YOU STILL HAVE TIME TO OBJECT TO LAVER LEISURE’S PLANS FOR MONEYSTONE QUARRY

WHISTON ACTION GROUP HAS MANAGED TO FORCE SMDC TO GRANT YOU MORE TIME TO LODGE ANY OBJECTIONS YOU HAVE TO THE PLANS TO DEVELOP MONEYSTONE QUARRY INTO A MASSIVE THEME PARK.
YOU NOW HAVE UNTIL THE 31st. JANUARY 2015 TO SEND IN OBJECTIONSSECRECY STILL SURROUNDS THE TRANSPORT REPORT OF MR.PAUL HURDUS OF SCC HIGHWAYS BUT WAG HAS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT LEADS IT TO BELIEVE HE IS  GOING TO RECOMMEND THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION.
HIS REASONING IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN YET BUT IT MUST BE PRESUMED THAT HE THINKS OUR LOCAL ROAD NETWORK CAN COPE WITH IN EXCESS OF 240,000 ADDITIONAL VEHICLES A YEAR VISITING A TOURIST PARK THAT IS OPEN 24/7x 365 DAYS A YEAR.
WAG’S OWN TRAFFIC CONSULTANT DISAGREES.
YOU WILL FIND HELPFUL GUIDANCE ON THE WAG WEB SITE ‘ Whison-Action-Group’

SEND ANY OBJECTIONS BEFORE 31/1/15 TO,
MR. MARK LYNCH
CASE OFFICER
MOORLANDS HOUSE
STOCKWELL STREET
LEEK ST13 6HQ

GUIDANCE ON LOBBYING COUNCILLORS

There is sometimes a misunderstanding about whether you are entitled to lobby Parish, District or County Councillors.

1.The rules are simple. Of course you are entitled to lobby Councillors.

2.It is part and parcel of a healthy democratic society that allows for a free exchange of views on any subject that involves the administration of Government which you, through the ballot box and subject to the usual constitutional checks and balances, have delegated to Councillors to operate on your behalf.
3. In the case of SMDC Councillors, their own Constitution expressly states that they and Council employees are public servants.
4. To serve their public Councillors have to have a conduit to allow them to know what it is YOU want for your community. Lobbying is a legitimate part of that process. At National Government level full-time professional lobby groups,often financed by commercial interests, constantly try to shape the laws and policies that govern us. At local level it is no different so don’t feel bad about lobbying your Councillor.
5.If you are reasoned and proportionate in your arguments most Councillors will be receptive to your point of view. In the main they live locally and should have the same interests of protecting the Churnet Valley as you.
6.What Councillors have to do when they sit to determine any issue by vote is to declare, on the record, that they have been lobbied. As is made clear in a publication supported by virtually all district and county councils called ‘Probity in Planning’ they should also make it clear, again on the record, that they have not yet reached a decision on any particular matter until they have heard the full application in the properly constituted forum for making the decision. That is all they are required to do.

    Commentary

In the context of planning applications and the determination thereof there is an interesting and seemingly irreconcilable dichotomy between Planning Councillors and Planning Officers.

Like it or not, the vast majority of planning applications are determined under delegated powers by Planning Officers.
Where applicants seek pre-application consultations with planning officers it is very often- some would assert always- the case that those discussions take place under the cloak of ‘commercial confidentiality’. Most people would call that ‘Lobbying’.
Yet there seems to be no clear legal requirement that Planning Officers should disclose on the public record that they have been lobbied and/or have formed a view as to the granting of any particular application. Perhaps your councillors should be asked to reflect on this seeming imbalance of public accountability. Feel free to ask them.

Alton Towers now. 250 at Moneystone next?

Lodge delivery  Farley Lane 23 Dec 2014
Holiday Lodge delivery Farley Lane 23 Dec 2014
  • Alton Towers now. 250 at Moneystone next?
  • And there are bound to be more later.
  • Is this what you want for Moneystone?
  • Your deadline for objections has just been extended.
  • Fight for your democratic rights now.
  • Laver has just announced that it ‘s proposing to improve the existing junction ( at A52/Whiston Eaves Lane) layout which will enhance visibility for all road users using the Whiston Eaves Lane Junction.    Were you consulted about this proposal?  Of course you weren’t.
  • Have your say. Tell your district councillor you don’t want what Laver Leisure are offering.

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.
IMG_0271
 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.
 IMG_0273
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. 

 IMG_0268

 

OBJECTIONS TO PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER SMD/2014/0682 LAVER LEISURE [ OAKAMOOR] LTD. MONEYSTONE QUARRY

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.

DETAILED REPRESENTATIONS

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……..to 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.

Paragraph 6.8.8.5

  •   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.

Paragraph 7.6.1.1

  •   ‘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.

Developers threaten our beautiful valley

Whiston Action Group and the Churmet Valley Conservation Society are organising a walk from Whiston to Oakamoor to help raise awareness in the planning application  by Laver Leisure to completely ruin this part of the Churnet Valley and to let councillors and the officers at SMDC know just exactly how strong feelings are running locally.
The walk is open to all interested parties, walkers, dog walkers, horse riders, cyclists, young families with pushchairs, and indeed the farming community, who, by definition are the ultimate lovers of the countryside.
We urge all interested parties to join us on Saturday 6th December at 9.45am at Whiston Village Hall for a walk down to Oakamoor Village Hall for tea, biscuits and a chat to discuss ongoing plans.
The more walkers, tractors, cyclists, dogs and horses the better!
It’s about time that residents were listened to in the Staffordshire Moorlands, and hopefully the media coverage generated by this walk will make officers and councillors alike sit up and take note. 

SMDC & LAVER LEISURE AGREEMENT

 

DID YOU KNOW COUNCIL PLANNERS HAVE BEEN ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS WITH LAVER LEISURES PLANNING CONSULTANTS BEHIND THE BACKS OF COUNCILLORS AND RESIDENTS. READ THESE PAGES AND BE PREPARED TO BE SHOCKED BY WHAT COUNCIL PLANNER JANE CURLY HAS SIGNED UP TO.
DID YOU KNOW?
WERE YOU CONSULTED?

PG1PG2PG3

 

LAVER APPLICATION – COUNTY COUNCIL EXPRESSES CONCERNS

CLICK ON THE LINK BELOWTO SEE A LETTER OF 3/10/14 WRITTEN BY A SENIOR TEAM LEADER OF SCC PLANNING, POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL TO SMDC ASSOCIATE PLANNER ARNE SWITHENBANK.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK HIM AND YOUR COUNCILLORS HOW IT IS THAT THE PLANS TO DEVELOP MONEYSTONE QUARRY AS A LEISURE THEME PARK ARE BEING RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WHEN A SENIOR PLANNER HAS SO MANY VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE APPLICATION AND THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE SITE.
DEMAND ANSWERS NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO STOP THIS UNACCEPTABLE DEVELOPMENT THAT RESIDENTS DON’T WANT.
DO WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY OR NOT ?

[gview file=”https://www.whiston-action-group.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/County-Council-Concerns-03-Oct-2014-to-SMDC.pdf”]

Helping to Protect the Churnet Valley