Chatbox

I am puzzled how the Eddisons proposal can be seen in a positive light? Audlem is a busy 4-way main road junction & is not comparable with Wybunbury in any way. It doesn't assist pedestrians in any material way at all, and introduces more complication with likely examples of drivers trying to dash through before the oncoming vehicle. This development would add up to 250 extra cars, and many of these will be forced to queue up on Tollgate Drive, only exacerbated by the new bottleneck. Green lane will likely also back right up at busy times as a result and we are likely to see traffic backing up all the way to Moorsfield Av. & beyond on Whitchurch Rd, on the narrowest main road in the village, meaning traffic heading west is even MORE likely to mount the pavement to get by. The proposal will significantly add pollution & worse traffic jams in the village. This is just tinkering at the edges trying to give the impression of mitigation whereas in reality it simply serves to show us that without a wider road bridge & more width for safer pedestrian access, the proposed development location is clearly unsuitable & therefore totally unsustainable.

On looking at the proposed, so called answer to the canal bridge issue, and comments raised.
We are still living with Mullers previous disaster with the coop development, with promises of off carriageway parking that never happened and has now created a problem that will certainly knock on to these proposals.
The system through Wybunbury has no bearing on this situation as that is a single road a B road at that (well used admittedly) we have two converging A roads the A529 and the A525 that at this very location run together. The restriction/Give way at the bridge would in my view create a much worse traffic build up in all directions as any waiting traffic at the bridge cannot proceed due to emerging traffic from Cheshire street who due to the parked cars outside the shops cant see to give way then have nowhere to go while traffic still approaches from Stafford street, thus having nowhere to go ant that being narrow prevents traffic exiting that way. All this time traffic is building along Whitchurch Road blocking that exit due to being unable to pass (HGV) and the Market Drayton road would be in a similar situation if not worse due to the build up back around the bend to the single track bit and beyond, this being due to traffic exiting Green Lane not being able to exit right or left. (A perfect storm, that could be Very regular)
Right in the middle of all this chaos is the Audlem (ONCALL) FIRE STATION with firemen not able to get too the station or even get the Appliance out.
Muller have created this problem by lying their way through the planning process and pay the right people to come up with enough goof that the majority don't understand and get bored with reading and these things get passed. MULLER DONT LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENSES.
A possible solution to some of the traffic chaos could be count all the parking spaces outside the shops put them on the fire station site and ENFORCE FREE SHORT STAY PARKING and get the developers to pay for building a new fire station in a more accessible and convenient spot on the town boundary, (possibly Cheshire street) this would free the flow of traffic in the centre.
This is massive overdevelopment by greedy short sighted profiteers that Audlem doesn't need.
How's your doctor waiting list?
Sewers blowing up?
Also, a so called country park??? That area has been left more or less fallow for approx. 50yrs and expanse of wildlife down there is excellent as its been left alone. It doesn't need bulldozers putting through it and having people hareing round it. Let the wildlife alone to thrive as it has done.

We are looking for someone locally that could remove a birds nest remains from the apex of a roof and fit a small clear plastic shield to prevent nesting this year.
If anyone is available as soon as possible I would be so grateful if you could contact me on:
07912613409
Many thanks.

Chris – Check out Cheshire East Highways, Bridges and Structures, clearly Cheshire East take on no accountability for most bridges, nor do they have a list of the bridges that the highways cross, the last checks and current weight restrictions, one would assume the bridge over the canal will be the canal and river trusts responsibility, so maybe we need to put a request in to find out when the bridge was last assessed, and the obvious need for an assessment due to the additional HGV activity.

I think the revised plan, drafted by Eddisons looks excellent. Wybunbury has had a similar setup for years, and it seems to work well. It's not clear to me if the plan is proposing to actually *widen* the existing path or merely using bollards to stop traffic from using part of the road. I think it is showing widening on both sides, which would be ideal. The finger post is, I think, largely irrelevant to any objections people may have. The existing post is merely signposting the Weaver Way, which runs along the canal, and I expect the new one would be a continuation of that.

It's incredible that someone hasn't been severely hurt already on this bridge, and even if the housing development doesn't go ahead (I hope it doesn't), I think this new road layout should still be implemented.

I don't understand the concerns raised in the article about traffic backing up into the village, as that traffic would have priority over traffic entering the centre of the village. Someone explain to me if I'm misunderstanding this. My only remaining concern would be what happens to traffic which may back up along the road towards Moorsfield Avenue. This new plan proposes "Keep Clear" markings by Tollgate Drive, which would -- in theory at least -- eliminate any congestion there, but this would push traffic coming from the Whitchurch direction even further back. That would be unnaceptable, as the road leading to Moorsfield is already too narrow, and has a substandard footpath.

If we are "going for growth" -- which I'm against in somewhere like Audlem, but seems to be the way of things -- then we may need a roundabout at the junction of Tollgate Drive and Green Lane, and then traffic lights to make the section between Tollgate Drive and Moorsfield Avenue one-way. Too much?

A slight correction to my earlier post: I suggested the closing date for comments & objects to the was the 4th April, (forgetting it is now extended to the 10th), so gives us all a chance to voice our concerns on the planning application over Easter. (Unlike the developer, I move quickly to correct any error).
Also, we have been in the national news recently, with the HGV traffic congestion crisis caused by the Baddington Bridge closure being recognised by the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gevz2wd95o?at_link_type=web_link&at_medium=social&at_link_id=3D620FAC-17DB-11F1-A8DA-95EA5A1EA715&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_origin=BBC_Stoke&at_ptr_name=facebook_page&at_format=image

...So how can any additional traffic volume be considered reasonable, when the village is effectively drowning in HGV traffic? Please all express your views before it is too late and our lovely little village is ruined...Once swamped with over-development, the damage cannot be undone and Audlem will never be the same.

Just a thought, but with the significant increase in HGV traffic through Audlem due to the weight restriction at Baddington Bridge, how long before the increased volume and weight of the vehicles compromises the structural integrity of the bridge over the Shropshire Union Canal?

What a first rate article Roland wellarticulated and reasoned. However, there always is one, would it not add weight to the discussion if CE were asked to send a representative who is prepared to risk crossing the bridge a few times so that they can actually experience the dangers for themselves. Walking the walk would add a whole lot of weight to the argument.

Despite hundreds of pages of reports, surveys and glossy “visual representations,” the single most important issue remains completely unresolved. You can rebrand crossings, replace paving, and reshuffle traffic priorities, but none of that changes the simple, observable fact: the canal bridge is too narrow to safely accommodate pedestrians alongside increasing traffic. This is not a problem that can be engineered away with paperwork or signage—it is a physical constraint that already influences how people behave, and adding hundreds more residents will only intensify the risk. The “elephant in the room” isn’t just still there—it’s standing in the middle of the bridge, and no amount of documentation will make it move.

I also thought Roland's article today was excellent & cut straight to the chase regarding the Muller application: It's not sustainable and no matter how many times they tell us it is, doesn't alter the facts. The previous objections from village residents were so effective because they were so factual (in stark contrast to the developers absurd & erroneous claims) and as a result of the objections we all raised, they are now tinkering around the edges trying to give the impression they can mitigate things that cannot be substantially altered, which is WHY the application is not viable. If this development went ahead, even with the recent proposed traffic revisions (which seem create much more severe traffic & road safety issues than they solve) then every resident here or who travels through the village will be negatively impacted to varing degrees in the future. Now is not the time for apathy; If our views were not important the developer wouldn't keep trying to appease the objections, so everyone please OBJECT to planning application 25/2194/OUT before 4th April closure date. Your views DO matter & DO have an impact.

What a brilliant posting by Roland Turner today on AoL! (My only criticism is that he didn't give any details of the camera used, aperture etc. for the photos illustrating his article, as such information is obviously of vital importance when submitting planning documentation, as he pointed out).
Perhaps he could be awarded the Freedom of Audlem, i.e. to walk SAFELY over the canal bridge, en route to our village Post Office, wherever that may be; or whilst trying to find the non-existent bus stop for the non-existent Whitchurch bus. But not to worry about such minor details!

For the last 20 or so years a group has met in various locations to provide relaxation and advice to those caring for someone of any age and with any condition who can be left for a short time. Lately the venue is the public hall annex, Thornton room at 10.30 on the first Wednesday of the month. Coffee and cake etc for a nominal £3. Recently numbers have dwindled and the group may have to cease so this is a last call for anyone to come along so that we can keep going.

Commenting on this application is still possible but time is running out.

The application number is 25/2194/OUT and if you follow the step by step instructions on the Cheshire East website planning window then it is simple enough to do.

Again the application number is 25/2194/OUT

Vicki I 'm not on Instagram so I'd like to contact you by email or mobile. I've lots of plastic plant pots of varying sizes.

I would be grateful if anyone could recommend someone to advise/fit a camera in an outbuilding to keep an eye on my new rescue feral cats. Thank you.

Hi Elaine, give my friend Glyn a call, he and his son George run a small independent removal company, they are local, very good and now have 4 vans. Tatlers removals 07799846708.

I can recommend Townsend’s Removals of Nantwich run by Pete and Kirsty Townsend.

01270 630077 office
07940 836238 mobile

Hope this helps.

Can anyone recomend a house removal company please

Due to change in circumstances I no longer need these but still have cartons that they take back for recycling.is anyone willing to hand a bag full in for me? Thanks

What a super article on the proposed production of 'Escape to the Country' programme. It actually had me fooled for a bit till it dawned on me that I was being HAD! – That's the essence of great humour.

Just an update for those that haven’t seen the ‘small print’ in the updated Muller planning application, they have dropped the plan to access the development through both Tollgate and Mooresfield and now plan to have vehicle access ONLY THROUGH TOLLGATE DRIVE.

Does anyone know of a Robert Townsend as I have had a letter for him Delivered to my address Cheshire Street

I will not be able to contact everyone personally in the next week or so . Can I please therefore thank you all for your kind words of support to me and my family, for those who attended Moira's funeral and the donations made to the "Stroke Association".
Kind Regards David Stanistreet

Thanks Brian!

Dylan, if you could ask your friend that would be great, thanks

A good opportunity for the BBC The Repair Shop? if it's still going.