What’s coming up at Cheadle Area Committee, 7th August 2018

by Iain Roberts on 31 July, 2018

The next Cheadle Area Committee is on Tuesday 7th August 2018, starting at 6pm. The venue is Trinity Church, Massie Street, Cheadle and – as ever – all are welcome.

With no planning applications and a relatively short agenda, this might even be one our quicker meetings (though don’t hold us to that).

Here’s what’s on the agenda:

  • Gatley Village Partnership applying for £1,000 towards improvements to the war memorial at Gatley Green, including better disabled access. Total cost for the whole project is £7073.42.
  • Cheadle & Gatley Junior Football Club is applying for £1,000 towards balls, equipment and venue hire over the year (total cost £2,500).
  • No planning applications
  • Proposal for double yellow lines at the junction of Wensley Road and Gatley Road, Cheadle. 30 local households had letters consulting them on the proposals. 12 replied, of which 10 (83%) were in favour and 2 against. If we approve it, the plan will be legally advertised before coming back to Area Committee.
  • Proposal for either single or double yellow lines on Milton Cresent around the private road where 13 Milton Crescent is situated. Local residents were a little more split on this one. Of 18 households consulted, 13 replies were received. 9 of those (70%) were in favour , 3 against and one undecided. If a proposal is agreed, it will be legally advertised.
  • Proposal for double yellow lines at the junction of Cherrington Road and Broadway, Cheadle. 88% of residents agreed with this one, and again the next step will be legal advertising.
  • Proposal for extended double yellow lines opposite the entrance to Church Court on Hall Street, Cheadle to help residents manoeuvre in and out of the parking area. Six letters were sent (to the six households on Church Court) with the one person who responded being in favour. Next step is a legal advert if approved.
  • Event application from Edgeley-based Soul Creations for an event around the scout hut in Abney Hall Park on 25th August for an artisan market and community fun day.
   15 Comments

15 Responses

  1. Alan says:

    As ever if the yellow lines are approved then the hope is they will be patrolled and offenders ticketed. Milton Crescent is appalling considering we have 4 car parks in the village.

  2. Andrew says:

    I agree that parking on Milton Crescent is appalling, however yellow lines outside 13 Milton Crescent is not the answer. All this will do is shift the problem elsewhere. This is not a fair solution and will only benefit residents of 13 Milton Crescent. Where will visitors to 13 Milton Crescent park – probably outside our house!

    Within a transport strategy, parking, including parking in town centres and on residential roads, needs to be considered. Where is the transport strategy? Does it mention yellow lines outside 13 Milton Crescent?

    • Iain Roberts says:

      There is a transport strategy and it does look at how to improve the parking situation in Cheadle. No transport strategy goes down to the level of yellow lines to enforce no parking on junctions.

  3. Andrew Ashworth says:

    I agree that parking on Milton Crescent is appalling, however yellow lines outside 13 Milton Crescent is not the answer. This is an unfair solution which will only benefit the residents of 13 Milton Crescent. It should not form part of the areas transport strategy and so should not be approved. This is just shifting the problem on. Where will visitors to 13 Milton Crescent park? Outside our house no doubt!

    Our understanding is that yellow lines are only placed for safety reasons, not just because people want their road clear of parked cars. We live opposite 13 Milton Crescent and have never seen an accident or any safety issue – the only reasons that the residents want the area clear of parked cars.

    The road is substantially wider at this point of the road so there is more space here than at other points in the road – and it is not a junction (it is access to a private driveway).

    Also there is no issues with cars being parked outside of the working day, weekends and school holiday. So for a large percentage of the time it would be complete overkill.

    There are around 5 flats in The Miltons and 8 in Westford Villa’s, I know both buildings have parking for residents but there seems to be no consideration to where their regular visitors park, including daily care workers and cleaners etc. This proposal will just exasperate the problem.

    The main issue as always comes back to parking in Cheadle for both shoppers and workers. Cheadle village has continued to improve in terms of amenities, shops, cafes etc – If the parking issue isn’t sorted out then people will stop coming. Do we have a published transport strategy document?

    In Summary – Can we pleased be provided answers to the following questions (we have asked previously but never had answers)
    1. Why is it back on the agenda when it has already been rejected?
    2. Where do the visitors to both of these multi tenanted dwellings park? I know there are a few of the apartments where carers visit on a regular basis for instance.
    3. What are the facts regarding obstruction that have lead to a proposal of a 24/7 parking restriction? How many hours out of a 24 hour period is there an issue?
    4. Who is having an issue – Just the people in the flats or is it a wider audience?
    5. Where are the people who work in Cheadle meant to park – what provisions are being looked at otherwise the issue is shunted further up the street or into other streets?
    6. What are the alternatives that have been suggested that offer more flexibility especially for residents?

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Hi Andrew,

      Very happy to answer your questions. Apologies if I’ve missed them before.

      1. There was a wider scheme proposed previously, which was rejected, so this smaller scheme was brought forward. A majority of the residents directly affected support the new scheme.
      2. I don’t know where visitors currently park – perhaps on the private road, in the driveway or in the private car parking area.
      3. It’s against the highway code to park on or by a junction. We often find that people ignore that rule, and putting down double yellow lines helps enforce something that should be happening anyway.
      4. It’s not unreasonable for people to want to be able to turn out of their road safely.
      5. We believe better public transport for Cheadle is the key. A train or tram service would mean many of the people who currently park in Cheadle for work wouldn’t bring their cars here at all. However, no-one who works in Cheadle should be parking on a junction.
      6. The Council’s highway officers have looked at different options in coming up with this scheme. The scheme has the support of a majority of the residents immediately affected by it.

      • Andrew Ashworth says:

        Hi Iain,

        Your comments in your replies to me and Sue concern me as you appear to be fully backing this proposal. We have spoken about this previously, and as I stated at the time, I do not believe that the proposal is in line with the ethics of Liberal Democrats.

        Taking your points:-

        Point 2 – there are signs up saying no parking on the private road. In fact this isn’t a road as it is only 10 meters long, and it is just an access driveway to the Micker Brook and to 13 Milton Crescent. Blocking access is a separate issue. They can apply to the council for white lines across their driveway to help deter people from blocking their access. Their visitors park outside our house or outside other houses on the road, There are carers who visit regularly and who struggle to park, they are courteous, so I have no problem. There is no provision for visitor
        parking at the flats

        Point 3 – It is not a junction, there are no road markings to suggest that it is a junction. It is actually the widest part of Milton Crescent, and not an area where safety is an issue.

        Point 4 – I agree but again, this is not a road. As their house address 13 Milton Crescent suggests, the building is part way down Milton Crescent.

        Point 5 – the reason that people who work in Cheadle are parking on residential roads close to the village is that village car parking prices were raised significantly. Once again 13 Milton Crescent is not a junction, it is a driveway. Also, this was never a problem until car parking prices went up. Why not look at a Residential Parking scheme, or maybe at revisiting car park pricing? That is before Public Transport is improved.

        Point 6 – the only reason that the scheme has the support of the majority of residents is that far more people live in the flats than in the adjacent houses. It really is a simple as that.

        Finally, as you say “the double yellow lines are moving parking from unsafe places to safe places, which I feel is a benefit, but clearly not the ultimate solution.”

        – Parking outside the flats on Milton Crescent is extremely safe and there has never been an accident caused by parking since 13 Milton Crescent was built. If this was ever going to be an issue, then why was it not considered during the planning process for the 13 Milton Crescent flats.

  4. Sue says:

    It seems to me that all these double yellow lines being laid, are just pushing the parking problem around the village, with nothing being accomplished. We HAVE to look long term now. Thousands more houses being built locally. No train station for another decade or two. If we want Cheadle village to thrive, we are going to have to face the (hideous, I know) concept of adding a parking storey above part of the existing car parks.

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Hi Sue, the double yellow lines are moving parking from unsafe places to safe places, which I feel is a benefit, but clearly not the ultimate solution.

      We do have to look at the long term now. There are no quick solutions – whether a car park or a train station – but we’re on the case.

      More car parking would bring more people into the village in their cars, which means more queues, more waiting at the Kingsway junction, and more traffic jams, so we’re very wary about doing that.

      • Chris says:

        More car parking would bring more people in their cars to spend money in the local economy. Making life harder for motorists simply means they will shop elsewhere and Cheadle will become a place of boarded up shops.

      • janet mcleod says:

        Is the train station not going ahead now or has it not been decided yet?

  5. JB says:

    Keep pressing for the reopening of the railway station! What progress has the Council made?

    It is utterly ridiculous that an 8 mile tunnel to take HS2 (unnecessary anyway) from Northenden to Piccadilly costing £ms is planned when a railway already exists from the airport and we haven’t even got a platform at Cheadle so we can use the existing train services!

  6. JB says:

    And can we please have double white lines down Styal Road. Speeding overtakers are a menace especially on the hill.

  7. Andrew Ashworth says:

    If the proposed yellow lines outside 13 Milton Crescent is passed, then I think that it will be worthwhile exploring its legality.

    Yellow lines should only placed for safety reasons, not just because people want their road clear of parked cars. 13 Milton Crescent is not on a junction.

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Hi Andrew,

      The proposed yellow lines are at the junction of the private road and Milton Crescent.

      There is no law saying that yellow lines can only be used for safety. That is an approach we have taken as local councillors, for the reason you give. This proposal is for safety, not for any other reason.

  8. Andrew Ashworth says:

    Hi Iain,

    I disagree, there is no junction, it is not a private road, it is a driveway off Milton Crescent.

    There is no safety issue, it is the safest part of Milton Crescent. Where is the accident report? This is just compounding the parking problem on Milton Crescent by reducing on road parking for visitors.

    I have a real problem with your seemingly bias support of this proposal. What is your reason for this?

    As I stated previously, we will be exploring its legality if the proposal is passed.

    Establishing Restricted Parking Zones is a far more equitable method of managing parking in residential areas close to town centres, yet you do not even comment on this and other alternative suggestions.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>