The Chesterfield was a banqueting Suite/restaurant for want of a better description on Prescot Road in Melling, near to the junction with Cunscough Lane. The building was originally a school (St. Mary’s RC Primary School which closed in the 1970’s?) and the banqueting suite/restaurant itself closed around 2000?
The site has now been redeveloped as a large house and here’s a couple of photos of it with an appropriate plaque/datestone reflecting back to what used to be on the site.
The building as it was until the recent redevelopment – Photo Credit Rightmove
From talking to a Melling resident who lives nearby I think I have pieced together the rough history of this site. There seems to have been a link between the former school with St. Mary’s RC Church (of which more in a subsequent posting) just over the civil parish border and further along Prescot Road into Aughton. Also, the old school and indeed the restaurant/banqueting building was used as a polling station in elections until a few years ago.
But that about exhausts all the information that is readily available, unless of course anyone out there can fill in the gaps. Comments, additions and corrections gratefully received.
With thanks to Alan Thompson for his help with this posting
The BBC has some innovative youth solutions on its web site – see link above
I have not been one to watch the demise of local youth facilities without saying that we are headed in very much the wrong direction and that there are and will continue be negative consequences for the wider community and the young people left wandering on our streets.
The closure of Maghull’s innovative Youth Coffee Bar set up by local youngsters for local youngsters comes to mind. On the positive side though volunteers are working to set up a new youth facility which will soon operate from within Lydiate Village Centre.
But this a is not another rant about the the failed political processes in Maghull/Lydiate that have led to the demise of publicly funded youth facilities, its a call to say hey look at what the Icelandic nation is doing and could we not do something similar?
The alternative i.e. to continue to let our young people wander the streets getting into trouble and keeping our over-stretched police force busy is hardly offering them a happy, healthy and positive future now is it?
Well the first thing to say is that it will most certainly not set all Lydiate resident’s hearts a flutter. A worthy if unexciting plan is about the best I can say based on the drafts I have seen to date.
And that’s not to belittle the work of Lydiate Parish Council and those who have helped pull the emerging plan together (including myself I might add), it’s just that the world will continue to turn pretty much the way it has done with or without Lydiate’s Neighbourhood Plan.
As I have said many times a neighbourhood plan can’t lead to less Green Belt being grabbed or less high grade agricultural land being built upon. This is because Sefton Council’s Local Plan has already set such in stone and neighbourhood plans can’t change that unless they are proposing a greater loss of Green Belt, more housing etc. Once Sefton Council decided to allow building on what is presently farmed land, Green Belt etc. the dye was cast.
Yes I know some folks said and some even believed that if community ‘X’ had a neighbourhood plan that the amount of housing to be built could be reduced and that some if not all of the threatened Green Belt could be saved. Sadly, this was at best either highly unrealistic expectations or deliberate misinformation.
But there is one small but clear advantage to a Parish Council in Sefton Borough (or anywhere else) in putting together a Neighbourhood Plan. That advantage, to the parish councils, is that when Sefton Council finally adopts the new way of leveraging out community benefits from property developers (Community Infrastructure Levy or CIL) parish councils who have a neighbourhood plan will have more say in how it is spent than under the present Section 106 system. Under CIL a parish council gets to say how 25% of the money (extracted from a developer) is spent as opposed to 15% where there is no neighbourhood plan in place.
Typically such S106/CIL money is used to improve roads, develop local infrastructure, plant trees etc. in the area close to the development.
Now the big question. Why is Sefton Council dragging its feet over the adoption the new Community Infrastructure Levy process? They have certainly been considering it for a very long time now. I hear that some planning authorities have decided not to adopt CIL and to stick with S106, if Sefton does that the last worthwhile reason to have a neighbourhood plan is out of the window. Time will tell……
Mark Pack has the story on his web site – see link above
This reminds me of a couple of incidents when I have been insulted on the doorstep whilst canvassing.
The best one was when a chap came out of a house and down his path to insult a group of canvassers. He made his point and then said ‘just wait until I see that Tony Robertson I’ll tell him a thing or two as well’. I was stood right in front of him at this point and he clearly did not realise this. He must have heard us laughing as he returned to his house wondering what had amused us.
Another one was a chap who opened his door and went utterly off his head shouting and carrying on. His performance brought out the neighbours it was so loud and abusive. I just stood there until he ran out of steam and said ‘you are a a rude ignorant man and should be ashamed of yourself’. He looked around realised the whole street was watching him and slunk back into his house.
Those stories could make it sound like abuse from electors is regular, in fact it is not at least not on the doorstep; most folks are really pleasant no matter what their political views are. The problem is the internet. Yes I get abusive responses to my blog postings on the odd occasion, often from people with seemingly false names and e-mail addresses. Frankly, I just ignore and delete them.
Would I take away a person’s vote because they are ill-mannered and abusive? No of course not, except in cases where harm was being threatened to an individual as there’s no excuse for that under any circumstances.
By the way I can’t recall being insulted on the doorstep by a woman. The nearest to it came when a woman said to me she could not vote for me as I had closed her child’s school some years previously. In fact I had campaigned to keep it open and had been at that school as a child myself! But she would not have it and clearly thought I was making up the claim to have tried to save the school from closing. Now that encounter really did hurt even though it was not abusive.
The BBC web site has the story – see link above
This is an interesting read in many ways and it makes you wonder why our UK education standards are generally so low when other western societies, like Canada, seem to have cracked it.
Could it be that our centralised control model (one size fits all) just does not work and that Canada via its far more decentralised processes finds ways to make education work for virtually all its young people?
I have been trying to get to the bottom of what Labour generally and Jeremy Corbyn and Angela Rayner MP in particular have been saying about this controversial matter.
Let’s kill one piece of fake news first – Labour brought in Tuition Fees when in government, end of. No they weren’t brought in by Nick Clegg, he just made an almighty mess of pledging to fight them before doing his spectacular U-turn and in effect reversing that pledge.
So ownership of Tuition Fees belongs to Labour but both Tories and Lib Dems in Government have backed them.
Of course the big news of this June’s General Election was that Labour had decided that their flagship policy to bring in Tuition Fees had been wrong and that they would be abolishing them if the electorate gave them a majority. That pledge went down very well indeed with young voters who flocked behind the Labour banner in the ballot box but not in sufficient numbers to give Labour a majority, indeed Labour were nowhere near a majority.
But what’s been going on since then is interesting as Labour spokespeople seem to have been trying to build on their success of attracting young voters by suggesting, saying and promoting the righting off of student debts. Clearly that talk has given the impression (intended or otherwise) that already held student debts (going back to when Labour introduced Tuition Fees?) would be written off.
And that of course begs the question of what would then happen about the Tuition Fees that have already been paid off? Would it lead to the students who have paid off their debt getting a refund? The logical end of this policy process is that yes they should and obviously folks are drawing that conclusion.
Clearly Labour has by loose talk put itself in a position where there are great expectations over Tuition Fees being abolished, debts being written off and already repaid debt being refunded. Oh how a political party can talk itself into a a hugely significant and expensive policy stance!
But what seems to be going on now is that Labour are trying to talk the expectations down (backing off the pledges?) and saying they had not promised this that or the other.
Have Labour learned nothing from Clegg’s U-turn and how young people took against him?