Sometimes I wonder if there is any point trying to comprehend any decision Cheshire East make.
'Huge disappointment as town's views have been ignored in Local Plan,' screamed our Wilmslow headline on Dec 21.
Councillor Keith Purdom for the Wilmslow Town Council meeting on Monday, 19th December, stated that the views expressed both in writing and in person to the Inspector have been ignored.
"So after years of consultation, many meetings, written and verbal input to CEC and the Inspector the bottom line is that the Inspector has increased the number of completions for Wilmslow by 10 - yes really."
Neighbourhood plans were paramount so said Cheshire East encouraging communities to voice their opinions. Localism was the name of the game.
So here we are again with two community groups hoping to transform the derelict Rectory Stables, which is situated adjacent to Wilmslow Leisure Centre Car Park, into a community hub.
Wilmslow Trust and Transition Wilmslow submitted a bid to Cheshire East to convert the stables to provide a meeting room that could seat 30-40 people and exhibition space for information on the town's local heritage.
Instead, Cheshire East Council selected Lyme Design and Build Limited and have agreed to enter into a 10 year lease with the company, which proposes to use the site for an office and storage.
If anyone can see the logic in a council promoting localism snubbing two Wilmslow community groups in favour of a Stockport based building company I have yet to meet them.
This is just another arrogant smack in the face for local residents who pay for a council to represent them not trample over their views. Arrogance and indifference does not cover it.
I actually discussed the topic with a Conservative councillor who expressed astonishment at the council decision.
"Why do they do it?" I asked.
"Because they can," came the reply.
This Tory councillor was as disappointed as I with the total lack of any effective opposition.
Let's cut to the chase as our American friends say: CEC are NOT interested in the opinions of residents and never will be as long as they are certain of re-election.
We need to give some very serious thought to how we cast our vote or (like dog poo) we are going to be talking about it forever.
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of wilmslow.co.uk.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Please check facts before coming to an opinion.
Cllr Ellie Brooks
Wilmslow West and Chorley
As the ward councillor I'm more than pleased that this building will now become an attractive feature for Wilmslow. The tenants will fund the renovation of what is currently an unsafe derelict building. The cost to the public purse is modest at 18 months rent free and the freehold is retained.
A satisfactory commercial result and community groups are not disadvantaged having withdrawn in favour of the option of the South Drive old toilets.
Perhaps Vic Barlow would like to accept an open invitation to visit Wilmslow and the local Cheshire East councillors. We could then discuss his list of
criticisms, offer him the facts and hope that in future his opinions will be
based on reality.
As to Wilmslow not being able to raise the cash needed to renovate the historic Rectory Stables - exactly how much is in the pot of Section 106 payments for Wilmslow? At my last reckoning monies from S106 had been put aside for the same community benefits several times over and none of them had ever materialised. Surely the many thousands of pounds would have renovated the Rectory Stables if Cheshire East had the will to give us back some of this money rather than "sit" on it?
The irony is that the Town Council are dutifully trying to provide toilet facilities in the town. Meanwhile, Cheshire East have closed the public toilets by Sainsbury's - and are prepared to sell/lease it off with Community groups having first refusal. All seems "a bit rum" to me.
The South Drive toilet is probably bigger than it appears and only when there are clear proposals of any exhibition content will it be possible to see if the size is adequate. Transition Wilmslow have been very positive.
WTC are providing toilets primarily for those using the children's play area
in the Carrs. Toilets in all towns in Cheshire East were offered to local councils as part of an assets transfer several years ago. WTC judged that the cost of maintenance was unjustified with so many alternatives available nearby.
http://bit.ly/2lecI0S
What has happened to the £51, 074 allocated for the Council's park strategy at the Carrs and "other town centre sites"? Surely the Rectory Stables is a "town centre site"? The Council has given £30,000 towards the new toilet - what has happened to the other £21,000?A further £24, 420 allocated to the Carrs from the Green Lane Development.
Water Development - a staggering sum- and note the "catch all phrase" at the end, "other local recreational projects". The provision of a Community "Hub" at the Rectory stables would also fall within this category.
You say that so many alternatives to Public Toilets are available nearby - could you qualify this please?
Is there an informal / formal agreement with local pubs, restaurants, shops etc to provide toilet facilities to the general (non clientele) public or is this just a sly way of devolving another Council responsibility to provide basic services?
My experience in securing modest sums from S106 to spend within the ward is that it is a legal nightmare. The developer will give permission only if the project meets the strictest interpretation of the wording in the agreement. So to the lawyers wording such as 'parks strategy' is highly restrictive as is 'recreational projects'. Would that it were not so.
Alan Brough
As I said above 'WTC judged' so you are asking the wrong person.
So let's take an example. A Company with an excellent reputation and which contributes a great deal to the local community is approached by Cheshire East to spend a modest sum of the S106 money they have already given to the Council, to renovate what is an historic building. What is the likelihood of them saying no? On whose initiative is a decision taken to approach Companies to use Section 106 money? Is it the Ward Councillor? Is it the Town Council? Is it Cheshire East? Who knows?
Let's take another example. S106 money given to Cheshire East for Brown's Lane Play Area. At my last reckoning that site has been given over £600,000. How much improvement has there been? Whose responsibility was it to initiate the use of the sum? - to even ask the various Companies legal departments?
Finally, what is the destination of the interest on the S106 monies? Is it simply added to the capital?
There are very detailed hypothetical questions and well beyond me as a mere amateur re S106.
If you seriously intend pursuing them, then may I suggest you contact your CEC ward councillor as your first point of call.
This used to be a lovely area for young children, within walking distance for many and is now a great loss to this particular community
Perhaps a small amount of the S106 pot could go towards replacing items that the council has, for whatever reason seen fit to remove
Instead of trying to attract young families to this area with good amenities like the park, you have managed to produce an aura of dereliction with this badly thought out plan
I enquired and was told that the multi-unit was removed as it was rotten and dangerous. The replacement is scheduled to be installed w/c 6 March.
A simple explanatory note on the railings would have helped would it not.
And, to those Councillors disingenuously suggesting otherwise, yes we did offer a turnkey operation!
Surely a relatively small project like this could have been kept within the community after all the disappointment of the Local Plan that ignored WTC and its residents.
That small gesture would have meant so much.
My grandchildren would have appreciated the effort that may have taken from someone local in the know
Anyway now back to Macclesfield where the car parks STILL don't take the new £1 coins. Saw two people this morning who had to leave because they had no old ones.
It's our fault. We keep voting for them.