Following 18 months of uncertainty about the future of the Heyes Lane allotment site, Alderley Edge Parish Council has agreed a number of formal proposals regarding what they would like to achieve.
Having voted in October 2011 to take over the management of the three allotment sites in the village from Cheshire East Council (CEC), the Parish Council confirmed that the legal process is nearing completion.
Cllr Frank Keegan said "The only thing that is missing is the telephone call from their lawyers to our lawyers." so the Parish Council should be taking them over, by way of a long lease, shortly.
At their meeting on Monday, 11th March, which was attended by approximately 30 members of the public, the councillors voted on three motions.
These confirmed their plan to seek approval from the DCLG to enable them to turn the Heyes Lane allotment site into a car park and enter into discussions with Alderley Edge School for Girls to establish a new statutory allotment site at Lydiat Lane, on land owned by the school.
A lengthy discussion took place when Cllr Sue Joseph said "I'm not happy about tenancies being restricted to one per address. I can see it being one per person but not one per address."
Cllr Frank Keegan said "It is very clear from the following resolution that the Parish Council's preferred option would be to keep all the existing tenants on Chorley Hall Lane and Beech Close exactly as they are for now but what we need is the provision that if we were to finish up with two sites and not be able to obtain Lydiat Lane then we would need to do something because the overriding concern of the Parish Council is that we have Heyes Lane available to us for the stabilisation of hall and medical centre."
Councillors agreed in the end to leave the restriction to one per address, rather than one per resident, which they wouldn't necessary implement but it would allow them to take this action if they felt it was appropriate.
Cllr Mike Williamson commented "It's the Parish Council's wish to create a new allotment site at Lydiat Lane. If we were successful in doing that the debate about numbers of allotments owned by individuals or at registered addresses, in the short term at least, becomes irrelevant because we will have plenty of allotments to meet the perceived current demand.
"If the Lydiatt Lane allotment does not go forward and if the Parish Council is successful in its ambition to move allotment holders off Heyes Lane to use that land for other purposes then there will be a question mark over whether we need can meet all the demand and in that circumstance it would be appropriate to consider it might be wise to have an option to distribute them more fairly."
The Parish Council approved the following three motions:
Motion on Future Use of Allotments.
That Alderley Edge Parish Council, when the legal process is complete, resolves:
To operate Beech Close and Chorley Hall Lane as Allotment sites
That priority for Beech Close and Chorley Hall Lane could be restricted to Council Taxpayers of Alderley Edge Parish Precept
That Tenancies could be restricted to one per registered address
That the Parish Council seeks approval from DCLG to convert Heyes Lane Allotment site into a suitably treated car park for the benefit of the Medical Centre, the Festival Hall and the parking situation generally.
Motion on Mitigating Actions.
That Alderley Edge Parish Council recognises that the return of Allotments to Management by the Parish Council for the benefit of all Council Taxpayers may cause frustrations to existing tenants, who could now be treated differently, and resolves:
To enter into discussions with Alderley Edge School for Girls, who own the site at Lydiat Lane, with a view to establishing a new statutory Allotment site at Lydiat Lane, if there is ANY unsatisfied demand from either existing tenants or waiting list applicants
To honour the current season Tenancies until the end of September 2013, subject to payment of pro-rata fees to the Parish Council
To give publicity to the Parish Council position which is that, if a new Allotment site at Lydiat Lane could be established, then existing tenancies at Beech Close and Chorley Hall Lane could remain exactly as they are at the present time.
Motion on Outcome of Letters to existing Tenants and those on the Waiting List.
That the Parish Council, having asked Tenants and Waiting List to declare a wish to continue as either a Tenant or a Waiting List Applicant, resolves:
Establish new lists of Tenants and Waiting List
Confirm the final date for responses to Alderley Edge Parish Council from Tenants/Waiting List as noon on 4th April, 2013.
Establish a list of those who have responded by the final date of noon on 4th April, 2013.
Establish lists of those who respond after the deadline with a view to inviting such late respondents to join the waiting list.
Alderley Edge Parish Council sent out in the region of 80 letters to allotment holders and those on the waiting list, to date they have received over 30 responses.
John Sanderson, Chairman of the Alderley Edge Allotments and Gardens Society, spoke during the period of public participation at the Parish Council meeting.
He said "Most allotments are rented to elderly folk. The majority of whom are over 60 years old, a large number over 70. Some are ever 80 years old. For these allotment holders, growing vegetables is an important part of their lives and it is much more than a hobby. They work hard on their allotments in all weathers and it has taken years to bring their plots up to the present standard. It keeps them fit and healthy. They interact with others with similar interests."
Speaking about the letter sent to allotment holders, Mr Sanderson added "Many have been upset by it. This is a cutting attack on the fabric of Alderley Edge society. For the chairman to initiate this action without a legal basis and without public consideration in Council is really bad. You could say it is unforgivable."
The Heyes Lane allotment site was gifted to the Council's predecessor authority in 1917, subject to a covenant that it could not be used other than as open space, recreational ground, playing fields, allotments and public gardens.
Therefore AEPC has to obtain permission from De Trafford Estates for that covenant to be lifted and from the Secretary of State to relocate the allotments.
If the Secretary of State consents to the transfer of the Heyes Lane allotments to land behind Lydiat Lane then AEPC will then need to obtain permission from CEC, as landowners, because the Council agreed to transfer the three allotment sites to AEPC by way of a long lease, with restrictive covenants protecting their use for allotments.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
The law says if you absolutely MUST re-locate allotment holders then you have to provide a like-for-like situation. AEPC are offering a site they don't even own as the replacement.
Hands up how many people think they just want to squeeze everyone onto the other two sites so they don't even have to go to the bother of buying the Lydiat Lane site? How predictable.
Is it any wonder that allotment holders have absolutely no trust in or respect for this Council?
Like you Ruth I suspect that the Council knows that the chances of it obtaining the land at Lydiat Lane are extremely remote. Nevertheless, it will go through the motions of trying to obtain this land as it has to do this before it can make a request to the Secretary of State for the disposal of the allotments at Heyes Lane.
I suspect that it will then seek to free up allotments to try and accommodate the tenants it has evicted from Heyes Lane by evicting all existing allotment tenants from Chorley Hall Lane and Beech Close allotments who are not Alderley Edge residents and all existing tenants who happen to live at the same “registered address”. Who knows whether it may also try to introduce further rachmannesque measures to rid itself of other turbulent tenants?
All existing tenants who do not live in Alderley were given their tenancies by either Macclesfield Borough Council or East Cheshire Council both of which operated, and in East Cheshire’s case still operate, a “borough” wide policy of allocating allotments and both of which allocated and still allocate allotments to individuals, not to “registered addresses”. Indeed, as I understand it, allocating allotments to individuals is standard practice throughout the country. However, if this Council gets its way it is clear to me that allotment tenants in Alderley will be treated less fairly than those in the rest of East Cheshire and the rest of the country.
Although some councillors have expressed concern about applying these measures retrospectively I have little doubt that when it comes to the crunch they will be out-voted by those on the Council who are determined to get their way regardless of the damage this will inflict on individuals.
They will not worry about evicting “non-Alderley” tenants even though many of these are elderly people who have tended and worked their allotments diligently for many years. After all, if you can ignore the law why worry about treating a few old people unfairly? Likewise why worry about evicting a few tenants who happen to be members of the same family living at the same address? There are some of these and it will be interesting to see how the Council decided which of the tenants living at the same address it will evict.
Hi Ian...just one point...if it is illegal to collect and use the data on the allotment users, then so be it and we'll have to await a time when it is o.k. but all I wanted from the data was to actually find out how many tenants there are, how many plots are vacant and how large is the waiting list; so that we have up-to-date info. instead of various guesstimates.
Twice you have complained about data protection issues; twice I have checked with the ICO and twice I have found that AEPC was within the law.
You complain that Cheshire East still operates a Borough Wide policy for allotments; on 5 September 2011, Cheshire East Cabinet voted to return Allotments to local areas. For the avoidance of doubt, Cheshire East do not operate Allotments any longer, therefore it cannot have a Borough wide Policy. Parish Councils operate Allotments, and, at the Cabinet Member Public Meeting on 18 June 2012, the Cabinet Member made it very plain that when the Allotments are returned to a local Town or Parish Council then the Policy will be set by that Town or Parish Council. (The AEAGS Committee were represented at that meeting - in fact the statement by the Cabinet Member was in response to a question from the Vice Chair of AEAGS)
You complain that the Parish Council does not know the law. It seems to me that the Parish Council is the only body that does understand the 1908 Allotment law.
Alderley Edge Allotments were operated under licence from Cheshire East, and before that Macclesfield. The 1908 Act says that if 6 ratepayers ask for Allotments then there is a Statutory duty to provide them. That is the law, operating at the present time.
There is a waiting of 29 ratepayers, i.e. more than 6 ratepayers asking for Allotments! What did the AEAGS do? Nothing!
Worse than nothing, they operated policies whereby some people had multiple plots, whilst other aspirants had none. A clear and flagrant breach of the rights of the taxpayers on the waiting list. Who gave AEAGS the right to use public assets as their own fiefdom?
The Authorities, MBC and CEC were wrong to let AEAGS operate in this cavalier fashion, and there will be a proper enquiry, into what can be described as abuse of power, at the right time.
I am a bit tired of people impugning the integrity of the Parish Councillors and the Parish Council, when all the time the unfair and unequal behaviour was being perpetrated by those casting nasturtiums.
I am a bit tired of the usual suspects venting their spleen on this website when they know the law about allotments and yet try to justify multiple occupation of allotments as their right. Their Right?
The Vice Chair of the AEAGS castigated AEPC for spending money without authorisation. He was an employee of the Audit Commission - so he ought to know that Parish Councils have a S137 power. That means, Parish Councils can spend such monies as they can justify, up to a limit. In Alderley Edge that limit is just under £6,000. The figure he was talking about amounted to £2,400.
The Vice Chair of the AEAGS keeps presenting himself at the Parish Council Offices, inspecting the Minutes etc. It seems his time would have been better spent looking at the AEAGS failure to comply with Allotment Law, and Natural Justice.
The AEAGS operate public assets under a licence agreement with the local Authority. Where is their Accountability? Where are the Minutes and Agendas of their Meetings? These are public assets, they are not owned by AEAGS, so where is the scrutiny of their Stewardship?
Reading the comments made by other writers so far have helped me understand a little more of what is happening...
The AEPC are in serious need of a good Public Relations Officer as their PR 'sucks'! Nobody in this village really has any idea what the Williamson/Keegan plan is, do they? It really has nothing to do with Allotments, does it?
Let's try a little experiment here shall we...
Councillor Keegan and Councillor Williamson, this question is addressed to you both.
Can you reassure the villagers of Alderley Edge that there will NEVER be houses or any other buildings placed on the car park site that was once the Heyes Lane allotment site? If never is tricky shall we try 5, 10 and 20 years? I would be grateful if you could answer that here so that we may all see it. It might be the start of some positive PR for you!
The clock is ticking...
The first is the legally complex one of riding roughshod over the expressed wishes of the donor of the land to create a car park that the medical centre doesn't want or need to the detriment of the allotment holders.
The second is the tarmacing of a green space in the heart of our village which many of us non allotment holders think is a bad idea. Why rush to turn our village into a grey urban space?
If the Council understands allotment law so well why did one councillor have to ask at the meeting for an explanation of what a statutory allotment was? You seem very definite about the size of the waiting list and yet Councillor Herald says in his comment above that he wants to know the size of the waiting list. It seems odd that he doesn’t know this and yet you appear to, don't you communicate with each other?
It is grossly ill informed and gratuitously offensive comments like yours that have made any dialogue difficult.
Heyes Lane, for the next 125 years, is assigned for public use and no houses will be built during that 125 year period.
Now that I have clarified that, perhaps you will get off your moral high horse and explain who gave AEAGS the right to ride roughshod over the legal rights of the waiting list?
Your Society has never been elected by the public, your organisation uses public assets and yet you are not subjected to scrutiny, you are in flagrant breach of the Allotment Act of 1908, and yet you peddle rubbish about houses.
A cynic would think your Society peddle such rubbish in order to try and carrying on using public assets for personal gain.
We can only deal with the questions of number of tenants, number of vacant plots and number of multiple plot holders etc. when we have reliable and up-to-date figures... what is wrong with that?
Why are you exercised by a Parish Councillor asking for an exact explanation of the meaning of 'statutory'? I also did not know that exact meaning as I am not unfortunately an 'all knowing' chap.Surely better to admit lack of knowledge, ask to be informed, then get on with the matter?
It may be worth reminding people that individual Councillors have 'expertise' on different aspects of P.C. business; mine is Parks and Cemetery etc. and I freely confess that I am on a learning curve re. allotments.
1. Councillor Keegan has assured you that there will be no house building on the Hayes Lane site; I will happily join you at the barricades if there is any attempt to house-build there; given my age, that assurance is valid for about 10 years tops!
2. Does it matter exactly when the leases are exchanged? They will be and then we can go ahead. Can we not stop a squabble over a date please?
3. Is a car park needed when the medical centre is up and running? Clearly the Parish Council honestly believes the answer to be yes... there is not (imho) any 'hidden agenda' about that. Nor is the P.C's view influenced by our being 'power crazed' nor is there any 'in-our-own-interests' thing.
4. Mr. Hannah... you write of the expressed wishes of the donor of the land... is this a recent development of which I know not, or are you harking back a long way? If the latter, well times move on and views do change as do needs of the parish.
Mike D-j... could we do with a PR person? (I'm aware that you are probably being sarcastic) and indeed we could; mayhaps we should hire some such? Then the public could lambast us for wasting their money; hi ho, we can't win!
The recent setting up of a 20 minute period for statements and questions seems not to satisfy you; it is not designed to turn the Parish Council meetings into a debating society. I take note of points of view expressed (as I do things said to me in the village/Park etc.). If there is a wish for a debate, then set up such an occasion... I'll try to attend... if you set it up, then you can dictate how it is run? I'd love to be 'on the floor', raising points of order against you and listening to you shutting me up! I could even yell about North Korea!
Thank you Duncan for your points. You always attempt to see more than one point of view and your comments help us to understand a little more of how the AEPC works. I would suggest you might be the perfect person to accept the PR Officer position. On this occasion I am certainly not being sarcastic - promise! If the AEPC could only communicate the issues they seek to address and solve more clearly to the Village I am certain that much of the criticism aimed at the Parish Council would fall away.
In this case, for example, using just the comments here the PC could say ( or have said)
"To achieve the best result for the new Medical Centre and Festival Hall we feel we need to build an adjacent car park. This would be best sited on the current allotment site. This will alarm those allotment holders but in the first instance we would seek to re-locate each one to a well prepared plot on one of the two other sites. This would happen over a period of three years and this move would be in close liaison with those allotment holders. It is possible that some on the 'waiting list' who live outside the Village will now have to wait longer before a site is offered to them.
This suggestion may alarm some allotment holders and villagers. First may we, as AEPC, reassure everyone that in no circumstances, will this site ever be used for building, houses or other commercial buildings. Secondly, we propose that the car park be constructed in such a way that it appears 'green' from a distance using the 'Grasscrete' system, as we are only too aware of the need to avoid creating an eyesore.
All this involves 'change' and affects the future of our Village and it's well being so we feel a special meeting is needed so that we can take the best course of action. The meeting will be held at......on....... If you would like to ask a question at this time, please contact our Public Relations Officer D......... H.......... who will attempt to clarify any issues you may have."
In all of this I am very very aware that so much of the work of the AEPC is done on a voluntary basis with most of the Council members giving their valuable time freely. At times it must seem like a thankless task!
Get the PR right - or better - and the smiles might return hand in hand with the trust that is still lacking.
I am seriously put off by the tone of many of the posts from one particular counsellor who seems to imply that we, the plebeians, have no right to question anything and that we are incapable of understanding the workings of local government - that is what is gratuitously offensive!!!
Duncan, thank you also for trying to introduce some transparency - it is appreciated.
My own view is that there will be enough parking at the Festival Hall even when the new medical centre (hopefully) opens. While people remain unwilling to walk more than 20 yards from their destination in the village centre and have no problem parking dangerously/illegally/selfishly, the provision of more parking on the Heyes Lane allotment site seems pointless and a sad waste of all the work of the allotment holders over many years.
Who is the vice chair? Or would naming him contravene the data protection act?
Mike Dudley-Jones, you say that a sudden garage build might cause an outrage in the village, on what basis, or on what evidence do you base that statement? You might actually be very surprised to find that there would not be!
Well done Frank and all AEPC for having the courage of their convictions.
I don't believe our Parish Council should become a property development company for businesses that perhaps failed to prepare for their future. I do know that many people agree. There is enough to do, surely?
The vice chair of the Allotments is John Tomlinson - I know this because he put the information in the public domain at the Parish Council meeting last Monday.
There has been no response from the AEAGS because they know they have been seriously letting down the allotment holders, by looking after the few. They keep alleging that the Parish Council cannot be trusted - Mr Tomlinson's favourite phrase.
And yet it is AEAGS who should be held to account for operating a fiefdom using public assets. Don't worry, at the appropriate time, you can trust the Parish Council to hold to account anyone who has abused a public office.
The Post Office is a Commercial venture, and yet we helped to successfully relocate it. The Doctors Surgery is a Commercial venture, and yet we are developing an alternative.
The reason why we are developing/have developed these facilities being retained is simply because the alternative would be for people to leave the village to receive the same service.
I can understand the argument which says that it is not a Parish Council role to provide services. I understand but I don't agree. A large budget in Cheshire East, a large budget, deals with economic regeneration, and tourism generation. Does that not help particular businesses?
I don't agree with the argument because I believe Local Councillors have a role to protect services within their local areas. If the fabric of the village disappears, if villagers have to travel out of the village to receive services, I believe the fabric of the village is weakened.
The Parish Council has wellbeing powers, which allow the Parish to fund facilities which the Parish regards as essential/necessary.
The wellbeing powers should be used after a consultation with every member of the village.
In the instance of the garage, what was the proposal?
It was for the Parish Council to construct, and own, a facility which would attract rent to offset the interest charges. The facility would always be owned by the Parish - i.e. the village - and there would be no cost to the public purse.
A great deal of misinformation has been generated about the Allotments being commercially developed - all 3 sites. Nonsense. A great deal of misinformation has been generated about the land at Lydiat Lane being for housing. Nonsense.
The "NOISE" generated by certain people in AEAGS has drowned out the fact that the village is losing valuable facilities.
I don't have a problem with putting forward a proposal from the Parish Council and letting the village, every one of them, express an opinion. If the majority of those who express an opinion Vote Yes, then we would proceed. If the majority vote No, then it withers on the vine. But it should be the people of Alderley Edge who should decide, and I don't believe that there should only be one Parish Council view; Councillors can support whichever view they favour.
I only want to give the electorate the chance to decide.
I don't disagree there has been a lot of misinformation on this and related subjects but the Parish Council should take the lions share of responsibility as it's poor communications on the subject left an information vacuum. Thankfully the recent Parish Council meeting and your contributions to this discussion have made things a great deal clearer.
In the interests of clarity, with regards to your statement "I only want to give the electorate the chance to decide." are you referring to whether a garage is built there, whether the Parish Council puts a car park on the allotments, or both?
I don’t believe it is the job of the PC to get involved in the moving of commercial business with or without financial help from the PC. Given that the PC is Conservative don’t market forces apply here?
As for the relocation to Lydiat Lane, I spoke to a few of the residents down that neck of the woods (18 months ago) and they were sympathetic but didn’t want the field turned into an allotment site. I fear that even if the land was available and given over to allotments there would be a battle on the PC hands to change it over.
There are number of allotment holders myself included who would move to Lydiate lane (my plot is on Chorley Hall Lane) under certain conditions and assurances, but no other information or concrete plans have been forthcoming in the 2 years of "Heyes Lane site issue". So this is probably where some mistrust comes in.
On the waiting list issue. Both myself and one of the site managers have received verbal abuse from people on the Cheshire East waiting list for being contacted to ask "would you like a plot?" because CE never cleared down the list properly. Alot of thought will have to put into the new waiting list when the transfer takes place and the management issue is resolved.
If we carry on at this rate there might be no need for a Public Relations Officer!
In his earlier posting Cllr Keegan refers to the power under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 whereby councils may spend money “which is in the interests of, and will bring direct benefit to, their area or any part of it or all or some of its inhabitants …”. But that is a power given to the Council, not to individual councillors.
The key issue is that one or more individual councillors of Alderley Edge Parish Council have incurred expenditure, on behalf of the Council, without prior authorisation from the Council. As I said to the Parish Council on Monday:
“Councillors have spent Parish Council money without prior authority: £1,250 on a QC’s opinion on allotment law, £1,000 on solicitors’ fees revealed so far, some £160 on a train journey to London in connection with allotment law.”
These expenditures were approved in retrospect at the Finance Committee meeting on 9 July 2012. The invoice from the QC had been received in February 2012 and was addressed to Cllr Keegan, not to the Clerk of the Parish Council.
Regarding my inspection of the 2011/12 accounts, this amounted to two visits to the Parish Council offices, occupying less than 20 minutes of the Clerk's time in total. This long-standing entitlement was restated and reinforced by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Mr Eric Pickles. The opening paragraph of his Announcement of 13 April 2011 reads:
“New transparency rules will require councils to publicise to the press and public the little-known rights to inspect councils’ detailed financial accounts, ledgers and records. This is designed to increase scrutiny of councils’ spending decisions by armchair auditors and local investigative journalists, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles said today.”
Would Cllr Keegan prefer the accounts not to be open to view by the public?
I meant that if a decision were ever needed to be taken re the use of Heyes Lane as an alternative site for a garage, then the village would be consulted before that decision was finalised. Parish Councillors might campaign for that idea, and some might campaign against that idea.
No one knows better than you that you have had free access to the financial information of the Parish Council, and the Parish Council is content with its stewardship being open to scrutiny.
You refer again to the letter from Mr Sanderson asking for a meeting; you fail to mention that Mr Sanderson told me that any meeting "would be over his dead body" when we met at the consultation on the planning application for the Medical Centre.
The Parish Council is perfectly willing to engage with sensible members of AEAGS. But even Society members think the Society has been hijacked by "the Heyes Lane group".
You fail to address the issue - the rather grave issue - that the AEAGS was in breach of the Allotments Act 1908 by holding waiting lists in excess of 6 ratepayers and doing nothing to call for more Allotment land. Such calls are not whims, they are Statutory duties. At the same time the AEAGS allowed some tenants to have multiple occupancies, such as could be construed as operating market gardens.
Since AEAGS was managing the 3 allotment sites under licence from Cheshire East, there ought to have been transparency in the records of AEAGS - and yet reports from members suggest that they are very much a closed book, even to members.
Recent letters from AEPC to Tenants have elicited the information that at least two people on 1 site no longer live here, and the have given up the allotment, or they live here, but have given up the allotment. There are 3 vacant sites, even in excess of the 2 cases mentioned, and yet there is this great waiting list. By all means crawl all over the financial records of the Parish Council, but for goodness sake get your records in order, so that you hand over decent information to the Parish Council.
That sounds a lot like "democracy when it suits". You are prepared to consult the electorate on whether a garage is built there but not on whether the Parish Council puts a car park on the allotments. Would you care to explain the rational behind the double standards?
When did this lisence end ? This is the management issue that has not been resolved or can't be resolved until the transfer.
" You refer again to the letter from Mr Sanderson asking for a meeting; you fail to mention that Mr Sanderson told me that any meeting "would be over his dead body" I'm not sure where this came from but it is not the AEAGS policy.
With out going over old ground the AEAGS are open to meet and move forward.
NO, it sounds like we don't have referendums every two minutes.
The Parish Council were elected unopposed in 2011; I was elected with nearly 75% of the vote. Our slate was to provide a Medical Centre and a revamped Festival Hall - the idea for the Medical Centre started in 2006 election leaflets. It continued in the 2008 election, and in the 2011 election. That sounds like a lot of democracy, to deliver what will actually be a fantastic achievement for a Parish Council.
However, I accept that the idea of a garage on Heyes Lane should be tested against public opinion, because it has not been a manifesto idea.
Democracy is generally carried out by the elected representatives.
No decision has been taken on the garage yet, but I like the way you're thinking!
I certainly don't think you should have referendums every two minutes. But to suggest you would be prepared to have one on whether a garage is built there but not prepared to have one on whether the Parish Council puts a car park on the allotments is quite simply farcical.
To the best of my knowledge no manifesto ever disclosed the plan to replace the allotments with a car park - or for that matter the significant cost implications for the tax payer of the Parish Council taking on the Festival Hall.
Again the Medical Centre is mentioned seemingly to, at least in part, justify what is happening with the allotments yet the PCT have made it clear they don't need any additional parking. See the article 'Medical centre plans 'entirely separate' from allotment plans' published 31st January 2012 at http://bit.ly/Yfropr
It remains the case that the Parish Council has failed to put forward any sort of well considered justification to the electorate for what they would like to do with the allotments. And the lack of transparency on the subject over the last 18 months has been far from democratic in my view.
For the record I personally have no strong feelings one way or the other on whether allotments are retained at Heyes Lane.
I said nothing of the sort.
The trouble for folk who tell porkies is that nothing they say, past or present, is completely believable.
On divisions in AEAGS, if true, it is obviously a favourable state of affairs for the uphill task facing AEPC. I am not aware of any divisions on substantive issues. They are more of Frank's Fairy Tales and they do not improve with telling. Actually, differences of opinion lead to healthy debate which is a good thing. I do understand that this is completely outside Frank's experience. In AEPC there has never been anything resembling an opposition party.
On meetings between AEAGS and AEPC, there is probably not a lot to gain but you never know. The recent declared intention of AEPC to disregard AEAGS was not helpful. At a small meeting between AEAGS Chairman and Vice-chairman and AEPC Cllrs Duncan Herald and Sue Joseph last summer there was no outcome, except perhaps a better understanding of the stance taken by the two sides and a certain amount of respect for the individuals attending.
On the Waiting List, AEPC are learning that interpretation is not straight forward. AEAGS have struggled with it for a long time.
To late for the Alderley Edge Motor Company.....R.I.P.