Category Archives: A.O.N.B.


At SMDC planning Committee on 26th. February 2015 WAG successfully fought off an attempt to build a solar farm as part of Laver Leisure plans to develop a Leisure Park at Moneystone Quarry.
The fight is not yet over but this was a major achievement.  The fight continues.
Our thanks to all those who supported us.  Keep on doing so. Together we can protect the beautiful Churnet Valley.

Residents demanding protection for the Churnet Valley
Residents demanding protection for the Churnet Valley

Massive Support on the Whiston to Oakamoor Walk

"a slow march of defiance down to Oakamoor Village Hall"
“a slow march of defiance down to Oakamoor Village”

A large number of residents turned out last Saturday, and braved the treacherous roads to make a strong statement to the decision makers of the Staffordshire Moorlands.

We congregated at 9.45am at Whiston Village Hall, and then proceeded in a slow march of defiance down to Oakamoor Village Hall for refreshments and a chat about future plans. The consensus was that we must make both councillors and planning officers alike recognise the absurdity of Laver Leisure’s plans to ruin our beautiful valley.
 There are so many reasons to dismiss this fatuous application, the main ones being a wholly inadequate road network, an extremely dangerous junction with the A52, and the danger presented to both residents and visitors tackling Carr Bank into Oakamoor village.
 Also there is an existing restoration plan in place with Staffordshire County Council that should have been completed in March 2014, but is nowhere near complete. This restoration should be completed to the satisfaction of SCC before any afteruse for the site is considered.
The fact that up to 100 of the 250 lodges proposed could be sold to private owners means that we could have a community living up in Moneystone twice as large as that of Whiston. Whilst SMDC will deny that people can live there permanently, how do they propose to police it? And we simply do not have the infrastructure to cope with that influx of people.
Both groups would like to express their thanks to all who made the effort to attend, and also to thank the Police for ensuring our protest was made in a safe and responsible manner. 




It is clear from the structure of the application and from earlier evidence provided by Officers of the Applicants that it is intended that this application is not a free- standing application but a part of a future wider scheme that the Applicants intend to make to develop Moneystone Quarry as a tourist leisure park. The representations made below and any decisions or recommendations reached by Planning Officers and/or the Planning Committee of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council should be viewed against that wider context.

In so far as the extant application does not set out the detail of that larger application it is submitted that it will be impossible for application SMD/2014/0682 to demonstrate compliance with the detailed provisions of the Authorities Core Strategy Policies and the contents and principles embodied in the Churnet Valley Master Plan [CVMP].  Neither does it demonstrate compliance with the principles of The Aarhus Convention Treaty so far as it relates to the Environment and/or Health, nor to the NPPF and the principles of the Localism Act 2011.

In the representations made below it should be noted that where appropriate they quote the CVMP and as applicable identify the relevant paragraphing. Emphasis has been added as appropriate.


1. The failures referred to below affects the human rights of those entitled to make representations and protect their rights under the Human Rights Act to a family life. The actions of the SMDC planning officers in entering into a prolonged and secret series of meetings with the applicants from approximately 2009 up to the present day and a refusal to disclose the details of those meetings amount to a denial of essential information that undermines the human rights of residents who would wish to make informed decisions about the present application and the linked application SMD/2014/0432.

It is noted that [quote] ‘A number of meetings with the Local Planning Authority [LPA] at varying levels have already taken place and these representations follow these discussions.’ [ HOW letter 22/01/2010 to Head of Regeneration Services SMDC]. The same letter states ‘We are aware that the Core Strategy for the Staffordshire Moorlands is now in an advanced stage and that a consultation exercise was undertaken on the Submission Version of the Core Strategy in May/June 2009. Whilst the Core Strategy is at an advanced stage, we are very keen for the Core Strategy to provide sufficient flexibility to enable the Moneystone Quarry site to come forward for future redevelopment without having to overcome significant policy boundaries which may be set by the Core Strategy.’ At page 2 of the letter it says ‘ The overall intention of the representations is…to promote Moneystone Quarry as a potential tourism and recreational hub…..‘ It is plain that Planning Officers ‘at varying levels’ have written the SMDC Core Strategy [and it is submitted the subsequent CVMP] in a manner that is both secret and intended to advocate the application[s] now made.  As such these actions fall outside of the principle role of planning officers, acting as public servants [see SMDC Constitution] to act in the best interests of the public they serve and not to advocate for the private commercial interests of an applicant in ways that the evidence demonstrates.  It is submitted that such actions demonstrate a clear intention to harm the human rights of residents.

2. The application is in breach of the provisions of the SMDC Core Strategy and the Churnet Valley Master Plan as set out more particularly herein.

3. The Application is governed, inter alia, by the provisions of the Aarhus Convention Treaty and its direct applicability in English Law under European Law, specifically in relation to any issues of the environment and/or health and is not so compliant.

4. The development site is part of the ‘rich and varied cultural heritage, the development of which has been greatly influenced by the diverse landscape and geology of the area’ and is part of ‘this unique rural historic character that has been mapped as part of the Staffordshire Historic Landscape Characterisation project 2006’ [see para 2.0.7 CVMP 2014]. As such it should be protected by the principles enshrined in the Core Strategy and the CVMP and not developed in the way proposed by this application. The site is also a ‘Special Landscape Area’ and when restored in accordance with the extant restoration plan will be a green field site. In 1996 the then quarry owners working with SCC Mineral Authority on a restoration scheme in a document entitled ‘The restoration vision’ promised residents that ‘ Our aim was to come up with an exciting plan which allowed progressive restoration of older working areas to blend them with the surrounding landscape and to create a variety of new habitats for plants and wildlife‘. We are looking at the possibility of a bat cave once the tunnel on site has become redundant’. The vision continued to stress that the site should not be ‘left with an alien landscape which would not be in keeping with the surrounding Staffordshire countryside.’ It is submitted that the current proposed development plans would produce just such an alien landscape. Residents are entitled to expect that they will get what they have been promised for very many years.

5. To grant the present application would be, or would inevitably result in, a breach of the Development and Management Principles set out in the provisions of paragraphs 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 of the CVMP more specifically set out herein.

Under a heading of ‘A Vision for the Churnet Valley’ at paragraph 4.1, SMDC     acknowledges the Churnet Valley [of which Moneystone is an integral part] [is] ‘high quality landscape which is treasured by both the communities who live and work in the area and visitors to it. It will sustain its unique qualities of a diverse and varied environment which is rich in wildlife, heritage, landscape and tourist attractions’ and ‘will be [and already is] widely recognised, locally,  regionally and nationally for its high quality landscape and its heritage and wildlife interest’.  On the basis that what is not broken should not be fixed it is submitted that to grant the current application would be in breach of the Authorities own policies and it’s commitment to protect the Churnet Valley.

 8.Para.2.1.1 CVMP [The] Weakness of promoting this development;

  •  ‘lack of physical linkages’
  • ‘reliance on the private motor car due to the rural nature of the area, limited capacity of the highway network which is of poor standard ………. congestion at peak times [especially at nearby Alton Towers] due to visitor traffic.’
  • ‘The rural nature of the area limits the opportunities for physical transport improvements and reduces the viability of new services.’
  • ‘Limited access by public transport’
  • ‘Topography and physical barriers can be [and are] restrictive to movement.’
  • Lack of maintenance of heritage assets.’
  • ‘Narrowness of [the] lanes.’
  • The application site is ‘not an existing coherent visitor destination.’
  • ‘Future development at Moneystone Quarry would cause loss of small scale landscape features further affecting the character of the local landscape.
  • There are ‘biodiversity sites in close proximity which could potentially be vulnerable to future change.’  This is particularly the case as evidence shows that the Applicants have proved poor ‘stewards’ of the site allowing the deterioration of the Whiston Eaves SSSI, neglected the hydrology of the site, failed to provide bat, bird and badger surveys, failed to meet the criteria required by Natural England with regard to the Great Crested Newts and the European sand lizards present on the site.
  • Planned and already extant expansion at Alton Towers Resort ‘may have an adverse impact’ on the road net work to and from the site and it is the stated ambition of the Applicants to link in to the Alton Towers Resort market.
  • ‘Environmental sensitivity such as the Whiston Eaves SSSI.’   It is noted here that the requirement to maintain the ground water levels at the SSSI [which is a condition attaching to the land restoration applicable to extant planning permissions] is not currently being honoured. [For fuller details see letter dated 3/10/14 from Matthew Griffin SCC Planning, Policy and Enforcement of the many failings and non-compliance.]
  • ‘Potential increased pressure on natural resources from [the] development.’
  •  ‘Sensitivity of [the] heritage asset of the Proposed development.’

 Identified Challenges Paragraph 5.1.6 CVMP

  • The CVMP notes in the evidence base to its CS and the CVMP that ‘there is little evidence of sustainable tourism being adopted [by the tourism industry].’ That being so the current application is unlikely to be ‘sustainable’ and as that is a requirement of the Localism Act 2011 and the N.P.P.F. there is no proper evidential basis upon which to grant this particular application. It should also be noted that the quoted comments are formally part and parcel of the SMDC’ CS and CVMP and must therefore be complied with.
  • The same documentation notes that ‘Selling sustainability to business [such as the Applicant] and consumers purely on environmental grounds has not worked.’
  • N.B. It should also be noted that the Aarhus Convention Treaty is binding in English Law on environmental and health issues and that the current application is non-compliant with its provisions.
  • ‘An alternative to car based tourism is a challenge.’ It should be noted that the Chief Executive of SMDC signed off on an official report that stated the Staffordshire Moorlands exceeded the national average of CO2 emissions. The current application is bound to add to an increase of such emissions being dependent as it is [and shown on the face of the application and further acknowledged by the Applicants limiting the current outline application to issues of access] on an increased use of the private motor car.

Paragraph 5.1.14 ETC. CVMP

  •  The CVMP is committed to theOverarching principle of sustaining and enhancing the natural, built and historic environmental quality of the area, its settlements and hinterland.’ If that is truly the case it will reject this application as being non-compliant with thatoverarching principle’.
  • How does the application demonstrate that it ensures that [the] communities of [Moneystone, Whiston and Oakamoor] are at the heart of the future of the CV,’ when those communities have expressed in the clearest possible terms that they reject the applicant’s proposals.  It demonstrates that the applicants have no intention of putting the views of those communities before their own narrow, selfish commercial interests.
  • How would granting the application demonstrate respect, enhance and protect [this] positive aspect of the CV?’  It does not do so.
  • The Special Landscape Area that is the application site once restored in accordance with the statutory restoration scheme is a ‘sustaining and enhancing existing assets of the CV and its ‘qualities help make the area unique.’   On the other hand the application seeks to destroy those assets and is therefore contrary to the policies of the CVMP and the CS.
  • The application does not ensure the nature and scale of development it proposes is appropriate to its locality.’ It is not and the policy goes on to state that ‘this means limited OR NO development is appropriate for this part of the CV.’
  • Granting this application would destroy and not support existing local enterprises’.  On the other hand, if granted this application wouldcause harm to the essential qualities of landscape, ecology [and] heritage.’

Paragraph 6.2.1

  • The CVMP contains the provision that its policy will only permit ‘minimal change…… protect sensitive areas.’ This application amounts to the planned destruction of a Special Landscape Area and its established sensitive areas. To grant the application would amount to a breach of ‘the KEY REQUIREMENT OF THE [CVMP] POLICY’ and as such it should be rejected.

Paragraph 6.2.1

  • The application does not demonstrate  ‘a strong emphasis on supporting [the existing] heritage.’ It should be rejected.

Paragraph 6.3.3

  •   The application shows that it has a ‘significant shortfall in terms of the environmental impact and in particular the impact on the need to travel and [the] potential to increase the use of the private car.’  As a result it does not meet the test of sustainable appraisal of options  that are part of the underpinning evidential base of the CS and the CVMP.

Paragraph 6.4.3.

  • To grant this application would not demonstrate that SMDC was acting in accordance with its own expressed policy  ‘to resist development which would be [and will be demonstrated to be] harm[ful] to the character of the local landscape.’  Residents are entitled to expect that SMDC will uphold this policy.

Paragraph 6.8.4 TRANSPORT

  •  ‘There is to be identification of key transport nodes from which to travel by more sustainable modes, with improvements where necessary to car parking. [N.B. This is a future requirement and it is noted that the area of Moneystone, Oakamoor, Whiston Frogall and Kingsley is to be the subject of a detailed and separate traffic survey that yet to be commenced but has already been agreed. Until it has been done and the findings are applied to the Transport Policy it would amount to a breach of residents human rights. They have been given an express commitment in the CVMP that this process will be undertaken.


  •   The CVMP provides that ‘it aims to conserve, enhance and celebrate the heritage of an area of high landscape value’.   To grant the current application would be a breach of that policy.


  •   ‘The sensitivity of the landscape, biodiversity, heritage and access issues are major factors and the key focus should be on conserving and enhancing the landscape and biodiversity of the area’.   The current application does not meet the provisions of this policy and should be rejected.

Paragraph 6.5. CONSTRAINTS

  • The CVMP policy is to ensure development does not generate unacceptable volumes of traffic on the existing road net work and that major highway works are avoided.’  This application would breach that policy.
  • The development is unacceptable to the vast majority of locals.’ [It is noted that over a period substantially in excess of one year the applicants have failed to engage with Staffordshire County Council Highways Department about concerns that the Highway Department have expressed about the applicants plans for the site so far as it relates to traffic congestion issues. This unwillingness has contributed to the view of locals that the application is ‘unacceptable’]
  • The application does notPromote the use of sustainable modes of transport to reach the site’.
  • The development is not ‘in-keeping with the scale and nature of the [existing] landscape character. Nor does it ensure that any future development is located in a way that does not impinge on the small scale landscape or the open visible landscape.’
  • The application is not as required by the CVMP low key’ and of a nature, character and style that is intrinsic to the character of the area. The area is of open farm and meadow land and it is noted that extant planning conditions attaching to adjacent land owned by the applicants require it to be restored to meadow land. The applicants are already substantially in breach of that requirement.
  • The application does not contain active conservation of the site to protect the SSSI’ and the applicants duty to meet the water table at the SSSI is not being met.

Paragraph 8.1

  • The application fails to meet the requirement that the protection and enhancement of the natural beauty of the CV IS THE OVER RIDING REQUIREMENT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT’
  • Further the application proposal and associated infrastructure measures are/will be ‘detrimental to the sensitive ecology and geology of the area.’ [ SCC Environmental Officer has already raised concerns about adjacent sensitive areas]
  • Cotton College is a ‘designated heritage asset’ and in accordance with SMDC policy it ‘shall be protected and maintained in a good state of repair.’  The current application is very likely to cause harm to parts of this heritage asset.  It should be rejected.
  • The application fails to meet [any] appropriate degree of evaluation and/or mitigation commensurate to the level of impact and significance of the heritage asset.’  The above referred to letter from SCC date 3/10/14 lists some but not all of the ways in which this application will damage the Special Landscape Area which is a heritage asset.

 Paragraph 8.3

  • The application is antipathetic to the CVMP aim to ‘develop healthy sustainable communities.’

 Paragraph 8.4

  • As the applicants have failed over a prolonged period to engage with SCC Highways officials over their plans the application does not meet the policy requirements that ‘aim to support and increase sustainable travel means.’ Instead the application seeks to exacerbate already difficult traffic conditions. If granted the application would give rise to excessive traffic that will harm the valued characteristics of [this part of] the CV.Neither does the application ‘seek to minimise the impact of traffic [in this] environmentally sensitive location.’

 Paragraph 9.0.9

  • The application fails to fit within the aims and aspirations of the Staffordshire Tourism Study [2011] [STS 2011] thatseeks to take a co-ordinated planning and sustainable development approach.’ The STS 2011 is an evidential base for the SMDC Core Strategy and the CVMP and as such forms an integral part of those policy documents. The application has to be viewed in the context of SMDC’ binding obligation given to an Independent Inspector to revisit the CS again by 2016. and against its already adopted policy of seeking AONB status, a process in which it is already actively engaged. The STS 2011 recognises that ‘AONB status would be an ideal way to view matters.’ To ignore that approach and to grant this application in contravention of the principle STS 2011 sets out would, it is submitted, be a breach of human rights and ultra vires of SMDC’ powers.
  • At a recent exhibition at Whiston Village Hall related to what was then the forthcoming application now SMD/2014/0682 to build a leisure complex at Moneystone Quarry, Mr. Peter Swallow, Director of the Applicant company, revealed that it is the intention of the Applicants to sell off a significant percentage [40% was mentioned] of the ‘lodges’ to private buyers. This amounts to the development of private dwellings in the Special Landscape Area and is contrary to the SMDC Core Strategy, the Churnet Valley Master Plan and the Strategic Housing Land Allocation [SHLAA] process.

Traffic Chaos

A request for support from members of the public concerned about  tourism related traffic congestion in the Staffordshire Moorlands.

Some of our councillors don’t appear to accept that existing levels of tourism generate considerable traffic issues at busy times in the Churnet Valley across a variety of routes and hot spot locations, including, Tittersworth, Rudyard, The Roches, Oakamoor and Alton.  For some time now Whiston Action Group has been gathering video and photographic evidence of existing traffic congestion throughout the Churnet Valley, showing that encouragement of further traffic pressure on our fragile road infrastructure is inappropriate.

WAG intends to expand and develop the evidence base of what increased tourism is already doing to our  roads in the Moorlands, and seeks the support of members of the public.   In this day and age of mobile camera technology it is easy to take a photo of any clogged roads you see whilst you are out and about.


Please keep a note of the date, time and venue of the photos and let WAG know so that the data can be collated. There will be no need to forward the pictures to WAG as long as you preserve your own copy in case it is needed later.

This is an ongoing project and applies throughout the Churnet Valley  for the next twelve months.  Your contribution can help WAG fight inappropriate council proposals that are likely to exacerbate an already unacceptable situation.



Whiston Action Group is staggered to see the inclusion of a proposed 250 holiday lodges on the former Moneystone Quarry site in the current draft Churnet Valley Masterplan. This has alarmed local residents who feel the small villages of Oakamoor and Whiston will be totally overwhelmed by thousands of visitors in a completely unsuitable location.

Planning officers, not councillors have come up with this number of lodges, which appears totally without evidential base and at odds with Councillor Sybil Ralphs dream of attaining AONB status for the Churnet Valley. Such large scale development is completely at odds with AONB designation, and may explain why Laver Leisure have demanded that SMDC delete its AONB aspirations!

Whiston Action Group’s Communication Officer, Nick Cresswell, said,

“250 lodges is ridiculous and makes a complete mockery of the AONB application. The Peak Park Planning Authority sets a maximum of 30 units per development, but SMDC planning officers consider the beautiful Churnet Valley to be so unimportant that they are prepared to propose a development more than 8 times this size. Officers have not contacted Staffordshire County Council Highways officers about this proposed development, yet there are huge safety risks involved in dealing with the volume of traffic this development would create, and Highways officers have advised us of the dangers of large volumes of traffic exiting Whiston Eaves Lane onto the A52. Entering the site from Oakamoor would be similarly hazardous.

During the consultation on the options for the Churnet Valley, residents gave a clear message that they wanted only minimal development. As is becoming the norm, the views of residents are being completely ignored, and council taxpayers are being treated with contempt. It begs the question “Why do SMDC have consultation at all?” In my view the process is not transparent and is a pro forma and a box ticking exercise that they carry out to meet statutory planning requirements, then if the answers do not suit the officers views and aspirations, are completely ignored”.

“The scale of the Moneystone development beggars belief. Our narrow country lanes can barely cope with the current level of traffic and this development could see as many as an extra 100,000 vehicle movements per year, which is simply not safe.”

“SMDC officers seem to have just plucked a number out of thin air, without any thought or regard for the safety of residents, or the impact it will have on our two villages.”

“Whiston Action Group urges SMDC councillors to seize back the initiative and demand a re-draft of this proposal so that the number of lodges reflects a genuine attempt to gain AONB status, and, for once, to reflect public opinion!”

What’s Happening at the moment – a brief summary

Moneystone Quarry
Several years ago, Staffordshire County Council (SCC ) put in place a requirement for the quarry owner to complete a comprehensive restoration plan to return the land to agricultural and wildlife use within two years of the quarry closing. That deadline has lapsed and WAG expects SCC to take enforcement action against the new owners, Laver Leisure, for failing to complete the restoration work on time.

Instead of doing the required restoration work, Laver Leisure has submitted an application to make major changes to the restoration plan without adequate justification. The changes would involve re-quarrying of huge quantities of spoil material from the back of the houses on Blakeley Lane and transporting it by lorry to the last quarried area to the south side of Whiston Eaves Lane. There have already been numerous public objections to Laver’s application, which is expected to be considered by the Staffordshire County Council Planning Committee on
Monday 07 November 2013. To view the application on the SCC website click on the following link:-

Draft Churnet Valley Masterplan
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (SMDC) is currently consulting the public on a Draft Churnet Valley Masterplan that will set out a framework for intended development of tourism in the Churnet Valley. There are concerns that SMDC has ignored the overwhelming public request for minimal development and included proposals for excessive development at numerous sites, including Moneystone Quarry and the highly contaminated site at the old Bolton’s Copperworks.

If you share WAG’s concerns regarding the excessive development that is proposed, you have until 11 November 2013 to make your representations to the Council in writing or by following the following link:-

Core Strategy – Planning Inspector’s Report
SMDC’s long term development plan for the whole of the Staffordshire Moorlands through to 2026, called the Core Strategy, was considered at a public hearing in February by an independent Planning Inspector. The Inspector found that numerous elements of the plan, including proposed tourism development, were “unsound” and required the Council to make changes. Proposed changes have been submitted by SMDC to the Inspector, but they do not reflect the public view. The Inspector is expected to make public his final report in the next few weeks.

The Churnet Valley Masterplan, referred to earlier, depends upon the Core Strategy being approved. WAG hopes the Inspector will dismiss the Core Strategy and insist on SMDC re-starting the process from scratch, this time with genuine public consultation. Want to know more? – please follow the link below:-

AONB Petition by Churnet Valley Conservation Society

WAG welcomes the following request from Karen Seaton of the Churnet Valley Conservation Society, seeking your support for a petition aimed at achieving        Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty status for the Churnet Valley.

 Karen Seaton CVCS Spokesperson says:

 “We are not so sure that people are aware that the Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Core Strategy was recently rejected by the Government Inspector, who found more than 70% of the points within it to be unsound. We feel that there is a very serious risk that, with the council floundering to complete their strategy documents, time may slip away and we will miss this important opportunity to protect and recognize the valley. We are asking people to contact Staffordshire Moorlands District Council and support us in two requests we have made to them:    

1. During the next public consultation phase for the Churnet Valley Master Plan include a simple question: Would you be in support of designating the area as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty?

2. Should it be apparent that the electorate of the area do wish to obtain this important designation for their area, that the District Council fully embraces the potential and opportunities AONB designation offers.

We are undertaking a four week long petition and contacting a range of people and organizations across the county asking that they support our call, and we are asking as many people as possible to contact their County, District, Town and Parish Councillors and ask them to pressurise Staffordshire Moorland District Council into action. “

 The Churnet Valley Conservation Society would be happy to discuss this further and I would be pleased if you could support or campaign for the designation of the Valley as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The petition is available across the area in shops, libraries, pubs etc. An on-line petition may also be found at

Or follow the link from

Whiston Action Group Public Open Meeting 7pm Fri 02 Nov 2012

Title: WAG Public Open Meeting 7pm Fri 02 Nov 2012.
Location: Whiston Village Hall
Description: Public open meeting to update residents on Council Plans for Housing Development Sites, and tourism development at Moneystone Quarry, Bolton’s Copper Works and the Churnet Valley. A slide show presentation followed by a question and answer session. Light refreshments provided. All welcome.
Start Time: 19:00:00
Date: 2012/11/02
End Time: 22:00:00

Wind Turbine Refusal helps protect the Churnet Valley

Whiston Action Group welcomes the District Council Planning Committee’s refusal of the application for a wind turbine at Blakeley Farm, Blakeley Lane, Moneystone.   WAG considers that if the application had been granted the turbine would have been a damaging intrusion into the Churnet Valley sky line and opened the door to further inappropriate development in the Valley.

Nick Cresswell, WAG communications officer, said,

 “The decision should send a firm message to other commercial interests having scant regard for communities and the environment, who seek to exploit the valley for profit.  We note that when considering the turbine application, the highway authority had serious reservations about the poor engineering standard of Blakeley Lane and its unsuitability for development traffic, a fact that may be relevant when considering other development proposals in the area.  The excessive tourist development put forward by Laver Leisure at Moneystone Quarry, with its  650 holiday lodges, has implications for Blakeley Lane and remains a serious threat to the valley.  Councillor Hart has resigned from the role of portfolio holder for regeneration on the District Council, and WAG hopes that there is now perhaps an opportunity for his replacement, Councillor Sybil Ralphs, to comply with the requirements of the new National Planning Policy Framework and implement what people in the Moorlands have said they want instead of what developers want.”

The public response to the Churnet Valley Masterplan Options Report strongly signalled opposition to anything other than minimal development, and showed widespread support for designation of the Churnet Valley as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  WAG considers AONB status would be a major step towards protecting the valley from large scale inappropriate development and one that all district councillors should be striving to achieve.”

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – The Churnet Valley. Letter to District Councillor Elsie Fallows remains unanswered

Councillor Elsie Fallows,

Eavesford Farm,


Staffordshire Moorlands,

ST10 2JF

15 Sep 2012

Dear Councillor Fallows,

 Churnet Valley – AONB Status

As you are aware Whiston Action Group (WAG) and the community  at large as demonstrated by responses to the Options Report has concerns over the proposals to develop the Churnet Valley under the Core Strategy and Churnet Valley Master Plan.

One of the key factors in protecting the peace and tranquillity of the Churnet Valley is the issue of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty status (AONB).  SMDC’s current failure to actively support an application for AONB status is contrary to the widespread community support and conflicts with the view of other official organisations ready to initiate an application.  SMDC is currently isolated, but has recently agreed to re-consider its position in the light of the concerns expressed by the public during the Options Report consultation.   WAG trusts that you recognise AONB status as a key issue requiring your personal attention as a district councillor representing residents at the heart of the most beautiful part of the valley.  You have a duty to protect our heritage from the excessive development that has been proposed in the Churnet Valley Options Report and we look to you to demonstrate to the community who elected you that you are at one with the overwhelming public response that is resistant to anything other than minimal development.

We understand that you  have family land ownership declarations to make, but those matters do not preclude your active engagement in the debate to press home the views of the people you were elected to represent. We are encouraged by your recently reported view in opposition to the proposed erection of a massive wind turbine at Moneystone and trust that you will be equally enthusiastic in supporting AONB.  Now is the time for you to act and to be seen to act.   WAG and the vast majority of your Churnet Ward residents need re-assurance of your personal aims and goals on this important matter.  We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,


Harry Blood

Chairman of Whiston Action Group