public transport as an alternative to the ever-growing requirement for more parking......but lets make it absolutely clear that the Mediacal Centre will happen with or (preferably) without the grabbing of Heyes Lane Allotments for a
car park that will (in my opinion) be under-used and eventually end up as flats or houses and thus add to the parking problem in this increasingly ill thought out village of ours.
I am not aware that there WILL be a car park on Heyes Lane allotments site as I do not recall the Parish Council revealing that they actually have the legal right to make that change. You say you do but when pushed to prove that everything goes strangely quiet, does it not?
What I do know is this - and this is the key to why we need a change of Parish Council in this Village - that if there was no other alternative and well researched evidence was available to support a car park on land bequeathed to our Village on the Heyes Lane site there is not one allotment holder that would have stood in the way of such a development. But the allotment holders needed to be treated with greater respect than they have been and not spoken to like surfs in some private fiefdom. What has happened in this whole sorry saga is a piece of appalling public relations that frankly ( no pun intended!) you should all be ashamed of.
That, ladies and gentlemen of our Parish Council, is why it has all taken so long from the time you chose to stab your finger at a piece of convenient land and then attempt to run rough shod over every detail to get your way -combined with the added fact that the majority of the Village are not satisfied that you have behaved well and with the courtesy expected of you and are against your plan. Do please remember that you have yet to convince our Village that you have the evidence to support this Car Park.
AlderleyEdgeFIRST will seek to solve the parking problem in our Village in a resourceful and carefully researched way. We will keep everyone abreast of every issue, listening carefully to a wide range of views I am certain - but once we have the best and agreed solution we will act.
Better that way than blindly going against the stated wishes of our Village surely?
Or have I misunderstood 'democracy'?
Illegal parking around schools has absolutely nothing to do with the proposed Heyes Lane car park. ........ Illegal parking happens because the selfish and inconsiderate drivers collecting their children from school are unlikely to use the proposed Heyes Lane car park.
They're selfish and the police / traffic wardens should make a point of being around the school areas at morning dropping off times and afternoon collecting times.
Never mind giving drivers any more "warning" letters .... (how pathetic) !
Give them a ticket every single time it happens !
I'm sure if the proposed Heyes Lane car park became a reality, then many visitors and staff who work in the village shops, offices, bars and restaurants would be prepared to walk a short distance from Heyes Lane to the centre of the village, especially if all day parking were allowed.
Finally, someone commented about the Festival Hall car park hardly ever being used in the past ? ..... Well, I can tell you that most days of the week whenever I walked past there, it was almost always full of cars !
1. Hi Terry,
you suggest using the edges of C.H.Lane playing field as a car park. Not a bad idea; even I have thought of that BUT in any rain, most of the edges become a quagmire. That could be dealt with e.g. putting in land drains; perhaps you might suggest that to the new political group and ask them to cost it? There's also the (possibly immense) difficulty of getting authority to change a playing field (or part of one) into a car park; the last time I raised the possibility, I was told. very firmly, 'forget it'.
2. Hi Alan,
yes of course you are right that the Medical centre will go ahead without a car park being built. But the proposed car park is only partly to make life easier for (ill) people to use the Medical centre, it is also intended to take cars off the streets. I was there today and every possible space on both Stamford Rd. and Talbot Rd. had a car on it. If I lived on either of those streets I would already be banging on the door at CEC to demand resident-only-parking!
3. Hi Pete,
you wrote that a 'car-park-half-way-accross town' won't help; to be fair, I think you were only applying your comment to school drop/pick up, but others have claimed that in general people won't walk from the proposed new car park into the village. So off I went, in today's fine sunshine (brought to you by your Conservative Parish Council of course!) and paced it out. Assuming that the entrance to the proposed car park will be more or less where the present entrance is, the distance between the car park and the junction of Heyes Lane with London Rd., which I see as the start of the village from the north, is a mere 176 metres. Is it possible that people who want to visit/shop in A.E. will not mind a gentle stroll like that? Before anyone else writes it, yes I know that the cost of parking will be a factor. My own idea (not P.C. policy at this time) is to make parking on a new car park free for the first period, so that people will get used to the whole idea.
4. Hi Mike,
you question whether the P.C. 'have the legal right' to build a car park on Heyes Lane. Your mind set is your own business but if the Conservatives win the election, will that not be the time to stop digging toes in and instead concentrate on fighting to make the proposed new allotment site, at the St. Hilary's field, as good as can be?
With regard to respect. i can only speak for myself and I do not believe that anyone can show even a single example of my being less than respecful. I disagree with your viewpoint but I do not disrespect you.
You write that your new group will be resourceful, research things, keep all abreast, listen carefully; you only missed out motherhood and apple pie! BUT what exactly/clearly/factually are you wanting to do? Either you have a secret manifesto or you do not have a manifesto. If I were not a Parish Councillor or a Conservative, I would read what your group members have written and conclude that essentially you are saying that you have no ideas to present, but I should vote for you 'cos you are all good people and you will muddle through somehow! I'm sure you are good people, but I prefer to vote for someone's ideas.
By the way, I keep asking the question 'if you win, will you cancel all plans for a car park on Heyes Lane and re-instate the few allotments?'. Why don't you answer? it is easy to sit at home, in front of the compuiter, with a nice glass of wine and be witty in having a go at the present Parish Council, but now you are standing for election in a political contest, the boot is on the other foot; you have to answer the questions?
This is getting a bit 'you said', 'I said', 'no I didn't', 'yes you did'. So I'll stop.
It seems that most of what is writen here now is by 'the usual suspects'. I'd love it if some new people joined in. Support me or support 'them' or just tell us to stop being childish?
To suggest that fully costed proposals for a new car park can only be produced after an election, is not credible, particularly when Councillors have been in post for a number of years (in some cases for more than a decade). It is a bit like David Cameron, Ed Miliband etc standing up and saying "these are our policies; vote for us and if we get elected, we'll then tell you how much it is all going to cost".
Is transparency too much to ask for? A Yes/No answer will suffice :-)
how cunning of you to turn my own request for a yes/no answer back upon me.
O.K. I've enquired and it seems that the committee concerned has indeed set in motion the costing process.
So the answere to your question is 'yes'. That's about as transparent as it gets?
Whether a figure will arrive before the election or not I have no idea.
By the way, my lack of info. on that doesn't mean that I am uninterested, simply that the info. had not yet filtered down to me. My actual title within the P.C. is 'Lead Councillor for Park and Open Spaces', which does sound somewhat Gilbert and Sullivan! My colleagues will have little or no knowledge of those until I update them
You write that getting a figure and indeed starting work before the election is not credible. What would you have complained about if, at the time of the election, the proposed car park work had begun?.
I still believe that you can give a yes/no on the car park proposal for Heyes Lane; after all, several of your group were of the 'stop the car park' group and I don't believe that they will change, do you? Perhaps in the interest of your mantra on openness & clarity & transparency you will tell the public how many of your 9 candidates are/were members of the 'stop the car park' group? Then the public can decide for itself on your group's likely stance re. the car park? If the majority of your 9 candidates favour no 145 space car park on Heyes Lane, should you tell the public?
Oh yes; whatever is decided as your group's policy on where to put all the cars, are you able to say whether the P.C. should pay for it? Or have you another source of money in mind?
Come on Craig, answer some questions please.
If my understanding is correct Mike's 'group' (i.e. candidates who are putting themselves forward under the banner of AlderleyEdgeFIRST) are not stating a position on the future of the Heyes Lane allotments because they want to do what the current Parish Council have spectacularly failed to do - properly consult the residents of this village, and listen to their views and ideas BEFORE they come up with a plan. This 'group' has not been formed to prevent progress. It has been formed because there is a recognition that, generally speaking, the current Parish Council treats most of the electorate with disdain and disregard. AlderleyEdgeFIRST intend to change the CULTURE of the council, to one of openness, transparency and respect. The clue, I think, is in the 'group's' name.
no matter how they twist and turn, they still willl not answer the essential question. How many of their candidates are opposed to a car park on Heyes Lane and instead want the allotments re-established, no matter what?
By the way, for all their good intention to consult, if they should win the election,how do they propose to do that? Will they use an independent organisation? if they do it somehow themselves, then there will be accusations of not properly consulting; just as they so accuse the present P.C. I imagine you would then be horrified at them being accused of showing distain?
Another question. Does the group have a leader? Who would be 'le grand fromage' if they come to power?
However they decide to conduct a consultation, it has to be better than the ridiculous brochure that was distributed a few months ago which was more of a promotional document than anything else. (And the response to which was apparently ignored, as it didn't reflect the result that the Parish Council had hoped for.) Not a great use of taxpayer money, was it?
Lessons can be learned by the mistakes this council has made. Not least, it would be sensible to conduct a consultation with a closing date, and a clear explanation of how the data collected will be used and disseminated. How the questions are worded will determine whether the consultation is perceived as open or just an exercise in shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted.
I do live within the village catchment area for the election of councillors and have done so for 35years. I have shopped and socialised in the village for all that time and when asked to stand at the last election was pleased to do so in order to give something back to the village I have enjoyed and valued for all those years. Being a Parish Councillor is a voluntary, unpaid and often frustrating job as one starts with great ideas and hopes and then discovers the frustrations involved in trying to implement those ideas from our beaurocratic masters.
With regard to the comment 'idle.' Pete, it was said in the context of when people are satisfied with things they rarely take the time to comment whereas when we are unhappy we usually complain vociferously. I admit the word used was clumsy and apologise if it caused offence.
My Question (above): "Is transparency too much to ask for?"
Your Response (above): "The answer to your question is yes"
Thank you for confirming what I had already suspected :-)
My view is that an organisation is only as good as its weakest part.
If the Parish Council has a member who is rude and often contentious on a public forum, and the rest of the Parish Councillors stand by and allow that behaviour to continue, it does lead to 'tarring with the same brush' which you refer to. Sorry if that opinion offends you.
I have attended meetings of the PC in which a couple of dominant Councillors hold sway and ride rough-shod across any sort of democratic process to the point that they kept re-defining the way in which words should be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Other Councillors sat back meek as spring lambs obviously and obliviously in their awe.
For what it's worth, I don't believe it is in anyone's interest to have a PC made up entirely of councillors allied to one single political party - affairs of the Parish are a-political anyway.
I admire the work that Duncan does for The Parish but cant help thinking that he would be far more effective if he sailed under his own colours and didn't have to suffer the constraints and criticisms of colleagues with other items on their own personal agendas
Now will you please answer my oft repeated question as to how many of your candidates are going to vote to cancel the proposed car park, no matter what. Please no more 'management-geek-speak', just answer. Oh where is Paxman when I need him?
Hi Claire. I don't think its true that the 'group' are independent of any political party. For one thing, 'they', or at least some of 'they' are clearly anti-Conservative, which is surely a political stance? Another thing is that 'they' are a group partcipating in a political event. Trying to 'hide' behind the 'we are just plain folks who are not politicians' is just 'not on'. On which note, a question; the present PC is open about the political affiliation of its Councillors i.e. all are card-carrying Conservatives. How about info. on the political affiliation/s of 'their' candidates. Any 'young stalinists'? Craig I understand has stood before (and lost) as a Lib.Dem. Nothing wrong with being a Lib.Dem., but why not declare that affiliation? We've shown you ours, now they show us theirs?
Yes consulting is a good idea. But still no info. from the group about how they will do it and what cost/s may be involved. Are good intentions enough?
Vin: powerful words succinctly put, about the 'nice group'.
Alan: kind of you, but might you give a list of alledged 'personal agendas'?
Hi ho, off to drink coffee, read the sports pages and then trot off and listen to our Chancellor.
One of your colleagues has repeatedly declined to answer straight questions about his relationship with a local building and development company. Furthermore, that colleague has been rude and high-handed with several people who have challenged his views on a number of topics.
We can only speculate as to why he choses to conduct himself in this way, but suffice it to say that his actions are damaging to the reputation of the Council as a whole as they appear to close ranks and support him.
I have never understood (and it has never been explained) why Heyes Lane allotments were identified as the sole suitable site for a car park. There was no consultation with the people of Alderley Edge. There was a heavy handed and (some would say) legally contentious acquisition of land that had been bequeathed to the people of Alderley Edge for the purpose of recreation.
There are other pieces of ground such as Lydiat Lane, Chorley Hall Lane and Ryleys Lane. There are sites such as that at the rear of Panacea which I believe is owned by Emerson / Jones that would be perfectly suitable for development of a multi-story car park, but no, it seems that someone has got Heyes Lane fixed firmly in their gaze and that last ribbon of land (after the development of the Cottage Hospital gardens and the Royal Oak bowling green) will become a car park, and then.....?
The position of the AlderleyEdgeFIRST (Independent) candidates at this election is very clear. With respect to the Heyes Lane allotments, ALL of us will vote to oppose a change of use unless and until a cost-benefit analysis has been carried out, which confirms that there is no other more viable and cost effective option.
This is in stark contract with the policy approach adopted by you and your colleagues, which is to commit yourselves to a change of use without first having any idea of the costs of this project, or of any alternative parking solutions.
Regarding your comment vis-a-vis Party affiliation, none of the AlderleyEdgeFIRST candidates has any Party affiliation, that is why we are INDEPENDENT. Personally, I have not been a member of a political Party for some time, although I have been a member of two previously.
"young stalinists", sic?
The punctuation police are surely watching you but do tell us what you know about these young Stalinists, they are surely the offspring of Alderley residents who voted for your party in previous elections.
I am a Conservative candidate for the PC with no previous experience of sitting on it. I have lived here 22 years which I am sure is a lot less than many of the combatants in this string of comments. I speak of my tenure in AE only to make it clear I did not arrive last week. It is a far more vibrant village than when I first moved in and will be more lively again in another 22 years. Something will have to give to accommodate the current pressure from visitors and their cars, whether for work or pleasure.
The Medical Centre will increase traffic flows down the adjacent streets and the residents of those streets will suffer from just added passing traffic if not also additional parking unless there is another vehicular route to it, which the proposed car park should provide. I appreciate some of the correspondents claim the car park and the Medical Centre should not be linked but surely if the plan to create the Medical Centre at the Festival Hall is agreed by all parties ( as it seems to be) it also makes sense to solve as many problems as possible in the same development. The available sites for a much needed car park over which the PC has control seem to build down to Heyes Lane. The other sites mentioned are either in third party ownership (behind Panacea) and would be expensive I am sure to acquire or would involve children being displaced (Chorley Hall Lane - for which the planning issues might well involve replacement of the lost pitch elsewhere)
Some years ago there was a proposal to redevelop The Parade which required the creation of a temporary car park in the Park but that proved impossible to negotiate due to pressure from local residents) Had the redevelopment gone ahead I recall additional car parking was to be created ( although I will stand corrected)
Whoever forms the PC after the election, if they are to solve the 'crisis' of car parking, they will need to focus on what they control not on what they do not. The PC owns Heyes Lane allotments so naturally the solution lies there. This would also take most of the Medical Centre traffic away from the side streets. The PC does not own the land behind Panacea so it is difficult to see the solution being there, quite apart from the additional expense of building a multi-storey carpark in that location (just how many storeys would it need to be to accommodate an additional 150 cars?)
All of the aspirants to the PC need to focus on what is possible rather than having a fanciful wish list. If a car park is to be sited anywhere it needs both to be able to accommodate the number of cars and be accessible to the number of cars which will pass to and from it on a daily basis. Heyes Lane seems to fulfill this.
I hope this question is not impertinent: how many of the commentators in this string are members of Alderley FIRST and allotment holders at Heyes Lane? I only ask because I have declared my position and feel it might be 'open and approachable' of the Alderley FIRSt time and allotment holders to do the same.
We all suffer from the parking and we all want a solution.
Your question is not 'impertinent'. None of the contributors to this thread are allotment holders at Heyes Lane but a great many will be part of the 1800 or so names that oppose the development of that site; people whose opinion and wish has been ignored.
As far as AlderleyEdgeFIRST is concerned there are three candidates who have been involved in this thread. Out of our nine candidates we have two allotment holders who have been 'holders' for some time and one who has joined the Alderley Edge Allotments and Gardens Society in the last month or so. Of those I am, as President of the Society, the only member who has had any involvement in the Heyes Lane Allotment Site cause.
Whilst it is my role as President of the Society to advise the Chairman and Committee I have no executive role within the Society. That said it is exceptionally well run by the existing Chairman and Committee and goes from strength to strength.
Neither the Chairman nor any of the Committee Members of the Alderley Edge Allotments and Gardens Society are AlderleyEdgeFIRST candidates.
In short, we are not Group of 'disgruntled allotment holders'. Far from it - as I hope we will demonstrate quite soon.
It occurs to me that there is a wider issue here that will stretch long into the future unless something is done on a more tactical basis
If Alderley Edge continues to become (as you describe it) more vibrant, then it will attract more visitors and probably more people wishing to live in the Village. This means more cars and a need for more parking.
So, after, Heyes Lane and then Chorley Hall Lane and then Ryleys Lane car parks are full, and the multi-story car park (5 levels!) is built behind Panacea and The Park is concreted over to provide yet more parking, what then?
A significant proportion of the people reading this will easily and happily be able to walk into the Village. A large number of those visiting the bars and restaurants could perhaps chose an alternative means of transport to the motor car...or could they?
Public Transport serving the village is very poor and has been in sharp decline for many years.
In the good old days there used to be several buses per hour connecting Alderley Edge directly with Manchester Piccadilly and Macclesfield - one of them even provided a service down Heyes Lane to The Circuit and was something of a lifeline for the elderly people that lived on the Bollin Fields estate and used it to travel up and down to the Village.
Alderley Edge Railway Station was teeming with children in the mornings and afternoons as they jostled to catch the train to schools in Wilmslow whilst students from other towns arrived to attend Mount Carmel or St Hilarys - certainly there was no dropping-off in cars.
We have arrived at the present situation after years of poor planning and an inability or unwillingness to properly explore long term strategic solutions through consultation, analysis and joined-up thinking.
Whilst I know little about AlderleyEdgeFIRST and hope to find out more in the coming weeks, I am encouraged by the fact that they are not tied-up by a political party and they are declaring from the start a commitment to consult properly on strategy.
It's not a clear change of use that some Current parish councillors would have you believe. Have they shown you the letter from the national allotment society's legal adviser? This was received by the PC in December.
Again, how much is it going to cost to transform the site to a car park and where is the money coming from? I doubt the entire precept would cover anything near what would bequired.
Thank you for your responses and for the clarification by Mike.
Alan poses a perfectly valid question about what will happen if all of the car parks in all possible locations are built. No one can really answer that, least of all me because the beauty of the democratic process is that future generations will decide that. The current one needs to decide the current problem and build in a little expansion room. Solving yesterday's problem today is the wrong solution. Building half the parking required will be an expensive waste of time and public money. Doing nothing will sell the community short and condemn many of the residents of AE to prolonged parking misery. They deserve better than that and will get it - the Conservative group is promising this on a street by street basis). Alan quite reasonably refers to the visitors to bars and restaurants mostly using cars and I have no quarrel with his point other than it deals with only a part of the problem. During the day our streets are infested with car parking from office and shop workers who have little choice about where they can park. The PC cannot retrospectively require their employers to provide them with parking although I agree CE could plan things better (although they are constrained by Planning Law and Planning Guidelines)- let's not forget CE deal with Planning not the PC.
Significantly, there s lIttle criticism of the Heyes Lane car park per se ( I suspect because most people recognise the parking problem and the lack of available sites for its solution). Most of the criticism is of the displacement of the Allotment holders.
Like decisions the world over in such matters the verdict is harsh on those who may be adversely affected (for whom there is sympathy and compensation) but will benefit a larger and wider group within the community who suffer currently for whom there is sympathy for the current predicament but no compensation. The PC exists to deal with local issues where it can for the benefit of everyone but sometimes alleviating a problem means a small group suffer. Everybody, including me, has suffered from a planning decision we would prefer not to have been made but it is what living in a community brings - especially one as vibrant as AE.
Finally, Fenton, I appreciate you have already received a response from Duncan in relation to costing. There the matter must rest until after the election when whoever forms the PC can deal a with it or not, depending on who they may be. For my part, any expenditure from public money must be made wisely and secure value for money.
We should meet and discuss this face to face, so I hope we have the opportunity to do so.
As the Heyes lane allotment to car park project does appear to be on the conservative manifesto I don't think it's unfair of me to ask these questions of costs etc.
I have worked very hard to constantly improve our park. I resent very much this stupid generalisation. I am convinced that the work of myself and the Officers of 'ansa' have resulted in the park never before being so useful and attractive.
If the author of this calumny has any decency, then let him/her provide a list of specific faults s/he can find.
I welcome comments from the public as to what they think of our park; the public have a better sense of the park than does some scurrilous pamphleteer.
Indeed would the nine AE1 candidates care to comment on the park please?
I believe that the park has improved over recent years but believe that a lot more could be done to make it a more pleasant and amenable space.
I think that the planting could be improved, the bandstand could be better used - preferably as a small café serving refreshments, and there could be decent toilet facilities provided.
My apologies for the delay in responding to your post from last evening. Happy to meet up. How should I make contact with you? Are you on LinkedIn as I can use that if you would prefer?
My apologies for the delay in responding to your post from last evening. Happy to meet up. How should I make contact with you? Are you on LinkedIn as I can use that if you would prefer?
Alan: the ex-'friends-of-the-park' group tried to get a cafe set up in the bandstand, a few years back. The Parish Council had nothing against that whatsoever. The cost turned out to be huge and the money could not be raised. So they gave up.
By planting, do you mean the flower beds (all two of them!). I liased recently with CEC to get permission for the Chairman and Secretary of the 'allotments soc.' to manage the flower beds. The two gentlemen requested it. That permission was granted. The two gentlemen then 'vanished'.
Or do you include the large number of new daffodil bulbs planted at the Redesmere entrance; the daffs are now much admired I believe.
There are toilets in the bowlers' pavillion. The last two times that they were opened to the public use, they were vandalised. It was before my time, but I was told that it cast circa £14,000 in repairs, the last time. I do not believe that CEC will ever pay to put toilets in the park; you can always try them of course.
Duncan: I dont know exactly what type of cafe was proposed that would be of "huge" cost but it realy could be a counter with a tea urn, shelf of confectionary and perhaps some sandwiches. I reckon that from a very small scale, a bigger better facility will evolve on a commercial basis.
The idea that some vandals gained a victory in closing down the toilets is (frankly) depressing, as is the sight of mums and dads taking kids for a wee behind a bush - surely we can do better than that?
I agree that the daffs are lovely, and whilst there are only two flower beds, it would be wonderful to see them planted up with flowers - AEPC appears to have all the names and addresses of the allotment holders and to be in regular contact with them so I'm not sure how the Chaiman and Secretary can have "disappeared."
The cafe you suggest MAY be allowable under bye-laws etc. You'd have to check. The costs to which I referred were for such as bringing electricity and water etc. to the site; if I remember, that alone was several thousand pounds.
It was also suggested at about that time, to ask one of the 'from a van' type things to be brought in. I seem to recall that none of those chaps thought it would be profitable enough!
The 'disappeaed' as in they never showed up to do the work, as far as I know. You can always ask the two chaps why they didn't turn up? They also cancelled their offer to help with arrangeing and planting and caring for the tubs on London Rd.
You may recall an entry above, where I said that I'd tried to have the 'tardis toilet', moved from South St., into the park. At circa £25,000 p.a. rent, I gave up on that. I did approx. sound out CEC on the building of a public toilet in the park. I think I can still hear the laughter! CEC have not increased your Council Tax.charges for several years. To make that possible, they have had to reduce spending e.g. on building public toilets.
If I'm still involved after the election, I'll try again. At least I can then tell you who is saying no?
I take it you are not into healthy eating then Alan ?
Duncan: I guess that the bowlers pavillion already has power and water to it so how can it be so costly to run an extension from there.....unless you are a Council costing the job with taxpayers money - then it will be eyewateringly expensive!
You are right in that CEC hasnt increased Council Tax in recent years but we are losing facility left, right and centre. We drive a round trip of 15 miles to Knutsford to tip our rubbish, we pay a lot more for local car parking, we drive on very poor roads and walk on very poor pavements, street cleansing is largely a thing of the past and today we learn on AE.com that this years St Georges Day Parade will be the last because CEC cant or wont afford the cost of policing the event. I think that (under the circumstances) if CEC tried to put up Council Tax there would be outbreaks of civil unrest.
You clearly have in mind an alltogether smaller proposal? You needs must take into account the 'elf & safety' costs and the laying of power cables and the water supply etc etc. I do not mean to be dismissive, but out there in that unhelpful real world, everything costs more than we mere mortals realise. If you think that your proposal is a real possibility, then go for it. Get costing estimates and a business plan. Mayhaps you'll be more entrepreneurial than either the 'Friends-of-the-Park were or than I think possible. I'm sure the PC would back you if you got finance arranged. I fear the PC backing would be moral rather than financial.
By the way, for your info., the smaller brick building behind the bowlers' pavillion used to be a ladies' toilet.
Has AE1st given you any support?
Fortunately I have been around Alderley Edge long enough to remember exactly what was contained within the park hut (you'd be surprised!)
I get the strong sense that you have become weary with banging your head against CEC's brick walls and perhaps even you will welcome the energy and new ideas that AlderleyEdge FIRST (or AE1) may bring.
a bright new sunny day arrives. My head is hard enough and anyway, my 'nagging' has often worked
. Would I welcome AE1st? Certainly not, as they keep on refusing to tell us what they will do; except immediately cancel the proposed plan for a car park on Heyes Lane. It does seem that AE1st want to save the green area that is on Heyes Lane but are quite happy to put cars on the C.H.L. playing field green area. So save the few allotments but stuff the kids who play football eh? Now there's a vote winner eh?
I have not read anywhere that AlderleyEdgeFirst have proposed Chorley Hall Lane as a car park or threatened to "stuff the kids" who play football there - what did I miss?
I did read that they would resist the use of Heyes Lane allotments as a car park until ALL options had been properly evaluated and costed - this seems perfectly sensible to me.
I know that you also looked at using Chorley Hall Lane as a carpark and came to the conclusion that it was too muddy!
As I said in a response to Martin Hallam, I see lots of discussion about grabbing land for car parks, but nothing about reducing the car traffic that seriously blights the village. I see no suggestion that the businesses (including the schools) that generate the biggest proportion of the problem should at least contribute to the cost of an effective long term solution - the answer (at least for the Conservative PC) always seems to be to snatch green space from the people of Alderley Edge to whom it was bequethed for good and healthy reason - the same people who, when asked to vote on the issue, returned a resounding response against your proposal. Is it wise to keep poking them with a sharp stick?
I have no particular interest in the allotments other than they are a piece of green space that stand as a barrier between the encroaching mass of concrete that Alderley Edge is becoming as it buckles under the weight of poor planning and lack of joined-up thinking.
is this in danger of becoming the 'Alan and Duncan show'? Are we two the new Ant and Dec? I wouldn't mind their money!
There is sometimes an impression given, by the odd writer, that the PC have siezed on the idea of Heyes Lane allotments as a site for a car park only because they hate allotments and the colour green!
You write above that AE1st will cancel the proposed car park on Heyes Lane until 'ALL options had been properly evaluated...'. For me that's re-inventing the bicycle as it implies that the PC did not consider other sites.
1. CHL Field...drainage problems, a car park and football pitch surely can't ce-exist, entering/leaving via C.H.Lane is asking to die. CEC 'own' the land and have (as I recall) said 'no' in the past. Who would pay the costs involved?
The PC is at this time trying to get permission to use CHL Field as a temporary car park for the duration of the AE Music Festival. If the answer to that is no, what will that say about CHL Field becoming a semi-permanent car park?
2. Extend the car park in the park, up to London Rd.; space for about 40 cars, loss of a small (unloved?) piece of grassed area and 4 or so trees. No support for that in the PC
3. Somehow 'force' Emersons to build a two storey car park behind the Panacea building. How 'force'? If a canny business like Emersons won't build a several storey car park there (for which I believe planning permission exists) could it be because it wouldn't be profitable?
4. The PC has oft asked the public for viable suggestions as an alternative site: not exactly flooded with ideas I'm afraid.e.g. Build a car park on green land at the edge of the village. Park and ride. No, I think impractical. Which green land exactly?
So I await with deep interest AE1st quoting a list of their alternatives; the ones that the PC haven't thought of !
Brownfield, existing planning, presumably decent volume of cars.
I'm not sure about "forcing" them, but how about a concerted effort to negotiate; a joint mutually beneficial venture with public and private money?
I don't believe that I have thrown any mud. Please explain to me.
As you are an AE1 council candidate, might you be so kind as to enlighten us on the likely ways in which your party intends to tackle the parking problem?
Hi Jonathan,
sounds good. Has anyone any idea as to how many stories would be allowed and how many cars could be accommodated? If only 10 or 15 is that going to make a significant improvement?
Hi Alan,
you write of (1) doing something about 'reducing the car traffic'; suggestions welcome please. I have in mind something/s that a PC could do as I'm not sure that reducing the car traffic is quite as far to the forefront of CEC thinking as it is with you/us.
(2) that the PC 'always seems to be to snatch green space': apart from the proposed car park at Heyes Lane, what other green space has the PC snatched? (gotcha there?).
The tickbox named "decent volume of cars" needs the tick removing as the plan was for 29 extra spaces (I think).
in my own case, the park and ride suggestion, when I put it to people in the park and in the village to whom I talk, the clear majority was that they would continue to drive into the viollage and had no interest in park and ride. If the people don't want it, then it shouln't happen?
Is there a car parking serious problem or not? There are some people who say that there is no problem. I find it hard to debate with these people as I can't understand how anyone can say there is no parking problem in AE. It will get worse, will it not?
Will a good-sized car park go a long way to solving the problem? My own view is that it will.
It seems to me that pretty much every site suggested for a car park means encroaching on a green space. Yes that is sad but if someone can find a site that is not expensive, is near the village centre and is large enough, please reveal it to us all !
You write that we need a 'total plan which resolves all parking for years to come'; that would be ideal. I wish someone could come up with such a plan.
The PC councillors are not stupid and have no hatred of allotments and spend much time trying to prevent the planners taking away green spaces e.g. the green plot where the 'Royal Oak' pub was; we fought to stop that vanishing but the developer and planners eventually thwarted us. So when Martin said that the allotments would become a car park 'for the greater good', that is exactly how I feel. At least the allotment holders have been offered an alternative and larger site.
In passing, those who lay part of the car problem at the Schools: when the new sports facility is build by AESG, it is our hope that parking there can be used for drop off and pick up.
I hope I've managed to answer at least some of your questions.
Rather than get into an argument on here, which you seem to be up for, I will quote something from you which epitomises why I am standing as an independent for a Parish Council seat:
" 2. Extend the car park in the park, up to London Rd.; space for about 40 cars, loss of a small (unloved?) piece of grassed area and 4 or so trees. No support for that in the PC. "
A thorough piece of research, full costing and public consultation there, then.
1. you are being unfair. I used the example of extending the park car park as an example of one idea; put forward by a member of the public by the way, so don't mock. The lack of support in the PC was/is because those of my colleagues who did not like the idea objected at taking a gren space from the park; surely a stance you would agree with? If one is anti taking land from the park, as a principle, is there any need to go forward into costing etc. Surely principle doesn't offend you? Or are you saying that you (and AE1?) will look at the possibility of taking green space from the park?
2. You haven't actually answered my rquest that you describe where/when i threw mud. Don't just insult me, evidence that insult please.
3. The PC keeps coming up with ideas re. parking; often from members of the public. Where are your party's ideas?
One example of listening to the public: a gentleman in the park recently suggested to me that the matter of 'residents only parking spaces' could become rather like the situation he sees in France i.e. ALL residents to have the right to park in ANY 'residents only space', during the day; thus getting rid of the many empty 'residents only spaces'. This would need to be put to the existing users of 'residents only' of course.
4. Disingenuous? I think that means 'not frank or open'. Good lord, how much more open or frank can I get?
Re. point 1 above. I'd hate to seem disingenuous and so I'm happy to say that I would approve of slightly enlarging the park car park. But not enough to go for it if the public were opposed.
5. As per others of your party, you write about consultation. I have asked several times exactly how you would set about consulting. Who will do it? What method would you use? What would it cost? No replies alas. But have you not had months to come up with answers to such questions? It is easy to sit at home and 'have a go' at the Councillors/PC BUT much harder to find yourself facing questions n'est-ce pas?
Firstly, thank you for engaging (again). You are by far the most active on this forum and although I don't necessarily agree with you, it is great to have this dialogue.
I wanted to pose a question (and an opinion). The idea this gentleman has given you re: the France example, is fabulous. There are constantly spaces in these residents bays during the day (I also find it counter intuitive to have such restrictions during working hours, when most people are at work) hence not using these greatly contested parking spaces. To have such a scheme would, in my opinion, free up spaces in the car parks, as, if like me, some villagers just pop to the butchers, or pick up some milk, then we could quite happily use these floating spaces. I'm usually parked for less than 5 minutes, 10 if I nip to Waitrose. I also think we could "trial" this easily and assess the impact before we take any of the green spaces.
My other question, to the PC, not just directly to you, is if these other ideas are around, why were they not in the parish pledge? Or, why have they not been circulated to the populous of the village to get the pulse of what people want?
The other options, as I see them, are the previously mooted round robin of CHL move to the "new" allotment site, Car Park goes on CHL location. We should at least cost it out v's the Heyes Lane proposal (and include the £500 per allotment holder compensation which would not need to be paid - If the Parish is giving out cash, can I have some please?). To set out my stall, this is my preferred option. Yes, people can say it's a green space, but it's the least used green space and makes sense based on the vehicular restrictions to the new proposed allotment site. Plus, we then make use of a currently completely unused space for the playing fields.
Secondly, to lobby Emerson on the potential to build a multistory behind Panacea. Again, I'd like to ask why, if planning is approved on this site, it's been completely removed from all discussions and threads. It looks like misdirection as this is clearly an option. Have we, as a Village, engaged with our friendly local developer? Perhaps Cllr Keegan can ask the Chairman at lunch?
Thirdly, taking the space to extend the car park in the park. Yes, I know this is an encroachment on green space, but being realistic, will it impact the park greatly? How much is this corner used? Not a great option, but an option nevertheless.
Finally, I wanted to throw in a pie in the sky (but would be nice) option, the roof of Waitrose is flat and unused, it would be at great expense, but could it be used as a parking facility?
I understand that many of these suggestions take more thought, and may be more expensive, but we won't know that until they are costed out. As a PC I don't believe you can force the hand of people on the idea which the conservative party has settled on, and force it though before the very basics of the project have been completed and compared with all options.
This is not an attack on you personally, but I do not believe that party politics have any place at PC level. I understand it at CEC but, as this process is showing us, all PC Councillors seems to be towing a party line, and it's not what 1800 people in the parish want, we have told the party that we don't want it, but it's being directed at us.
My last thought on this, before people jump on the negatives of the other proposals, is that we have a CEC and PC councilor in our parish and regardless of who wins, that will remain the same, I would like to ask the winner that they use their influence to ask CEC to move their stance on the CHL site and let local people decide what's best for our village.
I'm about as true a conservative voter that you'll come across, but I truly believe it's better to have Independents in the PC v's Party Politics so for that reason, and the fact the the conservative party has set it's stall out on a development that hasn't been planned, costed or proposed properly, I'm backing AE1. Yes, even without a clear manifesto yet, I see a group of individuals who want the best for the parish but need time to asses what options we've got without the influence or pressure of an overriding party to answer to.
Good Luck to all.
We are motivated also, by a growing frustration at local level, that the views of parishioners (expressed by the 800+ responses to the Parish Plan survey, as well as 1,800 signatories to a petition about the allotments) are being ignored in favour of party ideology.
We do not have a "leader" (unless it is the electorate who vote for us), because all of our candidates are considered as equals and are therefore accorded the same level of respect, regardless of their backgrounds or experiences.
https://www.justpark.com they have spaces in A/E
I jest, of course. However there is a serious point. There are lots of alternatives but hardly any viable - a point Duncan has been trying to make. Multi storey car parks cost money and so need to generate a return if they get built. If they get built on private land, the cost will be higher even if the land can be acquired and the need for the return to higher more imperative.
All choices eventually require a decision and elected representatives are elected to make them and the electorate has the right to criticise them. If it is right make no decision then clearly none should be made, but if the correct decision is the least popular, what then?
Do AE want elected councillors only to make popular decisions even if they might be wrong? Such decisions will curse the village for years to come.
I repeat the point I made earlier: if the Medical Centre is moved to the Festival Hall the roads around it will get busier, to their detriment. Drop offs at the centre will have to use them to get to it or the existing few available spaces. I am sure some readers live there and would not want it. I certainly would not? Heyes Lane car park will not solve the school parking which plagues my home but it will prevent the residents near the centre being similarly affected.
You get to decide on 7 May. I, for one, would like to end the parking misery for many of the side roads in AE (even if it does not solve mine). Preferably within my children's lifetime.
This is a long post. I apologise but some of the personal comments directed at Duncan do those posting them (and the Party they represent) no credit. I have taken enough of your time. Thank you if you read this far.
I don't know how long you've been around this forum but if you want to see proper, nasty insulting comments, you have only to look amongst your fellow Cons.
As far as I'm aware - and I have spent too much time on this forum in the past few days - there have been absolutely no personal comments directed at Duncan. On the contrary, there has been a general show of appreciation of his willingness to engage.
Some have issues with his sense of humour and his choice of words, but personal comments? No.
If I can address your suggestion that patients attending the Medical Centre located within the Festival Hall "Complex" are going to cause traffic mayhem......the Medical Practice that will move to the refurbed building is currently based on George Street, a quiet backwater of the Village. I am not aware of there having been huge volumes of traffic converging on George Street over recent months and years.
The repeated attempts by the Cons to scare the electorate into believing that the Medical Centre wont happen without the car park, or that the Medical Centre will bring chaos and congestion to the streets around Trafford Road are (frankly) ridiculous.
Can I suggest you might consider a slightly different approach if you want to be viewed as a possible parish councillor.
Thank you for your response. I did not use the word 'mayhem' and there was no attempt to scare or alarm members of the electorate. I am aware the new medical centre will be offering more services, which it cannot offer in its current location. It seems to me this will generate more activity. Bear in mind the current national debate about NHS usage all seems to revolve around increased usage of facilities, not less. Whether I am right or wrong remains to be seen but but I would argue that the above appears to make it more likely than not activity around the Centre will be more not less. If we fail to prepare for that we do the community a disservice and will have failed them. I am simply arguing for joined up planning.
Martin Dixon
I am afraid I do not understand your comment. I do not think my comments were offensive to you or to anyone else and was simply trying to encourage an adult debate not a childish one. I think calling someone like Duncan Herald both wrong in fact and insulting. Judge me on what I say (and if elected, what I do) not what others might have done or said in the past. If you would like to, meet me in person.
I'm sorry if I keep picking at nits, but to answer your concerns I would direct you to the statement that was made some time ago by the Managers of the Medical Practice that ample provision had been made within the design plan of the refurbed building for both current and foreseeable needs. They wanted to disasossiate the Medical Centre from any debate about the need for additional car parking on Heyes Lane.
I agree with you about the need for proper, long term, joined up thinking and that is what has failed us in the past.
nice to welcome a 'new boy' to the local politics site.
Glad you approve of Peter's French-style plan. It is one of those simple ideas that pop up and makes one wonder why no-one else thought of it. Hopefully it will be debated and even actioned after the election. We will claim it as out idea and/or AE1st may 'nick it' for themselves !
You ask why ideas are not circulated. I pick up artin's point that an elected council is mainly supposed to just get on with things? The PC tends to debate such ideas in the monthly PC meetings. Until the recent 'blow up' re. Heyes Lane, PC meetings were attended by the proverbial one man and his dog. Shame really, as you would see that some PC debates become shouting matches; I have been known to addtess my colleagues in les than flattering ways and they have given back as good as they get. Ah me, the pleasures of democracy ! If say 7 out of 9 councillors are agaijnst some idea or other, then it will probably 'die a death'.
How might we consult the voters? The only really extensive and unbiased way would be to perhaps employ a commercial/specialist organisation. That would mean spending public money. Those who then disagreed with the result would accuse the PC of wasting public money? We did try surgeries once. Councillor Lloyd and I sat waiting for the public (I think it was either 2 or 3 Saturdays). As I recall, only 3 people actually turned up and one of those had just walked in to look at the Festival Hall.
You write that the CHL site is the 'least used'. In the footy season, I am given to understand that it is used on at least two evenings in the week and on both Saturdays and Sundays. Used by a large number of children. We may have to disagree here, but my own view is that I'd rather preserve a community footy pitch that a few allotments. Especially as the allotment holders are offered a new site, twice as big.
You'd need to ask 'Emersons' about 'Emersons'. That's not just passing the buck; when I've wanted to ask 'Emersons' something, that's exactly what I've done. They are usually both polite and informative. Am I trying to turn you into an activist? Oh yes. !
Lastly, we'll disagree again. I just don't see any wisdom in voting for a group who time after time refuse to say what they would do. The phrase 'a pig in a poke'?
you wrote above that you (et al) are not a political party. I would aver that you are a political group. You are anti-Tory and anti-Heyes Lane car park. That's local politics innit?
You also wrote that you all share common values and wish to serve your community. I can't argue with those worthy aims, but I will say (yet again) that 'fine words' are not enough.Please give us a list of what you actually want to do.
You also wrote that you have no leader. So if (miracles do occur after all) you are elected, will you get rid of the concept of a Chairman and Vice Chairman of the PC? Will you banish any idea of Chairmen of Committees? Will you replace that 'leadership structure' with everyone sitting arond and talking? Is that an anarchistic position ? (Chambers dictionary: anarchistic = leaderlessness).
Remember the last time the PC had a bash at predicting; Allow me to remind everyone, Stand by your beds, Here it comes:
"I am quite confident that the overwhelming majority in this village supports the construction the provision of parking space on the Heyes Lane allotment site and we are going to prove that"
I guess that one didn't pan out. [smiley face goes here]
we Tories will welcome you, if you are on the road to Damascas and a revelation occurs !
Hi Jonathan,
my own poor view is that the majority of people, in AE, either support the need for a car park on Heyes Lane or don't actually mind much. If us true-blues get back, we will take that as a democratic approval for the car park; after all the voters are clearly getting the choice between 'build-a-car-park' from the Conservatives and 'a-car-park-over-our-dead-bodies' from the 'no-manifesto-or-leader' group.
Looking forward to May 8th , now your guy has gone awol
Best
Vin
Thank you for your post in response to mine. I fear we are talking about two different issues. I have said previously in posts on Alderleyedge.com that siting the Medical Centre at the Festival Hall directs traffic movements towards the roads around it. Parking at the existing car park may be thought to be adequate, but no one can be certain. However siting the car park on Heyes Lane provides access to the Medical Centre from Heyes Lane, not the streets leading to the Medical Centre, whilst building in capacity for the future, assisting with alleviation of side road parking and doubling the Allotment capacity on the new site. The latter incidentally should eliminate any waiting list for the allotments which would allow new entrants to the activity to gain a plot. That sounds like a gain for the community, which I appreciate creates a great deal of inconvenience to the present allotment holders.
There is no decision, even to do nothing, which will please all of the community.
it was candidate Craig who wrote above that AE1 did not have a leader, and that all AE1 folk were equal. As I then pointed out (gleefully), that's anarchy being espoused.
Stop wriggling and admit that Craig made a small boo-boo.
How have you leapt from 'no leader' to having a Chairman? Gotcha?
You seem to suggest that the Conservative PC doesn't have people with differing views? Come to PC meetings and listen to us argue with each other!
I too welcome 'the prospect of issues being challenged...'. But as the AE1 group will not tell anyone what they would like to actually do, its somewhat difficult to do any challenging?
O.K. I'm off to Eire for a little R & R and Notts County are out of the bottom four. Hopefully I shall return invigorated, to once again take up cudgels against the slings and arrows of outrageous AE1.
On leadership of ae1 or whatever , then if you want to be serious candidates start expressing views ... I have had enough of blue donkeys and don't want white stones to replace them ....get your act together
Claire Macleod,
I can verify that Ellie Herald is indeed a different person to Duncan Herald so you can stop that misinformed chat right there.
Vin Summer,
I too am fed up of continuous political party chat, one-liners and endless promises. I have much better things to listen to such as Thierry Henry be mean to my beloved Man United. However this is not the case for the Parish council. Conservative candidates are the ONLY candidates to have expressed views, policies, potential objectives, preferred dog breeds etc. Whether you agree with them or not they are at least available for public consumption. Alderley First however don't seem to have any clue what they are standing for. If valuable public money is going to be spent I would like to know what they are going to be doing with it. Right now all I know is they have a militant vendetta against car parks. That's one policy, but once they have secured their own allotment and taken away a football pitch used by local school children, what then? Will they stop me driving my white Ferrari to the bubble room?
On a slightly more serious note, if you are one of the idiots who does park their white Ferrari (or any other vehicle, whether an ostentatious statement of wealth or otherwise) on the double yellow lines outside the Bubble Room, then I do hope you are stopped.
And I hope, by now, you are in receipt of the AlderleyEdgeFIRST flyer that was posted through doors over the weekend. Although dog breeds appear not to be mentioned, plenty of other worthy objectives are.
And I think, if you paid a little bit more attention, you would find that they are not against 'car parks' per se, they are simply against taking over land that has been covenanted to the community with complete disregard to the wishes of the wider community.
All the best.
I think you'll find that Max was not being entirely serious and has probably not read through ALL the data that is available to him.
vroom VROOM (hic!)
Try to navigate your way through Chelford Road, Chorley Hall Lane, Brook Lane and even Congleton Road and you will see that the drivers do not care what obstructions or dangers they cause with their inconsiderate abandonment of their vehicles. The Police are not interested and the Local Authority decide to build a carpark on Heyes Lane - senseless!!!