Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Post comments on local Poynton issues or reply to others.

Moderators: tarboat, knighs, nedsram

HigherPoynton
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:09 am

Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby HigherPoynton » Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:27 am

Our old neighbour sadly passed away recently, Alec had been a lively character and spent most of his early years in the house that we now own on Shrigley Road north

He rarely had visitors other other neighbours and some locals who helped the upkeep of his garden

His bungalow is now being sold by Bridgfords as sealed bid, it has a very large garden and the agents are telling prospective bidders that the land has outline planning permission, after contacting the council it does not

Our house is opposite Alec's garden and for years people have stopped to admire the views over the Cheshire plains as the sun sets directly over the back of it, people regularly stop and photograph the views, there are a number of large trees in the garden and you can watch the bats gliding around feeding on insects hovering around the hedge

The tender is supposed to have a closing date some time next week and as far as we can see it totally misleading

We have contacted David Rutley MP, the planning department and local councillors NONE of whom have provided much help yet, all we have from the planning department is a response saying that they hope to be back to us soon - pathetic

The garden in question is on Shrigley Road North, the road coming back from the Boars Head pub, St Martins Church and the canal

All of the neighbours are trying to find some help, our big concern is that if somebody puts a bid in under the impression that planning approval has been granted, I am sure they would threaten legal action should they win the bid then find that the council declined planning approval. For a cash strapped council they would surely not defend their position too vigorously due to costs

This proposal is nothing more than GREED, this could be a lovely family home with loads of room for children to play or a keen gardener to develop a fantastic garden. It is not an area for affordable homes for first time buyers the proposal is for three storey town houses which will obliterate the views

If you are able to circulate this information, if you have ever stopped just to take in the views, put a child on your shoulders to show them the horses and sheep in the fields please tell as many people as possible, this is shear GREED, it is GREED of the family who all but ignored Alec during his living years, GREED by the council, GREED by Bridgfords and GREED by potential developers - YOUR green belt being swallowed up by the GREED of everyone concerned

It took my neighbours and us seven years and literally thousands of pounds of damaged vehicles to get yellow lines on the road outside to stop people double parking, the heavy vehicles needed to develop this site would cause years of chaos on a small country lane, it would destroy the hedges and habitat of the bats and birds and nobody is paying any attention or responding to our concerns, Mr Rutley's secretary has promised to get some information to him promptly

If you care about the Cheshire GREEN BELT please contact the council, your MP and every other group or people that could help prevent the Cheshire GREED BELT
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

WigleyWoggled
Posts: 1564
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:53 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby WigleyWoggled » Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:05 am

Yes the views are nice as are any views showing open countryside, but in my view this is a commercial decision by the owners to sell what they have. The garden area is huge for one house.
Green belt? Where is the open field belt? It is someone's garden on a residential road, hardly reflects what I would interpret green belt to mean.
Shrigley Road North is a residential road and should not be classed as Green Belt just because someone's view is spoilt. In fact, properties run all along that area from Shrigley Red South, North and along Green Lane. If it is Green Belt then there should be no houses.

I agree that land should not be sold claiming planning permission has been given if it hasn't.

AnotherWhingerLike_U
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:17 pm

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby AnotherWhingerLike_U » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:47 am

WigleyWoggled wrote:... If it is Green Belt then there should be no houses.
I agree that land should not be sold claiming planning permission has been given if it hasn't.

There was a comparable application 98/2043P for outline planning dated 1998. Refused by the council on green belt policy. So same should apply
No one would have a case against the council. Not their problem.
Anyone who parted with £750,000 on the hearsay of an estate agent would need their head examining. :mrgreen:

Angel36
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:14 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby Angel36 » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:40 pm

Of course if those bats you mention roost in the house or garden they would be protected and expensive to move...

POYNTONIAN 1
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:55 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby POYNTONIAN 1 » Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:15 pm

Angel36 wrote:Of course if those bats you mention roost in the house or garden they would be protected and expensive to move...


No they wouldn't, had bats in roof where building an extension, RSPA not interested just asked for gable end to be left open so they would move on. OP you have no right under planning to 'a view' only right of light.

WigleyWoggled
Posts: 1564
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:53 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby WigleyWoggled » Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:00 pm

It seems to me that Green Belt policy seems to be an arbitrary thing. If Green Belt then how did the houses get built in the first place? Or did Council officials come along after they were built and pick on bits of garden making them Green Belt? :roll:
Under present planning intentions it may well be that a relaxation of rules to help fill in odd bits of land will occur to help satisfy the housing demand. Sooner or later Higher Poynton might have to accept their fair share.

The bats will no doubt emigrate and find another roost. They may find a roost better than the one they have and say we should have moved years ago!! ;)

If a view is the main criterion then it would have been better to have a house on the same side as the one being sold. :idea:

Its the way of life isn't it. Family inherits and strives to make the most money out of the plot for sale no doubt to be distributed to several children, grandchildren, great grand children and cat charities. So greed might not come into it.

Angel36
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:14 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby Angel36 » Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:22 pm

It is the destruction of a bat roost that is illegal. In the example given it was not destroyed and access was be protected.

NB right to light is a fallacy apparently - though you might get some sympathy from planning if you can prove a long and recent history of having a particular light source. We had tall trees in the garden of a neighbour blocking light to our garden and house in an obviously inappropriate way. We had no right to the light they blocked.

POYNTONIAN 1
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:55 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby POYNTONIAN 1 » Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:27 am

Angel36 wrote:It is the destruction of a bat roost that is illegal. In the example given it was not destroyed and access was be protected.

NB right to light is a fallacy apparently - though you might get some sympathy from planning if you can prove a long and recent history of having a particular light source. We had tall trees in the garden of a neighbour blocking light to our garden and house in an obviously inappropriate way. We had no right to the light they blocked.


It was destroyed, a loft room was constructed! Right of light is not a fallacy it is one of the considerations taken into account when planning officer considers case. Trees are not a planning matter unless their roots would effect the foundations of the extension to be constructed. The bats are not roosting in Alec's bungalow, they were in a building that has already been demolished!!!!!

zzippy
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:27 pm
Location: The rough end of Poynton

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby zzippy » Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:32 pm

In other news homeowner bought house but neglected to buy view ?

POYNTONIAN 1
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:55 am

Re: Higher Poynton Cheshire GREED BELT

Postby POYNTONIAN 1 » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:33 am

zzippy wrote:In other news homeowner bought house but neglected to buy view ?


????????????


Return to “Poynton Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LadySue and 2 guests