' ..... It is my understanding that the Waitrose development will produce an additional 30 (?) car spaces and, as part of the planning consent, Waitrose are required to maintain the car park as well as provide the re-cycling facilities. In a July 09 Planning Committee meeting of the Town Council it was noted that Waitrose wanted to put the cabling for ticket dispensers in place during the refurbishment of the car park. Most people agreed that this was sensible and prudent step, given the possibility – but not the certainty - of charges being imposed. It will cost considerably more to retrofit such utilities and would cause further disruption.'
Am I the only Poynton resident to have noticed, or believe, that the Contractor for Kimberley Developments' Waitrose project on the Civic Hall car park, appears to have (not unreasonably), misread the Approved Plans, and that as things stand, we are likely to end up with only up to 10 (TEN) out of the intended 27 NEW spaces agreed.
Due to space limitations within this forum, I have set out my observations within a separate website (see link):-
http://smithpg.website.orange.co.uk/
If, like me you believe that it is IMPERATIVE that we do not LOSE FOREVER those missing spaces on an already oversubscribed car park catering for Civic Hall / Library / Surgery / Methodist Church / Old Peoples Home, and now Waitrose supermarket; then we MUST ensure that the Development is completed in accordance with Agreed Plans.
Any Councillor who can demonstrate bringing pressure to bear to try to persuade the Developer to have a rethink with regard to the 'Story So Far', and REINSTATE the spirit and intent of ALL of those 27 spaces (MAYBE WITHOUT PLANTING THE OFFENDING TREES ? that probably caused the mis-reading of the plans in the first place) ..... would get my vote.
Perhaps the Developer will realise that if a charge on the car park is possible in the future, as predicted by many, then those 'extra' spaces will very quickly pay for themselves. They could then 'just do it', without any Building Inspectors etc getting involved.
However I am not holding my breath that this will happen without further pressure by weight of numbers asking for this to happen.
I would therefore hope that many more residents of Poynton will, on reading this, then petition the Planning Office that the development in Application 08/0315P has not been completed in accordance with Agreed Plans in this respect.
I look forward to further comment as a result of my observations .....
