BIG PICTURE
CHESHIRE East Council had a stall at Sunday’s Treacle market, so I took the opportunity to raise the question of public toilets or lack of in Macclesfield Town Centre.
I was informed by the delightfully charming town clerk that the problem is not funding, but land. The lady took the time to explain that all the suitable land is privately owned or owned by absent landlords.
A few days later as I walked down Churchill way I had a light-bulb moment.
It dawned on me that the two largest car parks in the town centre are owned by Cheshire East Council.
All it needs to start the ball rolling is for Cheshire East to donate eight to ten parking spaces worth of land so the toilets could be built.
Perhaps a local campaign should be started.
After all, most other towns and villages have managed to provide public toilets - there really is no excuse for Macclesfield not to have any.
To go further, if the toilets were planned and built to a good standard, attendants could be employed to service and clean them and ensure they are not misused.
The negative of Macclesfield being in the disgraceful position of not having public toilets will turn to a positive by Macclesfield having public toilets and creating employment also.
I am sure a nominal fee of between ten and twenty pence for their use would help toward running costs and would be a great benefit to the local shops and business and treacle market.
And, of course, a much-needed service to the great people of Macclesfield. Tony Dixon, via email.
MANY AGREE WITH VIC
I HAVE just read Vic Barlow’s article in today’s (Aug 4) Express about the Flower Pot Junction road improvements.
Also the letter from Joanne Jones about the Castle Street refurbishment.
I (and probably many others) totally agree with them.
Samantha Lyons Chelford Road Macclesfield
SHOW THEM SOME RESPECT
I AM writing in response to the lead letter (Express, August 4, Kate Bell) criticising Cllr James Barber’s presentation of the recent Joint Area SEND revisit.
Whilst I do not agree, or disagree with the content of the letter, I do have comment to make about the use of Twitter and other social media platforms being used to criticise or argue with public officials (and others).
I actually DID read some of the Twitter thread and, quite frankly, I am not surprised Cllr Barber has blocked some of the commenters, resulting in the author of the letter calling him a “coward”.
Some of the comments were pointed, became personal or insulting (I am NOT suggesting the author of the letter was part of this).
The issue of course is, one person makes a barbed comment and the flock seem to gather like vultures.
Social media is great, allowing the public unprecedented access to our elected officials.
However, there is a PERSON on the end of the Twitter account, not a robot.
We have read in the press about the social media abuse of high profile figures.
However, it goes on locally too.
If we want our elected officials to continue being so accessible on social media, letting their constituents know what they are up to, or asking what they think about things people MUST respect them.
Yes, these people are elected to represent us, however think of the old days.
Want to speak to a Councillor?
Make an appointment or write a letter and await a reply.
We cannot have it both ways.
Cllr Barber has been one of the most visible councillors in my ward I have EVER known.
He works hard in multiple forums and does a sterling hands on job locally.
Please remember, he is also a human being with feelings.
You can constructively criticise, without resorting to insults or barbed comments.
Phil Mason, via email.
CHANGES in local government governance arrangements aren’t usually the stuff of heated debate.
The recent change to the committee system at Cheshire East largely went unnoticed, despite taking over two years and its huge cost to the public purse.
Most will not have heard of the innocuously named ‘community governance review’ that will this autumn be the subject of public consultation.
But the proposed changes could have very real, and very damaging, impact not just in Wildboarclough (where I live), but also across Macclesfield.
The aim is to double the size of Macclesfield Town Council, from 12 to 24 councillors.
To do this, huge swathes of villages around the town will be swallowed up or split in half - Lyme Green as a whole, Henbury and Gawsworth being sliced in two, paving the way for more urban sprawl and green belt development.
These changes have knock on effects for parish councils around Macclesfield.
Parishes – many with long histories, unique identities, and distinct communities - will be completely lost, or combined in new mega parishes.
The longstanding connections between the three villages of Sutton parish are ignored; Lyme Green will become part of the town council, and Sutton rural amalgamated with
Wincle and Wildboarclough. (Driving out of Sutton along Hollins Lane and up into the Clough, you will know notice the huge differences, not least in the weather.)
In Wildboarclough, we will lose our parish meeting, instead to be just one small voice in this proposed mega parish.
Macclesfield residents will also lose out, especially when it comes to political representation.
A much larger Macclesfield Town Council will mean less of a voice for residents in Hursdfield and Macclesfield East (for example).
We need the consultation to generate strong debate, and for as many people as possible to respond.
And we need Cheshire East to really listen.
Otherwise, we could all lose out.