Monday, 8 December 2008

A RESPONSE FROM COMMERCIAL GROUP PROPERTIES

I suspect that phones have been ringing all morning down at CGP's offices down at Pysons Road Industrial Estate over a small piece of fencing on the B2190 at Manston.

This is the latest from CGP:

"We are simply following good practise by establishing the correct boundary. No one had written in or contacted us to request permission to park in the entrance to the gate or on the verge. We are merely establishing the boundary correctly since our purchase in 2007. The original fencing line was established by a previous tenant who was keeping livestock in the field adjacent to Pouces Cottages. This fence was originally constructed to keep live-stock safe and not to demonstrate the boundary of the land. With the agricultural tenancy coming to an end, CGP felt it important to erect a fence reflecting our ownership. We will be re-fencing the whole boundary line in due course with appropriate fencing material and not with barbed wire."

They are entitled to do so, as the new land-owners (this is the land earmarked for Phase 3 of China Gateway). Well its good to hear that safer fencing is going up! Pouces Cottages residents are not happy, understandably, and will need to advise visitors carefully about parking on this dangerous stretch of road but the owner's rights are the owner's rights.

I have reliable information that the original fencing contractor has been sent a cheque at the week-end by the previous tenants so we should not be seeing an angry man in a field rolling up his fencing and stakes. That said, he put in a jolly good fence along the road and it does seem an expensive and unnecessary job to put in a new fence; obviously CGP are not as 'cash-strapped' as some of us have thought!

9 comments:

Michael Child said...

Bertie I believe that if the public have been using an unfenced piece of land, after a period of time the title of that land becomes disputable.

Anonymous said...

Looking at the lower photo of yours Bertie, are CGP not obstructing a footway here by putting their fence along the middle of the pavement? It does seem very petty to me. I wonder if the permanent fence they are talking about will go in the same place?

Bertie Biggles said...

Michael, I think this issue is one of encroachment on to the verge. The law has been tightened up concerning applying for title by squatting/using/maintaining land for a period of 20 years but a Village Green application in the middle of CGPs proposed Gateway in Westwood Park, Wigan may have made them sensitive! If the plan was to fence the whole verge as now stated, it does beg the queation, why do this little bit last Friday?

17.52, although it has the appearance of a footway, it is simply erosion by regular parking off the road for some years now by residents and visitors to Pouces Cottages. Because of the nature of this road, I believe parking on the carriageway is not permitted.

Bertie Biggles said...

Cllr Chris Wells has been involved in discussing issues raised with him by Thanet residents and he has kindly sent me this Press Release on his take of the situation.

Press Statement 8 December 2008

I have, like many other Councillors I suspect, received a number of emails and telephone calls regarding CGP’s fencing of part of the verge near Pouce’s Cottages.

Whilst I have no direct electoral responsibility for the Manston area, having taken a high profile stance against the planning application for the China Gateway, many come straight to me with related issues.

I contacted Rob Prince of CGP early this morning, and met with him late morning. I understand the fencing will go along the whole verge, not just this area; the inner fence will be removed; barbed wire will be replaced; and CGP are willing to consider any request from the residents to continue parking there, subject to an agreement that this is a short term concession giving no rights.

I found Mr Prince to be approachable, open, and willing to both explain his position and listen to others points of view. The comments circulating concerning fresh planning applications in the New Year are denied. I have good reason to believe that both Mr Prince and his Directors understand that any planning application for phases 2 and 3 will only be considered once Phase 1 is proven to be working, providing local jobs and economic benefit. This will certainly not be the case early in the New Year!

It does not seem to me this is the sinister move that is being painted by local conspiracy theorists, though that position may be convenient to advertise the forthcoming meeting later in the week!

The planning application for Phase 1 is complete, and it is important not to fight imaginary battles when there may be real ones to come.

Chris Wells

Anonymous said...

You'd think that with 12 kids and hardly any income Cllr.Wells would be grateful for a few new jobs in the offing.

Bertie Biggles said...

21.44, I have let your comment stand although I feel that it is irrelevant and verging on the unpleasant. You and I are unaware of Cllr Wells' present circumstances and quite frankly, it is none of our business. He has however, represented Thanet residents who have brought a matter to his attention as a TDC and KCC Councillor and has bothered to look into the matters drawn to his attention. This is highly commendable even if I personally disagree with his inference about 'conspiracy theories'.

Matt B said...

I was about to say that I think usage and dispute might come into play but the ever quick witted Michael has beaten me to it.

21:44, Cllr Wells has two things going for him. He pays attention to the people and he even goes so far as to act too. He might have politics I can't agree with or that upset you but he is one of the best in that he does his job unlike many others. I'd urge you to pick other more "deserving" targets like the "leader" Captain BooHissBoo.

LegalEagle said...

Section 164 Highways Act 1980, says that where, on land adjoining a highway, there is a fence made with barbed wire in or on it and the wire is a nuisance to the highway, a notice may be issued by the Local Authority for the nuisance to be removed.

Being a nuisance means that it is likely to cause injury to people or animals using the highway.

In practice, most Local Authority Highways Departments usually consider that barbed wire lower than eight feet from the ground could be a nuisance to highway users.

Anonymous said...

TDC made allotment holders remove barbed wire at Dane Valley as it was not 8 feet high.