nedsram wrote:..............Note the provision for a road leading to a possible second phase towards Lower Park Road.
I queried the construction of the wide access road into the field owned by P.E Jones on the South side of the bridge on Woodford Road.
I was referred to the following document.http://www.semmms.info/wp-content/uploa ... 7.64Mb.pdf
To make it easier Page 104 items 6.137 to 6.154 refer and parts of couple of items are below with item 6.140 being of interest
6.137 .................. relates to land which would be retained as Kingsley land to the south of the A6MARR. Mr Kingsley states that this land is accessed from an existing 7.3m (24 ft) wide gateway on Woodford Road to the west, which he improved some years ago and has used without interference for over 20 years[4.45]. However, this access does not open directly onto Kingsley land, but onto a sliver of land owned by P E Jones.
Notwithstanding Mr Kingsley's assertions, he could not present any firm written evidence to the Inquiry to verify his claim that he has rights over the P E Jones' land to use this access[5.51J.That is a gateway into a field not a roadway.
6.139 ............. although it would require a small amount of work outside the CPO limits, to construct a ramp down to ground level, I understand that Mr Kingsley has provided confirmation and permission for SMBC to undertake such works-'.Referring to item 6.137....So Mr Kingsley has authorised SMBC to construct a road on land owned by P.E. Jones in Cheshire East Green Belt and SMBC agreed and paid for it.
6.140 ............................I understand that as a longer-term aim Mr Kingsley seeks to keep open the option of a residential standard road being constructed between Glastonbury Drive to the east and Woodford Road to the west, to serve possible future
housing development [4.45-4.46, 5.51], although any such road would have to cross
land not in Kingsley ownership.That would be development to the south of the current Hazelbadge development
6.154 In view of my overall conclusions regarding Mr Kingsley's objections, I am not persuaded that confirmation of the CPO would deprive him of existing rights without adequate compensation for loss or diminution of those rights. I consider there would be significant public benefit arising from construction of the A6MARR[3.51, 5.1811, and because of this I conclude that any interference with Mr Kingsley's Human Rights would be both justified and proportionate.So the Inspector concluded that there was no reason for this road to be constructed and yet SMBC went ahead.
I know Poynton Council are aware of this matter and are pursuing it.