In the run up to the General, Borough and Parish Council elections on May 7th we are publishing brief interviews with each of the candidates that respond to our request (before the end of the month), in the order in which they respond.
To read the interviews with other candidates click on the tags at the bottom of the article. For example, pieces on the other candidates for the Alderley Edge Parish Council election will all be tagged 'Alderley Edge Parish Council Election'. Candidates representing the same party or group will also be connected via the tags.
Duncan Herald is an existing parish councillor and is standing as a Conservative candidate for Alderley Edge Parish Council.
He moved to Alderley Edge in 1987 and worked as both a College Lecturer and a small scale property developer in Manchester. He is now retired.
Duncan told me "When I was asked to join the Parish Council, I was of course flattered.... it also seemed a chance to 'put some back in'.
"As for the present election, I am disapointed in that the AlderleyEdgeFirst group seem to attack the character of individual candidates, rather than comment on specific records, I shall not do that...
"I'm sure that the AlderleyEdgeFirst candidates are good folk and well intentioned BUT they have not been able to describe any actual policy except that they will cancel the plan to build a car park on Heyes Lane. Why would I vote for a group who say that they have no revealable plans but that I should trust them as they will 'make good' in time?"
Duncan added "Yes it's a shame that the allotment site should be lost, but it is I believe for the greater good of the general population of Alderley Edge and the offered new site is twice the size of the Heyes Lane site. If we don't get a significant increase in parking soon, will the village 'silt up'?
"It does sound as though the few allotment holders at Heyes Lane are putting their own wish ahead of the greater good.
"The Parish Council has consistently asked for alternative suggestions as to where a car park might otherwise go. The suggestion by AlderleyEdgeFirst, that Chorley Hall Lane could be used is a no-go; CEC who own Chorley Hall Lane field won't allow it and anyway, if AlderleyEdgeFirst are against losing a green space (Heyes Lane allotments) why is losing Chorley Hall Lane field green space any better?
"The present Parish Council has a solid record, over years, of improving the village. The Parish Council has schemes to continue doing that e.g. finish the Medical Centre, continue to improve the Festival Hall, which many people use. We plan to continue to improve both the cemetery and Hall. Also the small things such as getting the railings around the park painted, having got Waitrose to start and to continue painting the benches on London Road, to add to and improve the planting along London Road and increase the Xmas lights (which the Parish Council provided)."
Speaking about his own work on the Parish Council, Duncan said "My own responsibility within the Parish Council has been the park and cemetery, both of which are loooking so much better than they were a few years ago. If AlderleyEdgeFirst are unhappy with the park or the cemetery or the appearence of London Road, or whatever, can they please detail their complaints instead of just uttering general background muttering?"
Duncan added "A vote for the Conservative candidates is to continue the good work. A vote for the AlderleyEdgeFirst party is to take a wild chance with inexperienced people. Its the voters' choice."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
But no. Sadly, the article above strikes me as a more direct attack on AE1, than any other I have read. Whilst this community appreciates the railings and the painted benches, Duncan, and indeed all your efforts on behalf of us, what we need more than any of that is a Parish Council that puts respect for its electorate first (and a willingness, if necessary, to acknowledge mistakes when they're made).
thank you for the kind words.
Claire,
who rattled your cage today?
Of course I've made mistakes (please note that I speak for myself). I daresay I'll make more. I am human after all. I don't think I've made any too serious mistakes. have I learnt? Certainly. I think I'm better at the 'job' of parish councillor than I was when I started (at which time I was of course pretty clueless). I truly do not believe that I have attacked any resident. You can always try to prove me wrong by giving evidenced examples of my
attacks (bring on the dead bodies!).
I say that I have not attacked AEFirst; what I have done is ask them questions. Is that attacking? If someone asks me a question on alderleyedge.com, I try to answer it quickly and clearly and accurately. If I have queations for the Officers of 'orbitas' or 'ansa', I email them and they reply (usually quickly. I see that as polite behaviour. Why should AEFirst be excempt from answering polite questions?
Let me 'attack' you with questions:
Q1 do you accept that there is a large parking problem in A.E.?
If your answer is 'no' then stop here as we have no common ground on this topic. If your answer is 'yes', then on to the second question.
Q2 do you accept that the parking problem needs a large-scale and prompt solution? Involving at least (let us say) 145 spaces?
If your answer is 'no', then again stop here. If your answer to Q2 is 'yes' then.
Q3 are you still opposed to a car park on Heyes Lane?
If your answer is 'yes', on we go.
Q4 do you accept that much of the recent entries here indicate agreement that C.H.L field is a no-go idea as a car park (of course AEFirst are welcome to bang their heads on that particular brick wall).
If your answe is 'yes', please list all other possible sites. Brownfield if possible.
Please no 'stuff' about cost-benefit and/or considering all possibilities before deciding. This car park question is now past its 1st birthday and so surely you have cogitated, consulted and concluded. So please may I/we share your thoughts?
By the way. yet again a ref. to consulting (as if the PC did not already do that!). Please, I ask this question for the umpteenth time; how do you intend to consult? Who will do it? Will it cost money.
Now, on to your questions (which I must admit I am astonished you don't believe I have answered before. I doubt if there's anyone else who has read my comments on this site who is in any doubt about where I stand). However, as a matter of courtesy, I will wearily respond again.
Q1 Yes
Q2 Yes, although I'm not sure whether the figure of 145 is accurate. How have you landed on that number, specifically?
Q3 I am opposed to that being the only solution available. Other suggestions have been dismissed summarily it seems. Either because you have drawn anecdotal conclusions from people you meet whilst walking your dog, or because you (collectively) have decided they are not as 'easy' or convenient as paving over the allotments. I don't think you can dismiss CHL based on legality when we know there still remain legal concerns over Heyes Lane.
Q4 No, I do not agree. I think there has been strong arguments both for and against.
I am not going to list all the alternatives that have been suggested in previous threads, and I think your request for me to is provocative.
Your final point is the most telling, in my opinion. As you correctly point out, this issue has been 'live' for well over a year. In fact, I believe it was closer to 4 years ago that the AEPC announced their plans to pave over the allotments. Within that time, a 1,800 signature petition opposing it has been delivered and within the last 6 months, the AEPC produced the 'Parish Pledge' (is that what you really consider consultation?). Even that document delivered a response that reflected more 'against' than 'for'. And yet still you plough on, regardless. Unless I am missing some key information (other than anecdotal chats with dog walkers in the park) that shows, unequivocally, that this plan has the support of the majority of the voting community here, then I would say far from dismissing ' 'stuff' about cost-benefit and/or considering all possibilities before deciding', that is what needs to happen. It doesn't have to take another 4 years. If done properly, it can be done within a matter of a few months, I would have thought. If the 'Parish Pledge' had been a properly thought out and objective survey, with a clear closing date, a variety of options and suggested cost implications, and details about how the data collected would be used, then perhaps there wouldn't be a need to be another one. I believe the Parish Pledge cost us £3K, did it not?
Finally, I am not speaking as a representative of AE1. I am not standing for election. I am simply speaking as a concerned resident of Alderley Edge.
I'll not get into details, as I've been 'at' the vin rouge.
Something you may be able to help me with: I have never seen the question that was posed to the 1800+ people. Have you a copy of it? I'd like to see it. If anyone else is reading this, perhaps you have a copy. if so please copy it here.
Enjoy your Sat. evening.
Duncan has chosen not to do that and instead has decided to launch another attack on his opposition even though most of what he has stressed about has been endlessly raised by others and more than well answered.
The questions that were posed to him that most of the other candidates have answered are:
Why you are standing for election?
Please tell me about yourself - profession, how long you have lived in Alderley Edge, interests?
Why have you decided to stand for election as a parish councillor?
What do you consider to be the important issues facing Alderley Edge?
What do you hope to achieve and how?
Why should Alderley Edge residents vote for you?
It would be good if he could perhaps answer those questions for us all now
as I am sure the electors in this Village will be interested. They seem to have enjoyed the other responses from candidates on both sides. I know I have.
What a pity the responses were not made in the spirit that I am sure Lisa Reeves intended. But then I guess some people cannot help themselves.
Question 1 .......... How many people live in Alderley Edge ? ......................4,000 ?
Question 2 .......... How many people voted TO KEEP the Allotments ? ....... 1,800.
Question 3 .......... How many people DID NOT support the Allotments ?........2,200.
So, on this basis, and even though every single Allotment Holder and their friends and families and supporters have gone all out to try every way to persuade voters to sign in their favour, they cannot drum-up enough support for their cause ............. only 45% against 55%.
I also suppose many alleged "voters to keep the Allotments" probably do not live in Alderley Edge anyway, just the same as only 14 Allotment Holders actually reside in Alderley, compared to the total of 27 Allotments Plots available.
These are the facts and, clearly, this shows the majority of Alderley voters are in favour of getting rid of the Heyes Lane Allotments and to move the Allotments to another site !
I appreciate you are standing for the PC, as am I but your comments about Duncan are wholly unjustified. Duncan is widely regarded by many of those who post as 'one of the good guys' and your attempts at discrediting him raise serious questions about your judgement. He has diligently worked for the community with good humour and grace for several years and has actual achievment to his credit whilst on the PC.
He has been one of the most active users of this site and has invariably tried to answer all points with his usual humour.
I am biased, I agree, but your post is wrong and should be retracted as it just offensive.
Do you have 2200 signatures to say that they didn't support the allotments?
Let's show the country we are a thoughtful and caring place and not simply a place of wealth and arrogance
Are your figures above correct? Nevertheless, I'm sure you will agree that the petition against the car park on Heyes Lane certainly speaks louder than the Parish Pledge?
On another note you should know that this 'Claire McLeod person' does not have an allotment. She is simply taking an active interest in local issues, asking questions and giving opinion. This is not pathetic!
The creation of A E 1 to me is an important and healthy step forward. It is not just a group of disgruntled allotment holders, but being ignored and bullied by the current PC over this issue seems to be the straw the broke the camel's back and locals have decided to do something about it.
Having sat through the PC meeting some months ago regarding Heyes Lane, it was clear by Mr Keegan' s attitude that he didn't give a toss what people think, that is where I think A E 1 will make the difference. All candidates are very strong, experienced and seem to have a genuine love of this village. I know that the current PC have done some good in the past but I feel it is time for some fresh blood.
The very best of luck to all A E 1 candidates! I think you have really made the current PC sit up and take notice!
By your logic: at the last General Election in Tatton, George Osborne received 40% of the votes available, therefore 60% were against him. It does not work like that
@ Martin Hallam; I think you will find that the petition was conducted by the Allotment Society, AE1 did not exist at that time. Also, as far as I can see, Mike merely repeated the questions put to all the candidates by Lisa.
It really is time to kick party politics out of this level of "government".
Why would I go around trying to gather votes just to prove what we already know, namely that the majority of voters in Alderley want to get rid of the unsightly Heyes Lane Allotments and put that area to good use by allowing cars to park there, thus assisting hundreds of drivers every day who seek a parking place for their vehicle.
Furthermore, according to the 2011 Census, there were 4,780 residents in Alderley Edge.
(Probably even more residents now as numerous houses have appeared since 2011)
This means even MORE residents DO NOT support the Allotments ...
4780 - 1800 = 2980 (thats 38% in favour of KEEPING the Allotments and a massive 62% in favour of GETTING RID of the Allotments ...........
(By definition ; 62% NOT VOTING means 62% NOT SUPPORTING the Allotment Holders)
I rest my case.
I will not comment on the allotment survey because David has done so. As to your comment about party politics I am afraid people seem to default to that comment but do so in the absence of any evidence party politics are being used. I disagreed with your request because it required an assumption to be made which was without merit. It was me, not the Conservative Party that objected. You clearly take the opposing view - is that you or AE1. I suspect it is the former. So where, pray, are the party politics. I would object to your comment whatever my persuasion, even if I was AE1, because was wrong.
I do know Duncan quite well and I am sure he is one of the 'good guys'. He has done much for the Village and I am not questioning that. He was asked a series of questions that gave him an opportunity to tell the voters a little bit more about himself - as indeed you and all of us candidates have been.
The people of Alderley Edge want to know about those who seek to represent them and Lisa attempted to ask questions that helped the Village understand us all. Few know about any of us, why we decided to stand, what is important to us and why we feel we can do a good job and what we might achieve.
This was not the place to say that " a vote for the AlderleyEdgeFIRST party is to take a wild chance with inexperienced people". Now that really is offensive as I know we have just the right experience this Village needs
and we should remember our existing PC was elected unopposed.
But please also remember why 9 of us came together as AlderleyEdgeFIRST. It was because too many in this Village have had enough of the way the existing Parish Council treats the residents here.
It is interesting that we hear little of that from you. No assertion that this behaviour will change in a newly elected Conservative Parish Council.
The Village will of course decide...
"Let's show the country we are a thoughtful and caring place and not simply a place of wealth and arrogance". I totally agree.
David Hadfield
You maths is impeccable but your statistical analysis is a bit flawed. So go out and get signitures on a petition that proves your point that "the majority of voters in Alderley want to get rid of the unsightly Heyes Lane Allotments and put that area to good use by allowing cars to park there" I wish you luck on that one.
Martin Hallam
I still do not understand what you are trying to say. But great tan.
in your entry above you say that my questions have been 'more than well answered'. Not so, which is why I keep asking them.
Let's try again.
1. I ask how you will carry out your vaunted consulting? who will do the consulting? Will it cost ought? No answer yet I'm afraid. Do you as an individual candidate have an opinion please? Does the AEFirst party have an answer?
2. You do I think decry the placing of a car park on Heyes Lane. You/AEFirst say that all possibilities will be looked at; sometime in the future. As Claire pointed out t'other day, this matter has been rumbling on for 4 years. How much time do you, as an individual, need to come up with viable alternative/s to the Heyes Lane plan? (please don't go on about using CHL Field, as I think that most people are now accepting that such is a no-go. if you think
that turfing the young footballers off the field, or asking thm to share with 100+ parked cars, is a good idea, then we disagree 100% on that).
You say that I have not answered questions such as: 'what is my profession'.
My interview states clearly that I used to be a lecturer and am now retired.
You say that I have not answered the question about how long I have lived in the village. My interview clearly states that I moved here in 1987.
You say that I have not answered the question 'why did I stand'.
My interview states clearly that I 'want to put some back in'.
Are you auditioning for a role in a 'specsavers' advert ?
David should comment as he is trying to imply 2200 are for the car park
David
Nothing ridiculous about my request but your response says it all. One thing that speaks volumes is that the Allotment society and AE1 have both been to my front door, ie they could be bothered.
Now tell me, how much tax payers money was wasted on the Parish pledge? What support did the PC gain from it. There can't be any excuses Keegan said EVERY house got a leaflet and was asked to give a response, remember.
What I said were straight facts, and this is something you don't understand ?
What I stated were the following facts ;
1,800 people put their signatures TO KEEP the Allotments many months ago ......
That's only 38% of the 4,780 residents of Alderley Edge. (4,780 = latest Census in 2011)
However, we're finding that maybe many people who signed this document probably don't live in the village anyway so the 38% does not represent people living in Alderley Edge) !
This also means that most of the villagers DO NOT support keeping the Allotments as the facts speak for themselves ;
2,980 residents (62%) living in Alderley Edge are NOT SUPPORTING KEEPING the Allotments............. How much clearer can that be ?
Furthermore, it seems to me that when the existing councillors do try their best and arrange for every household to comment about their views, only 100 or so "Parish Pledges" were returned,
although it beggars belief that you are asking ME to justify why the councillors sent out this Parish Pledge in the first place ? How weird ?
I have given you very many compliments in my posts. I saw you as someone who cared about AE. I thought you were someone with integrity, your own man. I feel I was mistaken.
You said on another thread that "The car park on Heyes Lane is costed at no more than £300,000. The final cost, which may be less of course, will depend on the degree of spacing and what other facilities may be installed." and "You only have to ask and your splendid PC leaps into action for you"
You seem to be the only person with this information that many different people have been asking for. Absolutely no other members of the current PC have been forthcoming with this information, including you. You however seem to find it clever and smug to come up with this elusive information on the string belonging to one of your numerous opponents.
So could you explain please:
1. Why has this information not been disclosed previously and why do you think you are the appropriate member to disclose this?
2. How has this information come to you?
3. Who has surveyed and evaluated the allotments in order to come up with this cost?
4. Does this figure include the legal fees to break the covenant and fight the National Allotment Society?
5. What other facilities do you think might be installed and what is their cost implication?
6. How does this cost compare with any other site that you have looked at?
7. A properly costed project has a definitive figure made up of a myriad of individual costs; why are your figures so rounded and inexact?
8. Who are the three contractors who have tendered for this?
If the full facts are not known how can the responses to the petition have credence?
My friend does not live in AE.
If someone knocked on your front door and said that they wanted to take your house off you - the house that had been handed down to you by your parents and grandparents before them - but they were prepared to move you to another house and pay you some compensation, would you happily take up their offer?
If their reasons for wanting your house was something that you had doubts over - something that you felt had been ill thought through, would that influence your decision?
When it comes to misinformation the current Conservative PC are past masters at it. They have repeatedly and blatantly suggested that the building of the new Medical Centre within the refurbished Festival Hall building was conditional upon the conversion of the Heyes Lane Allotment to car parking - a fact that was quickly and firmly rebuked by the Medical Centre themselves right at the outset.
They have, even now, been unable to demonstrate that they have legal title to convert the Allotment to car parking and yet on another thread, one of your Conservative colleagues glibly offers costings for the enterprise - one might be forgiven for doubting those costings and might ask what other figures are being fudged.
Another of your Conservative colleagues, in his interview, talks of the Festival Hall being "A much envied village asset." I'm not sure about you, but when I visit the Festival Hall / Assembly Rooms / Regal Ballrooms I am saddened at the way in which it has been allowed to deteriorate into it's present state through a general lack of good stewardship.
In my humble opinion the current Parish Council has become arrogant and complacent. For too long they have been allowed to continue unopposed and this is never more evident than at Parish Council meetings where members of the public who dare to attend are glared at over horn-rimmed spectacles by one of your number, lest they have the audacity to speak up.
It's time for a change!
as ever I shall try to answer questions put to me by a parishoner. Those that I can anyhow!
1. why should I not be an appropriate person to mention a figure? Our canvassers have the figure, to quote on doorsteps if asked. Did you expect someone to stroll down Mt. Sinai and deliver some old tablets? If you wish to know something, asking instead of accusing is a more reliable approach?
2.the info. came to me from the councillors charged with getting a costing. Recall that the PC's practice is to task one (or more) councillors with a particular task. I seem to have seen that AEFirst intend to be all equal and not have a chairman; or is that just another off-hand remark by one of your party?
3. I do not know. You must ask the two councillors who put the figures together (Councillors Williamson and Keegan: as Chairman and Chairman of Finance). Or you might also use your time to ask AEFirst to come up with some costings. Though that might be difficult as AEFirst still do not grace us with a manifesto (except Mike D-J, whom I have already congratulated (perhaps a tad tongue-in-cheek) for actually bringing forth an idea or two).
4. No idea. Ask the two.
5. This will depend on further debate. First a 'global' cost and then concentration upon details; such as 'how much parking space reduced for greenery'.
6. Find me another site that is viable and it could be costed. The PC does not know of any other site that will suffice. As AEFirst (or some of them?) want to dispossess the young footballers of CHL Field, might you ask them whether they have costed that? then they can compare it with the Heyes Lane site cost. I often find things out by asking the appropraie authority. If I can, why can't AEFirst?
7. Because it is a 'global'/initial/first costing. Until further debate has taken place re. details, a 'round' figure is what you have.
8. Don't know if its gone to tender or some other plan is in hand. Ask the two for details.
It seems to me that if we don't give you a figure at all, we are in the wrong by your judgement. If we give you a 'round' figure, we are in the wrong, by your judgement. No doubt if we are able to eventually give you a figure accurate to the last grass seed, you will find fault with that.
I would like to see a more balanced critique Martin. Every question which you put to me, please put to AEFirst candidates as well?
On a slightly separate but related note, I believe Duncan Herald asked on this website only a matter of days ago for the specific wording of the petition (which I do not have). I am flabberghasted that the Parish Council has not, at the very least, established the purpose and wording of a petition with 1,800 + names on it, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the intent. Or, indeed, whether they consider it a valid document. Surely, that would be the first thing they would do? I'm afraid that they haven't does nothing to reassure me that they take the wishes or concerns of the electorate seriously. This is precisely why we need a new Parish Council to represent us.
The wording of the petition is below, within the context that I used it on another thread.
The source was Mike Dudley-Jones, quoting earlier in that same thread.
I am not dismissive of the petition with 1,850+ (I know that is the number you meant) signatories, but I do not know if there were another 1,850+ people who did not agree to sign it. I was never asked to sign it and until I read what it said earlier in this thread "We, the undersigned, as residents of Alderley Edge, object to the Parish Council's plans to destroy the Heyes Lane allotments and replace them with a car park", I did not know its wording. For me personally, if the Allotment Society had conducted a balanced Survey not a one-side emotive Petition then I would have been more conducive to take the results into account in drawing my own conclusion.
From now reading Mike Dudley-Jones full profile, I now feel that with:
... his Managing Director's Big Hat
He would not have used it, on the grounds of lack of robustness, in drawing conclusions.
... his Sales & Marketing Hat
Yes, he could have used it, to gain a positive spin, but not really appropriate.
... his President of the Allotments Hat (current position)
Of course, he is only going to be one sided, he was fighting their cause, not the villagers..
... his Personal Hat
Anyone's guess. I know what I think.
Your comment as usual misses the point completely.
as I feared. The question made no mention of the offered provision of a larger, alternative allotments site. So not as unbiased a question as they might be suggesting?
Hi Pete,
not desperation, exasperation. Why are my questions not answered by AEFirst? have I discombobulated them?
By the way, why have I and my family not received copies of the AEFirst leaflets through our door. Can't we be consulted? Darn victimisation !
Hi Claire,
no-one showed me a petition to sign. No-one (except the estimable and independent Lawrence) seems to know the wording. Shouldn't it be that those who supported the petition (like yourself?) would be the ones with a copy of the question? Sadly, as the petition question seems not to have mentioned an important point i.e. the offer of an alternative, viable, larger site then I must say that I do not regard it as a 'valid document'.
If any member of the public wants to know details of costing etc. for the proposed car park on Heyes Lane, why not do as I have suggested and contact the two councillors involved in the spadework on that i.e. the Chairman of the Parish Council or the Chairman of the P.C's Finance Committee.
By the way, can I expect to see some contributions soon, from those AEFirst candidates who have yet to comment, on this excellent medium. It would be nice to debate with them. I believe that all the Conservative candidates have been getting stuck in. You'd probably like to hear from someone other than me?
So nice to hear from you again, bit of a lie-in this morning was it?
You may not see the petition as a valid document but that is of no consequence. What is important is how people vote next week.
I assume though that you see the Parish Pledge as a valid document to prove the majority of the village were behind you. Sadly, the replies you did receive confirmed the opposite.
There is plenty of time to contact the Chairman of the PC Finance committee; no rush. The thing that still surprises me is that they kept you in the dark for so long. I guess that makes you just like the rest of us.
I disagree with your slightly impolite suggestion to Claire that...."Your comment as usual misses the point completely."
I have re-read the "point" made by your husband, and the response from Claire and the "point" appears to be the same.
Hi Duncan,
I am a little concerned to read that you have not even bothered to look into the wording of the question put to the people of Alderley Edge.
Had I been in your position and received news of such a resounding vote of no confidence in a proposal that my name was firmly attached to, I would have wanted to know exactly and immediately how this result had been arrived at.
So, either you felt that the wishes of the people were unimportant, or you were so confident of the ability of your colleagues to railroad their proposals through, that you didnt feel it worth the effort to enquire - surely, had you done so, you would have cried foul before now?
But there is no foul. Just a body of people who have felt strongly enough to stand up to a bullying Parish Council on a point of principle. A body of people who carry a growing strength of public opinion with them.
It is mildly amusing to note the repeated supposition from some of your colleagues that they are simply dealing with a few Allotment Holders with a grudge - I would invite you to continue in that blissful ignorance until next Thursday and see just how many "Allotment Holders" Alderley Edge actually has.
Martin, did not want to disappoint you, by not looking at the facts.
Posts by candidate on this site, starting with Monday 13th April article "Candidates announced for Alderley Edge Parish Council", plus 16 candidate profiles.Only two to come Frank Keegan and Myles Garbett.
E & OE for which I apologise for in advance, if there are any. There may be, because I've done an exhaust analysis, there has been no "insider" support, so to speak.
I hope all this tab's OK
AlderleyEdgeFIRST Party - Total posts 26 (33.3% of all Candidate posts)
Craig Brown 1
Mike Dudley-Jones 17 (65.4% of all AlderleyEdgeFIRST total)
Myles Garbett None
Rachael Grantham None
Geoff Hall 1
Ilana Higham None
Christine Munro None
Ruth Norbury 6
Michael Taylorson 1
Conservative Party - Total posts 78 (66.6% of all Candidate posts)
Melanie Connor 1
Martin Hallam 15
Duncan Herald 36 (46.1% of all Conservative Party total)
Eleanor Herald 24
Xanthe Holt None
Sue Joseph 1
Frank Keegan None
Nigel Schofield None
Mike Williamson None
I acknowledge, that this site is only one medium for connection with the electorate.
However, I have not had a single candidate knock my door. I do recognise that it is a challenge with, probably a higher than the average Parish, residents living in apartment's and houses, behind large secure gates.
Through my post box, I do not know if it was by the Post Office or another resident, I received the AlderleyEdgeFIRST flyer, but I have not received anything from the Conservatives.
I've not been approached in the village by any candidate, nor have I seen any of them. No doubt they have been there, and I'm just going out to get some milk, so I'll look again.
All facts, few comments, no opinions.
For me personally, this site works best.
I repeat that I never saw any petition at the time. The arguement about whether the majority or minority agreed has been chewed over ad infinitum; not by me.
Will you please explain why the original question made NO mention of the offer of an alternative, larger allotment site? The question as posed was thus biased. That's why I think that your 'result' has no statistical significance.
So its not a question of my not paying attention to the question, its that the question was so very flawed.
The question should have been : 'the PC propses to turn the Heyes Lane allotment site into a car park. An alternative and larger allotments site has been offered. Do you agree that the Heyes Lane site should not become a car park? If 1800 people had answered 'No' tp that question, then you may have had a more authoritative result.
Whatever the question had been on the petition, and no matter how many people signed it, you and your fellow parish councillors would have still disregarded and discredited it. You have only ever seen one solution to the parking problems. In order to make that happen you have also been slowly reducing other on street parking just to force the issue.
"I know this is hypothetical.
It does cross my mind, that if another petition was held, identical in every respect except for replacing "Allotments" with "Chorley Hall Playing Fields" and presented to everyone that it was presented to before, how many signatures would it receive. I don't expect too many young people were asked regards allotments, but they would be appropriate in this case.
If it received an identical 1850+ number of signatures, how would the AlderleyEdgeFIRST candidates view it please?"
In answer to your question to me about the wording and validity of the survey, I would refer you to the answer that I addressed earlier (9.22 am yesterday morning) to Martin Hallam.
The problem that you appear to have is that you cant seem to understand the principle argument. That AEPC sought to snatch the Allotment from the holders rather than negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement.
It's not a question of patting them on the head and sending them off to another piece of land with a cheque in their pocket - as I said to Martin, you wouldn't accept that if some nasty developer knocked on your door and insisted your family home.
It is that very point of principle that has turned people of Alderley Edge (not just Allotment holders) away from you.
must I 'read' that you do not wish to accept that the question put to people re. the petition was flawed? So that the 'result' of the petition is actually a non valid response?
You go on to suppose that the Parish Council would disregard and discredit. Evidence please otherwise you may be judged to be simply lashing out pointlessly?
You then accuse the Parish Council of reducing on street parking to 'force the issue'. As conspiracy theories go, that's truly far-fetched. May I remind you that reducing on street parking; do you mean the emergence of residents only parking?, was mainly arranged between the residents of certain streets and CEC. Are you thus attacking those residents who used their democratic rights to obtain something from CEC?
Good Morning Alan,
snatch implies taking suddenly; scarcely that, as the matter has been going on for ages. A mutually acceptable settlement would have been ideal, but the 'allotments soc.' (I hope that's the correct term) dug their heels in from the first (as was their right of course) thus spoiling any chance of a settlement.
You write that I do not understand the principle arguement. I write that I do. Perhaps we two do not agree on what the principle arguement is: my version is that a car park is desperately needed and that there is no brownfield site available and that offering a larger allotments site is not 'patting them on the head' but a serious attempt to minimise the disturbance to allotment holders (all 14 of those that live in A.E.). You refer to 'a cheque in their pocket', (rather condescendingly I thought) but if allotment users are to move from one site to another then why shouldn't their landlord offer a re-settlement sum to assist with the changeover?
In approx. one week the voters of Alderley Edge can decide. I do not believe that the Heyes Lane proposed car park is the only factor in the voters' choice. However, if, as I hope, the voters back the present P.C. then the car park will go ahead. if the voters go the other way, then the car park will certainly not go ahead straightaway and I believe that it will never go ahead.
I don't think you can accuse Fiona of 'lashing out pointlessly' when, by your own admission it is only a couple of days ago that you went to the trouble of finding out what the wording on the petition was. She is suggesting, I think, that this shows disregard for anyone whose name was on that petition. If you only discovered a couple of days ago what the wording was (and now maintain it is not, in your eyes, a 'valid document' because it fails to mention the relocation plan), then you cannot claim, surely, that you drew this conclusion when the petition was delivered you last year. Because you didn't even go to the trouble of reading what it was that 1,800+ people were putting their names to!
(And then, on this site, and rather unreasonably, in my opinion, you express surprise that those who did sign the petition didn't 'keep a note of the wording'. Really, Duncan? Do you, when you sign a petition, as a matter of course, make a note of the wording for future reference?)
That is, I think, why Fiona said in her earlier post 'Whatever the question had been on the petition, and no matter how many people signed it, you and your fellow parish councillors would have still disregarded and discredited it.' We draw our conclusions from what what you do, and what you don't do. What you say, and what you don't say.
I was at a family funeral all day yesterday in Cambridge, and then making a presentation at the school at which I am Chairman of Governors last night. I am about to board a train to London and so this response is short.
Your point is not a realistic analogy: a family home is not in question here, it is the Heyes Lane allotments.
A distinct and important difference.
I think you misinterpreted one of my points. I asked for the wording of the petition question simply because no-one had ever shown it to me. Also I did not disregard people who signed the petition; but I am happy to repeat that if they had known of the offer of an alternative and larger site, they might have had a different answer. Was the knowledge of the offer of an alternative site kept out of the wording of the question on purpose, or was it just disregarded?
I most clearly did not intend to suggest that the wording of the question should have been retained by those who signed the petition but I did expect the wording to be retained by those (few?) who wrote the question. Do you think that the question would have been fairer/unbiased if the fact of the alternative site had been included?
As I regard the petition question as very flawed, how can I have 'disregarded and discredited ' it?
It would be good to hear from someone out there who works in the field of posing questions, as to whether or not they regard the petition question as biased and so not valid?
Might it also be good to mhear from those who came up with the question as to why they chose not to include the relocation offer.
It was recently suggested on one of these posts that the behaviour of the PC had made it unlikely that a mutually satisfactory solution, between PC and 'Allotments Soc.' could be reached, over Heyes Lane.
My reply was that the 'Allotments Soc.' had made it unlikely.
A difference of opinion/interpretation?
However, the Clerk to the Parish Council has received a letter (arrived 27th) from the 'Allotments Soc.' announcing clearly that 'they' will continue to work their plots and (the Clerk thinks) that 'they' have re-let empty plots. How might that contribute to a mutually satisfactory solution?
Voters, the matter is with you now; good luck.
1) Can you confirm that the PC have legal ownership of the Heyes Lane Allotment as I understand that this is still a matter of dispute?
2) Can you confirm that the alternative site at Lydiat Lane is ready, as an alternative site, for Allotment holders to take up?
If either of these things are in doubt, then the Allotment holders are surely entitled to continue working their plots at Heyes Lane because Spring has sprung!
Also, It is entirely disingenuous to suggest that the Conservatives can deliver a car park quickly because if (as I suspect) Heyes Lane is not yet under the legal control of AEPC, and / or the building of the car park has not been properly costed, you cant deliver on that promise.
If the intention is to reduce the number of cars in the village, what better site is there, than one on the edge of the village, that not only accommodates all day parking, but would be an asset not only to the medical centre but the Festival Hall as well, especially when there is a function like the music festival going on, bringing even more traffic, and that includes coaches!
My questions to A.E.First are;
Which other site could accommodate the music festival coaches?
Do any of the A.E.First candidates agree that a car park built next to the Medical centre / Festival hall would be an asset to both or do they think it would not?
When planning permission was granted for the Medical centre and festival hall it was done on the basis of the information available to the planners. The planning application was submitted by Emersons on behalf of the AEPC. The plans detailed the parking that was proposed and the assertion from AEPC at that time was that it was sufficient for the needs of the development. This was then looked at by transport as to the effect on the other roads and they obviously found it did indeed meet the needs.
If the AEPC believed at that time that the parking was insufficient then they lied on the application. So if it were true that the Hayes Lane site is a necessary part of the development, the planning application should have been submitted with that as part of it.
I did not say it was a necessary part of the development, I asked if it would be an asset to it!
I think it is the ideal situation for all the reasons I stated and if you were a resident of any of those roads nearby or even Alderley, I think you would agree.
You have been doing a great job of speaking for the entire Conservative offering. Still no sign of your mate Frank Keegan, has he gone on holiday?
One last burst of writing and talking and then its Thursday.
With the odd 'rude' remark I think its been a well-fought campaign. Though I still attest that AEFirst haven't 'shown their hand' i.e. we've little idea what they intend to do, except have lots pf management meetings (W1A ?).
Hi Martin,
Frank is out stuffing papers thro' doors.
Things change, as time goes by, including taking a fresh look at parking requirements; if only things stayed the same eh? How nice it would be if the ill people of A.E. could drive up to their new Medical Centre, in their pony and trap?
Hi Mike,
I am of course aware of the 'nesting birds' condition. It is why work on the park has slowed down. However, as I'm sure you know, there doesn't seem to be a legal definition of the actual time period. The P.C. will of course bend over backwards to support any late-in-the-summer second broods by our bird life. There you see, vote Conservative and get an extra brood.
Hi Alan,
as far as I am aware, there is no remaining legal reason to prevent a car park appearing on the Heyes Lane site; for the great releif of the log-jammed car owners of A.E.
The owners of the old St. Hilary's field aka the Lydiat Lane site have handed over the land as part of the 'deal' whereby the school get a piece of land on Wilmslow Rd. for their sports development. Both are I believe leases.
Are you saying that a lease has already been signed for the Lydiat Lane site?
That does surprise me. What are the costs involved and what will this field be used for?
Allotments, I hear you say. Demand is not very strong at the moment so my estimate of the take up to date would be - one!
Big field, big rent, big commitment and one allotment.
I am sure this could make a wonderful television comedy.
As Martin Dixon Put "You have been doing a great job of speaking for the entire Conservative offering. Still no sign of your mate Frank Keegan, has he gone on holiday?"
What surprises me is how people can make an informed decision on who to vote for when your leader has obviously refused to take part. It doesn't bother me as I am registered to vote else where but still live in the village during the week and would like to see a group of people run the parish/ borough council who genuinely have an interest in the village . Has Councillor Keegan Chosen not to take part in the brilliant profiles that Lisa Reeves has been posting?
If I was able to vote and at the next elections I will do, this would certainly put me off.
You say "as far as I am aware, there is no remaining legal reason to prevent a car park appearing on the Heyes Lane site". Obviously there are legal reasons, quite a few of them. I just find it extraordinary that you are unaware of them. Could this be because you have been kept in the dark or misinformed by Mr Keegan?
I do not know whether a lease has actually been signed. I've been a little busy with an election ! But I trust the word of CEC and AESG.
When you ask 'what costs, do you mean the usual costs in lawyers preparing leases etc. or are you implying some (unspecified by you and your party) huge extra cost? If it is the latter, please share with the rest of us. Your party did promise clarity and transparency, did it not?
Is there indeed a low need for allotments? If so, why is there such a fight to keep the Heyes Lane allotments? Will there be empty allotments soon then? What is the AEFirst policy on empty allotments? Will you carry out a cost-benefit investigation and then close the excess allotments?
What do you mean by 'big rent' please? Rent for where? How much is a 'big rent'?
You are right about a tv comedy; Reginald Perrin and AEFirst?
Frank Keegan doesn't look anything like Reginald Perrin and he certainly isn't funny!
Many thanks for your response to my questions. It really is a big feather in your cap that you are prepared to engage with us on this forum - if only other members of your team did the same, I'm sure you'd do much better than I expect you to do on Thursday!
Just one teensy-weensy point for clarification if you would. You say (in regard to legal ownership) "as far as I know." Surely you and your colleagues wouldn't be stoking up this whole debate if you weren't 100 per cent certain that the deeds were safely in your pocket would you?
I only ask because I hear conflicting reports about covenants and challenges and improper procedure being employed to secure control of the Allotments from CEC.
I imagined that you, as a Councillor sitting in those monthly meetings would either be 100 per cent, cast iron certain that you had the deeds, or you would be honest and say that the situation is "ongoing."
"As far as I know" just seems to leave the door ajar.
I posed three questions to you above but you have not answered any of them. Is that an AEFirst policy?
Hallo Alan,
as far as I know means that I have heard colleagues and the general public. I have been told that the PC can go ahead with the car park proposal (if the voters see fit to allow us so to do of course). I do not have the legal documents in my hands, why would I?
I fear that the 'conflicting reports' are a result of some opponents of the proposal writing from hope rather than information. Just like the CEC position on refusing to turn CHL Playing Field into a car park. I said that I had asked and been told no. The PC said that they had asked and been told no. I suggested that AEFirst stop 'a-wishing and a-hoping' and instead ask CEC. They didn't. At last, Lisa kindly did the asking and reported back the answer as no.
Do these words ring any bells with you?
"Whilst we would of course serve the village without self-interest we would always be an advocate for the issues that face our road."
I took Jane Hallam's advice and today went to look at the problems on Horseshow Lane. Interestingly I came across a computer printed letter from the three of you to your neighbours with your pictures and signed by the three of you.
It also says; "Recently, yellow lines were installed on Lynton Lane, meaning that the road is no longer one way during peak hours. It was one of your neighbours, Duncan Herald, a member of the current Conservative PC who was able to secure their installation."
I am assuming everyone on Horseshoe Lane and probably Lynton Lane got one of these through their letterbox.
I can confirm that both Ruth and Mike Norbury were in fact in the road as I saw them. Iam not bothered by this as Duncan spoke through the proper channels years before Alderley First were on the scene. We have suffered for years and nobody has cared about our road. We have had built a four storey nursing home opposite with insufficient parking which Jones sold onto a private nursing home. No one came and spoke us for us. We asked for help and got none. We have endured parents, offices everybody and no one cared. Our road is maintained by the residents and we get no help from police etc. So don't you dare lecture us about any independent party or allotments they have no idea what they are talking about. We could not get an ambulance or fire engine down the road as we measured it. Alderley First do not care about the village the whole campaign is about jealousy and selfishness.
astonishing rant [ yet again ] , I became involved in rectifying the current PC'S lack of involvement back to 2010 ! The current PC were contacted via the authors of a discussion document involving the Parish Plan in 2010,and concerned residents. After 4 months of planning and consultation a document was delivered to the PC, a meeting was called six months later by the PC, where they admitted that they were unable to read a document in a six month period! ! CE were on site conducting a parking review , but were not invited to contribute?
2 + years later a solution was achieved for the residents ! Please explain to me why a PC committed to such myopia should be allowed to continue in producing nothing !
Calm down please. You have said that Jones built a nursing home opposite with insufficient parking and then sold it on. That is exactly what AE1 are trying to stop. There is no person amongst their candidates that has any connection with Jones.
I noticed today that your road was a private road. I also noticed that it was very beautiful and your house looks very well cared for. As a private road, how can your husband, Elly and Duncan possibly deceive your neighbours by suggesting that they could have any power over it if they were elected to the PC?
I did look very closely at your drive and its slope and angle. I have two suggestion for you that might help. Firstly, it is far harder to turn right than left, so I would recommend you turn left and then turn around when you reach Lynton Lane. The second is that if you reverse out of your drive you will be able to more easily negotiate any obstacles and then drive forward towards Alderley Road. I know that the Highway Code advises against reversing into a road, but this does not apply in your case as it is a private road where the police have no powers.
I could offer a third solution which is to move to somewhere with fewer stresses.
As I cannot understand even the first sentence of Jane Hallam's (wife of Conserative candidate hopeful, Martin Hallam), post, I am not in a position to remark on the rest. I will draw the reasonable conclusion, from what I can make of what she is trying to say, that she is frustrated that the road on which she lives (which is a private road), is presenting her and her family and neighbours with some challenges. Apparently, in spite of repeated appeals, 'no one has cared'. In her own words, ' No one came and spoke us for us.'
If you want to support Jane's cause, then vote for her husband, Martin. For Alderley Edge, Conservative.
If, however, you are more concerned about the whole village of Alderley Edge, then might I suggest you vote for AlderleyEdgeFIRST. Which does what it says on the tin.
Martin Hallam
'Time'? For what?
Martin Hallam
"Class issue"?
I'm not sure I understand your point, are you implying that those who live on an unadopted road are by definition in a different "class"?
PS I live in Alderley Edge on an adopted road and am now feeling vaguely unfulfilled ....not!
You were wrong again. And by the way, I see you have yet to respond on conflicts.
Martin Hallam
Just say something about the flyer you posted through the letterboxes of your neighbours.
It is significant that you live on a private road because CEC or AEPC have no derestriction over it.
Is there a class issue in AE? The rest of the country pretty much did away with that 20 years ago. You obviously did not. You seem to imply that you are somehow more entitled than other people because you live on a private road. Living on a private road only means that you have to look after it yourself. I rode down it today, no signs stopped me. There were no parking restrictions on it. I parked right outside your house. I took your wife's advice and looked for myself, my conclusion was simply that if you can't get out of your drive safely then you probably need a different approach.
Now what were those flyers you sent out all about?
1. You live in a nice house (the whole of the village, I think); or
2. You live down a private road/unadapted road (there are quite a few); or....
Well at least the truth came out in time.
Martin Hallam
Would you like to clarify what 'THAT time' means?
Kind regards,
Hallam Junior.
'even with two males in the threesome'....are you suggesting Elly Herald, because she is a woman, is not capable of speaking for herself? You have just demonstrated you are really antiquated. Please join me in the year of our lord 2015.
Kind regards,
Hallam Junior.
I am surprised that you wish to labour the point, but in response to your wife / mums rather emotional outburst I was suggesting that it was perhaps time for bed.
For goodness sake, get your facts straight: Horseshoe Lane is NOT a private road, it is an unadopted road. There is a great legal difference between the two terms. For example, even though the street lighting was under MBC, we now are asked to fix the street lights on Horseshoe lane ourselves. Get a lawyer to vet your posts?
By the way, if you wish to live on an unadopted road, I'm sure that CEC would love to oblige. Then you too could have the 'fun' of looking after your very own road. CEC would save loadsa money!
Martin D.
you write that I don't have the 'balls' to post. How very vulgar of you.
Actually the reason I haven't posted on this recently is that as no-one had posted for some time and the site had slipped off the main menu, I has assumed that it was 'dead'.
Why do you affect to be astonished that my neighbours should get a flyer from me? Its called electionering.
By the way: I believe that you guys have now put out 4 flyers. Not a one of them has blessed my letter box. Is that because I have a Tory poster in my window. Why are you not giving us Tories a chance to read your 'stuff'? Blatent discrimination !
So the purpose of the flyer was electioneering. I think that is what you said.
You may then be interested in reading this, http://bit.ly/1oiyp8B
I have not commented on the site today as I have been at work and I do not use the office internet for personal reasons during the day. I do not have a mobile phone with internet access and so I can only look at this forum outside of work.
Regarding whether I have balls obviously I don't anatomically- however metaphorically I think I have bigger balls than you!
Regarding your comment "even with two males in the threesome"- Do not make out that women are below men! We are equal and I would never have to lean on any man to voice my opinion- on that note I'm off to vote (Thank you Emily Pankhurst).
Have a good evening everyone, good luck to all candidates!!
I was talking anatomically. Of course men and women are equal.
Iam is not a word in the dictionary. I think the correct way to write what you are trying to say is, I am. It is often shortened with an apostrophe to I'm.
The IAM is the Institute of Advanced Motoring, maybe if you contacted them they may be able to help you with negotiating your drive.
Just trying to be helpful.
I don't think you have contributed anything constructive to this forum actually you have been the most devisive commentator. Thankfully you do not live here and the village will get on much better without the type of person you are. Rude, patronising and really not a very nice person.
Devisive? If you mean Divisive, as in "causing or tending to cause disagreement or dissension"? I totally agree with you, and I thank you for the compliment.
Thanks for the fantastic support that you have shown for Alderley Edge.
I have never quite understood why people have questioned that there might be folk from outside Alderley Edge who might have a passionate concern for the wellbeing of the place.
Well done for sticking to your guns and your principles - you are a true and genuine friend of Alderley Edge.
Divisive and effective.