NEWS

CONTRIBUTIONS FOR 2009/10 ARE NOW DUE. If for any reason you did not receive a Newsletter, please let us know.

PLANNING APPLICATION 09/2877M

For those of you who have not been notified directly by the Council, a new planning application has been submitted for the new building which is being built in the grounds of South Lodge. I was told by the builder that he was being made to submit a new application despite already having planning approval because the boundary fencing he has put up does not comply with the condition in the original planning consent which required him to maintain a visibility splay onto Wilmslow Park South. Whether there is more to it than this I do not know. If this is the case it's hard to see what all the fuss is about as it has been under construction for 10 months and is well on the way to completion. We have found the builder to be co-operative and he has tried to minimise inconvenience by doing excavation work during school holidays when traffic was light. However, if any more information comes to light I will let you know.

In the meantime if you want to look at the plans go to www.cheshireeast.gov.uk and clicking on the "view planning applications" link. It will be a case of spot the difference I feel. If you wish to make any comments to the planners you have until 25th November to do so.

WIDTH RESTRICTION

A resident damaged her 4 x 4 on the width restriction and wrote to us with a view to seeking compensation. However, the width restriction was installed and maintained by Macclesfield Borough Council so Cheshire East is now responsible. Nonetheless, we would like to hear of any incidences of damage so that we can keep a record.

Clearly an altercation with the concrete kerbing will not be forgiving to any vehicle. Anyone in such a position who tries to seek compensation from Cheshire East is first of all likely to be told it's not their responsibility  (because it's the policy to deny responsibility for anything in Wilmslow Park). Once over that hurdle, they will turn down the claim. Unless you can conclusively prove they have been negligent in some way you would be throwing good money after bad by pursuing them. You will almost certainly lose. Sometimes it's better to accept you made an error of judgement and leave it at that.

The width restriction dates back to 1993. The bridge was then surfaced with cobbles which had become uneven and in need of repair. MBC tried to push the responsibility for this onto the Association even though they owned the bridge. The bridge also needed structural repairs. To cut a long story short the Council decided that the bridge was no longer suitable for heavy traffic. They did not have the funds for structural repair so they applied for a weight and width  restriction. A full consultation exercise was carried out and at the request of the fire brigade the road was renamed Wilmslow Park North and South to make it possible for them to identify which entrance to use when called out. The Council erected signs at each entrance and either side of the restriction. First of all they used old railway sleepers bolted to the surface of the bridge. These were easily abused by lorries and the Council constantly had to come out to refix them. This situation continued until early 1995 when the Council decided to removed the cobbles and put a width restriction either end of the bridge using Trief kerbs (the ones we have now) which are specially designed for the job. In the event, they only had enough money for one restriction - aren't you grateful?

It seems the normal procedure is to allow an extra 6" over and above the width posted on the signs, the latter being the maximum vehicle width that should be able to get through without mishap. In practice, all sorts of vehicles too wide seem to get through. This was particularly the case after the sewage repairs when United Utilities put it back in the wrong place - everything could get through. After bridge repairs were carried out in 2007/8 the restriction was put back to its correct width which came as a bit of a shock to most people who had been used to sailing through. Although strictly speaking the width and weight restriction are no longer necessary, we were in favour of retaining some form of restriction to stop lorries shortcutting through. We supplied the Council with a number of suggestions for something more aesthetically pleasing, even offering to pay, but they felt that none would comply with the rules and regulations.

I should also mention that in late 1995 when the speed humps were put in (months later than the restriction), the width restriction was taken into account which saved us the cost of an extra hump (which we would incur if ever it was removed).

CHESHIRE EAST

As you will be aware, Macclesfield Borough Council was absorbed into the new Cheshire East Council on 1st April, 2009. For the time being, many Macclesfield personnel are continuing with their former jobs. In particular, Technical Services will be responsible for maintaining the street lamps on Wilmslow Park itself.  Should you wish to report a faulty light on the private road you can do so by ringing 500500 and asking for Mr. Broughton. Please make a note of the stencilled number on the lamp before making the call so they know which one needs attention. If you wish to report a faulty light on one of the side roads you will need to ask for Cheshire Highways or you can report a fault on-line at the Cheshire East website.