‘Benefits for the many shouldn’t be frustrated by the few’

I WRITE in response to the letter from Mr D J Williams, of Foxt, headlined ‘Lodges are just a load of static caravans’ (Post & Times, December 16).

As a director of the applicant for the Moneystone Park proposals, I share Mr Williams’ disappointment that the reserved matters planning application has taken so long to be determined, delaying the badly needed investment and employment that this project will bring to the Moorlands.

However, my analysis of the reasons for the delay differ significantly from his. That we have had over 50 objection comments from just three individuals has inevitably slowed down the application process.

In order to undertake a thorough review, the planning officers, quite correctly, are duty bound to consider all of the issues raised, regardless of their accuracy or relevance.

In his letter, Mr Williams indulges in the very ‘fake news’ that he condemns. However, the planning process is based upon facts and evidence.

He will know that very many of the issues being raised in objection at this stage have already been dealt with thoroughly by the council and deemed acceptable when Moneystone Park received outline planning approval in 2016.

As for Mr Williams’ letter, I will deal with the points he raises briefly in turn:

There are no ‘major geological issues’ with the site; we are proposing fewer lodges than we have outline planning permission for; the lodges will be a highquality timber clad product with aluminium powder coated windows, decking and glass balustrades; the ‘wilding’ of the site is the result of the restoration works that certain objectors accuse us of not having done; our ambitions for the sports and leisure facilities on the site were indeed scaled back at the outline planning application stage, but as a direct response to objections received.

Mr Williams implies that our planning application is ‘wasting everyone’s council tax money pursuing a lost cause.’ Recent planning applications on this site have so far generated £141,296 in fees paid directly to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council by the developers.

Contrast this financial contribution with the action of a small number of objectors who pursued an unsuccessful High Court action against the outline planning permission, and relied upon the little-known Aarhus Convention which limited their own personal legal costs to £5,000.

I am sure that local taxpayers will be very interested to learn that Staffordshire Moorlands

District Council had to pick up the remainder of the substantial legal bill. We also incurred significant legal costs.

Despite Mr Williams’ suggestion, almost all statutory consultees have now responded to the application and raise no objections, and any

outstanding queries that have been raised are being addressed by the applicant.

The ongoing delay to this project is, according to specialist consultants reports, currently costing an estimated £1 million per year in lost additional spending in local shops, restaurants and pubs, which is particularly relevant given the current pandemic.

It is also stopping the creation of around 250 much-needed new permanent jobs for the area and the related construction jobs.

To conclude, the objective is to deliver a project which will be extremely positive for the people and businesses of the Moorlands, and the benefits for the many, should not be frustrated by the few.