Response to parish parking survey revealed

Alderley Edge Parish Council received 431 responses to their parking consultation, of which 318 came from residents of the village whilst 113 were from non-residents.

About 70 people gathered at the Methodist Church for the feedback meeting on Thursday 11th February where councillors presented the results of the consultation and people's response to the proposals which they put forward last month to resolve the parking issues in the village.

Of the residents who responded 76% were in favour of all their proposed schemes, which centre around creating two new car parks. whilst 15% were in disagreement with all the proposals.

Firstly the Parish Council propose to build 44 car parking spaces at the Heyes Lane allotment site along with an access road to the Festival Hall to relieve traffic pressures on Stamford and Talbot Roads. This would take up about 25% of the allotment space and cost about £200,000 (£4545 per space).

These spaces would be in addition to the 41 spaces being provided at the Festival Hall site which Councillor Mike Dudley-Jones explained are allocated accordingly: 12 for doctors and staff; 13 for patients; 2 for the pharmacy employees; 3 for disabled; 8 for the second floor tenants (2 per unit) and 3 for festival hall staff.

79% of residents who responded agreed with this proposal and 15% disagreed, whilst 70% of non-residents agreed and 14% disagreed.

At Chorley Hall Lane the Parish Council are proposing to provide 100 parking spaces, on the lower end of the playing fields, for long stay car parking spaces, taking up 25% of the site. According to their consultants the cost would be around £329,000 (£3740 per space).

This proved the most controversial proposal with 60% of residents who responded in favour and 33% against, whilst 64% of non-residents approved of the proposal and 25% were against.

Cllr Dudley-Jones explained to the audience that the main reasons for this were traffic issues, loss of part of the playing fields, being too far from the centre, people will not pay if street parking is available and the cost is too high.

The Parish Council's review also included making changes to existing car parks. At South Street they have already changed it to short term parking only but plan to amend the charges so they match those in the neighbouring Parade car park, remove the 'Free After Three' scheme and introduce no returning within two hours.

This proved the most popular recommendation with 85% of responding residents in favour and only 3% against, whilst 60% of non-residents approved and 19% didn't.

At Ryleys Lane, which is currently free to use and does not have any formal parking spaces, the Parish Council propose to reconfigure it for short term parking creating 33-35 spaces and possibly another 16 if a second tier was added. 81% of residents who completed the survey approved of this with 8% disagreeing, whilst 66% of non-residents were in favour and 21% were not.

Key questions raised about the Heyes Lane proposal included: increasing the number of spaces; building a second deck; the village was being held to ransom by a few allotment holders; the whole site looks a scruffy mess; the access road would increase traffic on an already busy road; drainage issues; the De Trafford covenant restricts use of the land; Cheshire East Council (CEC) has turned down a proposal to convert the whole site into a car park so what would they allow?

The Parish Council confirmed that they have not approached CEC yet to ask how much of the site they would permit to become a car park because they are not yet sure what the local people would like them to approach CEC with.

Issues raised about the Chorley Hall Lane proposal included: traffic and pedestrian safety over the railway bridge; worry about safety at the car park exit; loss of part of valuable sports playing fields; the playing fields are a mud bath; too far to walk; property value will go down; Sport England need to be consulted and why do we have to pay for commuters long term car parking?

Regarding South Street there was a suggestion to build a multi-storey car park and at Ryley's Lane people suggested extending the car park up to London Road, which Councillor Craig Browne confirmed CEC have dismissed as an option as it would set a precedent.

As a result of the consultation a number of alternative sites for car parks were made including adding a multi-storey car park at the station, using Lydiatt Lane playing fields (owned by AESG) as a car park or new allotment site; exploring herringbone car parking on London Road; use part of the site off Wilmslow Road which AESG are hoping to build sports facilities on and build a multi-storey behind Aldeli/Piccolinos.

Other suggestions and criticisms were raised, amongst these were: CEC should allow S106 monies to be used for car parks; businesses should be paying for car parks not residents; the Parish Council is biased as two live on Heyes Lane and three are allotment holders; the proposals are unbalanced because they are for 100 spaces at one site and 44 at the other and Ryleys School must use their lay-by as a school drop off zone.

Additionally people suggested encouraging more cycling, more people to rent their drives out during the day, increasing parking enforcement and introducing a park and ride scheme whereby those working in the village park at Alderley Park and a bus brings them into the village.

The Parish Council confirmed that the next steps in their parking review would be organising site visits with CEC Planning and Open Space Officers to assess their proposals; feeding back residents responses to CEC; meeting with CEC Highways to discuss the safety of Chorley Hall Lane railway bridge - regardless of whether a car park is built or not; instigating a more in-depth survey into the drainage issues; proposing that Alderley Edge Gardens & Allotment Society places a resolution in front of all members to establish the level of support for creating an access road and 44 car parking spaces at Heyes Lane to safeguard investment in the Festival Hall and Medical Centre and to continue discussions with local businesses, schools and organisations to see how they can contribute more fully to improving the parking situation in the village.

Speaking during the questions session Councillor Craig Browne said "In an ideal world we would be able to go out and build one very large car park, Cheshire East would pay for and car parking would be free for those who wish to use it, but we don't live in an ideal world. So the proposals that we've ended up putting forward, each of them is in fact a compromise of a kind.

"This is necessary really because in fact whether we are talking about Chorley Hall Lane, Heyes Lane or indeed Ryleys Lane each of those proposals has something in common which is that all of them contravene Cheshire East's policy on open spaces. Now I've had discussions already with senior offices, with Cabinet, deputy cabinet members and what's come out of those discussions and conversations is an indication that Cheshire East would be prepared to be flexible and would be prepared to compromise in each case but they require us to compromise also.

"So the idea that they would encounter a 100% coverage on either Heyes Lane or Chorley Hall Lane simply is not going to be acceptable. They have their open space policy for a reason which is to protect their open spaces across the borough."

He added "If I could also address the issue of Ryleys Lane which I know a lot of people have asked about possibly extending that space into the park. Possibly if Alderley Edge was the only park or playing field in Cheshire East then it would be less of an issue but of course Cheshire East have loads of other parks that they're responsible for and they have a responsibility to protect public parks.

"I hadn't realised that the car park that exists there at the moment isn't in fact a car park at all. it's still classified as open space which Macclesfield Borough and now Cheshire East have allowed us to use unofficially as parking space so they regard very much as a reasonable compromise us being allowed to formally adopt that space to create a regime on it and possibly to deck it as we suggested in the proposal, but not to extend it at the expense of the public park.

"And the reason is that there is a danger from a Cheshire East point of view that it would set a legal precedent which developers could use on other public parks within the borough which Cheshire East would find very difficult to defend at appeal."

Speaking about S106 monies Cllr Browne said "These are agreements that are signed off between Cheshire East and developers to mitigate loss of amenity as a result of development. This is not actually parish councils money to use, legally the money has to be spent by Cheshire East as they are a signatory to the agreement.

"There are currently five S106 schemes in operation in Alderley, I think in total is about £200,00 across the five schemes. I've already established that none of them could support the development of a car park at Heyes Lane, it is possible that one could be used in respect of Chorley Hall Lane.

"It is also possible that a further two that specifically mention and relate to improvement and access to the park so that the issue raised about the footpath along the railway line (leading from the proposed car park at Chorley Hall Lane playing field) it is possible that we could access S106 money to help upgrade that path and provide lighting along it."

Alderley Edge Parish Council will hold their next public meeting about the parking review on Thursday 7th April at 7pm in the Festival Hall.

Alderley Edge Parish Council, Car Parking Review, Parking , Parking


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

Tam Byrne
Friday 12th February 2016 at 9:27 am
Do we know how what the population (above voting age) is in the village/Parish? It doesn't sound like many people completed the survey.
Jon Williams
Friday 12th February 2016 at 10:44 am
How long did it take to get a by pass, I can see it taking that long to get a car park !
Peter Watson
Friday 12th February 2016 at 12:09 pm
I think Tam, that the figure is about 3,400 people are eligible to vote in AE. So about 9% completed a survey. I wonder if that gives us some indication about the strength of feeling regarding the parking issues in the village. It could be that 91% don't actually feel they have a problem. So maybe this is not as big of an issue as we have been led to believe.

It is also interesting, given the comments and opinion on this site showing very strong objections to a car park on CHL, that only 105 people objected to it. That is only 3% of the voting population in the village. Equally, only 190 people 5.6% thought it to be a good idea.
Andrea Murray
Friday 12th February 2016 at 12:38 pm
I have a suggestion regarding the number of votes or lack of. Like me there are people work in the village but do not live here and might not have been able to attend to vote, therefore perhaps you could offer an online survey. surveymonkey is a good site and you could push this through online media? You might get a better response
Lisa Reeves
Friday 12th February 2016 at 12:48 pm
Hi Andrea - To confirm they did use SurveyMonkey and I included the link to the survey in four separate articles published between 15th January and 5th February.
Tam Byrne
Friday 12th February 2016 at 6:01 pm
Sounds like the village doesn't think there is a parking problem that needs a car park then. Can we do more useful things then - I was at the park today and the kids play area is a right horrible state these days. Any chance some of the funds can update the activities for kids?
Marc Asquith
Saturday 13th February 2016 at 7:28 am
Tam, here is the ward profile from the CEC website:

The electorate is 3680.

@Jon - how long did it take to get a bypass ? Well the first suggestion of a bypass was made in the 1920s - but I would not expect a car park to take that long.

If you track the history of the building of the bypass it is instructive.

Firstly an unrealistic plan for a dual carriageway was advanced by a Labour controlled County Council through the planning process and rejected.

Then, a Conservative controlled authority advanced a scheme very much along the lines that we now have.

From initial design to final opening took around 9 years, which included a public enquiry.

I have three predictions:

Firstly there will be no appetite in the Conservative lead CEC to deliver any scheme whilst the independents can claim the credit. ( To get a flavour of just how fickle CEC is, you might note that in 2006/2007 Macclesfield Borough Council proposed extending the Car Park in Alderley Edge Park, Tarmacking it and making it Pay and Display. Now CEC ( MBC by any other name ) appear to say it's not even officially a car park ! ) It's always about politics....

Secondly, the delivery period is so long that the Parish Council will have been through two or three elections before anything is likely to appear - by which time the Councillors may well be entirely different people with different views.

Thirdly, because the PC suggest a series of schemes, they are engaging in battle on too many fronts and will lose several of their schemes. Frankly, if I ever see any car parking on the Heyes Lane allotment site or Chorley Hall playing fields, I will eat my hat. So any outcome will eventually be much less than the PC hope for, leaving everyone dissatisfied.
Fiona Doorbar
Saturday 13th February 2016 at 7:53 am
I will second that Tam.
There also needs to be more for 11-14 year olds to do.....perhaps an area designated to skateboarding like the Carrs park. There is a monthly youth club in the village which is great but not a lot else I am afraid so my kids get taxi'd to places that do cater . i.e Bollington , Carrs , Bruntwood and further!
Ironic that I have to get in my car and ferry my kids out of the village to a place they can play hey
Dawn Kelly
Tuesday 16th February 2016 at 5:09 pm
I've no idea how I missed the survey but I did! I tried to complete it but then deadline had hit. I read Alderley edge dot com every week but it still managed to sneak past. I'm sure I'm not the only person who missed the survey but definitely cares!
Carol Chadwick
Wednesday 17th February 2016 at 12:53 pm
It seems remarkable that the result of the survey seems to bear no relationship with the views held by commenters of previous articles on this web site or with the views of those that attended the meeting in January
Duncan Herald
Thursday 18th February 2016 at 9:54 am
I have a small problem with the idea of the car park in the park (aka Ryleys Lane) being reconfigured.
In this context, I wonder what reconfigure exactly means.

This reconfiguration will provide 33-35 parking spaces. This morning, the unreconfigured car park has 43 unreconfigured cars parked in it.

If the reconfiguration includes tarmac and/or payment meters, it seems a lot of effort for a loss of circa 8-10 spaces.

However, if the local money has already run out, either CEC or some private company will have to be involved I guess.
Duncan Herald
Thursday 18th February 2016 at 4:02 pm
Hot News.

Where Horseshoe Farm used to be. There are now two Companies.

There was a recent planning application for the site, for parking.

I counted today: the dug-up part of the field (where the chickens and pigs used to be) is flattened and has 20 cars parked there. Opposite that is a flattened half field (where the turkeys used to be) with 15 cars parked. The other half of that field is still being dug/flattened and should take some more cars.

So a total of perhaps 50 new parking spaces?

Shows what can be done when determination is firm eh?
Pete Taylor
Thursday 18th February 2016 at 11:33 pm
A somewhat tough break for you, personally, then?
Just shows that what comes around, goes around. Frankly, I'm not surprised.
Perhaps if the former Parish Council had listened to their electors this might not have happened?
From where I'm sitting (a country-mile away) this seems like a splendid solution, parking spaces where required.

The legislative clock still ticks on for the other fellow, as I understand it.

Prior to the last election I did suggest that there was still time to ditch the mill-stone... on this very forum.
Duncan Herald
Friday 19th February 2016 at 9:49 am
in what way a 'tough break' for me? I do not understand.
50 parking spaces on the old Horseshoe Lane land is splendid; and they are not even putting down tarmac!

I simply do not understand what I take to be some type of gibe against me. If you care to re-read that which I wrote above, you will surely see that it is an encomiuim?

Or can it be that your seemingly undying dislike of the ex-parish council blinds you to the facts?

As to your banging on about the 'former Parish Council'; that's all now history so, as they say, move on/get a life ?

Come to that, what 'other fellow' and what 'legislative clock' and what 'mill-stone'? Do 'give over' being obscure: if you have something to say, why not just say it?
Pete Taylor
Friday 19th February 2016 at 6:00 pm
Duncan, a "tough break" in the sense that you have put so much time and effort trying to convince everyone that there was only one logical place to build a car park, then someone plonks one on your door-step.
I think it is a great shame that, one by one, the farms around this area have gone out of use; it was wall to wall black and white cattle round here not so many years ago and it was always good to see the turkeys lining up for Christmas, where now it will be cars lining up.
Marc Asquith
Friday 19th February 2016 at 9:32 pm
I fear the townie means Friesian Cattle....
Alan Brough
Friday 19th February 2016 at 11:12 pm
....or could it be that "The Townie" knows full well what he means, but his subtlety fails to permeate the thick skins of our politico friends? :)
Duncan Herald
Saturday 20th February 2016 at 8:23 am
hi ho; the Horseshoe Farm's car park is not on my doorstep. It is invisible to me.

I still believe that a single large car park on Heyes Lane is the best option; but it ain't gonna happen is it? I fancy that has long since been decided!
On which subject; can anyone vouchsafe from whence will come the monies to build a car park whereinsoever that may be?

Are you intending, after due cogitation of course, to explain to we poor mystifieds what you mean by 'other fellow', 'legislative clock' and 'mill-stone' ?

What can one do about the dearth of farms? People want housing rather than fields (at least up to the point where they have moved in?) so that's democracy for you. (that's the trouble with democracy innit?: they won't do what you tell them to!)
Pete Taylor
Saturday 20th February 2016 at 11:43 pm
Thank-you Alan. Wooooosh- over their heads it goes. Again.

My Welsh dairy-farmer friend (on a 300-mile round trip up here to Chelford to buy a couple of heifers from the stock-sales) informed me that Friesian is a breed of black horses and that he regarded as Chelford as a town. Holstein; Mark.

What a shame that the internet did not exist at the time of the curious incident of the disappeared Alderley Cottage Hospital. Frankly-speaking, it was just one of a series of events which those with long memories might recall. Tick.
Duncan Herald
Sunday 21st February 2016 at 10:28 am
Alderley Cottage Hospital closure.
Is my memory correct in that the politicos of then promised a new medical centre ? And here it is at last !
Charlie Gaughan
Monday 22nd February 2016 at 12:22 pm
I think a point is being missed as a resident and business owner in the village the complexity of the parking problems is driving clients and customers to go else where the village is more quiet than last year if we don't sort it there won't be a parking problem no one will be here .
Adrian Barber
Monday 22nd February 2016 at 10:06 pm
You can be sure that if the extra tarmac is laid half a mile either side of the shops and bars then there will be no improvement on London Road whatsoever. There's insufficient funds to keep trying to trap the parking offenders so that will never work either. There's one solution and that is to think "outside of the box" (apologies for the cliche) and change the whole of London Road, anything else will just be a waste of money.... oh and green space, a waste of that too.
Pete Taylor
Tuesday 23rd February 2016 at 10:39 pm
@ Duncan: yes and no. The promised replacement medical centre was in Handforth. This is not, perhaps, a stone which you might want to lift. Frankly.
Graham Vickers
Saturday 5th March 2016 at 8:14 am
I was in the florist yesterday. A busy day for staff being two days before Mothers Day.
whlie I was being served an alarm, on a phone belong to the florist, rang. She said she had to move her car!
There were four staff doing the same routine all day!
They said ' there are plans for a big car park at Chorley hall lane, it will be better then'!

I think some of them may be drawing a pension before this gets sorted!

Ps: I thought the land at Horseshoe Farm had an Agricultural restrictive covenant? The occupiers always kept chickens or some other fowl to get round this.
Stewart Dyer
Monday 7th March 2016 at 1:22 pm
So in an 8 hour shopping day, that means there were a large number of shoppers (anything up to 32) who couldn't get parked in a short term bay, and may have gone elsewhere to shop.
Vin Sumner
Monday 7th March 2016 at 5:17 pm
Lisa ,

Just catching up with your report etc and am puzzled by the statements

"Of the residents who responded 76% were in favour of all their proposed schemes"

"This proved the most controversial proposal with 60% of residents who responded in favour and 33% against" ( reference to Chorley Hall lane )

This doesn't seem right ... 76 for both but only 60 for CHL ...?? Must be my maths
Lisa Reeves
Monday 7th March 2016 at 9:28 pm
Hi Vin

I've attached the page from Mike Dudley-Jones' presentation relating to this point (above) and have asked him for clarification of the numbers. Kind Regards Lisa
Craig Browne
Tuesday 8th March 2016 at 7:18 pm
Hi Vin/Lisa,

It is an arithmetical average across the four proposals, i.e.

Chorley Hall Lane 60 +
Heyes Lane 79+
South Street 85+
Ryleys Lane 81

Total 305, divided by 4 (proposals) = 76.25
Alan R Davies
Wednesday 9th March 2016 at 8:27 am
In other words, on average 76% were in favour of the four proposals. However the percentage who were in favour of all four proposals is a maximum of 60%, probably less.
Vin Sumner
Wednesday 9th March 2016 at 3:28 pm

I see how you get to the number but the words to describe the maths are incorrect

The number of people in favour of all proposals is inevitably less than 60% and that is not what was reported. For example it could be 50%. we can't tell from the data provided.

Alan is correct is saying that on average 76% of people were in favour of any particular proposal. I would suggest that is a meaningless average and just causes confusion.
Especially when the word all is inserted as reported.

"Of the residents who responded 76% were in favour of all their proposed schemes"


Jon Williams
Wednesday 9th March 2016 at 3:44 pm
Like most surveys a total waste of time, because the do not give the correct answers
Vin Sumner
Wednesday 9th March 2016 at 10:30 pm
Another gem I note in the numbers is the staggering increae in parking for the medical practice from a few spaces to 30 .... I trust the rent includes the parking spaces :)
Tam Byrne
Friday 11th March 2016 at 9:13 am
As Vin points out, the percentage of people responding positively to one of the schemes has no correlation at all to the percentage who support ALL of them. Everyone may support one but none support all.
Vin Sumner
Friday 11th March 2016 at 4:59 pm
In fact based on the numbers presented its perfectly possible that no one voted for all proposals at all , since the total of no's acrioss the 4 is greater than 100% ... :-)
So the number voting for all 4 is between 0 and 60 % , yet the figure presented was 76%
Peter Watson
Friday 11th March 2016 at 5:36 pm
I think it was presented by the PC as an overall approval rating, an average of approval for all four schemes. I think 'Of the residents who responded 76% were in favour of all their proposed schemes' was maybe just a journalistic misunderstanding.

I don't really think it is a big issue though.
Lisa Reeves
Friday 11th March 2016 at 6:10 pm
Sorry for any confusion.

"Following Vin’s enquiry I emailed Mike and he responded with the explanation below from the man who assisted the Parish Council in gathering the data:

Overall people who agreed (strongly or just agreed) across all 4 schemes was indeed 76%.

In other words the count of all respondents (parish residents) who ticked agreed or strongly agreed across all 4 questions was 950.

The count of all the respondents who either disagreed or strong disagreed across all 4 questions was 184.

The total count for the 312 people (not all 318 answered these question) who answered the 4 questions is 1248 (4 x 312, 4 questions multiplied by the count of people who answered them).

Therefore we get

overall agree = (950/1248) * 100 = 76%
overall disagree = (184/1248) * 100 = 15%

When we analyse each question in turn we see the following percentages for respondents who agreed (either strong or just agreed) per question:

chl = 60%
heyes = 79%
south street = 85%
ryley's = 81%

You can get back to the 76% by averaging these 4 percentages ((60 + 79 + 85 + 81) / 4) = 76%.

I think the only confusion for Vin is maybe that he interpreted the 76% as 76% of respondents who individually agreed with all 4 schemes rather than, as in a lot of cases people may have individually agreed with say scheme A, B + C but not D."
Tam Byrne
Saturday 12th March 2016 at 9:28 pm
The 76% simply represents the number of people who agreed with at least one of the parking proposals. So 24% of people think none of the proposals were suitable.
Vin Sumner
Tuesday 15th March 2016 at 9:22 am
Not sure who is saying I was confused , but the original article quoted the PC as saying 76% supported all 4 proposals which is wrong. From the data provided I can't tell how many supported all or in fact didn't supported any ( Tam its 15% or less not 24% ) , averaging of data loses information and that becomes misinformation.
Peter Watson
Tuesday 15th March 2016 at 3:47 pm

The original article did say that, however the PC didn't say that in their presentation.
Vin Sumner
Tuesday 15th March 2016 at 7:26 pm
Thanks Peter :-)