The Rainow Parish Plan

The way ahead for Rainow

To return to the home page please click here…

Thirty Proposals

Social and Community Activities
1. Research site options for a public open space in the village for “people of all ages to play”, including a new site or the potential for use of the school grounds.
Strong support for the idea (“would be a big plus”, “has always been a missing part of the village”) but some concern about the need for supervision and possibility of complaints if wrongly sited.
2. Research site options for a venue for organised social activities for young people in the village.
General support but with some people saying it is not necessary (“we already have the Institute and Church Hall”), others concerned that it could attract people from outside the village who could be troublesome and others in favour of “something for young people – especially sports.”
3. Research site options for a ‘chill-out’ informal meeting location for young people in the village.
General support but several people concerned about possible problems (“an unsupervised site would promote anti-social behaviour.”)
4. Review existing facilities for social and educational activity in the village, including the Institute, Church Centre and School Hall and recommend actions as appropriate.
Strong support (“Institute needs updating”, “the first need”), but a few thought “present arrangements adequate”.
5. Seek to bring together the Parish Council and Church newsletters and add new items to provide a single, regular publication provided to all households in the village with links to the website and notice-boards.
Strong support (“would be useful and increase community participation in events”) but a minority preferred the status quo.
6. Undertake a survey of all current community social activities to determine the extent to which village needs are met.
General support with the a few observing that “market forces produce the outcome.”
7. Develop community spirit further and improve communications by establishing a coordinating committee drawn from the existing and potential social activity organisers in the village.
General support (“as a top level committee for existing social bodies in the village”) but some concern about bureaucracy and about the difficulty of getting volunteers and building enthusiasm (“first need is to get more people interested in DOING things!”)
8. Promote awareness of the historical features of the village through production of a list of the features and promotional activity via notice boards, maps and articles in the village newsletter recommended above.
Plenty of support and ideas (“why not have ‘fact sheets’ on these features?”)
Housing and Business Development
9. Investigate the opportunities to set up a retail outlet/café in Rainow and assess potential viability.
General support and many people said they would support a local facility but one or two were against anything of this kind and several felt it would be nice but may not be viable.
10. Investigate the possibility of providing lower cost housing for the young and the elderly in Rainow whilst taking account of the need to minimise change in the village.
General support. Several respondents felt nothing was possible because of the practical difficulties (“how would you ensure houses went to local residents”) and others re-emphasised the need to retain the character of Rainow (“minimising change in the village is paramount.”)
11. Hold discussions with Macclesfield Borough Council and the Peak Park planning authorities to investigate the potential for more consistent planning regulations and practices across the Parish.
General support but a few felt there was no need to do anything.
The Countryside
12. Seek to maintain the aesthetics of the countryside around Rainow through establishment of a Countryside Committee. This committee should monitor, and promote better understanding of, trends in land management practices including designated areas such as flood plains, natural zones and sites of special scientific interest.
General support with a focus on preserving the rural nature of the landscape (“important with possible changes in farming”, “as long as it is done sensitively with the farming community”). As elsewhere there was some concern that the process should not be bureaucratic or “over-managed.”
13. Seek improved maintenance of hedgerows, walls and historic features and buildings in the countryside around Rainow through increased funding from relevant grant sources.
Plenty of support but some words of caution (“not too twee.”)
14. Promote effective monitoring, maintenance and improvement of footpaths in the Parish.
Wide support although a few felt paths were “generally good” and “much had been done already.” Others had found that “some stiles are difficult for the less mobile.” Again, a few people were concerned that the character of the paths should not be lost (“don’t tarmac anything!”)
15. Seek improved way marking of footpaths particularly near farmyards and other property.
Agreement that extra signs would be of most help but these need to be “neat and unobtrusive” and it was seen as “important to talk to landowners and get their buy-in.” Strong support for measures to help prevent people who are new to the area getting lost.
16. Seek provision of signage where paths leave roads and educational material to encourage greater adherence to the Countryside Code.
Yes but again they must be “sympathetic to the surroundings.”
17. Investigate the domestic and farm related impacts of increased badger numbers and potential preventative measures.
General support but this topic produced some strong views ranging from “leave badgers alone!” to “they are an unsustainable problem” although others were unaware of any problem.
18. Seek re-instatement of deteriorated ponds in the village.
There was general support but one or two comments referred to safety issues with ponds.
Traffic and Parking
19. Support the 30mph speed limit currently proposed for the village and the 40mph limit between Rainow and Macclesfield.
A very large proportion of the comments strongly supported speed limits (“the main issue”, “100% yes! This can’t happen soon enough”) but several were opposed (“40mph is more than reasonable”) and others felt the restrictions did not go far enough (“20 in village”, “restrictions should continue to Gin Clough” “should cover the area up to the border with Whaley Bridge.”)
20. Investigate the potential for ‘traffic calming’ measures (such as gateways, speed advisory signs, speed cameras) to support the speed limit.
General support but some polarised views. Some were totally opposed to anything especially gateways, sleeping policemen and cameras (“ugly”) and concerned about location (“not outside people’s homes”) whilst others favoured cameras and speed advisory signs. One view was that “parked cars act as traffic calming – why spend money on other measures?”
21. Investigate the potential for a pedestrian crossing of B5470 Church Lane near the Church entrance.
Generally thought to be a good idea but not universally so. Some felt the crossing would be a safety measure in an area “dangerous now”; a few saw it as creating danger and were against.
22. Investigate local parking problems and seek solutions such as provision of resident’s parking areas.
Whilst there was general support for this proposal (“yes, yes, yes!”) there was also some cynicism (“they probably wouldn’t use it even if it was outside their door.”) Some specific difficulties were commented on in different areas of the village.
23. Seek to minimise the intrusion of road signing within the parish.
General support but a clear concern that road safety should not be compromised (“all roads should be clearly signed.”)
Services in the Village
24. Seek the retention of existing services and facilities (such as post, telephone, refuse and buses in the Parish to at least the current levels.
General support.
25. Promote regular foot patrols by uniformed police or special wardens.”
More people were in favour (“an overt presence would be good”) than against but quite a few thought this was unnecessary.
26. Seek re-establishment of the largely dormant neighbourhood watch scheme.
Plenty of support for this but again some cynicism (“it doesn’t work.”)
27. Hold discussions with mobile ‘phone suppliers regarding improved reception in the village with emphasis on sensitivity of any mast location.
General support but strongly expressed concern about the siting of masts (“I would rather have no reception than a mast nearby.”)
28. Seek improvements to the reliability of refuse collections and the inclusion of recycling facilities for cardboard, plastic and green waste.
Generally supportive comments with suggestions for “a recycling facility in the village” and “a green waste collection facility.”
29. Promote the provision of evening bus services, particularly on Fridays and Saturdays.
General support but also questions about viability.
30. Raise community awareness of the concerns regarding dog fouling and promote the provision of more dog waste bins.
General support but some have no concern (“not a problem in our area”) others are incensed by the problems they encounter (“Dog licences of £100 would help”, ”name and shame the offenders”). Several did not see bins as the answer.