Chatbox

Not strictly true, the road was already in a parlous state due to poor drainage issues over the last fourteen years.

I have to say I find the figures and their presentation rather garbled. Nevertheless it is my recollection that parking spaces was a major plank of the justification. However there are a few key points
Firstly, who was voting? What control was there to ensure only Audlem precept payers were voting (either at the meeting or online) – I know for a fact that at the open meeting where the hand show for acquiring the playing field vote took place there were a number of people from outside the parish voting.
Secondly, as I've said before the numbers participating in the vote are a minority of the parish population, and whichever vote is hardly a mandate therefore.
Thirdly, and most importantly, we were voting on the basis of gross underestimates of cost it now seems. For that reason alone the whole thing needs a rethink.

I'd also just add in addition to the breakdown on relative precept levels across the county given the other day, those in the parishes nearest Audlem – Buerton, Hankelow, Burleydam and Adderley – are a lot less than ours – they're the people most likely to be parking free of charge at our precept payers' expense.

We're looking for a reliable and trustworthy housekeeper to undertake cleaning, ironing and other domestic tasks (as needed) for 4 hours a week on a Friday. Please call Jacqui on 07542 359741 for further details.

Well said Chris Spring, I agree with your interpretation and also your suggestion.

Sorry, omitted from my first post that the closing date for comments is NEXT WEDNESDAY 16TH FEBRUARY.
So no time to lose!

Anyone driving on the A529 over the last few months must have noticed the dreadful state of the road near Mill Lane and Corbrook Court, due to lorry traffic and mud from a widened access into a field on the slope opposite Corbrook Court land. For more information about this, please read the comments made so far about this on the Cheshire East Planning Application website, Ref 22/0111N, and add your voice . Remember the lorries coming from Nantwich at the moment could be coming from the opposite direction through Audlem at another time.

I observed a comment in a post on Feb 9th that said "Audlem Parish precept is one of the highest in the county".
It intrigued me so I did a bit of research.

Audlem's Band B&D precept is currently £52.49 (same as for last year).
There are 8,877 precepting councils in England and Audlem's rate places us at 3,400 – i.e there are 3,399 higher precepts. The highest is £369.32 in Spaldington, Yorkshire – wow – I'm glad I don't live there!!!

Of the 202 precepting parishes in the county of Cheshire, Audlem is at 32, so yes, it is one of the higher ones in our county.

The highest precept is Nantwich at £122.66

Well I found it interesting!

I would have a read here first : https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-cavity-loft-insulation/

Val has a point regarding the car park. Far better to start with a low-key approach to see what the demand and volume of use for this element of the T.F. is before jumping in with heavy costs to construct the whole thing. A secure entrance is obvious, then a single perforated green trackway delineated by white marker posts to stop people driving to their favourite picnic table. The track could divide into two tracks in the car park area itself and drivers would simply park on the grass. The facility would have to close temporarily if there was a very wet period and the grass cuts up, but at least it would give the management and community it serves a better understanding. Hopefully it will attract some of the long stay parking from the village centre, particularly if a time limit was eventually imposed on the Public Hall car park.

If you look at the website who-called.co.uk you will find a lot of comments about Vision Homes. It looks as though you need to be wary of this company. You will also find further comments if you enter 'vision homes loft insulation' into Google.

We are going to get a roof insulation survey from this company – apparently there is a government scheme which subsidises oldies like ourselves to have better loft insulation.
Does anybody know anything about this company or had work done by them?

Why do we need 40 spaces? Make 5/10 'green' spaces along the hedge between the access points, if we must. No charging points, and parking at your own risk. The rest of the relatively flat area can continue to be used for occasional parking for village fair weather, seasonal events, as already is. I am more concerned with a height barrier and lockable gate to control the access of undesirable vehicles, and not tempt our village youth with access to 'do donuts', like they do on the playing field, given the opportunity. "You build it, and they will come"! And it's all very easy to suggest any building on it, however small a development, when the main reason it was purchased was to stop just that, and when you don't personally overlook the field. Those who do, already have to endure every Tom, Dick & Rover, many, many times a day, AND night, parading past, and the parking outside of their houses, by those who don't live in the village, who don't contribute to the costs, so they can use the field too. However, I have no objection to those who live in the village, using the field to exercise their pooches. At least you are getting something for your money! But can you vary your routes, its a veritable quagmire in places!

Just a thought on an overage charge for development of the field, has anyone looked at what it means. I have not seen it but from past experience with this type of charge there is usually a formula which looks at a percentage payment based on the difference in value from what was paid for the land and what it's worth once developed. If this is the case with the costs involved in establishing a car park the land would probably not have any real increase in value that a percentage for a payment could be applied to so no payment to the previous land owner. Also, and I don't know the landowner, had anyone asks if he would expect the overage charge to be applied to a car park?? I may be way of the mark here having not been involved but just a thought.

Excellent points made by Kevin Mellor and Peter Morgan. Given the massive escalation in estimated costs the whole funding model should be reassessed. It has to be remembered that Audlem Parish precept is one of the highest in the county already and some of us are on limited incomes. This will mainly benefit people from outside the parish who will be parking for free at residents' expense. I've felt for some time that there is an over abundance of enthusiasm for local spending driven by the vocal desires of relatively small groups of individuals (the quoted numbers of votes on the proposals are a small proportion of the parish population – less than 10% – and hardly a significant mandate). Additionally the "sell" on this project was, as usual, based on obvious underestimates for the costs and liabilities (remember every uninsured claim paid out will be borne by the precept payers). And given events in Nantwich in recent years has the potential cost of removing illegal dwellers been considered?
The whole thing needs a deep rethink.

It is easy to forget what was said, agreed or done prior to lockdown. But it is certainly the case that any permanent development would incur an enhancement fee to the vendor. However, the green car park concept, involving a removable mat or perforated tile base which would allow grass to grow through it, would not lead to such an uplift as it is not permanent.
The issue of purchase funding and the ability to raise additional car park funding needs to be examined in detail. I seem to recall that the purchase loan was taken out in the name of the parish council whilst the running of the field is undertaken by the T F committee. Is that correct? If so, is it possible for the management committee to be turned into a charitable trust which would possibly open several funding opportunities currently denied to the parish council. After all, people are understandably reluctant to donate to the parish council, which is funded by an unavoidable precept, in order to put extra towards a green car park. Even more when we are still (months on) waiting for the results of a financial investigation. The Public Hall is an excellent example of what has been achieved by a charitable trust raising over 600k for the new annex.

It appears that my recent comment about recollecting that Turnpike field being purchased to prevent further housing development was correct, according to todays article by Heather Jones.
My comment was that if the main reason for the purchase was for a car park then a part sale controlled by the APC was a possible solution, so I am not sure why Heather was disappointed by my comment.
However, when the facts change people are entitled to change their minds and there has been a significant change to the potential cost of a green car park. FACT.
I was hardly suggesting extensive housing development by the sale of 2 plots. It would possibly be half an acre in total. Also why should anyone be concerned that the former land owner would be entitled to an overage payment, there would still be a significant contribution towards the cost of a car park. I am still of the opinion that the APC should consider the suggestion or open the discussion for a public vote.

Very sad to hear of the imminent closure of the very impressive cycle shop in Audlem, not being a regular cyclist I haven't really been able to support the shop as I would have wished but I have always found Tim and Nik to be a great couple and an asset to the village and I wish them both well on their next venture/retirement.

Alan Paterson's memory is correct. The purchase contract for the field included an "overage charge" whereby anything that increased the value of the field would result in significant payments having to be made to the original owner.
Fortunately, because of the potential advantages to Audlem of having a car park this was excluded from the overage clause, with certain restrictions – size and any income.
The following document on the Turnpike websitesummarised that many of the suggested uses of the field that were originally put forward would in fact trigger the clause:
https://tfra.audlem.org/doc/D370052.pdf

When the question of another carpark came up I thought good idea , Turnpike field, porous hard core base job done.
Check out YouTube "road construction and maintenance" and "mechanical concrete"
First principle of design, make it simple, make it cheap and make it work (check out a rawl plug)
Second principle, Information.
How many cars will the car park accommodate?
Does the car park require lighting? If it does who pays?
Do you need to provide charging points for EV cars, if so how many.
Will there be enough electrical power in the village to accommodate heat pumps and electric cars?
The more you try to please everyone the more the cost.

And sadly, it tolls for the passing of Mitchiko Iwata Esplin, who was well known by many of the bell ringers of our parish at St James the Great, Audlem, who passed over this morning after a long battle with cancer. She will be sadly missed by all those who knew her; her diminutive stature greatly exceeded by the beautiful smile that she greeted people with. God bless Mitchiko.

ADAS are asking if anyone has a large (25foot) Christmas Tree they would be willing to have cut down and donate for this years centre piece in the village ?
Please contact adascontact@gmail.com or 07800853539. For any further enquiries or details

May I respectfully suggest that hose who pen words on the subject of the village owned land, read the latest words by Steve Elliot – member of the group charged with the care etc of the field . And await the news as it will evolve. Time is something we have aplenty.

The following item was an extract from an item on AOL on the 24th October last year explaining the usage of the field.

"We are grateful to Geoff Seddon, who was Vice Chairman of the Parish Council at the time, for his article explaining the background to the village decision to proceed with the purchase.
What seems to be clear is that:

The purchase of the land was to prevent further infill development.
As a priority, the land should be partially used for a "green" car park to help alleviate the major congestion in the centre of the village.
The land should also be used as a recreational / wildlife area for the village"

The whole article can be found on AOL

I remember the meeting(s) about the purchase of the Turnpike Field . The seller was quite keen to sell it to the PC so that it would not be used for development. Making the top part into an 'green ' car park availability was a bonus as far as i internalised. Particularly of use when the Music Festival was held. It was never the primary consideration as far as I remember.
Having a car park there would indeed be of benefit but in no way will stop those who park as close to the CO-Op as possible and 'nip' in , sometimes leaving the engine running. This was a tractor driver who was not impressed when I remonstrated with him.
I think the working party, probably few in number, have done a tremendous job . Thank you.

Can anyone else confirm what I think I remember from the original meetings before we purchased the land – namely that anything we do to increase the underlying value of the field will result in a payment to the previous owner? Even the construction of a car park would incur this additional charge. Selling off land and having houses built would result in a very large payment to the previous owner because the price we paid was based on agricultural land. I don't remember all the details but one of the reasons for starting off by doing things that made no change to the underlying use was that we could do them without re-negotiating the purchase. If I am correct, all the residents who went to the original village meeting had this clearly explained to them (particularly in regard to a car park), but doubtless anyone who is new to the village will be unaware of this.