SMDC aka Crooks Paradise

[Admin]

SMDC aka Crooks Paradise

If anyone has followed these pages for any length of time, you will have noticed something of an abrasive relationship between myself and Staffordshire Moorlands District Council and usually regarding Moorcourt.

Incidentally I have adopted the phrase "Moorcourt, my home - Right or Wrong"

The latest saga concerns a recent planning application to convert Moorside Lodge at Moorcourt to a row of 8 houses, this is a serious breach of a restrictive covenant, which allows for a single dwelling house only.

It is my understanding that Moorside Lodge should have been demolished in 1983 along with all the other prison buildings which were removed. Perhaps if anyone has knowledge of this I would be grateful for confirmation as my information has come from someone who has since died.

The application itself SMD/2023/0246, is probably one of the most underhand applications I have encountered and over the past 40 years there have been one or two tasty examples, all of which being dubious have emanated from the same quarter.

This is a brief list of my initial observations:

1 Misleading information, in abundance
2 Concealment of important detail
3 Outright lying, which these days is the new truth

In more detail:

1 The agent Mr Malcolm Sales acting for the applicant Mr Ian Leonard Titterton, says that the applicant wholly owns the property, that appears to be untrue. Could this be lie number one?
There are claims that Moorcourt is easily accessed and implies that Moorlands Link can provide a bus service at Moorcourt. Moorlands Link have confirmed that that is not the case unless it is for a registered disabled person. It is also said that the village of Oakamoor provides wonderful amenities. Those being two pubs, a school and a village hall.
The highways department have said that Farley road, the main access route to Moorcourt is a good safe road. Can anyone enlighten me as to where it is safe, especially for pedestrians? Why has someone, presumably the highways agency, put up signs at each end of Farley Road saying how dangerous it is? There have been several campaigns over the years to make Farley Road access only to remove the threat from Alton Towers traffic.

I think its fair to say that Farley Road is a no no for safe access either by vehicle or by foot.

2 Concealment of important detail. Now this does go on a bit and is quite complicated, but stick with me and all (that we know so far) will be revealed. Lets start with the site plan. This is peculiar because it is shown that the estate roads on the East side belong to Moorside Lodge, well not if Moorside Lodge is owned by the doubtful Mr Titterton, but does he? Lets take a look at Savills estate agents details regarding Moorcourt Hall, which at the time of writing 16 January 2025, shows the same estate roads as part of the curtilage of Moorcourt Hall. I've seen loads of rabbits pulled from the odd chapeau, but its hard to compete with smoke and mirrors on an industrial scale. Whilst we are on the subject of the site plan, it can be observed that a little bit of land fudging has taken place at the East lodge entrance where the agent has included land outside of the estate extending from the gate pillars to the highway. I know this is wrong as I own part of that land which used to be part of our garden, I granted use of the land to help with traffic movement and I don't see any reason why it couldn't be reinstated.
As Mr Titterton is purported to be the owner of the site but has now introduced a Certificate B which may show the other/true owner? At this point of the application there is a list of properties with the occupiers being informed of the application This again implies, as it is attached to Certificate B, that the occupiers may be part owners or tenants, not true they are all simply neighbours.

3 Lying. In 2018 this property was at the centre of an application to replace the building with a new building to assist in rehab for injured service personnel. One of the obstacles was apparently an extremely dangerous form of asbestos. This information was made known to me by a close associate of the site owner at the time. This asbestos is most likely the same type that was in the Coach House and was removed in the mid to late eighties. This material may have claimed the lives of at least 3 people involved with either the unsafe removal of asbestos or being in close proximity of the Coach House. The 'removed material' incidentally, was not taken off site nor was it handled professionally.

Whilst we are on the subject, lets also consider the applicants response to the question of the asbestos.
One afternoon in 2023, Mr Titterton stopped outside East Lodge and engaged in brief conversation with me. I asked him about the asbestos as I felt concerned that such a virulent toxic substance should be dealt with properly. His reply was that 'there isn't any asbestos'. I can't confirm or deny, but it is strange that it was there in 2018. What concerns me more is that asbestos can form up as dust and be carried on the wind, anyone nearby would have been at risk from this potentially irresponsible behaviour if it wasn't removed properly.
Mr Titterton also acquainted himself with my wife, and whilst in conversation, Titterton explained that he was to build 3 or 4 houses for his son/s. Come on who's got a convoluted nose?

Regarding the planning process itself.

When I became aware of this application, I started in the usual manner of contacting the office of the council dealing with the application and sent several emails asking a variety of questions. Quite early on I copied all emails to one of the local councillors, a Mr James Aberley. Quite early on Mr Aberley took a particular interest in the matter and replied promptly. I was encouraged by his interest, especially when he asked me if he requested a committee decision as opposed to a delegated officer decision, would I be prepared to speak in the council chamber and address the committee directly? I said I would welcome the opportunity. Several months went by and well into 2024 the delegated officer Mr Arne Swithenbank told me that the planning stage had stalled whilst waiting for further documents and alterations to plans from the applicant.

It wasn't until Christmas week of 2024 that quite suddenly we noticed a small entry in the Sentinel newspaper saying that planning permission had been granted by the delegated officer.

I contacted Mr Aberley, who took longer than normal to reply, maybe due to the holiday period I suppose. In the meantime I contacted the case officer who informed me that Mr Aberley had withdrawn his request for a committee decision on the basis that at appeal it would have gone through. I don't accept that. His answer implies that I may have convinced the committee to reject the application but be allowed at an appeal. That is pure guess work. So what were they afraid of, could it be that the lone voice at East Lodge was right?

Was Aberley coerced in some way, but hadn't got the balls to tell me of his actions? Whilst the putty brained arse lickers who could have influenced matters have yet to feel the pain of their lack of action - no guts - no glory.