Row of Terraced Houses for Moorcourt?

[Admin]

Row of Terraced Houses for Moorcourt?

A planning application has gone onto SMDC, to convert the nigh on derelict Moorside Lodge into a row of cramped terraced houses, 2 up 2 down with paper thin walls. OK, many people would love to live at Moorcourt and enjoy what we have enjoyed for most of the time, and why not, but would anyone want to take up permanent residence in those barracks type conditions? Its a bad hangover from the prison days.

Moorside Lodge must be at least 50 years old, of poor build quality and was destined for demolition in 2018. However apart from other matters there was a problem I am told, with asbestos which needed to be removed.

Although it is quite likely that the planning department will give consent, especially with a little bit of masonic influence. There is a snag though, with regards to restrictive covenants at Moorcourt, that is Moorside Lodge like all other properties here can only be one dwelling house, not multiple dwellings.

This building has never fitted in with the intended use of Moorcourt i.e., as a private residential estate, and it never will fit in.

No one ever discusses the tremendous contribution to this country by the Bolton family - the former owners of Moorcourt Estate, the absolute mountain of copper components and communications cables all around the world, thanks to Bolton's, not only production but difficult limited scientific knowledge at that time was formalised. Why bury such important heritage I do not know, Cauldon College may never have existed if it hadn't been for the donation of land by the Bolton's, they recognised the needs of the wider area, and the engineering focus for this country, not just Moorcourt and Oakamoor.

As expected I have made formal objection regarding the application, despite trying to contact the developers to discuss potentially acceptable alternatives. Is it because there is no intention of providing starter homes? It could potentially be used in connection with the Antinous Leisure Ltd enterprise, could be just the job for 'substance abusers' etc? That would really plummet the surrounding property value.

For those living nearby it could be a disaster, but there you go, if they don't object to this application they are either in on it, or have a wish bone for a back bone. If anyone has got the sphericals to complain or to support for that matter, you have until the 19/07/2023 to do it.

Update 1 now 03/08/2023.

Update 2 the matter is now going before the Planning Committee on 10 August 2023.

Update 3 end of Public Consultation 17 August 2023


Copy of my letter of objection:

Mr Arne Swithenbank
Planning Department
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
Stockwell Street
Leek
Staffordshire
ST13 6HQ

7th July 2023

Dear Mr Swithenbank

Planning Application SMD/2023/0246: Moorside Lodge, Moorcourt.

There has been a long awaited decision regarding the future of this property, which was purpose built many years ago under instructions from the Prison Commissioners, and functioned in connection with prison activities. When Moorcourt was broken up and sold in the 1980’s, all the old prison buildings were demolished and Moorcourt was referred to as a ‘private residential estate’, Moorside Lodge should in my opinion have been removed also.

Up until 2005, the building was used in connection with a care home, this business failed with breaches of restrictive covenants at the heart of the failure.

There have been several attempts to bring this property into use since the whole of Moorcourt Estate was sold, but without success. In or about 2019 an application was made on behalf of the Lee Rigby Foundation, with some discussion regarding total demolition of the building to redevelop the whole site. From information at the time, I believe that demolition was and presumably still is, the preferred option as the building does not fit into the overall scheme of things at Moorcourt and is in serious poor condition. Especially so as the Moorcourt Estate was sold on the basis of a ‘private residential estate’, with most if not all properties falling into individual residential ownership.

It is without doubt that the old Moorside Lodge, or as it was known during its prison use ‘the hostel’, is an eyesore. It is highly unlikely to find any fitting use on the estate other than non complimentary use, particularly some form of commercial/adverse use, which will always be harmful and put the rest of the estate at a disadvantage.

The proposal to convert part of Moorside Lodge into a block of flats, 9 in total is yet again a speculative proposal to bring the building into some form of use. I do not know if the individual flats will be sold freehold, leased or managed by a property company. I fear the latter may be the more likely option. It is worth making quite clear at this point that Moorside Lodge has never been a residential property in any sense let alone the conventional sense.


The proposals bring several concerns that realistically may harm the estate as a whole and impact individual properties:

1. Traffic. This has always been a problem at Moorcourt. From 1983 onwards the permissions granted by the Local Authority required that the central gate between the east and west sides of
the estate should be kept closed and locked, however this was later varied to just being closed. As I understood it at the time it was to give a fair and balanced effect to vehicular use on and off the estate. The Eastern entrance has seen the bulk of traffic flow, both commercial and residential, although when the estate reverted back to private use the traffic has been moderate. However since those early days, vehicle ownership has increased with at least 2+ vehicles at each property. Should the proposal go ahead which could mean an increase of 18 vehicles the application itself suggests potentially 23 or more vehicles, increasing traffic flow by more than 100%+ on the estate roads and past East Lodge multiple times each and every day day and night.

We also have the problem with Farley Road, it has become seriously dangerous to walk let alone drive with numerous accidents, this proposal would add to that situation. Please see images below highlighting the dangers.

I notice in the Application Statement, that any discussion regarding the private road that connects this site to the public highway, is carefully avoided, so how will these roads be maintained, they are in a very poor state of repair and were never intended for this type of excessive use?

For those individuals who have already invested in property on Moorcourt, they will be penalised financially and may be forced to contribute further to unexpected and unfair maintenance costs. It would most certainly put an end to the peaceful lifestyle we have all hoped for.

2. The proposal is based on greed rather than need, and has all the hall marks of a quick in and out venture to profit from an already scarred (yet historically important) country estate. The proposal can never achieve a magical effect of transformation from an eyesore, it is a pigs ear and will never become a silk purse.

3. Restrictive covenants. I understand that generally, restrictive covenants are largely ignored by planning authorities. Although that is now an outdated part of the planning process as restrictions which are subsisting and enforcible are now part of recommendations, requiring civil examination through legal processes. Moorcourt, and in particular Moorside Lodge along with ‘all’ other properties on the estate do rely upon the effects of restrictive covenants and were put in place when the estate was sold to the Prison Commissioners in 1957. These restrictions form the basis of every conveyance, as the estate was sub divided and apply globally.

The restrictions I mention are simple and were put in place by the Bolton family in 1957, to maintain and preserve the character of the estate:

The properties can be used for:
Dwelling house (in the singular)
Agriculture.
Prison or Borstal.

There are also restrictions regarding business use on the estate, which is forbidden at this property and all others.

I mention this for the sake of house keeping.

The requirements of ownership of property at Moorcourt could render any inappropriate permission to develop property useless. All properties at Moorcourt have the benefit and the burden of restrictive covenants, anyone with the benefit of the covenants can take action against anyone who breaches the covenants at any time, so the situation is that the developers can do all the work then find that the property cannot be used. Planning Approval cannot alter that.

This application should be refused, there are far too many aspects which run contrary to the natural state of that embodied and enjoyed in the estate. These are serious factual flaws which could plunge the estate onto a downward spiral of misuse, resulting in a severe loss of amenity and property value.

The Planning Statement/s prepared for the applicant, mention the importance of Moorcourt Hall, the statements should include the whole estate and its heritage, they are inseparable. The village of Oakamoor it quite a distance away, down steep inclines on Farley Road, with no tangible day to day facilities at all. The only real facilities are nearly 5 miles away in Cheadle.

The basic design of Moorside Lodge is not altered externally, therefore it will remain an eyesore. I am also concerned with the asbestos related to this building, as in 2019 it was discussed and needed to be removed. Perhaps someone can look into this as they were either lying then or lying now, and if the material has been removed, where is it and who may be in danger from it?

The Sustainability Statement is misleading, trivialising the task of walking to Oakamoor, it is further misleading, as the Moorlands Connect service is only available door to door if you are registered disabled. There is no renewable energy on site nor is any planned.

A New Ghetto.

This proposal could bring about a new phenomenon at Moorcourt with regard to the ‘ghettoising’ of part of a private residential estate, and despite planners ignoring loss of property value, it has to be remembered that hard working people have invested more than just money into Moorcourt. There will most certainly be an equity loss if the proposal succeeds.

The Multiplier Effect

It is quite likely that if this application is successful, others on the estate might want to jump on the band wagon. There are parcels of land all across Moorcourt which could be deemed potential building land, and despite a decision several years ago by the SMDC to discourage further development at Moorcourt, we could see the complete and final demise of the estate.

Having cut through and recognising the buzz words and the popular modern rhetoric in the Application Statements, designed to confuse those who form part of the decision making process, and of course the deliberate omissions to hide the truth, then you can see what this application is, a despicable attempt to profit from a derelict building picked up on the cheap, to make a load of money and disappear into the night.

This is one of those occasions where planners have an opportunity to do the right thing and must take detailed account of what they are about to do, to help them I would urge that this application is refused. I therefore ask you Mr Swithenbank, to ensure that this letter of objection is seen by all relevant parties within and without the decision making process.

Due to the importance of this proposal the lack of full detail and level of unknowns, I would like to suggest that the consultation period of 21 days be extended by whatever amount is allowable.

Sincerely





Michael McNicholas

Further comment made recently:

8 January 2024

Dear Mr Swithenbank

In accordance with what I understand is my right to comment on this application, this is a copy of my comment and trust that it will be given over to public scrutiny.

"In relation to the Planning Statement, section 6 paras 4 and 5 are quite incorrect and misleading.


Moorcourt Estate is defined as isolated therefore this development falls under the same category.


May I draw your attention to a document prepared and submitted to the LA regarding this very same site.
It is an indepth report from Philip Wootton Architect (2018), he was acting for the Lee Rigby Foundation and included Moorside Lodge in that report.


Mr Wootton's statements were accepted by the Local Authority which included how isolated the Moorcourt Estate is. It therefore follows that the land in this application must be also be 'isolated'.
Link: http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov ... ame=205547

Further the applicants agent misleads the reader by saying that this application meets the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF, there is no requirement for housing for agricultural needs, nor are there any employment opportunities which would sustain living at Moorcourt. Access is very poor, there is little or no amenity in the nearest settlement (Oakamoor 1.4miles) nor is there any transport available.

I would also draw your attention to the courts definition of 'isolated' and respectfully suggest a visit to the following website:

https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/court-of-ap ... untryside/
This is case history and cannot be ignored.


I submit that it would be wholly contradictory for the local authority to support this application, therefore I say it should be rejected."


M I McNIcholas

FAO Mr Arne Swithenbank

Dear Mr Swithenbank

Ref: SMD/2023/0246

I have further concerns regarding this development, having rad the SCC letter of conditions and especially regarding the 'turning and parking' areas.

Does this mean that the access currently available around the back of Moorside Lodge is to be lost?

I am fearful that if it is to be lost, serious difficulties may arise regarding access for the Fire Service in the event of fire or other emergency.

I cannot see from any of the documentation any mention whatsoever in regard to consultation with the Fire Service.

Originally and currently the Fire Service have made it quite clear that access via South Lodge is critical as is access to the rear of Moorside Lodge. Access via East Lodge is only viable for appliances entering the estate from the direction of Farley, which puts considerable time on the journey from Cheadle.

I would be grateful for detailed response regarding this important matter.

Regards

M I McNicholas

On 20-11-2023 09:03 AM, Swithenbank, Arne wrote:

Good morning Mr McNicholas



I shall need to be able to put this on line as a public comment in order to take it forward. Can you confirm please that is what you expect and intend?



Arne





Arne D. Swithenbank Planning Officer

Dear Mr Swithenbank

As long as something is done, I care not how you do it, but seeing as it involves potential emergency response, surely it should be automatically dealt with.

Also as SCC comments on the highway are misleading, ie 30mph is incorrect it is the national speed limit, also they have not indicated that Farley Road is in the main a single track with passing places, have these people actually visited the site and done a proper inspection of the road?

Regards

M I McNicholas

22/11/2023
Dear Mr Swithenbank

Ref: Ref: SMD/2023/0246
I would be most grateful if you could help me on a small part of this matter, that is the details regarding the 'turning area' etc., as referred to by SCC Highways.

I have searched through the documents on this page and cannot find any reference, it would be helpful and to avoid any doubts or detail on my part if it was clearly explained.

Further if it is the intention to contain the resultant traffic of this development on and off the site solely past East Lodge, thereby not sharing the burden of this traffic with other residents would be wholly unacceptable.

This is a very important part of this proposal and needs to be clarified.

Regards

M I McNicholas

Publish at will.

23/11/2023

Good morning Mr Swithenbank

I notice that SCC Highways comment has been amended and now states that the speed limit on Farley Road is the national speed limit and not 30 mph as was previously stated.

As there may be other 'alterations', would you be so kind as to furnish me with a copy of the original letter?

Regards

M I McNicholas