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
Cheadle Area Committee report back
by Lib Dem team on 12 March, 2014
An application for a function room at the former Nat West will to the Planning & Highways committee.
Here are the main decisions the local councillors took at last night’s Cheadle Area Committee.
- We gave £150 to Gatley Village Partnership to cover their costs for meeting hire and administration over the coming year.
- Planning application 54385 is for a private function room in the new Indian takeaway soon opening in the old Nat West building in Gatley. Concerns were raised about parking. On the information we had, we didn’t feel we had valid planning grounds to refuse the application, but we were very concerned about missing information. We wanted to know how many diners would likely use the room and at what times. We asked the planning officer to request that information, with the application going to the Council’s full Planning & Highways Committee for a final decision.
- Planning application 54486 is for a new convenience store in the parade of shops on Pendlebury Road, Gatley. Some residents had raised concerns about parking and anti-social behaviour, whilst others have told us they’d welcome a local store there. Because the shop will be part of an existing parade of local shops in Gatley local centre, there were no planning grounds to reject it, so we granted – and hope it proves to be an asset for the local community.
- Planning application 54490 is for a small (9 square metre) single storey extension to Gatley United Reform Church on Elm Road, Gatley, along with some additional on-site parking. Residents of Elm Road are concerned about the extra traffic and parking, with the road already being busy at certain times of day. Because the extension is fairly small, we didn’t feel there were any planning grounds to reject it (and it will certainly be useful to the church). However, we do think there’s a need to look at parking restrictions on Elm Road.
- We approved the revised proposals for a cycle path along Manchester Road, Cheadle. The plans were amended through discussions with local cycling organisations. Our main concern is whether Stockport’s plans will link in with what Manchester does and we were assured that discussions are ongoing to make that happen. Within a year there should be a traffic-free route for cyclists to get from Gatley or Cheadle to Stockport, Parrs Wood or East Didsbury Metrolink station.
- We approved proposals for double yellow lines at the junction of Valley Road and Bruntwood Lane, Cheadle.
- We approved the extension to the Guide Association’s lease at Abney Hall Park. Their current lease runs from December 2000 to December 2015 and we agreed a 15 year extension.
Iain, whilst totally relevant, I noticed that Abney Hall is swather in material and scaffolding. Is this remedial work?
Hi Alan,
I’m told it’s some repair/refurbishment work prior to the Hall being used by the BBC as the setting for a period drama about the man who founded Chester Zoo.
Re the proposed cycle route from cheadle to parts wood. If this to go along Manchester Rd., the council will have to tell the car sales office on the corner, not to obstruct relevant area. IIn the meantime, it would be nice if this outfit had concern for the pedestrians who have their way obstructed by parked cars. I have mentioned this on a previous occasion as I have to walk that way at times, and object to having to go on the road.
Where can I find details of the revised plans for the cycle
path along Manchester Road? The points made a few weeks ago
by many cyclists who use this road on a daily basis were
extremely important — practically everything in the original
proposal would make our daily commute a lot more rather than
less dangerous.
Hi Matthias,
You can see it here http://www.scribd.com/doc/210297265/Cheadle-Area-Committee-Agenda-11th-March-2014
The final report was agreed with local cycle groups after a great deal of heated debate!
Ian,
thanks for that — I am speechless. As far as I can
tell, this report totally ignores all the detailed
points that were made on your site and directly to
Mark James. (I spoke to him and sent a detailed email;
I know others did too.)
If you (not you personally, but the council; though
I would like to know your take on this) really want to
use money to remedy “significant real or perceived
hazards to cyclists” (from the document) I suggest
you use some of it to fill some of the rapidly
growing/deepening potholes everywhere. This would
make a real difference.
I don’t want to go through all the serious and
well-argued objections (from “commuter cyclists”)
again, but would like to stress that this is not
“us” (cyclists) against “them” (pedestrians and cars)
but about minimising the danger that any of us
crash into each other. This scheme achieves the
exact opposite. Taking cyclists off the road may
appeal to car drivers and to “recreational cyclists”
but there are plenty of places where we have to
re-emerge from wherever you’re trying to hide us
and then what? It’s no good to be told that
I have “the right of way” (from the report) if I
have to assume (from > 15 years of daily cycling
from Gatley to the University) that the cars will
not have seen/anticipated me.
I know that legally I won’t have to use the cycle
path, but based on my experience on Oxford Road near
Whitworth Park and various other places, there are plenty of (understandably!) disgruntled car drivers who cut
up cyclists who stay on the road.
Is there anything I (well, ideally: you!) can do
to stop this scheme?
Hi Mattias,
No comments were ignored, but you’ll appreciate that not every request can be incorporated.
I appreciate your point that there are some existing cyclists who want to stay on the roads – and basically just want their cycle on the roads, with the traffic, to be as easy as possible. We’re pouring millions of pounds into fixing potholes and relaying roads to help that.
However, we can’t just ignore the stack of evidence a mile high from all over the world that shows clearly that if we follow that approach we will not get more people cycling.
We need to get more people onto bikes. 10%, 15% or even 20% are possible. If we invest money into cycling but keep cycles in contention with cars on busy roads, we know we won’t get much over 2%.
As far as possible, we’ve taken on board the views of cyclists and cycling groups. I know that there are major differences of opinion between cyclists, and clearly doing what everyone wants is simply not possible, so we’ve worked with a clear objective (to get more people cycling) and followed the evidence whilst incorporating the views of cyclists and other road users as best we can.
Hi,
thanks for clarifying your position — so it’s a political
decision (\We need to get more people onto bikes\; not
sure I even agree with this, but that’s another matter)
and if I understand you correctly this is more important
than the safety of those who already use their bikes now
(and, by implication, that of the many anticipated future
cyclists).
Maybe I missed it, but I couldn’t actually see (in your reply
or in the council’s report) any arguments that contradicted
those of us who pointed out why the proposed layout of the
cycle path is genuinely dangerous. If you think it’s not,
I invite you to a game of chicken — join me on my ride to work
and use the cycle paths near Whitworth Park while I stay on
the road. We’ll both travel at the same speed and you cross the side
streets, of which there are plenty, without slowing down. Don’t worry,
the cyclists who use the cycle path have the right of way, so
according to the council’s report, there shouldn’t be a problem.
Avoiding the pedestrians who wander into your path or the cyclist
who come the other way shouldn’t be a problem either; you’ll be fine…
Are you game? I tend to set off from Gatley around 7am. Happy
to go later if it helps — more traffic makes the game more interesting…
Let me know where you want to meet (or admit that there’s
something not quite right with your argument…)
(Needless to say that I’m equally happy for you to ignore my
message…).
Hi Matthias,
Yes, we are aiming to get more people cycling. We’re doing it to improve transport and improve health. I disagree with your comments about safety, though.
I’ve cycled both ways along Whitworth Park many times so I’m well aware of the issues. I think there’s a critical difference in the number of pedestrians and the amount of traffic. I don’t remember the number of pedestrians or cars from side roads on Manchester Road ever being anything like those past Whitworth Park (please correct me if your experience is otherwise).
There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution!
Hi,
you’re obviously right about the volume of traffic, but
this simply changes my odds of encountering trouble.
If you want to cycle defensively (which you have to)
you’ll still have to ALWAYS assume that a car may suddenly emerge
without being aware of you, so you do have to slow down.
Ditto at the the two places where (on Manchester Road) I’d now
have to CROSS THE ROAD (maybe having a little break on
the helpfully erected pedestrian refuge halfway across?).
Anyway, let’s leave it at that. We obviously won’t agree
on this…
Matthias
Hi Matthias, you’re right that the sort of infrastructure which suits the 1-2% of people happy to cycle fast on busy roads and contend with traffic is not the same as the sort of infrastructure which suits the 10-30% of people who can be persuaded to cycle rather than drive if they feel safe doing it.
That’s a political decision either way. We – along with the current Government and the rest of Greater Manchester – want to go for the second option: make cycling safer, get more people on bikes with all the benefits for society that bring.
Equally, a government could take the political decision not to do that and to spend money elsewhere.