Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Graham, Tom and Ian
Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more
What were the local issues four decades ago?
Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
What were the local issues four decades ago?
Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Scholes field railing – we want your views
by Lib Dem team on 1 February, 2016
We want your views on this one.
A local resident has suggested that we look at getting the railings alongside the path from Hawthorn Road to Foxland Road removed.
The path – which runs roughly parallel to Burnside Road – is well-used, not least by school children with Gatley Primary at one end and The Kingsway School down the road at the other.
There are three suggestions:
- From Beech Avenue to Hawthorn Road remove all the railings alongside the path. This would open the path up, allow people to move more easily between the path and field, reduce the muddy paths people are funnelled into (e.g. around the bottom of the running track) and hopefully reduce maintenance costs. If not all the fence can be removed, take out more sections.
- At the end of the path between the running track and Gatley Primary (where the stream is culverted) there’s about 30 feet of fencing with a small gap people have to walk through that inevitably gets very muddle – remove this section too.
- Cut an extra gap or two in the hedge that runs from the Borrowdale/Fairway corner of the field round to the playground, to allow people to pass through to the main field more easily.
These may not be affordable – especially removing railings, which might be too expensive. If the general view is that this would be a good thing and is worth looking at in more detail, we’ll ask the council to see if it’s also affordable.
So – what are your views?
46 Comments
The money spent on this idea should be better spent on dealing with the state of the roads in Gatley. Styal road is starting to break up on those sections that were not resurfaced during the last major set of works.
It’s going to cost the council approximately £7,000 to install flashing speed signs on Styal road so again spending money removing a fence is not money well spent.
Hi Rob – if it costs lots of money then it’s not going to happen. The suggestion is that the cost of removing the fence would be balanced out by reduced maintenance costs and other savings.
At the moment we don’t know if that’s the case so rather than asking people to guess at the costs, we’re asking whether people would support the idea if it was roughly cost-neutral.
If people would support it under that condition then we’ll explore it further.
I’d be very concerned about dogs running off and on to the path; particularly if its intended to take more cycle traffic.
Although I’m sure there are some responsible dog owners, in other parks I’ve been in, there are enough who let their dogs meander under the feet of runners and cyclists (risking injury to dog and cyclist/runner) for a barrier along the edge of the path to be extremely helpful.
An alternative solution to the boggy area between the path and the running track would be to get the Environment Agency to replace their gate with lockable/removable bollards (or a small pedestrian entrance) to allow pedestrian access along the section that has the rubber grid under it, i.e. the ‘road’ for EA vehicles.
Why not just take a few more sections out instead of all the railings. This may though, make even more muddy areas. Could these areas just get topped up with wood chippings to stop the mud?
It sounds like this is just to suit the doggie clique.
Keep the fence.
Just wondering why the railings need to be removed, or what benefits it will achieve ?
Hi Alyson – that’s what we’re asking. It’s been suggested by a resident who feels they serve no useful purpose and make the paths muddier, so we want to get everyone’s views.
I have just read on this thread ‘re. Flashing lights on Styal Rd please when is this happening
Hi Elsa – the proposals are coming to Cheadle Area Committee on Tuesday for approval. We’re keeping people updated via our weekly email.
There are locked gates at the end of Beech Ave leading to the car park on Scholes. If you remove the fencing by the path then these gates will serve no useful purpose. Presumably the gates are there for a good reason? There is also a swing gate leading to the children’s playing area. I think the fence (even with a couple of small gaps) should be kept and, preferably, mended.
The ONLY successful deterrent for speeders on Styal Rd would be a camera that dished out fines. The signs that just show you how fast you are going are used by prolific speeders to see if they can top their previous speed. These signs might slow down your average law abiding citizen from 40mph to 30mph but we are kidding ourselves if we think that the kind of person who regularly floors it on Styal Rd is going to suddenly stop doing that (unless it hits them in the pocket of course ). A waste of £7K in my opinion. And I live on Styal Road.
Hi Jane – that’s fair enough, thanks for your views. The evidence we have is that the signs to slow down vehicles do work, and the feedback we had from residents is that speeding reduced when the flashing speed signs were in operation last autumn. Of course, nothing is perfect and that includes speed cameras that hand out fines. We’ve looked at the option of a speed camera on Styal Road but there are strict rules on where they can go (for example, based on the number of accidents along a stretch) and it wouldn’t qualify.
It is a costly answer to some muddy patches and will only increase – even if more diverse – muddy areas. As soon as drier weather comes the muddy areas will reduce anyway. Surely a more straightforward response is to simply lay grid on the patches – as on the path by the stream! A further problem will arise from cycling on the grass instead of the tarmac path. However the path is forbidden to cycles – the Hawthorn Rd. entrance is signed but the sign near the railway bridge has been missing for a few years despite complaints and not replaced.
Removing the fencing is a really bad idea: dogs in the park will simply run onto the path, it will be dangerous due to dogs. Please dont remove the railings.
This would benefit only the dog brigade,and be a detriment to pedestrians who want to avoid close proximity to dogs off the leash.
Reduce the muddiness by replacing the cinders which used to cover the path to provide drainage.
Better to widen it, improve the surface, add some lighting, and allow bikes. Don’t see the point in removing the fencing.
When the gates to the fields had to be left open when the path was being resurfaced last year a motorcyclist was quick to take the opportunity with his friends to ride up and down the sports field as I reported to the Council.
The sports fields and Gatley Hill need to be kept secure to prevent the joyriders making trouble. The railings should remain.
Removing the railings will simply make the whole path muddy, rather than the few places currently affected.
Is the path a footpath or a cycle track? making it wider will simply increase the potential for accidents between children, dogs and cyclists.
And perhaps we could remind the kids about not littering the path? Its not only dogs that make a mess
Keep the railings most definitely.I have 2 dogs and walk them along the footpath to keep them OUT of the field while it is so muddy.This way I am able to give them a bit of freedom when appropriate. It would be better if a small amount of money could be spent on replacing/improving the no cycling signs-most cyclists appear to think it is their right of way. An acquaintance of mine actually thought the sign at Hawthorn Rd. meant it was a cycle track!
Not at all in favour of removing the fencing. Simply makes it easier for dog owners and others (even motor-bikes) to mess up the sports field which suffers badly enough from lack of maintenance
I would like to support Arthur Bond’s comments above. One of the biggest risks to any sports fields like Scholes Playing fields are off road quad bikes and motor bikes. At present the locked gates and fencing prevent these people from wrecking grassed areas. The gates are only opened when football , cricket or other sports are taking place. The off-roadsters don’t risk the wrath of genuine users. For goodness sake don’t remove the locked gates and the fence, which are preventing unauthorized vehicular access.
I agree with Brian and Arthur that pitches could be seriously damaged if motor vehicles gained access to the sports field..Last year when the footpath was widened it was used for a while not only by motor bikes but also by cars.
The metal fence and locking gate on Gatley Hill between Gatley Hill House car park and the grass were put up after a number of travelers occupied part of the Hill. If fencing and gates protecting Scholes Field were less secure, the same thing could easily happen there, and clearing the mess left behind when they move would be very expensive
Surely you need to check the deeds on the land to see if a fence must be maintained in this position before even contemplating its removal.
Hi Rob – first we’re getting people’s views – if residents don’t want it (and that seems to be the consensus) then there’s no need to dig out any deeds or covenants as it won’t happen.
Is that no wasting everyone’s time then? If the deeds say a fence must be maintained in that position then asking for views on its removal in inconsequential.
Hi Rob – I’m not aware of anything that says the fence has to stay in that position. The only paperwork I know of is the deed of covenant from the 1930s (well before the railings were put in) which says the land has to be for public use.
In the 1930’s the land was used for farming and was known as the Gatley Flatts. In 1955 the land was bought by the Trustees of William Scholes. The running track and playing field were laid out and it became Scholes Park.
There is probably a Trust Deed or Title Deed which will determine whether or not the area has to be fenced in.
I applaud you for taking the time to put this (& other issues) to the general constituents. It seems clear to me that taking down the fence does not benefit anyone and on the contrary (as has been said) it should be kept in a good state of repair.
You may remember that many years ago (10 I think), I suggested that Commuted Sum payments for Open Space paid by new development (now restricted to over 10 houses) should be used to develop a proper path structure which would take away the muddy access sections to both Scholes field and Gatley Hill (House & Firs Road end).
In my opinion the only answer is to improve our network of paths. It seems crazy to me that we are not linking up Gatley Hill House to Scholes Field and then on past the running track to the exit at Hawthorn Road. A large section of the dangerous walk along Styal Road (from Firs Road to Church Road) could be avoided by many if a proper tarmac path where laid from Firs Road to Gatley Hill House. I realise this would be expensive but Hollyhedge and Wilmslow Parks have both achieved it and it should be an aspiration for Gatley. You will know better than I about grant potential for such community projects.
As a short term ‘fix’ I would suggest the following:
(a) A tree bark path to the running track gate at the Hawthorn Road end.
(b) A tree bark path outside and next to the running track fence around the curve at the Burnside Road end. This would allow multiple ‘exit’ points onto the field but within the curtilage of the field.
(c) A similar path at the opposite end of the track leading to the bridge.
(d) Make good the tree bark path from the bridge to Gatley Hill House car park.
(e) Improve the recently tree barked path from Firs Road to the dog bin by putting in some drainage pipes to stop the bark becoming waterlogged and washed away. Also this needs extending up the hill to allow multiple ‘exit’ points again onto the fields.
(f) A similar path link between the paths (b) and (c) which would then allow access to the running track gate on the field side for those coming from the Gatley Hill House side.
(g) Make good the path from Fairway to the railway tunnel to Borrowdale Ave.
A more permanent, and costly but sustainable solution could then be phased in and should include:
(h) A tarmac or well-constructed gravel path from Firs Road to Gatley Hill House.
(i) A tarmac or well-constructed gravel path from Gatley Hill House to Hawthorn Road (via Scholes Field to replace the tree bark paths (a), (b) & (c) above.
(j) A tarmac or well-constructed gravel path from Fairway to the railway tunnel at Foxland Road via the railway tunnel to Borrowdale Ave.
These improvements will have a massive benefit to a great many residents of Gatley wanting to take a healthier and more direct route to the village. One would avoid the long walk along the narrow Styal Road footpath or simply enjoy the walk without having to put on your ‘mud boots’. It would provide multiple access points to the recreational facilities on offer.
If you wish I will pay to have a plan drawn up and we can discuss how the funding can be raised and phased.
Could this proposal be put forward in your next news bulletin to get a feeling of what people think?
I live on Burnside and would most definitely not welcome the removal of the railings which would bring visiting vandals almost up to our doors. We already have their detritus thrown over our hedges and rocks thrown at our windows. Two neighbours removed their greenhouses because of breakages and I had a patio door smashed (cost £800). The insurance glazing inspector assured me that only a bullet could have caused the damage.
I have lived on Burnside Road for 47 years. I am definitely not in favour of removing any railings. In fact I would welcome the council spending some money on repairing the broken and bent railings so people can enter and leave the fields as intended. Those railings give our properties some form of security and also, as was intended, secure the playing fields. In summer months we already have the delight of people riding off road motor cycles around the fields, removing railings and giving complete open access would leave the fields wide open to other vehicular activity and, of course, to travellers entering the area.
In addition to my reply I would be interested to know who made this suggestion in the first place.
Hi Sue, it was a local resident who’s a regular user of the field.
It occurs to me that the person suggesting the removal of the fence cannot live on the even side of Burnside Road, and therefore does not appreciate the implications of the removal of said fence. We already have to contend with both rubbish and missiles coming over our boundaries and the fence’s removal is likely to exacerbate those problems. And most importantly, the security of our already vulnerable properties would be further compromised.
I support neither the removal of the fence nor the removal of some of the sections.
Since the first postings there has been no response from the “local resident” who raised this suggestion. Could you let us know the name of this person and whether he/she is a “local resident”
Hi David – the person who raised the issue is a local resident who uses the field daily, hence our desire to find out what others thought of the idea.
In response to the 3 suggestions in e mail of 1st February
1 At the entrance to the park near the running track, there are stepping stones in place to avoid any muddy area.
At the entrance to the park playground area at Beech Avenue, there is a concrete path to walk on.
2 Near the culvert, it is currently muddy due to the DE staff having to drive their vehicles up to that area to keep the culvert clear.
Far better to have this maintenance work done to avoid flooding Gatley at even more expense.
Can I point out that after 3 or 4 months of excessive rain, that there are going to be “muddy” areas but these will disappear shortly as the weather improves.
Anyone using the park over winter should expect muddy areas and should use wellies or other suitable footwear.
3 There are already 4 gaps in the hedge so it is totally unnecessary to cut extra gaps.
There is also a gap in the Borrowdale/Fairway 5 yards behind a property which leads onto the park area.
As far as removing the fencing is concerned between Beech Avenue and Hawthorn Road, it is there for a purpose ie to separate Wm Scholes playing fields – under the control of the parks dept – from the public footpath — part of the highways dept, so there is no need to remove any of the fencing.
Whoever suggested the removal of the railing obviously has not considered the consequence to the security of the properties backing onto the pathway.
I concur with Catherine Dwyers comments and support neither the removal of the fence nor parts of the fence.
I do think any money available should be used to improve the states of the roads around Gatley buy road resurfacing not just random pothole filling.
I can’t believe someone is actually complaining about a muddy field!
It’s been Winter and raining so much is it surprising?
if you don’t want to get muddy feet wear wellies / boots or don’t go on the field!
Summer months are not usually a problem I can’t understand what benefits removing the fence would bring.
As for suggesting that by removing the fencing it would please dog owners well on the contrary, I would not want my dog straying in the path of prams and young children and cyclists, although I would like to point out that cycling is prohibited on the path which runs alongside Burnside and that cyclists can be a danger to children and other pedestrians also although this is completely ignored by so called responsible adults. What about footballs hurtling towards unsuspecting pedestrians also.
A field is a field!
In the past there has been concerns about vehicles being driven onto the field this still sometimes happens in the Summer so without a fence this will be an open invitation.
It would be interesting to know how close to Scholes the person who raised these ridiculous proposals lives.
Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be any support for the proposal in the comments posted on this site. Has Mr Roberts received direct contact supporting the removal of the fence?
Hi Catherine – the original idea came from a local resident, hence this consultation. Thanks to the consultation and everyone’s feedback, we now know the idea doesn’t have support so we won’t take it any further.
The railings need to stay and be maintained. The passage is well used by all (too much by cyclists) if the railings are removed leaving open access to the field, it would be a disaster for all reasons prevoiouly stated. As a resident on Burnside Rd security also needs to be considered. Scholes Field is a lovely open field to be enjoyed by responsible people. Not to have access to quad bikes travellers or the like.
Hi, I live in one of the houses on Beech Avenue next to the walking path bordering the playing filed and there has been endless trouble with hooligans damaging the fencing along the path (not just ours). You can check the police records of incidents recorded. Especially in the warmer months, young drunk people passing through the playing fields or congregating at the children’s play area disturb local residents a lot. You can also check how many times the Fire brigade was called to extinguish fires on the filed last summer. The council didn’t consult us when building the new pavilion or didn’t pay attention to our views (I think I personally e-mailed Richard Brooker if I’m not mistaken) with a possibility to keep the play area where it was (further back) and extend the car park throughout the whole length of the fields. This way there would have been more peace for the local residents (not having to listen to drunken teenagers half of the night) and less obstruction on Beech Avenue from parked cars when the field is in use.
In my opinion, the railing must be kept and not only that, railing on the opposite side of the walking path should be installed (money permitting), which will protect our fences and properties from hooligans. At the end of the day, it is not about the council’s budget but about the safety and well-being of the local residents.
The running track on the field can also do with some maintenance in order to get rid of the mud, most of the winter season it is not possible to run there as it is too muddy. Years ago the running track had some sort of tarmac or similar keeping the mud away. The running track can also do with a new sign NO DOGS ALLOWED! (the old one is difficult to read). I don’t understand why do you need to walk your dog there if the rest of the field is available.
Kind Regards: Mariel Vasilev
As a resident whose backyard falls directly next to Scholes Fields, I and my family of young children have endured stones and litter being thrown at our garden over our hedge from users of the current pathway and field for many years. I dread to think what may happen should another barrier be removed against the fields and my home.
Scholes Park, what’s happened to the children’s play apparatus? In the space of 2 years we’ve gone from 3 items to 1 slide!? Has someone stolen them, i.e the council?
I realise that this is not what the question is about but the following is relevant to Scholes field. Just the other side of the railway bridge there is a red magnetic gate into the park. This gate has not closed for some considerable time and being a dog walker myseIf I have seen dogs escape from the park. Also last week a young child left the area. The wooden bench seats inside near the slide have been damaged and gauged out making them quite dangerous. In addition while I am hopefully being being listened to by someone from the council, could someone check on the appalling state of the paths leading from Borrowdale road to the park. As a disabled person I have trouble walking on the paths and am nearly shaken to death if I am on my scooter. Perhaps money can be spent on improving the condition of these areas.
Thanks Jackie – we’ll take a look at that.