Chatbox

This is my understanding of the numerous survey's that were held from early 2018:

In summary is that essentially there were 3 different occasions when people
'voted':

1. The open meetings early in 2018 before the decision to bid for the field was made. As we know, the primary acquisition was for preservation of the green space, but obviously the possibility of a car park was very positive influencer – particularly by the business people who attended and hence a majority 'Yes' vote was achieved – I don't have access to the Parish Council data (if there is any) on how many people actually attended these, but it wasn't a massive number. It was also very clear at the time how much the acquisition cost was going to be and still the majority voted "Yes"
2. The open meeting in Feb 28th 2019 where people put sticky dots on their choices – again a relatively low number of people. The vote of 40% of the 160 votes cast was for the 'Green Car Park/Hedging/fencing/Improved access with height security barrier/Pedestrian gate with disabled access'
3. The significantly larger, online vote done in March 2019 where 17.5% of the 1338 votes cast were made for the car park.

I currently have some availability for the above. Excellent references from long standing clients. I can assist with meals prepared within your own home, attend hospital, doctors appointments and offer companionship. Please contact me on 07467587456 to discuss your requirements further. Thank you.

I have read and reread the comments about Turnpike Field. Whilst I accept that some people might have wanted the Parish Council to buy the field to prevent it being developed, I have two observations on that. Firstly, to spend in excess of £200,000 of money contributed by Council Tax payers for this purpose would be a flagrant misuse of public money (and it might be illegal, as in restraint of trade), and secondly, nowhere does such an idea feature on the list of preferred uses of the field as shown on the list that resulted from the public meeting on 29/02/19 – see https://tfra.audlem.org/doc/D370483.pdf . This shows that 40% of respondents wanted there to be a green car park, almost 30% wanted wildflower and nature conservation areas, and over 14% wanted tree planting and seats. Given the size and topography of the field, all of these can exist harmoniously within it.

The use of the field must be guided by the wishes of the electorate as expressed in the list referred to, and the public meetings. The Parish Councillors represent us, and having sought our views, they must accept them, and not decide on other priorities or uses.

Please, get on with the car park as a priority, in advance of other uses and spending at Turnpike Field. Even allowing for some delay from Covid, too much time has already passed.

A huge shout out to Audlem Medical Practice today for the sterling effort from all concerned to get so many people vaccinated today...well done folks

Used the green car park on tollgate field today for the first time.
Excellent additional facility for the village.
Access/egress a bit tight but other than that no hunting for parking spaces on road or adjacent estates.

There have been some references to the "Community Uses" survey that was conducted in March 2019, following the successful acquisition of the wonderful green space back in Aug 2018 – thus ensuring that it would no longer be at risk of development – who else remembers the massive development that was proposed back in the early 80's, by Barratts I think, which was fortunately refused by the planners.

The results of this poll, together with other information, has been available on the Turnpike Field website since April 2019 – its on the Home page so shouldn't be too difficult to find. It was this survey that formalised the priorities for developing the field.
Whilst it was no surprise that the Car Park received 17.5% of the votes, the highest number for an individual idea, 47% of the votes were for conservation related ideas.

For those who aren't aware of the website, its here:
https://tfra.audlem.org

You are all correct re the field , the council did want to protect the land from development . The village did vote on how it should be utilised ; number one on the list was to build a car park . However they were not given a full and Frank account of the costs of building one, which turned out to be far far more than anticipated . Hopefully before the council go ahead and open it to the public next week can they confirm have completed a full risk assessment .As the last thing the village can afford is to be sued should there be an accident . Especially with an ongoing police investigation re the Financial irregularities .

Adrian. I don't need you to 'straighten' my comments thank you. I said Turnpike was being treated as 'some sort of nature reserve' not an actual nature reserve. As much as I enjoy your updates I'm sure the majority of species can be found around our beautiful countryside particularly canalside. I fear the concentration of effort on making it a conservation area detracts from what the village and it's businesses really need and that is more parking

Hey, here is possibly a very simple inexpensive solution that may aid the village parking issues. Simply mark/spray paint some double yellow lines around the turnpike field, put up a NO PARKING SIGN ( but don't spend £3000 on it), leave the gate open, and wait for them to arrive, what could be simpler?

My views and support for the priorities for Turnpike Field would have been formed by what I read on Audlem online.
I have found this piece on Audlem online from 9th May 2018.
Perhaps the editors could include my link as part of my post :

https://www.audlem.org/news/green-lane-update.html

It says, from the Parish council, before the bid but after the consultation :"Councillors are very aware of the very strong support at public meetings and in Survey responses for attempting to buy the field purely to retain it as green space for community use; any additional parking would be a bonus but was a secondary consideration."

I would like to draw your attention to the PC Chairman's Report in their Newsletter Summer/Autumn 2019 available on the PC's website, which states "The main idea, subject to planning permission, is to provide a 'green' car park, using a mesh through which the grass will grow". The PC continue to defer decisions from one meeting to the next and no progress is made eg the Public Car Park is still being deferred after some eight years. Car Parking facilities should be a priority to sustain the village businesses who need support now more than ever. If we lose them the village dies.

Victory hall ,Woore. Tomorrow night 23rd. Rocket man is showing. Think they do it monthly

I seem to recall that at the time of the proposed field purchase the PC conducted a poll of the support for the various uses & that the car park scored highly in this.

I could of course be wrong but could James possibly re visit this document & share the results with us all as refresher please.

I can completely understand people's frustrations with the car park however we must remember that in the 2 years since the car park project was first discussed we have had a major pandemic but also the parish council has gone through an almost complete change of members. We all volunteer to be members of the council because we truly want to do what is best and right for the village hopefully now with the great group of volunteers currently on the parish council we can get things moving forward however speed is not key in my opinion making sure things are done correctly and are value for money is

Peter I quote from the report released after the public meeting " The public meetings and the Community Survey held in April 2018 confirmed that there was strong community support for the Parish Council's proposal to submit a bid for the field at the top of Green Lane. Residents were very keen to keep this as an area of community open space in perpetuity and interested in the possibility (subject to planning permission) of extra car park provision to relieve parking pressure in the village. "

As someone who has been promoting the wildlife aspects of Turnpike Fields, I feel that it is necessary to set straight the comments about the Fields being regarded as a "Nature Reserve". The Fields are not a Nature Reserve they are a "Public Amenity Area". That was always the original intention. The Green Car Park was always a project for the top part of the Fields and continues to be so. However, from the beginning it was recognition that the Fields had potential for some wildlife conservation. This was expressed in the Community Survey results for the use of the fields, where 47% of the votes were for conservation related ideas, (the Car Park received 17.5%, the highest number for an individual idea). The main amenity use of the Fields has by far been for folk exercising – themselves, their children and their dogs. This has I hope been enhanced by the information I have been able to give about the wildlife present. Our wildlife survey undertaken in 2020 showed amongst other things 107 different species of wild plant, 15 different grass varieties, and 37 species of insect (including 15 species of butterfly). This year more have been added to the list. At a time when upto 50% of our wildlife has been lost over the past decades, I think that that is worth conserving and encouraging not only for the wildlife's sake but also for our own human wellbeing and enjoyment.

I agree with Mr Huntbach that majority , myself included, were of the opinion that the field was bought with a car park as it's priority use and any other uses were simply added on as possible uses. I also would not have voted in favour of purchase had I realised that the powers that be were going to squander excessive amounts in the way they have on totally unnecessary things at this stage of ownership. Surely by now there should be some official public notification of exactly what is happening regards the car park progress not simply 'these things take time' – we are already 'years' and still we don't know other than monies are being made available for uses that are not important. It is about time public money was spent more practically, wisely and sensibly instead of for the benefit of dog owners, some of whom still don't 'pick up' and nature lovers. Please note I said some NOT all, as many do 'pick up'
Lets drop the 'vibrant' and get back to 'basics' – before anyone suggests Council Meetings are way past my bedtime.

Are there any villages nearby that show movies in the village hall, or something similar? Could Audlem do this?

As James says, the purchase of the field, by the villagers, was to stop development.

I was a serving Cllr at the time of the field purchase and can confirm that the car park option was one of many ideas put forward during many village consultations. It was never, in the early stages, a given that it would go ahead. I have no idea what's involved in building a car park and even less idea as to whether 'we' can afford one.

You are entirely right James the purchase of the Turnpike land was to stop the field being developed as a housing estate and the Parish Council at the time made the right decision not to seek to purchase the land jointly with a developer who had offered to work with the PC. The land is well used by dog owners and I have really appreciated the regular reviews which Adrian Leighton has posted on this link.

The original proposal also included a GREEN car parking area and the PC is entirely right to take its time and come up with the right scheme. I hope the PC will take into effect light pollution and if lighting is required small stump lighting will be used.

I am pretty sure the majority of the voting was for car parking facility and this has not been progressed but rather large sums have been spent on other projects that are extraneous to the will of the parish.

I believe that James McGregor has it wrong. My recollection of the public meetings (which I attended) held to discuss the possible acquisition of Turnpike Field is that by far the major reason agreed by those present was to provide much needed additional parking, with recreation and nature being rather lower down the list of priorities. Of course, an obvious byproduct of the purchase of the field by the village for any purpose is that future development on the field is prevented. But this was very definitely not the main reason that the electorate agreed to the purchase, and to pay an increased rate precept for decades into the future. I would certainly not have voted to pay for the purchase of the field if it was just to prevent it being built on, a rather NIMBYistic and self-serving approach I feel. I voted for the money to be used for a variety of much more constructive public uses; the field is large enough to accommodate many disparate activities and interests.

More than three years have passed, far more time than is needed (even in the public sector) to plan, seek permission for, and construct a simple car parking area. Let's hope that there are no more delays, and that the car park is opened in time for next year's village events, and the tourist season on which most retail and catering businesses in Audlem rely so much.

Chris I'm pretty sure the main reason for the purchase of turnpike was first and foremost to stop development on the land. The car park is still being worked on however these things take time we would much rather make sure the job was done correctly and was good value for money this has obviously been exacerbated by the covid pandemic. We do have a few places available on the council if you feel you can help with the many things the council have to manage and plan please drop me a message

Feel very privileged to be able to use Turnpike for parking during the road closure. What about the original idea of using this as a permanent car park to help local businesses for more than 7 days. Thought this was the number one reason for purchasing the field in the first place not as some kind of nature reserve which the village is surrounded by anyway

Went to the Crewe recycling centre yesterday to get rid of a load of green waste plus a PVC window frame.
I had my trailer attached but have my CEC permits for the year.
Asked a worker there where the frame went and was directed to the non recyclable skip. Placed it in then went to put the two double glazed units tgat had been removed to allow the frame to be taken out. The centre opening window complete with glass was still in the frame when it went in the skip.
I was told by the workervthat the double glazed units had to go in the rubble skip at a cost of £3.50 each!
I said as I pay CEC enough in council tax I'll take them back home with me!
Why are they charging in the first place.
Can anyone explain the logic why a frame with a glazed window goes in the non recyclable skip but two loose panels can't?
They also tried to charge me £3.50 for a small bag of rubble but didn't push it.
Confused of Cheshire st..