Sixth Report for Wrinehill Roads and Pavements

The issue of Checkley Lane remains very much alive, particularly during this wet weather.  As this is only November, the likelihood of any great improvement is somewhat remote.

 

In the last ten days the flood water is almost permanently across the road.  Large and small vehicles are cutting into the grass verges to avoid it, creating even more sludge which is being carried to already blocked drains. 

 

 

Looking towards the main road


    

     Looking towards the mast and bridge

 

 


Erosion looking towards the bridge



The new sideroad onto Checkley Lane  



A probable cause of silt and debris flowing down the lane and blocking the drains



 

Erosion and silt build up

   The new mast and waterlogging






             More erosion facing the mast      

 The recommendation to the Newcastle Planning Department by the Parish Council  was that 'The parish council would ask the local planning authority to ensure that works proposed will have no adverse impact on the surface water movements and ground drainage of the area given the existing problems in Checkley Lane’ and that ‘the works proposed will have no impact on the adjacent hedgerow or the nearby tree which makes an important contribution to the appearance of the area. (See below)

Residents can judge for themselves whether or not this was taken into account by the NBC Planning Committee.  But clearly not because water is still coming from under the mast.  When the drain silts up the water will start flooding the road and we could have another flood spot in Checkley Lane.  Perhaps the Parish council might take a stronger line on such issues.  

 


 

More Flooding 

 

Flooding under the bridge and back logging


    

Blocked drain under the bridge causing flooding


           

Poor road engineering one blocked and one unblocked drain. Only if the water reaches a certain volume will it flow into the unblocked drain opposite.  Water backing up along the roadway


Hidden and blocked grid (under the leaves)  just after the bridge on the Cheshire East side, which doesn’t help

 

  


More erosion of verge after the bridge on Cheshire East side which will wash down to the bridge and beyond, to block other drains


           

Erosion of verge and resulting silt manufacture ready to be washed into the grids.

 

More Flooding

 


 

The flooded mast and waterlogged verge and spoiling of the grass verge.  It is likely that when this verge becomes completely waterlogged the water will start to flow into the road.

 


Flooding erosion and visual impairment, and the dwarfing of the 10 foot tree by the 15 foot mast – not to mention the churning up of the grass verge after work of some kind


Recommendations

1.    That the Parish Council receive and accept this sixth report re the condition of Checkley Lane.

2.    That the Staffordshire County Council be urged to allocate funding to resolve this situation immediately and especially given the use of this Lane by the HS2 workforces and their heavy goods vehicles which are already using the Lane.  It is estimated that the projects in Madeley, Den Lane and Checkley Lane will engender around 700 extra vehicles per day.  We are told that only 12 HGVs will use the Lane (24 to and from). The rest will be the work force traffic stationed in satellite encampments.

3.    That HS2 recognise that neither Den nor Checkley Lanes are fit for purpose.

4.    That the County Council and County Councillors pass information on to Parish Councillor and other stakeholders in order to keep them up to date and speed with the developments of this project, which are now beginning to bite.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Poppies and Cut-outs

  People might have noticed the poppies and the cut out metal figures placed in the village for Armistice Day in November.   It was suggested by Councillor Owen that metal figures be purchased and   placed on the Village Green. Poppies would be displayed through the parish on lamp posts etc. These were paid for from the Parish Council Funds (£350 for the cutouts plus 20 plastic poppies at £5 each).   At the November meeting I asked if there was a reason that no poppies had been placed in Wrinehill since the account had been paid from Parish Council funds.   I did not receive a satisfactory answer but I was accused of making a ‘complaint’ (the only person not to praise the display, it seems).   But it was not a ‘complaint’ only a question based on an observation. The upshot is that an email was sent to all Members of the Council   suggesting that as a result poppies and cut out figures would be purchased -3 sets of figures and 40 more poppies).  ...
Read more

Clarification

 It has been noted in the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2024 Minute 5 a statement made about this blog 'by a member of the parish council'- 'that  any comments submitted to the author of the blog which questioned the factual accuracy of the contents of its reports were ignored and not published'.  This is an assumption (yet another) not a fact.   It also seems to be yet another example of attempts to undermine the integrity of the blog (and its author). The blog, it has been noted, presents another view point which often differs from the 'standard'/'official' view presented via the Minutes particularly, where statements are made and treated as if they were universal truths rather than just  'a view' of a group of people. It needs to be pointed out here, therefore, that all comments received are read and considered, even though they come from a very small pool of anonymous, in the main, individuals, some with obvious agendas and with mali...
Read more

Business as Usual?

 At the last meeting of the Parish Council in February,  the Chair directed Councillor Head to report back on the issue of the S106  agreement monies for the former Wrinehill garage site.  The contribution of £11,500 has been deposited with the Borough Council.  Residents feel that this money should be spent primarily in Wrinehill, given that the S 106 proceeds of the last two developments were not.  (£45,000 the Commuted sum for the Bluebell development went to Knutton, also a sum (not known) from the Saw Mill development  was allocated for Laudy Croft, but it is not known if that happened, we are told). It is unclear why a councillor for Betley village is reporting on this matter unless ....  It had been mooted way back that the S106 money should be spent on resurfacing the Village Hall  car park.   Needed it is true but the Village Hall could raise funds from other sources not to mention its own reserves, which are not insubstant...
Read more