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
Horse and Farrier mirror – Keith investigates
by Lib Dem team on 17 June, 2015
Keith Holloway writes:
The Lib Dem team have long worked to improve the safety of the Church Road/Gatley Road junction in Gatley. We’ve made some improvements over the last couple of years but it’s one we’d love to do more on.
So we were very interested to hear of the plan from a local resident to put a mirror up on the Horse and Farrier to help. Anything that improves road safety has got to be positive. The mirror means cars on Church Road can see what’s coming from the Cheadle side without having to pull out.
Unfortunately, a couple of issues have cropped up which mean the mirror might have to come down, at least temporarily, while we try to find a solution that works for everyone.
First, we need to find something the brewery, who own the building, can agree to. They weren’t aware of the proposals for the mirror until last week when they saw it up and, as the owners, they’re keen to have a say and make sure it fits in with the other plans they have for improving the Horse & Farrier. Once they’ve had a chance to look at it in more detail they might be fine with what’s there now, but they need to be able to do that.
Second, it needs planning permission from the council because it’s in a conservation area. (We’ve double-checked and this is what the law says, so the council has to follow it). The advice from planning officers is that, as it is now, planning officers would have to recommend refusal. It might well be, though, that small changes would produce a plan that could be granted.
I will work with the resident who’s erected the mirror, with Hydes who own the pub and with the council to reach a resolution. Hopefully we can find a solution everyone is happy with and which makes the junction safer.
While a solution is being worked on, the mirror is likely to come down. I hope that proves to be temporary and we can get it back up in the near future.
10 Comments
This is a joke right? It’s benefits visitors and residential motorists also people crossing the road from the bank…. These mirrors are accepted in Hale Barns. Mellor. Knutsford. Ashleigh Mobberley so why not Gatley!?
Wherever they are, if they were in a conservation area the mirrors would have needed planning permission and the permission of the building’s owner to go up.
You may be right Iain but the mirror improves the safety at this dangerous junction. I trust that whoever insists that it is taken down realises that he is making the junction more dangerous and perhaps have to accept that he contributed to an an otherwise avoidable accident.
I think common sense should prevail here.
GB – There also a risk of setting a precedent that anything which improves safety can be put up and left up until appropriate permission is approved.
You could argue that common sense would dictate that somebody wanting to make a change to a building would get permission from the owner and ring the local council to check for restrictions.
I think everyone will understand the rights of the building owner to veto the mirror if they’re not entirely happy with it; and also that the item has to comply with planning requirements.
Under the circumstances why can’t the mirror simply be left in place until :
a) the building owners definitely reject it, and/or
b) the planning department actually turn it down.
At least this way there is a possibility that the mirror remains in situ without the item having to be removed and subsequently replaced.
Iain, I am glad to see someone has at last taken steps to raise this issue. For some time this has been an accident waiting to happen and whilst this mirror will undoubtedly help in the short term (assuming there is a way found for it to remain), the only long term solution to this problem is traffic lights. Pulling out of Church Road to turn towards Cheadle is always risky as there is zero view of traffic coming from that direction and this becomes acute if they are travelling at excessive speed. Even for pedestrians there is a problem if they have to cross Church Road at the junction as again traffic coming from Cheadle and turning into Church Road can’t be seen early enough for a completely safe crossing especially if you are for some reason, a little less mobile that we would like to be or perhaps as a child, a little less disciplined than ideally we should be.
This is news to me. Lived in Gatley all my life and never knew this part of Gatley was a designated conservation area!
Also I was led to believe the brewery had been contacted.
Red tape wins over safety? Crazy! Oh well back to cutting through Oakwood…
Iain
I have just caught up with this debate and the short history above, as the guy who started this renewed move for action,Ade a H&F regular, asked me to help him.
I know he has met with you to discuss this and he arranged to meet someone from the Highways Agency last Wednesday lunchtime on site, I joined them as I also consider this to be a ridiculously dangerous junction for anyone turning right out of Church Road towards Cheadle.The guy we met was an independent consultant appointed to research this issue and come up with recommendations.
He was left in no doubt about the potential dangers and witnessed for himself the “gamble” required to turn right when drivers can’t see far enough to the right due to the bend.
He advised that mirrors are currently considered a hazzard rather than a help.
I have no idea why as we seem to have cycle awareness mirrors popping up all over the place!
The two options seem to be;
1/ Traffic lights.
2/ Making Church Road one way towards Styal Road, thus no requirement for right turns at that junction.
I am sure these have been discussed before, but the increase in traffic is making a solution even more pressing.
Unfortunately it seems to me that until there is a fatality, or serious accident at the junction, this will drag on, then suddenly solutions will be found.
The time for action is now, the mirror would have bought time but was removed, for whatever reason, so we are no further on,
Surely this is not beyond us all to find a solution sooner rather than later?
Hi Peter – thanks for the comments. The “Mirrors as a hazard” info is certainly what we’ve heard from the DfT as well so that seems consistent, and I claim no qualifications to say one way or the other!
The two options you suggest have been raised a few times and we’ve not yet found an affordable way to do them that we can get agreement on, but we do need to carry on looking.
Iain
I think affordabaility versus a danger to life needs to be re-assesed.
What are the costs and consequences of the two options?
Maybe a funding campaign could be launched to cover some of the costs, but without knowing the costs and what the clearly thought out options are then we are in an impasse.
I repeat it will only take a serious accident there and the “why hasn’t anyone done anything” outburst will make a cost excuse seem very weak.