Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Post comments on local Poynton issues or reply to others.

Moderators: tarboat, knighs, nedsram

POYNTONIAN 1
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:55 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby POYNTONIAN 1 » Thu May 18, 2017 9:25 pm

nedsram wrote:Just to clarify, that's the one on Coppice Road not the one on Springbank Lane.

No that's Frank's original app from 10yrs ago that's been superseded by the current development at Springbank Farm on Coppice Rd.
Now there's an app for the old shop opp Alec's 17/2497M that'll get the complaints flooding in!!

AnotherWhingerLike_U
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:17 pm

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby AnotherWhingerLike_U » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:46 pm

POYNTONIAN 1 wrote:... 17/2497M that'll get the complaints flooding in!!

Yep! The “Rural Cramming” fly sheets are in abundance. 8-)
A subway or sky walkway between the two developments would have finished it all off quite nicely. :D

1234
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:26 pm

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby 1234 » Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:34 am

Refering to the title what has greed got to do with it?

Judging by the posters which I saw on the Middlewood Way on Friday about the latest application on Shrigley Road North there appears to be one main reason why many residents of Higher Poynton don't want development - because they live there!

Several of the reasons given why readers should object to the application really was clutching at straws, with the realities skewed to support their own agenda, I assume in the hope that people would object to the application without taking the time to understand the details.

Have residents of the area ever stopped to think what the area was like before the house that they live in was built? Or the housing requirements of the UK in this day and age? I assume it's fine if it doesn't affect them and they don't care because they have their house. There seems to be an irrational anger and opposition against everything- which to me reduces validity of their never-ending objections to every proposal. Have any of these perpetual complainers ever left a positive comment regarding a planning application- I guess not!

Several of the proposals for infill and brownfield development on Shrigley Road North seem eminently sensible compared to development of virgin green belt land, or the re-drawing of greenbelt boundaries which has been allowed on several occasions in recent years by Cheshire East.

People like to complain but ask the average Poynton resident and I doubt many would be against the proposals.

AndrewJ
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby AndrewJ » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:47 pm

I don't live anywhere near there, and can't find the proposal, but I don't see why people shouldn't object if they want to.

Nowadays most people have chosen to live in an area, and haven't grown up there. So if the character of the area changes it is a bit annoying to say the least, as either you have to suck it up and just live with something that might well negatively affect you, or make the considerable effort to find and move somewhere else again. Not in itself a reason to stop development, but if someone built a house in my neighbour's garden I'd be pretty peeved too. How a place was 50 or 100 years ago is irrelevent, it is how it is now that is important and everyone who lives in an area should be allowed to have an opinion on how it will change, rather than just suffering from the whims of landowners like in the past.

As for reasons why Higher Poynton is not a good place to build - well the primary reason would be physical and social infrastructure I imagine. The roads and utilities will be pretty small scale, and so intensive residential development could cause issues in the immediate location of the houses. Loss of gardens or fields might cause issues with the 'green corridor' through to The Coppice too. Also, you can bet the houses will be 'family' houses, in an area with very few facilities for children (not even a local primary school!). As far as I am aware there is not a GP surgery, shop or dentist. Everything becomes a car journey away as public or active transport options are limited. It may be brownfield or infill but it is not really a sustainable location without considerable investment. I doubt it is cheap or social housing, so it offers little for young people growing up in the area who want to still live there.

Yes, people have to live somewhere, but the trouble is private developers are building the wrong types of houses in the wrong places. The people who need houses the most are not going to benefit from building expensive houses in Higher Poynton, and neither are the local community. The only people who will benefit will be the landowner and developer. The best places in this area to build (taking into account everything) are Woodford Aerodrome and Sprink Farm, both of which are either being built on or have proposals. The main problem - it is the wrong kind of house being built! Also, if developers concentrated on making rundown places better places to live then people wouldn't want to leave them and create demand for new houses in 'nicer' areas in the first place.

1234
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:26 pm

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby 1234 » Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:30 pm

While I agree with some of your points I don't think many apply in this case and services / infrastructure is not a material planning consideration. It is the council's / utilities responsibility to provide services.

What I find worse is developments of hundreds of homes on the outskirts of a village, with not so much as one shop being built and no community being constructed- that's one of many reasons infill and redevlopent of sites is important.

http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/app ... rt=&from=m

AndrewJ
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby AndrewJ » Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:52 pm

Much as I dislike the Woodford development for many reasons, one thing going for it is size. This makes it possible for the developer to be able to add in things such as a school, pub, shops, playground(s), cycle track, lots of green space etc. Sprink Farm should have included a shop in my opinion, but at least they are adding a playground and (I think - I may have dreamt it) donating some money for school expansion.

In a sense, building small scale infill in relatively remote places like Higher Poynton is less sustainable, because there is no way the developer can meet the infrastructure costs, and no way the council could justify meeting it itself. It is basically the same problem - more houses in a places without any amenities (public or private). The council and utilities are responsible for services, so it is in their own interests to only allow development where there is either already good coverage, or where they will get enough money from the developer to be able to expand those services. How many houses can Higher Poynton sustain before having to put in new sewers, electric, gas, roads? If it is only a few dozen it is unlikely to cover costs, and so that means the rest of us have to pay for something that benefits only a few people - nice for them but there are more efficient ways for the council to get the same or more benefit.

POYNTONIAN 1
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:55 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby POYNTONIAN 1 » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:10 pm

Andrew the developer at Sprink Farm isn't meeting the infrastructure upgrade costs!! The sewers down Dickens La have been over capacity since Fleetbank development in the mid 70's, the xtra there will make the problem even worse

1234
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:26 pm

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby 1234 » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:20 pm

POYNTONIAN 1 wrote:Andrew the developer at Sprink Farm isn't meeting the infrastructure upgrade costs!! The sewers down Dickens La have been over capacity since Fleetbank development in the mid 70's, the xtra there will make the problem even worse


Everybody meets infrastructure upgrade costs through council tax and utility bills. New houses can't be blamed for existing problem. A new house owner would pay council tax so will contribute to maintenance which would have had to be undertaken anyway.

And in reference to planning the issue is not considered a material issue so holds no weight in the decision making process anyway.

POYNTONIAN 1
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:55 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby POYNTONIAN 1 » Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:07 pm

The problem is the long needed upgrade will not & cannot happen!!!

AndrewJ
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby AndrewJ » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:50 pm

1234 wrote:
Everybody meets infrastructure upgrade costs through council tax and utility bills. New houses can't be blamed for existing problem. A new house owner would pay council tax so will contribute to maintenance which would have had to be undertaken anyway.

And in reference to planning the issue is not considered a material issue so holds no weight in the decision making process anyway.


It is not considered - but it should be! The small amount of council tax and utility bills generated by these houses will not cover the infrastructure costs if major upgrades are required, but the council is supposed to do it anyway, even if they'll never make their money back in any realistic timescale. And yet the developers make millions.

As an example, the Poynton Relief Road is built and funded by the council to facilitate development. It will cost about £30 million (20,000 average council taxes) and probably about £150k per year (100+ average council taxes) on average to maintain properly. Obviously only a small part of your council tax goes on roads - in Cheshire East about 5%. We all know it is not enough, but even if it is was it will still take the road budget for at least 2000 homes every year just to maintain it - that one small road. Obviously that ignores the initial build costs, which are 3 times the entire annual Cheshire East road budget. Councils are not allowed to put up tax so you'll need at least 2000 new houses to cover the cost of maintenance - probably a lot more. We are only getting 650 houses in Poynton. Most people would think that is far too many, but it won't cover even 2-miles of A-road. Which is why our roads are crumbling.

The same applies to all the services and utilities. It will be more expensive to supply ambulance services to rural areas for instance - so the last thing a stretched NHS needs is more houses in hard-to-reach areas.

If the developers were forced to make a proper contribution for the costs then they'd be less keen to build in remote places, and more keen to redevelop existing places. They just have the cost of a field or garden, the rest of us have generations of costs to clear up after them.


Return to “Poynton Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests