Consultation on proposed lease of land to rear of 10 Priest Avenue
August 20, 2010 Iain Roberts 7 Comments

We had an unusual request to Cheadle Area Committee on Tuesday.

The owners of 10 Priest Avenue, Gatley have asked to lease a pond on the edge of Scholes Park from the Council. They had previously fenced the pond (which is a small pond within a copse on the edge of the field – see map below) without permission and are seeking to make the arrangement formal.

Some local residents are concerned about this. The Council officers have produced a report going through the details and recommending that an annual tenancy be granted.

Rather than make the decision on the night, we decided to give local residents more opportunity to put their opinions. The matter will be advertised both in Priest Avenue and in Scholes Park, and will come back to Cheadle Area Commitee on Tuesday 12th October. Councillors can then make an informed decision.

Even if this is approved, the owner may still need to apply for planning permission for change of use.
Priest avenue report page 2
Priest avenue report page 1
(Note, the recommendation is missed off in this scane – it is to approve).


View Scholes Park in a larger map

green spaces

7 Comments

1
Robert Taggart
Friday 20 August 2010 - 3:42 pm

What be the fuss ? !
They hopefully take more care of it than the indolent SMBC ever did ? Why the council want so much land be beyond our understanding… they fail to maintain most of the land (in Scholes Park and elsewhere) they own as it is !

2
iainroberts
Friday 20 August 2010 - 4:52 pm

The land belongs to the Council for the benefit of local residents (and Stockport has won a large number of green flags for the good state of its parks). Whatever is decided, the land will stay belonging to Stockport Council.

3
Robert Taggart
Sunday 22 August 2010 - 12:12 pm

Well, councillor, as one understands the situation… regarding for example Knotweed… the ‘authorities’ are compelled to act upon it wherever it be found on public land. As was mentioned some weeks back there appears to be an ‘overgrowth’ of said menace behind Gatley Hill House and to the side downhill from said property in the park… Still !
Awards mean much to just a few… to rest of us they be but self congratulatory back slapping exercises !

4
iainroberts
Sunday 22 August 2010 - 12:33 pm

Robert – I’ve never heard about local authorities being compelled to act whenever knotweed is found on public land – can you let me know where you heard that?

I’d certainly prefer authorities to be able to make the decision for themselves whether knotweed should be acted on, since money spent removing it is money that can’t be spent doing other things.

5
Val Gardner
Sunday 22 August 2010 - 7:17 pm

Re the pond, I think it would be a good idea to lease it to the residents if they are going to improve it.I used to live in Kings Ave (many years ago) when I was there the pond was really nice,it even had ducks on. The family who lived in the Priest Avenue property used to maintain the pond and even had a pump in it to keep the water healthy.I remember “fishing” for stickle backs and taddies in the pond. now it is overgrown and pretty silted up and I would be surprised if there is any wildlife there at all

6
Robert Taggart
Monday 23 August 2010 - 11:02 am

Admittedly our information has come from ‘entertainment’ sources ! But, it has been mentioned on several shows over the last year or two. That said, a friend of ours has just looked up the environment agencies website. Hm, it be not completely clear as to the protocols for dealing with that menace !
That said, one comes back to our original complaint… the poor state of the park… too much undergrowth (overgrowth !) which in turn be filled with too much man made litter. Just to the north of this pond, next to the scout hut, was, until the last two weekends, the remains of an unwanted visitor (tramp !). Most of his ‘belongings’ (Guessing – charity shop gifted materials – stolen) have now been disposed of. A rather large rubber (lorry ? tractor ?) tyre remains though.
Some may think leaving things to grow be the ‘green’ thing to do. One begs to differ… in an urban setting such ‘mess’ only tends to encourage more… man made ‘mess’ ! A severe strimming and pruning be called for methinks.

7
Neville
Monday 23 August 2010 - 4:51 pm

am concerned the council officers are taking the easy way out here by recommending approval.

We use the park almost every day and thought the pond had been fenced off by the council for the usual ‘Health & Safety’ reasons!
The way this has come about raises a number of questions.

By granting this are we saying it’s OK to fence off a piece of public land and then just agree to lease it if found out! If so, this could set a very serious president.Has there been a fine imposed or a court case for illegal possession? How much is the lease for and how will that money be spent? Will the rest of the park benefit or will it disappear into that great black hole? How will local residents enjoy that natural habitat once it officially becomes part of someone’s back garden?

That said It is admirable that someone is willing to pay to maintain it. However, I believe that the ‘someone’ in this case should be the council who we pay to do that job.

Ms Gardner (…hello, I remember your dad, Ted well!) makes a good point about ‘“fishing” for stickle backs and taddies in the pond’. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if the children today where afforded the same opportunity.

This brings me to the main issue which everyone eludes to; maintenance!

Over a number of years we have had less and less work carried out on parks (not just in Gatley) all justified on ecological grounds (we know we are saving money!). This is the only pond we have here and I believe, as local ratepayers, we deserve to have some of the money that has been saved over the years of none maintenance, invested in re-establishing and enhancing it as part of the local ecology. HOW can an individual household ‘save’ this area if the council cannot. It adds insult to injury when the report describes the land as ‘fairly inaccessible’ which helps to justify it being ‘discarded’. Pressure from neglect is the usual reason for any land (or property, such as the Cinema) being leased, sold off or accepting inappropriate development.

Rather than granting a lease with a condition ‘to ensure the site is managed to the Councils satisfaction’ we, as ratepayers, must insist that the site is retained for the local residents and managed by the Council to the ratepayers satisfaction.

I am away at the time of the meeting but could these views be passed on and read out on the night?



Leave a Reply