Neighbours war with wounded soldiers families [Archive]

The Helpful Stacker

17th Jul 2007, 17:37

Having worked at Headley Court for three years I noticed the rampant NIMBYism of the area all the time.

To anyone unfamiliar with the unit a very busy 'cut through' commuter route runs right between the medical side of the site and the accommodation side and although quite severe speed ramps were installed to try and slow traffic down to give the quite often mobility impaired personnel crossing the road a fighting chance the large amount of 4x4 owners that used this route just made such efforts pointless. Alternatives were put to the council, the preferred one for the unit being the installation of a signal controlled crossing. After objections were raised by locals (it would spoil the character of the area apparently) the alternative was offered by the council, a foot bridge with stairs either side (ramps were a no-no as they would be too imposing on the scenery).

Of course it seems that the locals like to have their cake and eat it as although they seem to detest the roads when a marked RAF Police vehicle was delivered to the unit requests were put in that the patrol route be expanded to take in a greater proportion of the local area in order to provide a deterrent to thieves following a spate of horse tack thefts.

:mad:

Tigs2

17th Jul 2007, 17:48

Clockwork Mouse
My point is: this thread is about fighting bigotry. Perhaps throw away remarks about retired colonels, or even about school bursars, weakens the argument by being rather stupidly and unreasonably bigotted also. My reply, though I was irritated, was tongue in cheek. Yours clearly isn't. Focus my boy!
you were a burser weren't you:)
and earlier
Piggies
You state: I bet half the 'protesters' are retired colonels as well.
As a retired Colonel myself I take grave exception to your ignorant, bigotted, class hatred and envy laden remark.
Wait a mo, you're an RAF Navigator! And you live in Scotland. Sorry! How could you be expected to know any better. Cancel my last. Carry on the good work my boy!
Please explain how throw away remarks about RAF Navs and living in Scotland are tongue in cheek yet throw away remarks about Colonels and Bursars are bigoted:confused::ugh: Is it one rule for one and another rule for the other?? Oh but wait a minute surely that would be bigoted!
I think Piggies may have been being lighthearted, as i know that he and other aviators here will be aware that most low flying complaints near an airfield are sent in by retired aircrew, hence his remark about Headley, but your comments are helping his point somewhat.

H5N1

17th Jul 2007, 17:50

lets hope there isn't a fireman's strike in this bigoted part of Surrey! I'm sure the Green Godess response time would give them as much support as they have us :*

The Helpful Stacker

17th Jul 2007, 17:59

H5N1 - During the last fire strike the Green Goddesses (and later, Red Goddesses) were based at Headley Court.

An Teallach

17th Jul 2007, 18:00

Thanks for the heads-up, Plans 123. Letter duly sent. I fear Miss Westphal could have an overflowing inbox tomorrow morning!

The Helpful Stacker

17th Jul 2007, 18:10

I'm not sure how they can use 'too much traffic' as an objection though, Dene Lane to the north) (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=36,+Grays+Lane,+Ashtead,+Surrey,+KT21+1BU+&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.307813,70.488281&ie=UTF8&ll=51.304138,-0.294271&spn=0.002096,0.004302&t=h&z=18&om=1) is hammered as a rat run during the morning and evening rush hours, with folk using the area when travelling bewteen the Epsom Downs area and Leatherhead/M25.

Piggies

17th Jul 2007, 18:35

Tigs2,

Thank you:)

Yes, the 'retired air marshals and flying complaints' line did occur to me, but I couldn't see its relevance...

I'm not going to bait the Col Blimps any longer, at least not on this thread.

It will be interesting to see if the Surrey gentry win their cause, and if there is any national press reaction to it that leads to things happening.

WE Branch Fanatic

17th Jul 2007, 18:42

I bet if there was an unexploded bomb found there the NIMBYs would be happy for a military EOD team to risk their lives dealing with it.

H5N1

17th Jul 2007, 18:48

Ah but only if they were REALLY quiet and tidy up after themselves really well, "none of those loud bangs and dust boy"

Ali Barber

17th Jul 2007, 18:48

I don't mind poor people, it's poor people in Surrey that I object to!

Tigs2

17th Jul 2007, 19:39

OK folks there is a lot going on concerning this on ARRSE and if you are interested it is well worth reading in on. At the moment it is upto 20 pages, i suggest from 15 onwards will do you. The boys have uncovered various things about people who are complaining who may have a vested interest (Directors of land procurement companies etc), so there could be a strioke of genius about to be played by Part-Time-Pongo.
The link for ARRSE is (as digininagain says)
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=72560.html
Here is a letter recieved by Cashbar on ARRSE from SSAFA
From SSAFA Forces Help:
SSAFA wishes to use the property in Ashstead in order to provide a residence for the immediate families of servicemen and women receiving treatment at the Defence Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court.
The level and intensity of current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in increased numbers of severely injured soldiers needing help. It is vital that they have the immediate support of loved ones at this critical time - it is proven to make a significant (positive) difference to the healing process.
The need is now. At present, there are inadequate facilities for the number of families that need to be close by. Therefore SSAFA needs to buy a property for the purpose rather than undertake a new build which is likely to take two or three years to complete.
The identified family house is modern, comfortable and able to be used immediately for the intended purpose as a 'home from home' for these families. It has six bedrooms and will not be extended in any way but will have minor alterations to facilitate disabled access.
In general, families will stay for a few days. It will not be a 'hotel' and it will not be a 'hostel' - no one is homeless. It will be run at cost and will not be a business.
An planning application has been made to Mole Valley Council because of the proposed change of use of the property.
Local residents have been consulted throughout the process. SSAFA wrote personally to those residents who live closest to the property. We subsequently replied individually to all letters that we received. We invited all residents to a briefing at Headley Court although many were unwilling or unable to attend. A subsequent briefing / meeting took place with the Ashstead Park Estate Management Co Ltd whose nominated representatives now represent the interests of all residents. No resident has been bullied.
SSAFA passionately believes that all soldiers should expect to be valued and respected and that they and their families should be fully supported. As a charity, we are 'needs led' - there is an immediate need to assist the families of injured servicemen and women recovering at Headley Court.

As PTP requested, if you support the campaign to get this sorted
In the first instance, can the PPRuners and EGoaters write their letters , in support of SSAFA and the work they do , and absolutely leave out any references to objectors. We are all better than them
The letters from the objectors are infuriating but we must not be seen to be bullying. Write from the heart, cool and calm, about the value of SSAFA, Headley court and its association with the area, and our need to support injured servicemen and to allow their families to do the same for them.
Polite letters of support could be E Mailed to:
Miss Lesley WESTPHAL
planning @ molevalley.gov.uk
Or to this link:
www.molevalley.gov.uk/.../2007/0863

Remember, if you wish to maintain PERSEC , your address must be on a separate sheet and the rider "Not for publication" added. Which tells them to withold your address from public view.

Plans 123
can you or any other registered Goater cut and paste this in to their site, i have registered but I can't get in straight away.

The Helpful Stacker

17th Jul 2007, 20:00

civobs - Its not really the same NIMBYS I'm afraid.

Ashtead is the other side of the M25 from Headley Court (about three miles through winding lanes), the complaints about the crossing were from Tyrells Wood/Headley NIMBYS.

Almost_done

17th Jul 2007, 20:23

Tigs2,

Your request is posted on E-Goat.

A_D

Tigs2

17th Jul 2007, 21:24

Thanks A_D:ok:

splitbrain

17th Jul 2007, 21:38

A sweeping statement I know, but I am rapidly tending towards the opinion that, in one sense, the people of this country deserve everything they get. And in another they do not deserve what they actually have, and amongst that I include the excellent people of the armed forces :(

Tigs2

17th Jul 2007, 21:58

So far there are about 100 objections. Many of them quote the increased traffic in their road from these 'visitors'. It may be of interest to note that someone just down the road from the SSAFA house recently applied to turn there property in to a cattery. Some of you may know the increase in traffic this would lead to (if you have pets that is), yet there wer NO OBJECTIONS to the plan for the house on the same street. So traffic from petowners is welcome, yet traffic from the families of our wounded are not welcome:ugh::ugh:

You reap what you Sow eh!

We need about 100 polite letters to hit the council.

cargosales

17th Jul 2007, 22:33

(Now I have calmed down)

As many of the Nimby b$%$&ds are quoting the likely increase in traffic, what about doing a little traffic census there? Boring work but it might be useful, especially to establish if the addition of a whole 6 cars would actually make any real difference to the area

It would need several people to be done effectively and ideally for a fair chunk of the day.

Anyone up for that? Thursday?

PM me or post here

CS

Tigs2

18th Jul 2007, 03:00

Well Cargo
You know me!! I'm up for it!!

Guy's I can't keep up with the info on ARRSE. If you feel strongly about this then please now read through pages 24 to 26 at
http://www.arrse.com/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/p=1397716.html#1397716
This, like Mr Pun VC is a very important one to win. I think there are a lot out there who can empathise with this ( you, your family, your sons, daughters, wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc etc)
Thanks and good night
Tigs

JessTheDog

18th Jul 2007, 05:37

The previous use of the property that SSAFA want to use appears to have been a child-minding business. So Chelsea Tractors dropping off children is acceptable in the neighbourhood, as are cats, but not the families of wounded.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=72560/start=360.html

An Teallach

18th Jul 2007, 11:11

Well, it seems the delightful Miss Westphal has been having a busy morning redressing the balance of representations to the Planning Committee with gusto (http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=MO/2007/0863&theTabNo=3&backURL=<a%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=108357>Search%20Criteria</a>%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=193916% 26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPS EARCHRES%26BackURL=<a%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=108357>Search%20Criteria</a>'>Search%20Results</a>)!

propulike

18th Jul 2007, 11:41

As a reminder;The planning application is here

www.molevalley.gov.uk/...%20Results (http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=MO/2007/0863&theTabNo=3&backURL=%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?Res ultID=192439%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=devdesc:a%26DispResu ltsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%27%3ESearch%20Results)

This is the address for submissions by e-mail

www.molevalley.gov.uk/.../2007/0863 (http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/wphmakerep.displayURL?ApnID=MO/2007/0863)

Or

Miss Lesley Westphal
planning @ molevalley.gov.uk

PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: MO/2007/0863
(36 GRAYS LANE, ASHSTEAD, SURREY, KT21 1BU)

Remember, if you wish to maintain PERSEC , your address must be on a separate sheet and the rider "Not for publication" added. Which tells them to withold your address from public view.

Secondly, we are not going off templates on this, unlike Red Team. Speak from the heart.

Thirdly . Do not be abusive, or even refer to the objectors if you can help it. Do not under any circumstances write directly to an objector .Many people in that area have NOT submitted objections. They may be undecided, we can win them over
_________________The Arrsers are being very proactive about this. Let's give them a hand. My letter sent.

swerve

18th Jul 2007, 11:54

Has anyone considered the informing of the local/national TV on this one - getting the TV involved / onside would be a massive boost to the campaign, maybe raise the bar a little - these people leave me totaly speachless, they can not go unchallenged

Len Ganley

18th Jul 2007, 11:58

Have just tried to access the Documents section of the application and it appears to be off line. I can access the rest of it OK so would it be safe to assume that the council have removed the documents in light of the publicity they have been recieving on this and other sites???:confused:

(Or is my computer nadgered??)

An Teallach

18th Jul 2007, 12:02

I suspect it's down temporarily while Miss Westphal's team uploads a shedload of representations from PPRuNe and ARRSE.

Almost_done

18th Jul 2007, 12:22

I suspect it's down temporarily while Miss Westphal's team uploads a shedload of representations from PPRuNe and ARRSE.
Don't forget (as much as some may want to) the members of E-Goat are participating as well.

diginagain

18th Jul 2007, 12:23

Happy to put a tenner in her tea-swindle, just to keep the team going.

debsh

18th Jul 2007, 12:35

For what it is worth, the following now appears on the website of the Ashtead Residents Association . . . . Mr Malcolm Webb has probably felt the heat.

QUOTE!

Some people have read the article published in the Daily Mail of Monday 16th July and expressed their views to this Association.
The article referred to Mr Malcolm Webb as Residents' Association (sic) Chairman. This is not correct. Mr Webb is Chairman of Ashtead Park Estate Management Company Ltd, a company which represents the interests of residents in that part of the village to which this Planning Application refers.
The Ashtead Residents' Association has sympathy with the range of concerns expressed to us as a consequence of this article. Our experience of local residents is that they are proud of the local association with the work undertaken at Headley and are very supportive of our service personnel, their families and their loved ones.
The planning application in relation to 36 Grays Lane has given rise to a range of concerns in the immediate area, which have been included within submissions to Mole Valley District Council as planning objections. We understand however that a high proportion of submissions expressed support for the armed forces and SSAFA.

mutleyfour

18th Jul 2007, 13:14

Can I also bring to your attention the following excerpt taken from an ARRSE poster:
In todays dail mail "debate" section, there is a letter from a Shaun Keep defending their actions and he says (quoted verbatim but sadly there is not an electronic copy - I found it via the MOD press cuttings service)
Firstly "the installation of a hostel for families introduces two precedents to the road - a business being run from a property" (coming from Mr Cattery application?)"
"Everyone in Grays lane sympathises with the plight of injured service personnel, but what point is there in our brave troops fighting to secure democracy overseas if charities are allowed to jepoardise something so cherished at home?"

Not sure what his 2nd precedent is but the cattery part was added by my learned colleague with reference to a cattery application that received zero objections from the locals, with nobody mentioning the traffic chaos that might ensue.

The second paragraph hits the spot with regard to the NIMBY phrase and should be addressed by the mail.

Winco

18th Jul 2007, 14:43

I have just put the phone down following a lengthy conversation with the case officer who is dealing with this deplorable affair. I asked her what was needed to influence the council in making their decision and was advised as follows:

1. Counter any argument suggesting an increase in road traffic
2. Counter any argument pertaining to 'degrading' the area because of its change of use, or changing the charachter of the lane. Also counter the 'detrimental' effect it will have on the ambiance of the lane.
3. Counter any argument regarding the request to install wheelchair ramps - quote the Disability Act whereby it is an offence to discriminate against disabled people.
4. Argue the need for our service men and women to have family close at hand on their return from the Gulf or wherever, and for their continued recovery.

The lady also said that she (they) had received a great many letters of support for SSAFA, so please keep the letters and e mails coming.

Take a look at the links on the earlier pages and see the 2 letters of objection from Mr & Mrs Mander and also Helen & Mark McGaugh. Read them carefully and base your comments directly against what they claim to be the problems. Try NOT to get emotive - it isn't easy, but emotion won't win the day! I want to write to these folks and tell them how utterly ashamed I am of them and suggest that honest, fair minded and responsible service families are better than a bunch of yobs that could purchase the property, but to date I have refrained. The bottom line is that we must be objective in our comments and counter the objections that have been raised.

Finally, might I just ask if anyone has considered putting this on the 10 Downing Street Petition site? I don't know how to do it otherwise I would take it on, but I do think it's worth considering.

We must NOT let a handful of self-opinionated ar:mad:oles get away with this. It a thanks to our servicemen and women that people like this are able to voice their objections in this country. We must not lose this one people - keep up the good work and write your letter to:

Mr Clive Smith or Ms Lesley Westphal
Planning Department
MOle Valley District Council
Pippbrook
Surrey RH4 1SJ

The Winco

splitbrain

18th Jul 2007, 14:59

Winco, that is outstanding work.

With respect to point 2. though, I would suggest that this is very subjective and actually sits at the heart of the issue, what does 'degrading' actually mean. Clearly the NIMBY residents believe that having a few extra vehicles traversing their road constitues a degradation in their quality of life by changing its 'character', a notion that is utterly laughable to someone who lives in a town and is used to having other people inconveniently driving their vehicles past their door.

bowly

18th Jul 2007, 16:02

I live reasonably close, but I too do not have the time to dedicate to this cause, as much as I would like to.

Interestingly, I grew up around this area and have in-laws even closer than me to the area in question. What I can say (and this in no way defends the thoughts and actions of those residents complaining) is that 'locals' in this area of Surrey have seen a huge increase in the amount of developers that have marched in to 'leafy suburban' streets, outbid families massively for a property, before demolishing it and replacing what used to be a nice house, with a set of flats for 6-10 singlies. This has resulted in many areas becoming less desireable than before = less value for their house. There have been a considerable number of neighbourhood associations created by residents to try to stop this happening, with little success, and I can only assume that these people think the same will happen if this goes ahead. Clearly it won't.

For the record, I echo all the sentiments aired here and on ARRSE, but I am able to understand the concerns of the local residents (not that there should be any). Once this SSAFA application gets approval, I am sure that the locals will see that they have not suffered, or are unlikely to suffer, from any problems associated with the house's transformation from a residential house to a 'house' for forces families to visit injured relatives. It has my full support.

cargosales

18th Jul 2007, 17:02

Mike Jenvey: I am going there tomorrow (Thursday) to carry out an impromptu traffic survey. As so many residents raised the point and it is point number 1 on Winco's list of things the council said need to be addressed.

If anyone wishes to join me in doing a survey or has any suggestions for specific information to collect (e.g. average number of cars per house?) then I'd be grateful for help with either.
CS

SPIT

18th Jul 2007, 17:30

I think the whole thing is disgusting,perhaps all the forces could be pulled out of harms way and all the protesting residents could be sent there to replace them ?? (if only):mad::mad::mad:

MReyn24050

18th Jul 2007, 18:12

cargosales. Great I concur everything Mike says. I look forward to your findings. I will then submit another letter along the lines of the suggestions made at Winco's Post.
Mel

wondermum

18th Jul 2007, 18:46

having had personal experience of Headley Court from a family perspective over the last year n more, the support which I've read over the last 4 pages has been blimmin brill, it means a helluva lot, esp all of those letters going to Mole Valley Council! Keep up the good work, this will help so many families yet to come!!!!!!!:)

Winco

18th Jul 2007, 18:49

splitbrain,

If you go to page 1 of this thread you can read the comments made by the Manders regarding the degradation of the area and how it would be 'detrimental' to the ambiance of the lane. Those comments in particular I have found extremely offensive and disturbing to the point where I intend to write to them myself and express my disgust at them.

As a matter of interest to others, I did ask the case officer why the planning department were involved at all in this matter in the first place. SSAFA already own this property, so why all the fuss? It appears that SSAFA have asked for a change of occupancy from a normal 'residential' dwelling for a single family, to a one that will be available to others to use. I still fail to understand why there is so much hostility towards it however.

cargosales, well done Sir! I look forward to reading your comments tomorrow.

Keep it up chaps, well done to one and all!

The Winco

wondermum

18th Jul 2007, 19:42

Mike, did so last night before I read these fab threads!
Many unexpected big guns working to see this project through, we just cannot let it fail, too much to lose in human terms.
Gawd bless yous all!

Thierry130

18th Jul 2007, 20:22

Moved to enter the lists for the first time on this topic. If there is one thing this country should be able to promise the people sent on wars at its Government's behest, it is the very best care and support for them and their families if they get injured, or worse. This is fundamental to the Moral Component of Warfare and whilst the "Ashstead Residents Association" may lack the base common sense, or fibre, to recognise this, our politicians should not. Let us direct our fire accordingly.

cargosales

18th Jul 2007, 23:13

Mike Jenvey et all: Thank you for the support. At best it may help the successful application by SSAFA. At worst, I will have spent a day counting cars (probably in the rain!).
Looking at the location (roads) of residents who sent in letters objecting to this proposed development,
(copied from AARSE):
Grays Lane 28
Berry Walk 3
Chalk Lane 14
Dene Walk 1
Druids Close 1
Oaken Coppice 8
No Address Given 3
Park Lane 1
Ralliwood Road 23
many of them would not even be affected by any increase in traffic (although 72% of them cited it as a reason for objecting), even if that actually were the case. I.e Families and loved ones would drive straight to the A24 (Grays Lane, Dene Road, Parkers Hill Lane) and onto the A24, to get to Headley Court as quickly as possible.
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&search_result=&db=pc&keepicon=true&lang=&pc=KT211BU&advanced=&client=public&addr2=&quicksearch=KT21%201BU&addr3=&addr1=
Would anyone who has the time care to go through the objections and pick out those which fit into that category and which may therefore might be classified as vexatious objections? Maybe make up a table of the different objections raised and cross referenced to the road those complainants live in?
E.g. there are 8 objections from people living in Oaken Coppice but logic says that people travelling from Grays Lane to Headley Court would not go anywhere near Oaken Coppice, so it is a vexatious/spurious objection rather than a valid reason to object.
CS

Tigs2

18th Jul 2007, 23:47

Cargo are you still up? Call me mobile chum if you are. You need to read P2's excellent recce on ARRSE. The vehicle count will complete the evidence.
Pics from P2s recce are here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10219376@N03/

PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THE BUSINESS NAMES OR HOUSE NUMBERS BELOW IN LETTERS TO THE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME. Suffice to say that business' are registered in the lane.

Note the parking space infront of number 36.
One of the main objections is setting a precedent for running a business from Grays Rd as they say it is purely residential. Well apart from the fact that SSAFA is a charity, bugger me what a litttle bit of investigation has turned up
36 used to be a Nursery.
Russell Mander and Co Ltd 29 Grays Lane
West Buckland Investments Ltd 17 Grays Lane
Palm Propertys Ltd No42
PSB Consultancy services No 26 (the owner is also a Director of Ashstead Park Estate Management Ltd - a The Main Objector - SEE BELOW)
18 wanted to be a Cattery. The business was to be in the house.
And 38, who incidentaly raised concerns about privacy and fire risks of the added number of families in 36 in their objection letter, run a chemists business from there (shop located just down the road) and have a business Quincewood ltd registered there.
36 was previously a nursery (noise!!)
Jenner Associates No 8
need I go On?
Several of the 'objectors' refer to the Ashtead Park Estate Management Co Ltd. (APEM) who seem to be leading the campaign to prevent the application succeeding.
APEM appears to be a Mr. XX who lives at number 26 Grays Lane.
This is what he wrote in his letter:
Quote::
This company (APEM) owns, amongst other land and property rights, the unadopted roads at Grays Lane and Chalk Lane under HM Registry Title no SY340032.
Red team, you are unmasked. And, it seems, so is your motive!
Blue Team I think soon we can declare check! Get some numbers from cargo sales and a few other minor legal details and it could soon be checkmate!
Advice - read from page 38 onwards on ARRSE.

Vortex what...ouch!

19th Jul 2007, 07:39

Diplomat over on ARRSE has analysed the objections so you can use the information in your letter. Well done him.
UPDATE
PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: MO/2007/0863
(36 GRAYS LANE, ASHSTEAD, SURREY, KT21 1BU)
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS (INCLUDING ARGUMENTS THAT COULD BE USED AGAINST EACH OBJECTION) (AS AT 18 JULY 2007)
99 Letters of Application opposing the bid to date (72%).
39 Letters of Application supporting bid to date (28%).
(134 Letters on site, but total above of 138. Spme seem to have been lost during MVDC server crash on 18 Jul 07 - luckily we have copies so have included them in the analysis)
82 Residents have responded (some more than once).
78% of objections included the reason of Increased Traffic Volume.
There have been 82 residents object. If each has an average of 2 cars that equates to 164 cars.
An extra 6 cars (one per family at max useage) plus a Wardens car = 7.
This equates to an MAXIMUM increase of cars in the immediate area of 4.3%.
The real % difference will be less as this estimate does not factor in residents who have not complained, or the nomal daily useage by other road users.
Hence increased traffic volume will be minimal and have a negligable impact on the immediate area.
49% of objections included the reason that the SSAFA accommodation is ‘effectively’ a Hostel.
The primary purpose of accommodating families is so that they can visit their injured relatives; it is not proposed or intended to be a commercial venture to make money. It is entirely possible and reasonable that SSAFA recover some of their operating costs - but the residents will be so tightly defined that it is unreasonable to directly compare it with a Hostel or Hotel.
26% of objections included the reason that there would be increased Noise.
There is no evidence to sugest that there would be any significant increase in noise pollution.
Most of the visitors staying at 36 Grays Lane would wish to spend as much time as possible with their injured relatives during their short stay. They are unlikely to be ‘partying’ in Grays Lane!
26% of objections included the reason that the house would be run as a ‘Business’
SSAFA clearly is a charity, and whatever they do, wherever they do it, is NOT classified as ‘business’.
No profit is made, although it is acceoted that the use of business processes is necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the charity. This is a legal requirement of the Charity Commissioners.
12% of objections included the reason that SSAFA should build in the grounds of Headley Court.
Headley Court is a listed building.
The grounds are also classified as Green Belt.
Therefore planning permission would be required, which would take time.
Additional time would be needed to build the accommodation.
Accommodation is needed NOW, and not in 18 months time.
Therefore these objections are not practicable, although it is certainly a mid to long term option that SSAFA should consider.
In the short term the purchase and use of 36 Grays Lane will meet the inarguable needs of families visiting injured servicemen and women.
11% of objections included the reason that such an initiative would increase increase risks of terrorism or compromise security.
There is little evidence to suggest that extermist groups or terrorists are targeting service families.
Indeed ALL the evidence suggests they are targeting ANY family who happens to be in a public place.
The extremists and terrorists would gain more publicity attacking high profile targets such as the capital and transportation network. All the available evidence in the public domain suports this statement.
In todays society EVERYONE is at risk of terrorist or extremist attack.
The increase in risk to the local residents because SSAFA wishes to use a house in their area is negligable.
Finally, it is the very people that protect them from terrorist attacks that would benefit from this SSAFA facility - a little gratitude would not go amiss!
10% of objections included the reason that there would be a significant increase in rubbish and waste.
There have been 82 residents object. If each has an average of 3 waste rubbish sacks per week that equates to 246 rubbish sacks.
An extra 14 rubbish sacks (two per family at max useage) plus two for the Warden = 16.
This equates to an MAXIMUM increase of rubbish sacks requiring collection of 6.5%.
The real % difference will be less as this estimate does not factor in residents who have not complained, or the nomal daily rubbish produced by other residents who have not objected.
Hence increased rubbish and waste will be minimal and have a negligable impact on the refuse collection requirements.
The remainder of objection reasons (seven) were insignificant in % terms (>10%).
HOW YOU CAN HELP IN THE BATTLE OF THE LETTERS ! !
The planning application is here
http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=MO/2007/0863&theTabNo=3
This is the address for submissions by e-mail
www.molevalley.gov.uk/.../2007/0863
Or
Miss Lesley Westphal
planning @ molevalley.gov.uk
PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: MO/2007/0863
(36 GRAYS LANE, ASHSTEAD, SURREY, KT21 1BU)
Remember, if you wish to maintain PERSEC , your address must be on a separate sheet and the rider "Not for publication" added. Which tells them to withold your address from public view.
Secondly, we are not going off templates on this, unlike Red Team. Speak from the heart. But feel free to use some of the arguments above in support of the SSAFA proposal.
Thirdly . Do not be abusive, or even refer to the objectors if you can help it. Do not under any circumstances write directly to an objector .Many people in that area have NOT submitted objections. They may be undecided, we can win them over.
WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW
Red Team have now submitted virtually all the Objection Letters they can. Any more will be repeats that will be ignored by the Planning Committee.
Your NEW Letters of Support will not be ignored.
So please start E Mailing now so that we can demonstrate overwhelming public support for the SSAFA proposal, whilst exposing the residents for the NIMBYs they undoubtedly are!!
WRITE NOW PLEASE

A2QFI

19th Jul 2007, 08:35

Here's an idea! Tell these NIMBY :mad:ssers that a new application will be put in for use of the the building as

1. Bail Hostel
2. Paedophile Hostel
3. Druggy rehabilitation centre
4. Homeless hostel
5. Care home for unmarried mothers of Eastern European origin
6. Etc etc.

Rant off!

mutleyfour

19th Jul 2007, 08:43

Could I please reiterate the need for as many letters as possible to be placed onto the "those for" group in order to directly oppose "those against"!

If you enclose your letter on an email with name and address on the email only they will only publish your letter and not your name thus allowing you to keep your anonymity (hmm spelling) as well as keeping your address out of the public domain for security reasons.

weevhearditb4

19th Jul 2007, 09:26

:ugh:
Dear all,

Thank god someone cares; our son is serving in Iraq. Those who are getting injured and killed in Afghanistan and Iraq need our support as well as the families who have to deal with the aftermath when their loved one turns up home broken and battered awaiting HC to make them better.

Planning matters, there is nothing in the local plan that supports either side however SAFFA's application has regard to the local plan. Under the DDA this local authority has to take into account disabled access it cannot do otherwise ditto cars however many who come to pick up Disabled service personnel from the house.

There are two main points that the planners and the planning committee has to take into account and I feel that these are the main points

This application is of more than local importance.
The Wednesbury principle applies.If say the local authority backs the objectors than it can be referred to GOSE who will have no choice in this matter but to call it in on No1 above.

On no 2 I suspect SAFFA will take action via the courts.

Either way with the other good investigation by blue and red teams it appears game over 1-0 to the great and good on this site and the others.

Best wishes to all

weevhearditb4

19th Jul 2007, 09:58

I hear that Mole Valley DC (planning) is not supporting this application and is recommending that its turned down, i suggest people ask the person who is dealing with this application to verify. They are under duty to tell you if they are or not.

Rocket Chucker

19th Jul 2007, 10:01

I have e-mailed the links for the application to my daughter who is a very experienced planning officer. She said she would go through it and see if there are any precedents which we can use to counter the objections. Failing that she will send ideas on what actions to take in the event that the application is rejected.

Will keep you posted on that.

Plus my MP is getting another letter from me - we're becoming quite pally now - perish the thought!! :uhoh:

Keep up the struggle :ok:

Gonzo

19th Jul 2007, 10:06

Words fail me. :{

Just sent this off.

Dear Sr/Madam

I wish to register my overwhelming support for the above application by SSAFA to change the use of No.36 Grays Lane.

I do not live near the subject area, nor I am not in the services, however I have many friends and acquaintances who do currently serve.

I will attempt (and possibly fail) to steer clear of evangelising on the moral and ethical side of the discussion. Suffice it to say I believe that we, as residents of the United Kingdom, have a duty of care towards those who protect us with their lives. Speaking personally, I would be honoured to be in the exact position that residents of Ashtead Park seem to dread; to be able to give comfort and support to those families staying in an unfamiliar location and going through a very difficult time. To my mind that would elevate the Community spirit, not diminish it.

I will attempt to address some of the factual arguments put forward by local residents.

Business use of the property, setting a precedent: I am sure this precedent has already been set. As far as I can tell after a morning searching the internet, the property at No.36 was formerly a child care establishment. Other correspondents have already highlighted the Cattery business elsewhere in the road (no objections were raised to that application, particularly with regard to traffic and noise). Many other businesses appear to be registered to properties on Grays Lane, ironically the residents of those said properties have opposed this application on the 'business use' argument.
Noise: I would ask those who will deliberate on this application to consider exactly what will be going on at this property. Families will be visiting their relatives at Headley Court. I would imagine those families will be wanting to spend as much time as possible with those recovering from injury, thus the property would most likely be virtually unoccupied during the day. Even if not the case, I hardly think that four to six concerned families would create more noise than the young children that formerly occupied No.36 when it was a nursery.
Increase in road traffic: Again, this can surely be no more than when No.36 was a nursery (perhaps less). As mentioned above, surely the residents will be leaving for Headley Court in the morning, and returning in the evening. To further diminish the opposing argument, I am led to believe that SSAFA have stated they hope to provide transport for families to Headley Court, so one minibus journey in the morning, and one again in the evening; that probably adds up to fewer road journeys than if No.36 were a 'normal' residence, with '2.4' children. It also occurs to me that many opposing residents who cite increase in traffic levels are well away from the route that anyone might take from No.36 to Headley Court.
'NIMBY'ism is distasteful at the very least. In a case such as this, words fail me. I appeal to all residents to sit down and think about what they are doing here. We as a nation should be doing everything humanly possible to help those convalescing at Headley Court, and their families staying nearby, actively helping them to recover, in their time of need. They deserve the very best of everything. They certainly do not deserve to be treated as common criminals, with no regard for their fellow man.

Yours faithfully

Adam Spink.

Rocket Chucker

19th Jul 2007, 10:19

Check out the link:

http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4222

And check out the councillors quote:

Mole Valley District Councils Leader, Councillor Tim Hall said: "Local organisers have this year chosen 'In War and Peace' as the theme for Mole Valleys 2007 Open Heritage Days in September. The theme will celebrate the people, events, places, buildings and monuments in Mole Valley that have a connection with war and its aftermath. Every year I find out something new about the history of our District during the Open Heritage Days weekend, I would encourage everyone to take advantage of this unique, interesting and fun opportunity and pick up / download an event booklet today to find out more." :ugh::ugh:

It beggars belief.

diginagain

19th Jul 2007, 10:37

Every year I find out something new about the history of our District

I suspect he's about to learn a lot more about the high regard one constituent part of his District is held in by the military community.

Rocket Chucker

19th Jul 2007, 10:47

Just sent this to my MP:

Dear Andrew,

I wrote to you last month regarding the case of a Gurkha, Cpl. Rai who had been injured in the Falkland Islands and was attempting to enter the UK for medical treatment. You kindly said you would write to the Defence Secretary. I was curious as to whether you got an answer.

Further to this, may I bring to your attention another matter regarding the shameful way that military personnel are treated in this country. A planning application has been submitted by SSAFA to turn a £1.7m six bedroom house into accommodation for use by the relatives of injured service personnel who are undergoing treatment at Headley Court in Surrey.

Mole Valley District Council are dealing with the planning application. However, the number of objections and the reasons behind them from local residents of Ashtead make me ashamed to be British. The provision of this facility should not be veiwed in the narrow context of a District Council or constituency issue, but of national interest and importance for the role it is hoped it will play in providing ease of access to injured loved ones for the families of the service personnel; and the much needed close support that these men and women so rightly deserve.

Could I ask you to make contact with Sir Paul Beresford who represents the area, and appeal to his good nature to support this application on behalf of the service personnel currently in Headley Court and sadly, those who will be in need of its services in the future if this country is to maintain its role of world peacekeeper.

Yours sincerely,

And got this info back from my daughter:

Right, I've had a look at the applicant's statements and a sample of objections. The applicant states that pre-application discussions took place before the proposal was formally submitted as a planning application. The meeting will have hopefully included someone from Policy and someone from Highways along with a Development Control Officer. If this is the case and they have put the application in then that would tend to suggest that the officers thought the proposals were acceptable in principle - otherwise they would have been told that there was no chance of it being approved.

Also, Policy and Highways will have been consulted formally on the application (just like the residents) and their comments are public record so you should be able to either read them online or arrange to go and see the DC case officer. Their comments are the ones that count. Many residents have commented but they have to be "material" objections. For example, I don't think you can argue that the application should be refused as it would 'destroy the character and appearance of the lane' as that's just stupid. I think the key issues in determining the application will therefore be:

- Are the current access arrangements adequate (Highways);
- Will on site parking provision be adequate (Highways); and
- Does the Use accord with the development plan (Policy).

I would therefore recommend you see what the in-house comments are and discuss it with the DC case officer.

If there are material objections the DC officer will have them on file.

I will be contacting the Case Officer forthwith.

Rocket Chucker

19th Jul 2007, 12:39

Just sent this FOI request in to see if we can shed any light into the background discussions:

F.A.O. Lesley Westphal

I am writing to you in relation to the planning application MO/2007/0863 submitted by SSAFA. I understand that pre application discussions took place. Could I ask who was included in these discussions?

If there were officers from Policy, Highways and Planning Development present what were their comments in relation to the application? Particularly in relation to:

- Adequacy of the current access arrangements (Highways);
- Adequacy of on site parking provision (Highways); and
- Does the Use accord with the development plan (Policy).

I would be interested to see the minutes of these meetings if that is at all possible. I make this request under the Freedom of Information Act and would like to receive answers by e-mail please.

Regards,

See where that gets us :confused:

scientia in alto

19th Jul 2007, 12:49

Rocket Chucker, Thanks for reminding me that I have an MP... and so I followed you lead and wrote to her. I followed most of your letter but changed some of it to avoid the template issue.

This issue has touched a raw nerve with me and I think this should get the widest possible audience. It is the first time that I have been so angered by Nimbyism that I have written letters to both planning and my MP. With the news from Mike J, may I suggest those that haven't yet written letters yet they do so sooner rather than later!

I have lived in ***** for a year and a half and feel that it is a vibrant and welcoming community. I currently serve in the Royal Air Force as a ****. As such I have seen multiple active tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where I have been scrambled to recover severely injured troops, directly from the battlefield. I am sure that you will agree that these troops have been wounded whilst supporting UK foreign policy and deserve the best possible treatment and support from their country.

May I bring to your attention a matter regarding the shameful way that injured military personnel returning from operations are treated in this country. The charity, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA) has submitted a planning application to turn a £1.7m six-bedroom house into families’ accommodation. This would be used for relatives visiting injured service personnel, whilst undergoing treatment at Headley Court in Surrey. The close support from families cannot be underestimated in the psychological recovery of men and women recovering from traumatic amputations and other severe injuries.

The planning application is being dealt with Mole Valley District Council with reference MO/2007/0863. There have been a number of objections from local residents who cite increased fire risks from visitors, dramatic increased traffic potential, noise and several other emotive arguments. I fail to see why families visiting very sick patients would be in the mood to be socially obtuse. Frankly the objections from local residents of Ashtead make me ashamed to be British. This facility should be provided by the service; however, a charity has needed to intervene and should be supported by the wider population. This application is of national interest and importance and should not only be viewed in the narrow context of a district council planning team.

Could I ask you to raise this issue with Sir Paul Beresford MP for Mole Valley. I hope that you could appeal to his good nature to support this application on behalf of the service personnel currently in Headley Court and sadly, those who will be in need of its services in the future.

Yours sincerely,

SIA

wondermum

19th Jul 2007, 13:03

Mike,
The Fisher House is the gold standard, which I experienced just over 2yrs ago, that is where this all started - the Americans do get something right! Hence this is our first UK version and it so MUST succeed, failure is NOT acceptable and we Brits do NOT give in, not blimmin likely

Rocket Chucker

19th Jul 2007, 13:09

Scientia:

Nice one (you must be a hossifer - I was but a lowly Rock and so my rantings are not as eloquently put) and I fully support the 'call to arms' to get MPs in on this action. :ok:

And as Wondermum so forcefully puts it - we do not give in :D

Tigs2

19th Jul 2007, 13:15

I have just spoken with CargoSales. Bless him, he has been there all day and is going to stay till about 6pm. He has walked up and down the road. There are some very large extentions being built (lots of noise apparently)and building works going on behind 18 (the cattery). There are 4 cars parked on the road outside number 36 and many houses have more than 2 cars. He says it is the perfect place for families of, to find some stress relief and peace. He asked if anyone knows which particular properties were complaining about noise? Any clues?

scientia in alto

19th Jul 2007, 13:23

Just found this on the MOD website posted yesterday

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EstateAndEnvironment/NewWardUnveiledAtSpecialistRehabilitationCentrevideo.htm

May I suggest that The Under Secretary of State for Defence, Derek Twigg may have an interest...

SIA

Rocket Chucker

19th Jul 2007, 13:23

10/10 for promptness - the guy is doing the business at least.

Reply as follows:

Thank you. The answer is no but I'll chase it up (Re my Q about Cpl Rai). I plan a vist to Headley Court (I was last there 20 years ago as a new entry medical officer). In the meantime I've sent a note to Paul Beresford who I'm sure will be able to advise.
Best wishes,
Andrew :D

Interesting to know he's an ex-M.O. ;)

CargoSales - keep up the good work mate! Well done! :D

Tigs2

19th Jul 2007, 14:40

Sitrep from Cargo Sales (on site now!)

For those who do visit the area there is a strict 20 mph speed limit - which the residents Glibly ignore

No 38 which complained about potential polution has just had a huge smokey bonfire in their back garden! Video evidence obtained.

splitbrain

19th Jul 2007, 14:42

Just sent by EMAIL........

I am writing to register my support for the planning application submitted by the SSAFA organisation with respect to the above property. Whilst not a resident of the area I am a recently retired serviceman who has undertaken operational tours from the Falklands up to the more recent conflict in Iraq and can readily identify with the need for the facility that SSAFA would like to offer in Grays Lane. I also lived at Headley Court in the years before the M25 motorway cut a swathe across the horizon opposite the house where I lived.

With respect to the concerns raised by local residents, I would like to offer the following comments on two of the concerns that have been raised.

TRAFFIC

A quick perusal of the area in question suggests that, alongside the properties and business already in the locale, the 6 flat residence in Grays Lane would result in a relatively inconsequential increase in vehicles using the thoroughfare. Without wishing to appear flippant or emotive, one wonders which of the local residential highways and byways, not to mention the M25 which carves its way across communities throughout the region, are used regularly and without thought or concern as to the noise and inconvenience, by those citing an increase in traffic amongst their objections to the hostel in Grays Lane. We all value our privacy and peace and quiet, however vehicular traffic is a part of modern life; as long as we all use motor vehicles we will all inflict a little of the side effects on each other. A little tolerance in this respect would not go amiss I’m sure you would agree.

NOISE

It is difficult to conceptualise just what sort of noise problem the residence would generate or just what it is those who have registered ‘noise’ amongst their concerns are imagining will take place there. Notwithstanding the fact that those using the hostel would be families tending to the needs of injured relatives and hardly in a mood or spirit to participate in any noise making activities such as playing loud music or partying, they will also come from a fairly small subset of society and will almost certainly be using the hostel under a range of terms and conditions. One of these will, I am sure, be the withdrawal of the use of the hostel from those who break those conditions. That, I would suggest, is a reasonably clear incentive to treat the property and the neighbourhood with respect, something the vast majority of service families do as a matter of course anyway.

It is also worth pointing out that service personnel do not just serve their country overseas, although this of course is where the headline operations are occurring at the moment. Service men and women have recently been seen helping flood victims, tackling fires and, in my living memory, removing rubbish sacks from the roadside. Heaven forbid that any act of nature or industrial action would seriously inflict itself upon Grays Lane and its immediate environs, but if it did the residents could rest assured that the good people of the armed forces would be there to assist them in their hour of need. I implore those who have expressed concerns over the Hostel for RAF Headley Court to look into their souls and come to the assistance of service personnel in their time of need which is with us today.

Yours sincerely

Tigs2

19th Jul 2007, 15:09

Split Brain

You need to avopid use of the term 'Hostel' when referring to No 36, that is one of the main reasons for objection. SSAFA have clearly stated it was never going to be a Hostel, it will also not be turned into Flats. My understanding will be a house for visiting families to stay at.

One of the boys on the other sites wrote this

We have been out to Afganistan to fight the Taliban,
But some people down in Surrey don’t seem to give a damn,
Cause when we come home wounded and need some loving care,
The sights of us and ours makes the locals start to swear.

For its bugger this and bugger that and soldiers stay away,
We like our houses as they are so keep them all away.

How can they get some sleep at night when they don’t give a damn,
When all a wounded soldier wants is a visit from his mam,

For its bugger this and bugger that and soldiers stay away,
We don’t want terrorist around here, so keep the troops away.

The message we have got for them,is they can go to hell,
If they don’t want the troops round there,they can always sell,

For its bugger this and bugger that and soldiers stay away,
We don’t want their family’s visiting,even for a day.

Don’t mock the men that guard you while your sleeping in your bed,
Cause one day it might be your son,lying there half dead.

And when you want to visit him,and the locals all protest,
You will see that none of them have medals on their chest,
Cause they are all civilians and can not understand,
Why the young men of this country go to fight the taliban.

So think again,you Surrey folk,about these brave young men,
And let their familys visit them and spend a little time,
For they have served their country,not commited any crime.

So its bugger you and your spouses,
Do you really think more of your houses?
Than the brave young men of this land,
Who only want a helping hand.
_________________

Copyright Mr R AirBorne 2007!

Says it all really, a nice update on Tommy this:ok:

splitbrain

19th Jul 2007, 15:16

Damn, its already been sent Tigs, sorry mate.
Nonetheless, I hope its the sentiment that my letter carries that is considered important, and not the misplaced use of a descriptor for the property.

Cracking ode BTW, well done the author.

air pig

19th Jul 2007, 15:48

Letter sent to the delightful Ms Westphall, have not reiterated the argument, just asked that the proposed objections be rejected after following the subject via the media and the net.

woptb

19th Jul 2007, 15:54

I've just contacted my MP,Dr Hywel Francis regarding this & will post any reply.
He was pretty good in his efforts regarding WO Pun so I'm hoping he'll chip in his four penneth on this one.

splitbrain

19th Jul 2007, 16:36

A much better effort than my clumsy affair here...

http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=137744&postcount=77

Petiton signed BTW.

splitbrain

19th Jul 2007, 17:07

Nice but, er, unhelpful to the cause methinks :uhoh:

wondermum

19th Jul 2007, 18:01

Mike,
I have been doing what I can - if you feel that I can help in any other way, just shout, is there a way we can talk off line?

weevhearditb4

19th Jul 2007, 19:04

Mmmmm

Did the fire Brigade attend this site meeting? Did any of the agencies object?

Looking at the SAFFA house it appears that there is plenty of off road parking anyway.

Having dealt with planners in my neck of the woods their refusals beggar belief at times. The Mole Valley local authority decision report recommendation to refuse is also bizarre given the circumstances.

I will say it once again, this issue is of more than local importance i would suggest people look at the call in process if the committee is minded to stand by the officers report.

Incidentally most councils run scared of developers as they can take their case to appeal which is dealt with by the planning inspectorate in Bristol. I wonder if the officer writing this report has indicated the costs if its refused.

I wonder what stance the planning committee will take on this issue - and hopefully they will remain neutral as can be because if they take the view that outsiders are getting involved with their planning syetm and vote for refusal they will be playing a dangerous legal game.

WasNaeMe

19th Jul 2007, 19:40

The more I read about "The Wednesbury principle" the more I am convinced that there would be a case to answer here..... If indeed the decision goes the wrong way...

An Teallach

19th Jul 2007, 20:06

Wondermum, please check PMs

WasNaeMe

Been there, done that in another sphere. While it sounds fine, the hurdle of unreasonableness set by UK judges to apply the Wednesbury Principle is so high that you effectively have to prove an action to be so unreasonable that only a brain-damaged chimp smacked out of his head on a cocktail of crack cocaine and smack would have made that decision on those facts. :sad:

Tigs2

19th Jul 2007, 20:33

Wondermum
again please check your Personal Messages.

Tigs2:ok:

Tigs2

19th Jul 2007, 23:35

An unashamed boing!

Go to
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/epsomnews/display.var.1558300.0.0.php

And scroll down to read the comments of Maggie, a resident of Ashtead.

ScapegoatisaSolution

19th Jul 2007, 23:58

Following a link from this site I came across the Mole Valley District Council home page which has the heading:
"Travellers Needs in East Surrey Identified for Next 10 Years"
This lists the number and distribution of new pitches for gypsies, travellers and travelling showmen in the region for the next 10 years.
I seriously hope the planning application goes through as this would be a statement to the country from Mole Valley District Council that a traveller has priority over injured service personnel and their families in their District.
I am trying to keep my emotions in check but it is hard. I'm currently on a course with the USAF and I told them of this story. Everyone (active duty, retired or civilian) was disgusted and asked how this could happen. They are right - how can this happen?
Scapegoat

mary_hinge

20th Jul 2007, 05:59

Now also on E-Bay, item 190133536661.

(Nothing to do with me, sorry if the reference / ad should not be made)

weevhearditb4

20th Jul 2007, 06:09

Dear all

I have just requested all the planing history lists for all for the objectors houses from Mole Valley Council. They are duty bound to send them to me.

The planing history for each house gives a complete history of the house and any past planning applications and it costs nothing. i suppose that they could enforce the high cost of searching for this under the FOI(A) but in light of the vexatious and vociferous minority of the lane in question i suspect Mole Valley council may oblige.

Surely this Local Authority is obliged under law of its Duty of Care and as Headley Court is close then that may well apply.

I may have missed something in all of the various threads...how far as the crow flies is Hedley court from the SAFFA house?

I have also asked for the names of the Cllrs on the planning committee as i intend to write to each one by e mail and send them to mole Valley Council who have to pass them on. All Cllrs should read letters of support and of course the objectors as well - and in my experience they are too lazy to do this and rely on the Officers report like a verbal statement at the meeting 200 people have objected and 300 have supported this application, if this is the case then the Wednesbury principle will apply as when i write to the Cllrs i am going to remind them of their legal duties.

Just in case anyone has been misled by the opposition this local authority can accept letters, e-mails and petitions for support right up to the day of the committee meeting.

PPRuNe Pop

20th Jul 2007, 06:20

When is the final day for the council to receive letters of objections/support?

PPP

An Teallach

20th Jul 2007, 06:59

31 Jul 07. The meeting is on 1 Aug.

PPRuNe Pop

20th Jul 2007, 07:25

Thanks A T.

Better get writing now people's if you haven't already. Mine went in on the 18th.

Rocket Chucker

20th Jul 2007, 08:03

Tigs, I tried to PM you but you box is full (pardon the expression). You'll have to empty some out before it will take any more (Ooh Err Missus)!!

Wrathmonk

20th Jul 2007, 08:05

Tigs2

BAFF is, if I recall correctly, run by retired servicemen (of all ranks) to attempt to act on behalf of servicemen (an unofficial trade union if you like). Lots of stuff on it over on Arrse here (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=30482/highlight=british+armed+forces+federation.html).

Keep up the good work fella!:ok:

W

Sl4yer

20th Jul 2007, 09:49

Is actually for auction here (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Self-Respect-of-Ashtead_W0QQitemZ190133720404QQihZ009QQcategoryZ102517QQssPa geNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) at the moment.

A2QFI

20th Jul 2007, 10:06

Near where I live there are people on a council provided site who are no more travellers than I am! They have a permanent site, surrounded by a fence and razor wire. None of their vans would go anywhere other than on a very large low loader and they have permanent brick built toilet and washing facilities. Really, they are living in portable accomodation with an outside toilet and shower. Not travellers at all IMO and no reason why they should get priority in planning or any other facilities over the needs of our war wounded.

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 13:41

Rocket Chucker

My Box is now Empty!:}

cargosales

20th Jul 2007, 14:50

(Report from Gray's Lane to follow shortly)

I can't find any precise info. If it has been specified yet, can anyone tell me exactly what kind of vehicle SSAFA are proposing to use for the shuttle service to/from Headley Court please?

Thanks

CS

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 16:30

Mike
Good work! It really seems that this lady is as disgusted as the rest of us.

I think everyone in Grays Lane and Ashtead should watch these

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N1DetO0RGI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmlCetK2tDk&mode=related&search=

How great is the second one? Spur of the moment. There are some things i do love about the USA

When our boys come home they are told we don't want you in my back yard.:mad:

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 17:23

Done! Its been a busy day!

cargosales

20th Jul 2007, 17:47

Hi All

Thanks for the messages of support.

I spent most of Thursday 20th July in and around Gray's Lane, starting at 1000 and ending at 1900 when I met some lovely ARRSErs for some refreshment and then another walk up Gray's Lane.

I made a number of observations, some of which I'm awaiting further information on, but for the moment I can report the following, some of which may help to clarify house numbers, locations and the like and give a feel for the place.

Gray's Lane is a quiet residential road with some 38 houses in it. As you enter Gray's Lane from Dene Road, the houses are numbered in ascending order with evens on the right hand side and odds on the left,

According to Roger Bennett, 'planning officer' according to the local paper, "The actual house is situated in a very narrow lane, and we are just worried about traffic congestion because access is not suitable." This is quite incorrect:

There are three distinct parts to the road. Between Dene Road and Berry Walk, the road is like any other public side-road. For approx 100m, as it passes Berry Walk, it narrows to single track width, like many public country roads. After Chalk Lane, Gray's Lane widens considerably with a reasonable road width, very wide grass verges and large houses set back from the verge.

All the houses have considerable driveways, (many are in/out affairs) and there is no need for people to park on the road. One builder did however have his transit van parked on the road and on Wednesday evening Pies (from ARRSE) had no difficulty passing it.

No.36 is almost at the end of the road, opposite the junction with Ralliwood Road. I.e. it is nowhere near Chalk Lane, Oaken Coppice and most of Ralliwood Road.

After No.36 there are a further 3 houses on the same side and the road ends with a turning circle. Leading off that is a footpath/bridleway through fields, horses, wildflowers etc. It is tranquil and an ideal place for people who need a quiet place to reflect on things. In my opinion, one could not wish for a better location for what SSAFA are proposing.

Given what the council said about traffic, I paid particular attention to vehicles. Without entering any private property or peering through any hedges, I counted the number of vehicles immediately visible at each house.

The vast majority of houses in Gray's Lane had two or more vehicles visible. Many had three and several had four, including one house whose objection cited traffic! Outside No. 36 were five, yes FIVE cars!! The drive is a big in/out, with plenty of space for a minibus to pull in and drive out again, even with six or seven cars parked on the drive.

Other vehicles, similar to SSAFA's proposed minibus, already use the road with no apparant difficulty. During the day I observed numerous transit-van sized vehicles in the road, including the post office, couriers, builders, plumbers and roofers, gardening companies and the like. Oh and Dial-a-Ride. Who use a minibus!!! Just like SSAFA are proposing!

In addition, several houses are having work undertaken and have a skip on their drive. A skip lorry is no smaller than a minibus so why are they allowed to use the road?

Even more to the point, at two houses I observed the big 1 ton nylon sacks that builders merchants use to deliver sand, aggregate and the like. I rang the local branch of the company concerned and they informed me that the smallest vehicle they have available to deliver those sacks is an 18.5 ton HIAB lorry. Clearly Gray's Lane isn't a problem for vehicles of that size then!

Other observations:
Gray's Lane has a 20mph speed limit. This should present no problem for families coming to stay as they are used to low speed limits on MQs and the like. However, many users of Gray's Lane, both residents and builders/plumbers etc appear to have considerable difficulty adhering to the speed limit, with many travelling considerably in excess of that. As an example, one car was estimated by myself and the ARRSErs to be travelling at some 40mph. One rule for one?

I carried out two traffic counts. Between 1030 and 1130, I noted 6 cars and three vans entering Gray's Lane from Dene Road. In the same time, 5 cars and two vans went in the opposite direction. Between 1645 and 1715, 7 cars entered Gray's Lane whilst 7 cars and three vans left. Whilst statistically inadmissable, these figures suggest that this hardly a road at dire risk of overcrowding or congestion!

One objection sent the council included 'pollution' as a concern. Whilst it is quite legal to do so, I was surprised that this particular householder then had large bonfire on Thursday, with considerable smoke drifting across neighbouring properties. Perhaps smoke isn't pollution?

To indicate how well organised the Nimby campaign is, there are either 14 or 16 houses in Chalk Lane (it is unclear whether two at the end are in Park Lane or Chalk Lane) but between them they submitted 14 letters of objection. There are 34 houses in Ralliwood Road who managed 23 letters and 28 objections came from the 38 houses in Gray's Lane. This was clearly no 'spontaneous decision' on their part! I have logged house number/name vs location in each of these roads to cross reference with what their objections are.

In summary
In my opinion, the house and location are perfect, the objections raised with the council spurious, vexatious and ill informed, and we should do all we can to expose the selfish ignorance which is clearly at play.

CS

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 18:03

Cargo
you hero you! Well done mate:D:D:D. Farmboy is complaining of a very very bad head this morning:ok: Do you want me to post your debrief on on ARRSE? Or are you able to do it?

Some other good news

Gurkha Rifleman PUN VC has expressed his feelings on this matter and has said that under no circumstances would he leave his British Brothers in Arms alone in any struggle and would be honoured (health on the day permitting) to be allowed to join those of us that attend the meeting on August 1st to offer his support! :D:D:D

Gonzo

20th Jul 2007, 18:09

Good work cargosales.

Is anyone else having problems accessing the Council's web page where all the letters were displayed? I click on the 'Documents' tab, and it's blank apart from an icon for Adobe Reader 8 (which I have already), it was working ok yesterday. :confused:

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 18:16

I love the comment from one woman on the Mail site

"When the Mail tried to speak to residents, none would be quoted."

Says it all. Not one of them has the courage to go on record.

Reminds me of the incident during WW2 when some golfers complained that the aerial dogfights over the South coast were ruining their game and then protested at a wounded RAF airman being brought into the clubhouse...because he wasn't a member!

:}:}

Pontius Navigator

20th Jul 2007, 18:24

Two more on petition that makes 1129 so far.

Copied from ebay:

Why not also sign the Downing Street petition by clicking
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/

and 1163 by the time I added this link and checked it.

And 1286 2 hours later.

Gonzo

20th Jul 2007, 18:32

Just to clarify something in my own mind, the SSAFA already own No.36, don't they?

Also, I see a figure of £1.7m as the cost/value of No.36.

Now, is this correct? Not that it matters, but someone hasn't read this: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EstateAndEnvironment/NewWardUnveiledAtSpecialistRehabilitationCentrevideo.htm
and put 2 and 2 together and made 5 have they?

Just curious.

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 19:12

Gonzo
I think the answer is 5! Correct.

I saw a price tag of 1.5 about 70 pages ago on ARRSE

Gonzo

20th Jul 2007, 19:42

So perhaps all those objections that say 1.7m could get 20-odd rooms in the grounds, or nearer than Gray Lane won't stand up to much scrutiny!:ok:

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 19:50

:hmm::hmm: Now why didn't I think of that:confused: Good point Gonzo.

Gonzo

20th Jul 2007, 20:01

Ha! That's why I'm on the ground, telling pilots where to go!!!! :p

DX Wombat

20th Jul 2007, 20:03

Maybe the local traveller population should set up home in the areaCar with towbar and driver at your disposal - just let me know. :E I too have no words to express my disgust.

Chugalug2

20th Jul 2007, 20:39

Petition signed, Email sent to MP and support & attachment sent to Mole Valley D.C. Just couldn't do this until now as too incensed at this very "home counties" attitude to our armed forces and their families! Apologies to those who don't subscribe to this poisonous philosophy and do live in the Home Counties! What with the "slip the uniform off please as we don't wish to offend" reception at Selly Oak, and the Nimbies at Ashstead, it is surely time to lay it on the line to the great British Public. You may not like Iraq and Afghanistan being on the news every night, but how much more uncomfortable for you if you had to be there risking your life, or worse still worried sick about your loved one who is doing just that!
That feels better! Thanks to Gonzo and Rocket Chucker for inspiration and some plagiarism on my part. Thanks also to Tigs2 for calming us all down and making us keep our eye on the ball. Finally thanks to SSAFA for being there for our lads and lasses, and their families! :ok:

SlopJockey

20th Jul 2007, 20:57

Councillor David Howell (http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=355&contactid=187) Lives very close (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=dene+road+kt21+1eb&daddr=36,+Grays+Lane,+Ashtead,+Surrey,+KT21+1BU+&sll=51.304581,-0.293123&sspn=0.002898,0.012789&ie=UTF8&ll=51.306177,-0.297575&spn=0.005795,0.025578&t=h&z=16&om=1) He is a member of the buildings committee!!
or
Cllr Bryan Davis (http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=190) Also lives very close (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=kt21+1dd&daddr=36,+Grays+Lane,+Ashtead,+Surrey,+KT21+1BU+&sll=51.310825,-0.29959&sspn=0.023178,0.074158&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=17&om=1) and is part of the "Development Control and Policy Committees" !!
One could infer from this what they might, have their nearest and dearest neighbours raised objections?

SJ

Gonzo

20th Jul 2007, 21:03

I've just had a nose around the area via Google Earth thanks to cargosales' excellent recce.

It makes me feel physically sick to think that anyone can be worried about residential noise.

I would have thought the noise from Heathrow's DVR and DET departures from 27L/R (which recently have gone on until 2330 local and are usually heavily laden 747s and A340s) would have made a lot more noise than a handful of concerned service families as they pass over the Epsom NDB nearby...... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

PPRuNe Pop

20th Jul 2007, 21:18

The committee meeting on August 1st. Is this a public meeting where the public can attend?

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 21:23

Pop
Our understanding at the moment is that it is.

Gonzo

20th Jul 2007, 21:24

Damn, I'm working a morning shift. Any idea when it starts?

clifftop

20th Jul 2007, 21:34

Please put your name on this petition:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 21:45

Gonzo
7-7.30pm I will confirm and get back to you

Gonzo

20th Jul 2007, 22:02

Well, if so then I'll be there.:ok:

Rocket Chucker

20th Jul 2007, 22:03

Well done mate, first class recce. :D:D:D

I think that this exercise is going to prove to the good burgers of Ashtead how a determined band of brothers (and sisters - OK don't labour the point Stan) can strive to accomplish a mission that is just and fair.

Keep it going, we'll get there.

Per Ardua

L1A2 discharged

20th Jul 2007, 22:18

Also signed, letter being done.

in the torygraph too, one small paragraph in the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nmarine219.xml

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 22:28

Mike
Cracking idea!. If anyone lives within a reasonable distance of Ashtead and would like to volunteer for a leaflet posting session on say Wed or Thurs evening next week, let me know and I will co-ordinate with Moody Bitch on AARSE.

Tigs2

20th Jul 2007, 22:48

Gonzo
The meeting is definitly open to the public (Mr Pun is coming!!) and the time is 1900

Gonzo

20th Jul 2007, 23:22

Thanks Tigs2, I'll be there!

Keep us all posted if there's a plan for arriving and meeting up beforehand.

Rocket Chucker

21st Jul 2007, 07:22

Have run it past OC Household and she agrees that it is a worhtwhile cause so she's put me on detachment to Ashtead in Surrey for the day. :D

I asked if I'd be on Rate 1s 'cos it's near London, but she told me go away in short sharp jerky movements!! :E

See you there people.

Per Ardua :ok:

Pontius Navigator

21st Jul 2007, 08:10

Copied from ebay:

Why not also sign the Downing Street petition by clicking

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/

and 1163 by the time I added this link and checked it.
And 1286 2 hours later.

And 1478 this morning at 9am.

As the petition ends in September I hope that the numbers are reported before the planning hearing.

1542 at 1030

Double Zero

21st Jul 2007, 08:33

Can't No.36 Grays Lane put in an objection to the Red Team, stating they are unfit to live within a 1,000 mile radius of heroes, present an unacceptable low standard & don't deserve to breathe the same air ?

Petition, & mail to MissWestphal sent a couple of days ago - if I can I might attend that meeting too, have mailed Mole Valley Council for venue & directions ( could find out but I thought it might perk them up, they may still need it even now ! ).

Very interesting gen' on the councillors - what with that and the businesses listed locally already which might be well worth a little investigation, if I was anything to do with Red Team I'd be making sure all my affairs could stand close scrutiny during what will become a large national issue...

What's the betting they won't ( stand it ) ?!

pulse1

21st Jul 2007, 08:34

What an oportunity the residents of Grays Lane now have, in the glare of publicity, to change their minds and organise themselves to welcome the unfortunate visitors to this house. How easy it would be for them to provide, where necessary, transport, meals, laundry or just friendship and the use of the swimming pool.

On the other hand, through the power of the internet, they can make the name of Grays Lane synonymous with the uncaring, selfish, greedy face of Britain today. What would that do for their property values? Just imagine, like you used to have the "Sloane Square" set, we will have the derogatory "Grays Lane" types.

Petition signed.

Wingswinger

21st Jul 2007, 08:40

These people are not fit to breath the same air as our servicemen and women. They should have their houses, wealth and votes gently but firmly removed from them.

Petition signed.

I wonder if any of them is an executive director of the company I work for?

weevhearditb4

21st Jul 2007, 09:06

I have just had the wife's permission to use that week's fuel allowance to get to this meeting.

I take it, its Regimental Blazer and tie for this meeting so the planning Committee know who the supporters are and certainly shame the objectors (that's if they turn up)

A pre meet would be useful if so where and when?

I take it SSAFA' agent is going to speak at the Planning Meeting as well as the Objectors who is speaking for us or our AARSE friends?

Down in our neck of the woods there is an ex Gurkha Cllr in Folkestone i will be contacting him to ask if he can help.

On other matters served in the Army for 22 years (Inf) never shed a tear on military issues until now.

Double Zero

21st Jul 2007, 09:37

Agreed a pre-meeting get together seems a good idea, though personally won't have a lot of time beforehand as work interferes.

Anyone know the area & can suggest a good place, hopefully fairly close ?

I am not & never have been military, though worked on miltary aircraft development trials for 14 years, & father was on carriers in WW2, engine fitter on Seafires - retired as crew-chief on Harrier GR5 trials a/c.

Anyone with a shred of decency would be revolted by this issue, as Wondermum put it, we simply cannot let this go...

weevhearditb4

21st Jul 2007, 10:01

What amazes me, is that not one letter of support for the SSAFA application can be viewed from the RBL or any RHQ from the Army, Navy or Royal Air force and the MoD, which the latter has gone back to its original 1st world War name of Ministry of Donkeys....as i understand that there is a good number of Asses in it.

MadsDad

21st Jul 2007, 10:04

I've got a meeting with my local councillor later, to check what the most effective way of wording a support letter would be (considering I have no direct connection).

But another thought occurred. At post #76 there was a list of businesses registered at addresses in the area and which have filed objections. I just wonder how many of those have 1. got planning permission to run a business from that residential address and 2. pay the relevant business rate on the part of the property used to run the business (and 3. claim part of the household running expenses against tax since they are using it to run a business).

Anybody know how I could find this out - I feel a nasty attack of snitching to the council coming on.

Double Zero

21st Jul 2007, 10:19

This, regarding these businesses, is pretty much what I was getting at - something makes me think there could be a lot of interesting details to be gleaned if they were subjected to close scrutiny.

If by any chance the council didn't feel like pursuing it, I bet the local or national press would ! :E

Chugalug2

21st Jul 2007, 10:36

MadsDad, your wish to get at some of these smug, comfortable, self centred members of the bourgeoisie is understandable, and in many ways I share your sentiments. Unlike you and I, though, SSAFA have got to co-exist with its neighbours long after we have passed onto other matters. As Tigs2 has enjoined us, concentrate on the matter in hand, support this application with a massive show of moral support from those serving, who have served, or who have never served but know what is right and what is wrong. The latter does not include the Planning Department of Mole Valley DC it would seem if minded to oppose SSAFA's application.

weevehearditb4, I agree,the support from the service associations has been deafening in its silence. You would have thought that they would be mindful of supporting their sister association, but it seems to be a case of "you in your small corner and me in mine"! The same thing struck me regarding the campaign to admit Mr Pun VC to the UK, and his righteous pleas for equal pensions for equal service, as well as right of UK abode for ex service Gurkhas. Not a word of support from the RBL to my knowledge.
I strongly suspect that the power of the Internet, instantly reflecting the outrage felt by "veterans" of all ranks and branches, those serving also of all ranks and branches, and civilians who can see past their navels and the telly, is rapidly superseding the safe boring monthly reading of association minutes at the Dog and Duck before turning to the general knowledge quiz! The armed forces are at war, SSAFA seems to know it, I'm not sure if the other service associations have geared themselves up to that fact. If they don't they will end up as much relics as the other contents of our military museums!

Timelord

21st Jul 2007, 10:44

just a small thought from one with experience of planning objections:
Do not place too much value on a petition. The planners will count it as one objection no matter how many signatures are on it. Individual argued letters are what get their attention.

Pontius Navigator

21st Jul 2007, 10:49

From Headley Court to Gray's Lane is 2.7 miles and an 8 minute journey. The route is via Farm Lane.

Chalk Inn is the nearest hotel at 3.4 miles.

Now there is a Travel Inn 3.8 miles away but you still go down Farm Lane. The Premier Inn is 6.2 miles away with a second Travel Inn 6 miles away down the A243.

Clearly No 36 is closest to Headley Court and has all the seclusion that distressed relatives might need. It would also offer a very private place for recovering patients for their initial public outings.

scottyhs

21st Jul 2007, 10:51

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nmarine219.xml -- The chap in this story (pte Herbert) is actually a good mate of mine, makes me sick to think of people trying to block objections for his family to go and stay down there whilst visiting him!

Pontius Navigator

21st Jul 2007, 11:04

1619 names of the petition by 12 noon

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/

Tigs2

21st Jul 2007, 15:02

MumsDad, Wevehearditb4

Speakers arranged on the legal side, and a couple of pretty good, I believe elequent guys to push our case (ARRSE, PPRuNe, EGoat etc) should the need arise. I understand your sentiments MumsDad, One of the main objections is that the facility would compromise what is a purely residential and domestic road. We clearly know that this is not the case, as a search of businesses has indicated. It took me two days of trying not to touch the keyboard in order that i could come back down from the Stratosphere.

As Chugalug2 says, stay focused on fighting the objections. Even if there is a refusal on Aug 1st, that is by no means the end of the matter, it will then go to an independant review done by somebody outside the area, which will be very advantageous to us. I understand your sentiments. As a businessman I know how easy it would be to shop these guys, but the result would probably only make me feel better. Keep up the support.

Weveheardit

A recce of a pub has been done inAshtead, and I am there doing a leaflet drop midweek, so i will update you.

Mike

You've got the bug for this now haven't you:ok: Have you not been to colder climates or am i loosing track of time? It might be an idea for you to liaise with Part Time Pongo on ARRSE with ref to your Int, or I can cross post it for you if you are busy. Let me know.

Blue Team are nipping at the heels of red team (and ready to take a big bite out of their A**e:ok:

Baskitt Kase

21st Jul 2007, 15:21

Tigs,
Regardless of whether a number of residents are already running businesses from their homes on Grays Lane, the big point is that the SSAFA home would not be a business. Indeed, they should be staying as guests of SSAFA and invited to make a donation towards running costs. My folks (both retired) are short of cash and so if my kids go and stay with them, we hand across seom cash to cover their food and laundry costs so that my parents aren't out of pocket. That does not make them a boarding house...

Tigs2

21st Jul 2007, 15:32

Baskitt

Where have I ever suggested that the SSAFA facility would be a business?? All the letters I have posted to the council so far have been fighting the objections that say that it is a business. However be aware that legal advice is that certain elements of SSAFA may be construed as a business and that is why neither myself or the guys on ARRSE are even going there. Who has mentioned boarding house etc? Not me!

JessTheDog

21st Jul 2007, 15:48

i think due process is that all interested parties have a right to speak.
Depends on the council standing orders, and the committee chairman. It is likely that a number of oral representations will be allowed, but time is limited and these will need to be arranged before the meeting.
I've been mainly posting on ARRSE. I am slightly hopeful at the draft recommendation as it leaves wriggle room for council members to approve despite a recommendation to refuse (I've been party to writing reports and objections for planning committees) although planning committees have an occasional habit of ignoring the officer's recommendations anyway! Objectors (third parties) are not allowed to appeal against a planning decision but they could apply for judicial review. The pressure should be kept up anyway!
A couple of snippets from the ARRSE thread:
1. Many of the objectors do not live on the Headley Court to Grays Lane route that would be used by a minibus or private car. ARRSErs have carried out traffic counts and a recce of Grays Lane and it is hardly a car-free single-track road.
2. The neighbourhood is not protected by any local plan policies. Claims that it is somehow uniquely worthy of restrictions on development are wide of the mark, at least in planning terms.
3. One of the objectors cc'd his letter to the Ashtead Park Management Company, indicating some co-ordination of effort.
4. This is a low-density neighbourhood. I reckon most of the objectors are beyond the 20m neighbour notification distance that applies to notification of planning application. It would be interesting to see how dispersed they actually are.
5. A leafleting campaign is planned with a very effective leaflet showing the grievously wounded Capt Norton RLC GC and his wife Sue.
The Planning Inspectorate states that 30% of appeals are upheld. Even if planning committee refuse the application, there is a good chance that a high-profile appeal will succeed.

weevhearditb4

21st Jul 2007, 16:46

Many thanks for that.

I strongly suggest that some liaison between AArse, E-Goat and PPRuNe takes place and the Chief Executive or the Democratic Services at Mole Valley DC regarding speakers at this meeting. Having gone through major local authority planning issues (on more than one occasion) its best to prevent chaos on the night.

I also strongly urge anyone who attends the meeting contains themselves even if the blood pressure rises to dangerous levels. The best thing to do is excuse yourself go into the street and shout B***********s and then go back in, as the chairman can remove the public and I have seen this implemented on more than one occasion if things get out of hand.

It may be best to ask just how many people can fit into the council chambers public gallery before we all turn up as I have witnessed people down corridors before now whispering what’s going on etc.

If Mr Pun VC is attending then ensure the council knows this, so arrangements can be suitably made for this gentleman beforehand.

What we do not want is a deferred/delegated decision or a site meeting…a straight forward yes or no will do. A yes would definitely be in order.

I have never seen or heard of a report retraction and as this will be in the open on the 25th let’s wait and see what’s in it.

Tigs2

21st Jul 2007, 17:08

Weevhearditb4
Good points. You reminded me of a discussion I have had with someone who was speaking to the SSAFA lawer who was at the original meeting in June where 80 objectors turned up. When the lawer stood up to deliver the case for SSAFA the crowd (led by APEM i am sure) all started booing and jeering (so much for respectable gentlefolk then!)to an extent that the lawer could not be heard. He sat down and then tried again, every time he stood up the crowd starting jeering. He was never heard. I think if that occurs on the night we will have to exercise every ounce of self control we have. We have briefed any speakers that if this does occur, to stand there until the mob are either out of breath, or dry throats stop them. We can hand them bottled water so that they continue until severe throat strain will shut them all up:E This could be a difficult encounter with the Nimby's.

m5dnd

21st Jul 2007, 17:29

Just to let You know that I have just been told by an Ashtead resident that there is already a lot of support for SSAFA from the residents of the village and think the "nimby's" are bringing the Village name down. The person who told me is in a position to know these facts!

Also that Southern Counties Radio spent a long time discussing this topic last week on the morning show.

Looks like the publicity machine is rolling..

Cheer's
M5DND

Tigs2

21st Jul 2007, 17:34

M5dnd

Cracking Int!

Pontius Navigator

21st Jul 2007, 18:22

Google Earth has hires imagery of Gray's Lane. No 36 appears to be 2nd from the bottom with a brown roof and some grey. Next, to the north, is a red roofed house. The next house, in Google, is under construction. There is a second under construction further up the road too.

On Google I counted 30 vehicles; it looks to be about 3pm.

If you use tilt control you will also see that Crampshaw lane is on a reverse slope so No 36 would probably not be visible. Railwood Road also appears to offer an alternative route to Gray's Lane.

Chalk Lane appears to be th ebest route to Headley Court and Dene Road the route from the A24. In other words Dene Road would be used only for the initial route to Gray's Lane unless people went to Headley Court first.

cargosales

21st Jul 2007, 18:34

Pontius, please have a look at my report on the area on page 7 of this thread.

Piccies should be up soon!

CS

m5dnd

21st Jul 2007, 18:48

Further to my last...

Have just been told that the story has appeared in two of the "local" papers, one on the front page and the other a half page article. Both stating factually SSAFA's case..

Cheer's
M5DND

Pontius Navigator

21st Jul 2007, 18:55

Pontius, please have a look at my report on the area on page 7 of this thread.
Piccies should be up soon!
CS

Ah, you are saying that No 36 is the one under construction?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/ - 1937 names now.

cargosales

21st Jul 2007, 19:05

Pontius,

The Google images must be well out of date so ignore them. None of the houses at that end of the road have any construction going on, including no.36.

Baskitt Kase

21st Jul 2007, 20:21

Tigs
I apologise if I gave the impression that I was having a go in some way as I didn't intend that and it wasn't what I was getting at. It's the fight fire with fire approach that strikes me as somehow missing the point. Pointing out that there are a number of businesses registered in the street already is a potentially dangerous tactic for 3 reasons:
There is a difference between running a business in the street and having a business registered there (Witness the withdrawal of the cattery application owing to the 'nature of the street' test) and using the argument possibly makes it look like this is a business in the second category and so more likely to be an issue.
If the case is won, but IR or the council sniff around the NIMBY's financial matters as a result of this approach, it would cause such ill-feeling in the street that SSAFA wouldn't want to be there anyway.
It gets away from the fundemental point that this isn't a business and so the objection is irrelevant.

Edited to add: I see that the petition has now broken 2000 signatories.

cargosales

21st Jul 2007, 20:36

Piespies from ARRSE has kindly collected images from various people and put them on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10219376@N03/

Tigs2

21st Jul 2007, 21:00

Baskitt
No worries
Agreed, we have given that advice to all concerned.
NOW FOR THE POWER OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING:}:}
Check this out, step back shoulders back and have a laaarff! I still cannot quite believe we have got onto Wiki with this:D:D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#Examples

DX Wombat

21st Jul 2007, 22:10

MAdsDAd I've got a meeting with my local councillor later, to check what the most effective way of wording a support letter would be (considering I have no direct connection). Would you be kind enough to consider letting me know what he suggests as I'm in the same position as you?

JessTheDog

21st Jul 2007, 22:16

Can I suggest some co-ordination?

There are a number of parties who will be represented at planning committee, probably along the following lines.

1. Chair will be the chairman of the planning committee (assuming it is full committee).
2. The planning department making the recommendation, probably the boss.
3. The elected member from the ward (or members from wards) will have something to say.
4. The applicant.
5. Objectors.
6. Other representations.

This is for a minor (albeit controversial) change of use, the agenda can only be guessed at, but there are often higher priority applications. This will be one item among many so it won't be a meeting devoted to this issue.

Therefore, the scope for oral representations may well be limited and these will probably need to be arranged with the clerk of the committee beforehand. There is likely to be a time limit on representations, need to check council orders. I'd think there is scope for no more than a handful of representations in support of the application, and the chairman will want to ensure that the objectors have their say.

I'd suggest some co-ordination and communication between the principal parties involved on this side, on ARRSE and with SSAFA and the planning agent to ensure the best use of this possible opportunity. I'd suggest one point of contact liaising with the committee clerk. I'm happy to help draft or review representations as I have done this before. I'd suggest representations focus on the need for the facility and leave the planning issues to the applicant's agent - however, one or two brief rebuttals within each representation may well be appropriate.

Tigs2

21st Jul 2007, 22:41

Jess
good points. I think Part time Pongo on AARSE has good comms with the SSAFA legal team.

cargosales

21st Jul 2007, 23:57

I've been thinking about what I saw and heard when traipsing up and down Gray's Lane and the surrounding roads, and trying to understand and hopefully give others an idea of the mindset of the residents objecting to SSAFA's proposal.

Thanks to relations of mine, I am already fairly familiar with this kind of pseudo private road setup, the kind of people who live there and their attitude to life.

Firstly, we are not dealing with 'flash bastards' and we are generally up against 'old money' rather then 'new money'. Given their size, the vast majority of the houses in the area are tasteful and generally restrained in style. I guesstimate that most date from the 1930s. There were only a very few examples of what can be done if you have 'too much money and not enough taste'.

There was a distinct lack of Porsches or other very expensive cars. Indeed it was quite the opposite - the majority were fairly ordinary and some quite old, suggesting a modest, hard working even frugal approach to life. Many of the residents appear to have lived there for a long time (as per some of their letters) and the dated decor of some of the houses.
If I had to guess at the typical resident I would say Company Director husband at close to retirement age, working in the city, possibly in the family business, with a wife who stayed at home for the children and who now lunches with similar.

They probably bought the house quite some time ago (before prices rocketed in the 80s?) with their own or family money. They are hard working and have money but use it as is expected in their circles - kids at public school, golf club membership (I saw lots of clubs on display) etc. They live in a (very!!) quiet road with people of similar status and it is their escape from the outside world.

Bad things do not generally happen to these people and they feel ensconsed in their private retreat from the big bad world outside. All the nasty things that happen to other people are kept nicely out of sight and sound. More to the point, the people those nasty things happen to are kept nicely out of sight and sound, be those people struggling to pay the gas bill or unsightly squaddies with ghastly injuries.

They are generally not used to dealing with 'ordinary' people, especially those whose circumstances are unknown, and this possibility frightens them. I.e. a company director will rarely have to deal directly with his blue collar staff - he has middle and junior managers for that. Mrs Company Director may be more au-fait with the process thanks to school, shopping etc but was mortified when the grocery store in Ashtead High Street ceased delivering. Andrew and Elizabeth were of course at private school which avoided having to mix with any ordinary parents.

However, these people are achievers, used to getting their way either through their position at work or by bullying / peer pressure / a 'follow the herd' mentality in their social lives. A personal example: a 'lady who lunches' that I knew spoke to me about a General Election saying "..of course you will be voting for us [Tory] won't you?" I asked "why?" and she replied "because that's what we do" There ensued a lively debate!!, one half of which consisted of the question "why?" A second and final personal example: A company director I knew who was not far off retirement once said to me: "you know the problem is that I've never met enough common ordinary people in life" Not that the b@stard ever tried!! :*

My point/summary I suppose is that these are people comfortably off and happy with their life(style). They are set in their ways and do not wish to be seen breaking ranks with their peers. They are to a large extent ignorant of the life outside their cosy estate because they do not have to witness it or deal with the consequences.

(If you're still with me), In the midst of this idyll, a neighbour comes knocking on your door telling you that a ghastly hostel is proposed in the middle of your neighbourhood. That there will be common people staying who will do terrible things to the area, who will roar up and down the road all day long in their cars, hold loud parties in the garden and whose unspeakable children will pollute the atmosphere with their foul language ("because that's what 'common people' do"). A simply awful prospect! The only answer is of course to send a strongly worded objection to the council to get this madness stopped. Which they have done in their dozens.

But why? And this is the slightly puzzling part. Why has there been such an overwhelming orchestration of the residents to complain so bitterly? A fair percentage of residents complaining I could understand but I cannot believe that virtually every single resident objected, based purely on their personal view on the matter (unless they really are all utterly selfish t@ssers). A look at the excuses they are coming up with shows that many are palpable nonsense and trying every possible angle.

This leaves two possible options: Either one or two individuals have misled the residents, deliberately or otherwise, as to the nature of the proposed change of use of 36 Gray's Lane due to their own selfish nature or certain persons have a vested interest in how the area is developed in the future. If there is another option then I'm blowed if I can see it right now but I'm open to persuasion.

CS

Edit to remind us of what this is all about:

Lifted from the Surrey Advertiser of 20th July:

Lance Corporal Michael Greggan has been a resident at Headley Court for three weeks. He is recovering from a smashed kneecap and nerve damage after his troop was ambushed while driving to Camp Holland in Afghanistan.

The 29 year old, who has two young children, said a place for his family to stay was very important.

He added: “If it wasn’t for my family, I wouldn’t have been able to get through the last couple of weeks.”

Double Zero

22nd Jul 2007, 00:01

Further to previous posts by self & others, any ideas for a meet up before attending ? Please PM me if felt necessary, I have been asked by others without direct access to let them know.

Sorry to disappoint anyone looking for rabble rousing,* we all mean this as a pre-amble to meet each other for a quick chat as we're usually just names with a common interest.

Then a quiet & sensible attendance at the planning meeting ( shame the objectors couldn't manage that when it was just them & one lawyer trying to speak for the CHARITY )...

*I assume some of the Reds must have worked out to look at this site - despite appearances they are probably that bright - so I hope they are looking forward to what they have brought upon themselves in national publicity !

weevhearditb4

22nd Jul 2007, 07:12

Spot on...that's how our planning committee works down in my neck of the woods.

I am wondering if the monitoring officer at Mole Valley has really kept an eye on this?

i suspect that the District Auditors will be getting letters over some of the aspects involved.

I further hope that the local Authority solicitor will be in attendance and this time the chairman prevents any distasteful shouting down of people when making there oral representaions on the subject.

It would be good to meet in a local that serves coffee as well as other beverages as i have along drive and put real names to PPRuNe tags.

A2QFI

22nd Jul 2007, 07:32

Cargosales - many thanks for your detective work, your keen observation and comments, summed up in a highly perceptive post which makes the position much clearer. The only small question is why you should think it odd that these residents have banded together to raise their voices in almost universal objection? It is only what has happened here on Pprune!
I emphasise that I think that the residents are at least misguided, if not plain wrong, and the actions taken here have my full support, and financial too if that becomes an issue and expenses are incurred. I think that the way our fighting forces are treated is shameful, both in sandy places to the East and then when they get back here, fit if they are lucky, and with their minds and bodies shattered if they are unlucky.

splitbrain

22nd Jul 2007, 09:18

This leaves two possible options: Either one or two individuals have misled the residents, deliberately or otherwise, as to the nature of the proposed change of use of 36 Gray's Lane due to their own selfish nature or certain persons have a vested interest in how the area is developed in the future. If there is another option then I'm blowed if I can see it right now but I'm open to persuasion.

Probably just an exaggerated fear of the unknown mate. One or two people express their concerns, that triggers doubt in the minds of a few others and so the thing gathers momentum. If your analysis of the type of individual who inhabits the area is correct, they probably didn't get where they are by demonstrating apathy towards something they assess as being a threat. In that sense (and that sense alone I emphasise) the other sheeple in this country could probably learn a lesson from them.
By registering their protests they probably thought they had nothing to lose and never envisaged the uproar they would spark off. As it is, they stand pilloried and vilified by virtually everyone who has been made aware of the issue. Whether that has any effect on them, or whether their social and occupational circles raises them out of the need to be concerned about how they are perceived, remains to be seen.

pulse1

22nd Jul 2007, 10:47

From cargosale's brilliant assessment of the Gray Lane community, the residents are obviously people who are accustomed to having complete control of their lives. The sort of control that only a failure in health can overcome (and, hopefully, the power of the miltary community and the internet).

I would imagine that many of them give their time to "good works" but probably only within their narrow comfort zone. e.g. working in the local charity shop, or being a pillar of the local church.

Margo Leadbetter of the "Good Life" would probably be at home here.

wondermum

22nd Jul 2007, 11:13

Am trying to get the rumour wagon on line at HC, fingers xsd for some attendees.......

Double Zero

22nd Jul 2007, 11:40

Pulse1,

I doubt even ' Margo Leadbetter ' would have joined this resident's snake pit, as she was portrayed as a basically decent person - though Felicity Kendal gets my ' vote ' every time - in my dreams anyway...

Memetic

22nd Jul 2007, 12:01

I am not a lawyer. However it occured to me that as the representaions made regarding this planning application seem to have been removed from the Mole Valley council website there may have been a proceedural breach which, should this need to go to appeal, could be exploited.

Petiton signed, email on its way to planning.

chappie

22nd Jul 2007, 12:23

i am a relative latecomer to this thread but i am sooo mad. i will do what ever i can do to help. i will take time to read through the thread properly as that i don't go off half cock and all gung ho and not help the situation. i want to compliment and help not hinder. have been in contact with wonder mum. posted on egoat and like i said there i am incandescant with rage.

there are no words to describe the narrow mindidness ( you know what i mean) of these people. they think that their money will buy them exclusivity in their "private" lane and it cocoons them from the reality of life. if they want exclusivity then let them have it and remove their right to protection from the best armed forces in the world, to the services and amenities we all use. if they don't want to share, then fine let's show them what that means.

An Teallach

22nd Jul 2007, 13:57

There will be a leafletting campaign this week to try to get the 'Tom and Barbaras' of Ashtead to write to the Planning Committee to outweigh the 'Jerry and Margos', as a letter from a local is worth 1,000 from an outsider.

Fluffy Bunny of ARRSE is stumping up to pay for the leaflets and you can help reimburse him by sending dosh through PayPal (http://www.paypal.co.uk/uk) to:

lordfluffyofbunny @ hotmail.co.uk

Put "SSAFA" in the message line so he knows what it's about.
Any balance will go to SSAFA.

Edited 23/07/07 09:10 to add:

FluffyBunny has been overwhelmed by the response. No further funds are needed at the mo. I'll edit this again if it goes to appeal and SSAFA decide to stay in the fray. Many thanks.

Green Flash

22nd Jul 2007, 14:10

Ah, I see Chappie is in the thread! (welcome) Mole Valley, prepare your finest, you might need 'em!

Chugalug2

22nd Jul 2007, 17:26

Ah, I see Chappie is in the thread! (welcome) Mole Valley, prepare your finest, you might need 'em!

Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh how very very dear!

Hi Chappie, welcome to the fray!

Oh dear dear dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear!

Rocket Chucker

22nd Jul 2007, 17:28

This bit from Cargo Sales says it all for me. There’s no more potent reminder of what we’re about. Thanks for putting onto the thread. :D

The 29 year old, who has two young children, said a place for his family to stay was very important.

He added: “If it wasn’t for my family, I wouldn’t have been able to get through the last couple of weeks.”

Quite agree with Double Zero for a meet up. I don’t know the area and will also be driving a fair distance.

“Further to previous posts by self & others, any ideas for a meet up before attending? Please PM me if felt necessary, I have been asked by others without direct access to let them know.”

If there are any others from Wiltshire PM me and we can look at cutting down our carbon footprint by sharing motors – just a thought.

An Teallach

Money for Fluffy Bunny on its way when I can sort out how my bl@@dy Paypal account works – luddite that I am. :ugh:

Tigs2

22nd Jul 2007, 20:27

Wondermum

check personal messages!:ok:

Pontius Navigator

22nd Jul 2007, 21:00

Petitions may not count as much as letters nor as much as a local's letter but now over 2700.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/

Gonzo

22nd Jul 2007, 21:16

I'll be travelling up from Southampton, so anyone else on my way who'd like a lift let me know!:ok:

west lakes

22nd Jul 2007, 22:08

A couple of thoughts as a councillor

In post #152 a reference is made to declaration of interest - in this case it may not be relevant. There are two types of interest
1/ Personal - usually where a member knows personally someone involved or it may affect him/her
2/ Predujicial generally where the matter being discussed has a possible financial effect on that person
In the first case an interest has to be declared and recorded but has no further effect. In the latter the member has to withdraw from the meeting (except in certain circumstances) but cannot vote on the matter.
The rules are in the process of changing and it depends on which version the Council is operting under.
Look up Code of Conduct in the Standards Board website.

Procedure
Each Council has its own but bear in mind that you may only speak with the permission of the Chair and for the time limit stated. The events described in #195 are interesting as IMO due process was not followed if objectors did not allow a person to speak - they should have been removed.
As has been cautioned earler don't drop to their level, but if the same happens again it could work to your advantage as the matter would be reportable, initially to full Council.
The risk of course is that after that event no one will be allowed to speak!
If I can find any other useful bits I'll post them

cargosales

22nd Jul 2007, 22:46

"Each Council has its own but bear in mind that you may only speak with the permission of the Chair and for the time limit stated. The events described in #195 are interesting as IMO due process was not followed if objectors did not allow a person to speak - they should have been removed. "

West Lakes: My understanding is that the meeting at which the SSAFA representative was shouted down was not a council meeting and indeed nothing to do with the local council.

It was apparantly at a meeting of Ashtead Park Estate Management Company Ltd. (APEM) Note this is not Ashstead Residents Association (ARA) - they are two different entities).

Ashtead Park Estate Management Company represents only those in a very localised area, including Gray's Lane where, by coincidence, the chairman of APEM, Mr Webb also resides. Meetings of APEM are I presume open only to people in the area APEM represents but I'm happy to be corrected on that.

For the sake of clarity, the other name which is frequently quoted is Roger Bennett who is the 'planning officer' of ARA. As far as I know, Mr Bennett is nothing to do with APEM but I'm happy to be corrected on that point too.

Hope that helps

CS

wondermum

23rd Jul 2007, 07:29

Mick / Tigs 2 wondermums mate here ...wondermum in Glou havin a spot of bovver ,no leckie ,no water ,no escape ,:eek: and with 2 young kids !!!! Dunkirk spirit intact ....Mike ring her if you need to speak ,she will catch up when leckie comes back on ,........love to you all

wondermum

23rd Jul 2007, 07:39

phone just gone down too :{

stiknruda

23rd Jul 2007, 07:59

Donation sent and petition signed.
Headley Court featured heavily in my life after an injury.

Stik

weevhearditb4

23rd Jul 2007, 09:08

Forget about the four feathers i am thinking of thousands...not white in this case but black.

I cannot find anything on the web or my military history books what you write on the card when sending them and do the feathers have to belong to Fowl (think about it).

They will not be sent to the local residents but very high up the chain of command and not to MVDC.

I have lots of black balls but they are too heavy.

Any suggestions would be welcome.

I am traveling up from Ramsgate if any one wants a lift... no costs involved disabled facilities (wheelchair) not a probelm.

And this is the reason my son is leaving the Army. Fave book at the moment is "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs" which prompted me to question my faith in the countries military. It's a book on the wasteful manner the UK's defence budget is spent. An awesome read

weevhearditb4

23rd Jul 2007, 09:29

Just received this get there early boys and Girls and lets hope the canteen is open!!

Thank you for your email of 21 July 2007. I am informed that our public gallery can hold about 40 - but we do have the facility to set up a video link through to the staff canteen if we are overwhelmed. However, you may also view the meeting live via our website.

weevhearditb4

23rd Jul 2007, 18:53

This is useful as it will set out the next battle lines if refusal is voted.

"The Secretary of State’s policy on call-ins is set out in Richard Caborn’s statement of 16 June 1999 in reply to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Mr Bill Michie MP".

cargosales

23rd Jul 2007, 19:51

Could you elaborate please weevhearditb4?

JessTheDog

23rd Jul 2007, 21:51

Agenda now on Council website

http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/pdf/h/h/Agenda__Index__Minutes_(4th_July_2007)__Pages_1_-_34.pdf

It deserves careful scrutiny. This is the battleground!

cargosales

23rd Jul 2007, 22:34

But do have a look at the rest of the agenda - it gives a good idea as to the mentality of what we are up against.

CS

alwayslookingup

24th Jul 2007, 00:11

Evening all,

have just picked up on this thread having been on hols. Although a long time reader of PP I've never registered as never felt I'd anything of value to offer until posssibly now.

As an elected representative of the great unwashed, in my second four year term (albeit north of the border) I can confidently say I don't think I've seen a better example of a planning officer wriggling on a hook to find justification for a decision as I see in the committee report concerning this application.

I'm making a big assumption that planning applications in England are decided the same way as up here ie purely and simply on the basis of whether or not the application is in accordance with the Council's adopted policies and Local Plan. To do otherwise can render the Council liable to appeal. If that happens then the Council is liable for costs and a whole lot more if the Reporter finds against them.

(In my own authority this is a very useful curb on some of the more enthsiastic hang 'em & flog 'em brigade and some of us think long and hard before going against a planner's recommendation. My own personal yardstick is that no matter how hard and loud someone shouts, they still only have one vote. Even for some of the most controversial applications I've faced there haven't been more that fifty or sixty objections. That leaves, in my case, about 2440 souls who, by definition have no opinion and therefore tacitly approve the application if they don't object).

In this case the Local Plan is the Mole Valley Local Plan (2000), the relevant policy being cited by the planner being Policy ENV22, "Design, Layout and Development Impact".

Reading the policy it only takes one about ten seconds to discern that the policy relates to the general standard of design of new buildings, not change of use of exisitng buildings, as in this application. Thus, in my view already the planner has erred in law in the interpretation of the policies.

If you need more look at the general development control criteria mentioned in the policy. It states (again for a new development, not a change of use of existing building)

"a design and layout will be required which...does not significantly harm the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties....."

The reason given for the recommendation of refusal is that, according to ENV22, the accommodation would adversely affect the quiet and peaceful nature of the surrounding area. This recommendation in my view erroneously omits the word "significantly" from the recommendation and as such is fatally flawed. Whatever else the word significant means in daily use, in planning terms it means just that, there must be a large and sustained degreee of prejudice to one's rights, not just a minor inconvenience.

Thus, the application must be decided on policy grounds alone. As an elected councillor, were I to be presented with this report I would have no difficulty in deciding an alternative course of action and that is perfectly permissable in situations where one is taking a judgement call. Often we are faced in my own authority with situations where a planner has taken a judgement "on balance" and that is fine, so long as if we as councillors wish to disagree and take an alternative view we are able to do so with proper reference to our own policies.

That all having been said, however, I fear in this case the quality of mercy is going to be very strained. For reasons known to themself, (leant on, perchance?) the planner has made a recommendation of refusal and it is perfectly competent for councillors on the committee to simply agree that recommendation and move on. If attending the meeting and speaking, a word of advice, keep to the facts. Try not to let emotions rule, stick to the Local Plan and Policies.

If anyone would like to PM me to chat please do so.

PPRuNe Pop

24th Jul 2007, 06:32

Would this then suggest that there is a hidden agenda? Something that is being shoved aside or being ignored because of a planner taking the easy way out?

It would be a foolish person to think that there will not be an appeal by SSAFA if it gets turned down, and I doubt very much that Planning Inspectorate will see this the same way that the planner does.

weevhearditb4

24th Jul 2007, 06:46

Indeed, That is why people need to read the call in procedures as i have previously posted.

The views of the planning officer are just that. the local plan does support this, its just a change of use that's it.

They cannot refuse the disabled access in any way. This planning issue is of more than local importance and people need to be writing to the communities Minster about this issue i know i am.

An Teallach

24th Jul 2007, 06:55

PPop

Miss Westphal's recommendation was made before we got involved and it appears she's used ENV 22 to 'go along with' the local residents who (at that time) overwhelmingly objected. I get the impression she is not entirely unsympatheric to our cause.

Cracking post, Alwayslookingup!

Rocket Chucker

24th Jul 2007, 09:52

Sorry to be a pain chaps, but I've not been able to keep up on the thread for wa while been busy on flood response.

What are the arrangements/meeting points established if any?

Any Wiltshire based bods want a lift please PM me.

Per Ardua

cargosales

24th Jul 2007, 11:12

Rocket Chucker, the fine people on ARRSE are organising the leafleting of the town, door knocking etc.

Have a look at this page: http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=72560/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=2115.html

I'd suggest sending DozyBint a PM if you're registered there or if not I can send one for you. Feel free to PM me.

CS

LookDownAndSmile

24th Jul 2007, 11:29

Not sure if this is relevant, but perhaps it may be deemed suitable as forming part of the argument for the approval to be granted.

The military covenant, although not a legal agreement per se, nonetheless is touted as the cornerstone upon which our armed services have operated throughout history.

On the Government website (http://www.army.mod.uk/servingsoldier/usefulinfo/valuesgeneral/adp5milcov/ss_hrpers_values_adp5_1_w.html)
the military covenant is described, and, whilst I have paraphrased it, nonetheless states:

The soldier …

- must be prepared personally to make the decision to engage an enemy or to place themselves in harm’s way;
- must make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation;
- must demonstrate high degrees of personal and collective commitment, self-sacrifice, forbearance and mutual trust;
- must accept that conflict is still the province of chaos, danger, exhaustion, fear, loneliness and privation;
- has to forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces;
- must be available at any time, to go anywhere and to carry out a wide variety of potential missions in support of government policy;
- accepts that this demands hard and realistic training, the unquestioning acceptance of authority and sound discipline;
- has to understand and accept the political and legal responsibilities of their actions;

- must know that what they are called upon to do is right as well as militarily achievable, and has the support of the nation, society and the government.

The Nation, in recognition of the cost of providing such service …

- accepts that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly;
- undertakes that in return for their service to the Nation, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.

At present all British serving personnel hold up their part of the covenant in a manner that is the envy of the modern world, and, sadly, often do pay the ultimate price.

However, whilst we deeply mourn those who are lost, it is even more paramount that we, the Nation, succour those who have risked their lives in defence of us, and our National interests, and who have suffered any injury as a result.

Currently it is estimated that for every death in service, and for which there is often considerable news coverage and public awareness, there are at least 14 other servicemen and women seriously or critically injured. These casualties are not widely reported.

However, these 14 people are not faceless, nameless, individuals who will conveniently disappear once their usefulness is exhausted. In serving their nation many will have suffered traumatic and substantial injuries, often losing limbs, losing their sight, and suffering both mentally and physically in ways the average civilian cannot even begin to imagine or understand.

Every one of them has family, friends, wives, sons and daughters who will also, and for the rest of their lives, share the pain and continue to pay the price of serving the Nation. Collectively these families have made a greater sacrifice than we can comprehend. The ongoing impact on their daily lives, and that of their families will be far more enduring than any visible scars.

Unfortunately the Nation in return seems to be consistently and deliberately reneging on its part of the covenant.

The objections of the local residents appear to be a prime example of this.

Do the local residents actually believe that they are exempt from paying their part of the national debt we owe our armed forces personnel? Are they so complacent in their sheltered lives of privilege, financial security and physical health that they believe it is enough to wear a red poppy once a year?

The military covenant is not an intangible myth which only applies to a select few – it is a founding principle under which our servicemen and women go out and constantly risk their lives for every man, woman, child in the United Kingdom – and that includes Grays Lane residents! They do so in the belief that such risk will be repaid in respect, support, and, in the event of their suffering injury or death, that they, and their families, will be taken care of.

The SSAFA proposal at Grays Lane merely seeks to facilitate some payment towards this great debt we collectively owe.

I hope that the Committee will consider very carefully the wider implications that their refusal of this proposal would constitute, and will grant the application as proposed.

I further hope that the residents of Grays Lane and the surrounding area who have raised objections, will re-consider their position. Perhaps some will finally recognise that a few more cars driving down a lane already well shielded by grass verges and trees, and a little more noise than usual is a small sacrifice to be made in return for the massive sacrifices already made by our Armed Forces, and will retract their objections.

To do anything else would be a travesty, and would demonstrate clearly that the constant sacrifice of our servicemen and women is neither valued or even recognised by the Nation – and that will have incalculable consequences in the future.

An Teallach

24th Jul 2007, 15:15

Perhaps not technically the best letter of representation from a planning point of view, but ... Gaun yersel's the auld yins (http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/cwi/getDocument?docId=113125&account=planning&ref=MO/2007/0863&filename=Letter%20of%20Representation)!

Mr-Burns

24th Jul 2007, 15:50

Chaps,

I wrote a letter to Surrey Planning office as have the rest of you. I have just recieved a written answer from them explaining the following:

At the hearing in Aug, each side is allowed one representative to speak. They have asked me if I want to speak in support of the application (each side can only have ONE speaker to put the case forward). Has everyone else recieved this invite as a matter of course or have they singled me out for some reason? The letter was good but not that good.

Mr Burns

JessTheDog

24th Jul 2007, 17:46

Regarding the planning officer's recommendation:

1. As well as local/national policy, they need to consider precedents and case law. After all, they wouldn't want to end up subject to judicial review of their decision (objectors can't appeal as applicants can).

2. ENV22 will not just apply to building. "Development" has a wide-ranging definition and it includes change of use.

I don't work within what is known as development control, but I have some knowledge of the system. The recommendation looks as if it was made based on previous cases and before the significance of the development became apparent due to overwhelming support.

Pontius Navigator

24th Jul 2007, 18:07

Over 6800 names on the petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/

It seems to be growing more rapidly.

weevhearditb4

24th Jul 2007, 18:11

Sorry it took so long to get back to you but here is the info.

THE GOVERNMENT’S POLICY ON CALL-IN

The Government’s policy on call-in was laid out in a written answer to Mr Bill Michie in Hansard on 16 June 1999 by Richard Caborn. Mr Caborn said that the First Secretary of State’s general approach, like that of previous Secretary of States’, is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for the day to day planning control in their areas. It is right in that in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.
There will be some occasions, however, when the Secretary of State may consider it necessary to call in the planning application to determine himself instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority.
The Secretary of State’s policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. He will in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include for example, those which in his opinion:

May conflict with national policies on important matters;
Could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality;
Give rise to substantial regional or national controversy;
Raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or
May involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

Phwwww and there is more SSAFA can appeal if they lose on Planning grounds.

Double Zero

24th Jul 2007, 18:48

I've received a reply from Clive Swift of Planning, saying we need to have an elected represantative to speak for all of us - I assume this is done, has someone been selected ( I would be poor cannon fodder compared to some of the great proponents seen here, but just don't want everyone to assume someone else is doing it ! So have we a speaker ? ).

He also rounded off by saying the recommendation was to refuse...

I suspect and hope that one's going to haunt him...

Mr-Burns

24th Jul 2007, 19:26

Please see Double Zero comment above. I mentioned it earlier with no answers. They seem to be looking for a rep to speak at the meeting. In the letter from Clive Swift it says that he / she will have 3 minutes to make the case. This is obviously important - have we got someone thats gonna do this?

They give a phone number for whoever the speaker will be to ring and confirm - you can bet your a** that the local residents already have their plans / script in concrete. Did anyone else get the letter from mr Swift??

An Teallach

24th Jul 2007, 19:29

Everyone who submitted a letter of representation and gave an e-mail address got one. ARRSE are arranging a representative speaker to co-ord with SSAFA's rep.

cargosales

24th Jul 2007, 20:12

Mr B and Double Zero: Don't worry - It's in hand. The organisers over on ARRSE have someone lined up to speak on behalf of Blue Team :)

CS

Tigs2

24th Jul 2007, 20:41

Mr B and Double Zero.

Just to reitterate what Cargo has said. It is likely to be Part Time Pongo on AARSE. I have met him, he will do a good Job. I am assuming that the person who speaks is in addition to the SSAFA legal team, if not then our speaker must be the SSAFA lawer (whom PTP has been talking with).

Keep up the good work:ok:

Mr-Burns

24th Jul 2007, 21:46

Thanks. Was a bit worried for a bit. Thought they had one over on us.

An Teallach

24th Jul 2007, 21:57

This is a corker from the comments on NHS Blog Doctor (http://nhsblogdoc.*************/). John is replying to a fairly obvious nimby posting as 'Disinterested Outsider':

John said...

'Disintrested Outsider' my Arrse

It is all very well to accuse the residents of Grays Lane of not wanting them in their back yard, but what is wrong with Headley Court's own, 84-acre back yard?

This facility is needed now - not in five years after overcoming the covenants restricting building on the Headley Court grounds (an historic listed building).

FFS, they have 84 acres of their own

Actually they do not - it is SSAFA, a charity, not the MOD which is purchasing the property. The MOD could perhaps provide the land, but no building could be done for a number of years.

Furthermore, having relatives on site, rather than subject to a bus travelling only once or twice a day, would, as I'm sure Dr. Crippen knows, allow them to assist in the convalescence of their loved ones.

Actually, the choice of location takes in to consideration the need to give convalescent forces personel respite from the hospital where their gruelling daily routine takes place. Having the families stay on the grounds themselves, even if an immediate build were an option, would not be ideal.

I imagine that these people, so effortlessly stereotyped by Dr. Crippen, coming from their grim council estates, would much prefer the chance to stroll around the 84 acres of landscaped gardens

I'm sure they would love to stroll - unfortunately, many have no legs. Hence the need for disabled access to the property.

Are you familiar with Gray's lane? - the idea that this is some particularly important part of english heritage which needs to be protected from a small amount of additional traffic is given the lie by the fact that it is not included in the rather large list of areas designated by Ashtead council as being of special character.

It is simply a quiet suburban road (one which I might add is rather close to Headley Court) which would be ideally suited to such a welfare facility.

By all means lets leave emotion to one side - in which case, none of the spurious objections to this facility hold water.

cargosales

24th Jul 2007, 23:31

Bloody right it is.

As I said in my recce report a few pages ago, this house is nigh on perfect, in a fantastic location and offering amenities I'm sure many injured squaddie's families can only dream of. (They don't earn a fortune you know, more like the square root of bugger all)

For some piccies of the house and immediate vicinity, have a look here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10219376@N03/

Peace, tranquility and somewhere for families to escape the rigours of everyday existance while they try to re-build their shattered lives :{

Please everyone, sign the petition here http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/

AND

write to the council here:
http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=MO/2007/0863&theTabNo=3&backURL=%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?Res ultID=192439%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=devdesc:a%26DispResu ltsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%27%3ESearch%20Results

(sorry, it's late and I can't get the insert code thingy to work)

Before you do anything though, have a look here: http://www.36grayslane.co.uk/

If you're not choked up by that then feel free to join the Red Team with their spurious, nauseous and downright appalling objections that make me almost embarrassed to be British.

This is a good example of what we're up against:

http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/cwi/getDocument?docId=113171&account=planning&ref=MO/2007/0863&filename=Letter%20of%20Representation

(Note, if the link doesn't work first time, please try again - the Mole Valley District Council's server keeps crashing from the sheer weight of traffic it's getting right now :}

Action now please chaps. Get typing !!!

CS

Double Zero

24th Jul 2007, 23:36

'Grim council estates etc' !

Please tell me it's late & this is delusion on my part or a v.large foot in mouth - too tired to appreciate subtlety... http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

alwayslookingup

24th Jul 2007, 23:36

Evening All,

Burning the midnight oil again.

Spent this morning at a Council meeting adjudicating on sixteen different and varied planning applications and have been working a back shift since then, so this is the first chance I’ve had to catch up.

Some observations on today’s correspondence, by Post, as follows:-

243 - Not much of a hidden agenda here. It seems blatantly obvious that, for reasons known unto herself but which can be guessed at, the planner’s wriggling on the end of a hook to conjure up a reason to refuse.

244 & 253 – Would think it very unlikely the Secretary of State would deem it necessary to invoke call in procedures. Bear in mind that, irrespective of the general and emotive issues, in terms of planning law and procedure, we are dealing here with a simple application for change of use of a building. Councils throughout the UK have probably dealt with several hundred just such planning applications today and, as I have been at pains to point out already, they should all be dealt with on their individual merits according to the Council’s adopted policies and plans.

The proper procedure for SSAFA, if refused, is an appeal on the grounds the Council has acted contrary to its policies. These are the very same policies, incorporated in the Local Plan, that will have already been the subject of substantial public consultation and development and possibly even a public enquiry before going to the Secretary of State for approval prior to adoption.

248 - Very interesting but sorry, not in the least bit relevant in terms, as I say again, of a simple application for change of use of a building

251 - No, the Councillors and planners do not need to consider precedent and case law. That would be done by a County Court judge or, up here, by a Sheriff, if the case came up for judicial review. Whilst the planning process is a quasi judicial process, planning applications should only be measured, all together now, by the council’s own adopted policies as expressed in the adopted local plan and, where necessary in terms of larger developments, by reference to national planning policy and guidelines. Similarly, it is incumbent on each council to deal with each application entirely on its own merits, without any reference to any other similar application. In this case it is the legal and fundamental right of SSAFA and the good people they represent to have this application be dealt with exactly as what it is, a simple application for change of use of a building.

Further, JessTheDog, I don’t know where you are coming from with your assertion in the second paragraph re ENV22, but in my reading, everything about this policy is designed to relate to, and moderate, NEW DEVELOPMENT, not change of use of existing development

252 – PN, I’ve loved reading your posts over the years but in terms of petitions I’d draw an analogy with a quote often repeated but who’s provenance I cannot establish, viz. “If voting changed anything, they’d abolish it.” I have often been presented with a petition and to be perfectly honest they are barely worth the paper they’re written on. If we were to decide planning applications simply by how many signatures you could get on a petition then we all may as well pack up and go home now.

Similarly, I would question the validity and appropriateness of leafletting/door knocking etc. These activities have no place in the due planning process and may only serve to further polarise opinion. Be dignified. This will be won by keeping things tight, focussed and based on fact and law, not emotion. Let the other side do the emotive bit and show themselves up for the utter a***s they are. Rise above it, stand tall, we have right on our side, let's try and see that that is what wins through at the end of the day.

Sorry to go on, guys and gals, but this is the way I see it, based on 4 years as someone on the other side of the fence who has considered several hundred planning applications.

Finally, for now, if you wish to write in support, your support must be founded on specific policy grounds. Earlier in the discussion I read posts looking for help in framing such a communication. From my own point of view, and from a planner’s point of view, you might like to consider a letter which included some, or all, of the following points:-

“Dear Miss Westphal,

Application MO/2007/0863CU

I write in support of the above application for the following reasons:-

This application accords with the Mole Valley Local Plan (2000) Housing Policy HSG8, Subdivision of Dwellings in Built Up Areas and Villages.

The objections, and indeed the Report itself, seeks to reject this application on the basis it will adversely affect the amenity of the area. However, in its own Local Plan the Council does not include Grays Lane in its list of Residential Areas of Special Character (Policy ENV17), (MVLP 2000)

The rationale of Policy ENV 22 (MVLP 2000), founded upon to reject the application, is to preserve the quality of built and rural environment and heritage of the district by raising the general standard and design of new buildings. It relates, however, only to new development, and not to change of use of existing buildings. As such it incompetent to use it as grounds for refusal of this application.

Even if ENV22 (MVLP 2000) were held to be applicable, The General Development Control Criteria listed in specifically provide that a design or layout will be required that :-

“does not significantly harm the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of its overlooking or overshadowing or overpowering effect, noise, traffic or other adverse environmental impact;”

The report itself describes the substantial nature of the building and surrounds, adequate off street parking as well as it being set back from Grays Lane. All of these mitigate against any perceived or supposed adverse effects on neighbouring properties by the proposed development. As a consequence, in my view there will be no adverse effect on neighbouring properties, much less the significant harm on amenity required by the General Development Control Criteria listed in ENV22.

I request you note these points in terms of my support for this application.

Yours etc,”

An Teallach

25th Jul 2007, 00:32

Thanks for some more corking advice, alwayslookingup. The point of the leafletting / canvassing campaign is to try to get more locals to write letters of support as we assume they would carry more weight with the committee than letters from outsiders. Is that not the case?

Tigs2

25th Jul 2007, 02:14

AE
should your and always post go on ARRSE?, I think so!

alwayslookingup

25th Jul 2007, 07:50

AT - Point taken about the leafletting and local publicity but would advise the leaflets simply deal with facts and not emotion.

Tigs2 - by all means if you wish to repost mine on ARRSE please do so

Cargosales - thanks for the info and images of No 36. All I can say is, looking at the pictures, "What's the b*****y problem?!" Is it because some of the potential guests may not be relatives of 'hofficers'?! (Ooops, getting emotional now).

Rgds to one and all on this glorious morning in North Britain.

An Teallach

25th Jul 2007, 08:04

Always

I took the liberty of sending your post to the 'Spokesman' by private means as I think it would make a great backbone to the verbal representation at the meeting.

You must be further North than me - a tad dreich in the capital! I was reading yesterday that this rain is being caused by El Ninio having shifted the Atlantic jetstream further South than normal. It seems the Western Isles have been basking in near-tropical sunshine for some months. To cheer those of us 'doon sooth' up, here's the beach at Bernaray:

http://www.isleofberneray.com/gallery/sand4/curve-west-beach.jpg

air pig

25th Jul 2007, 16:39

If the area was flooded, would the locals refuse help from the military ??? or claim that this is what we pay our taxes for ???

cargosales

25th Jul 2007, 18:29

Just to keep everyone up to speed with what's happening:

Today (Wednesday 25th), the Blue Team started leafletting and knocking on doors in Ashtead.

One of the guys there, jack-daniels, posted this on ARRSE a short while ago:
"Points from today:

1. 99.99% of the people we spoke to in the street are in favour of SSAFA buying the house for the purpose of family visits.

2. One bloke we spoke to knows the main objector and called him ''an utter cnut''!

3. One person asked us tongue in cheek if we were from ''that scurillous website!''

4. We spoke to the lady who owns number 36, I will not put her comments on here due to Red Team sneaking in.

5. After we gave people leaflets a lot of them came back and asked us all about it.

6. A couple of people did ask why the house wasn't being built in Headley Court so we told them the reasons

7. The residents of Haig Homes, a spit away from No 36 are all favour.

8. A lot of people used swear words when talking about the objectors, we didn't!

9. One resident of Grays Lane didn't even know people were objecting to the proposal!

I'm sure the other guys will add more to this but thanks to Saintstone. The Snake and Sven. It was a pleasure if not a bit wet towards the end but the lady from Help the Aged charity shop gave us two brollies to use! "
...End...

Well done guys :D

Also today, I had a telephone conversation with Part Time Pongo from ARRSE who is co-ordinating the whole campaign. He's very much on top of things, including organising people to speak on behalf of Blue Team at the Mole Valley District Council meeting on 1st August when the matter will be discussed.

PTP is also on top of lobbying, some of which is at a very high level indeed! There are several other initiatives underway but details are being kept under wraps as Red Team are known to be reading these pages := *hello Red Team*

The one thing which PTP and everyone on ARRSE is insistent on though is that we retain the moral high ground. This means please guys, no personal attacks on, or indeed any contact with, individual objectors and doing nothing which could be used by them to undermine our position. They sank to personal lows with some of their objections but let's not join them there.

In other news, the Ashtead Residents Association appears to be softening its stance which, if correct, is great news.

And, even better, today the petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/ went through the 10,000 signature barrier. This is good news because that is the number at which 'the powers that be' start to pay serious attention to an issue. The more the better though so if you haven't then sign now! But only once please - can't have Red Team crying foul over a silly thing like enthusiasm.

That's it for the moment but I'll update when I can add more.

CS

m5dnd

25th Jul 2007, 21:44

probably a Bump !

Petition now at 12116

Excellent work

Gonzo

25th Jul 2007, 21:58

Thanks for the update CS, very interesting to see the reaction of the residents encountered there.........:D

ZOFO

25th Jul 2007, 22:53

Bit of a boing, but standing at 12,327 at the mo, and I have added my name to this petition, Would the residents there want us, HM Forces to drop sand-bags and water off etc.. if their dining room/smoking lounges were under threat from flooding.. I think so.. Looking back through the thread there has been some fantistic work done, keep it up. I am sure that all members of HM Forces agree it is a facility that is needed, but in a hope that we will never have to use.

Safe Home to all

Zofo and family

SlopJockey

26th Jul 2007, 08:19

Following the letter of objection (http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/cwi/getDocument?docId=110724&account=planning&ref=MO/2007/0863&filename=Letter%20of%20Representation) where he mentions a bullying approach and whatever the cost to the local community
As 2006 draws to a close it sems like an appropriate time to reflect on the past year and look forward to the future.
2006 looks like being another record year for private equity investment into the healthcare sector in the UK, with over £4.5 billion worth of deals completed at the time of writing and a good chance of hitting the £5 billion target by the year end
Hypocrisy and money grabbing are words that spring to mind.
I suppose being in private equity there is no honour or ethic apart from screwing as much money as they can. He would much prefer, rather than using an established charity to set a facility up near to his prized residence, that some of his equity chums bankroll a PFI that can screw the government ie the taxpayer for the next 25 years.
SJ
It was necessary to remove a link because it directly 'attacks' an objector. A tactic that is, without doubt, counter productive.
Edited to discuss with mods:
Sorry that you found this to be an attack but i am merely reporting what is in the public domain, via a little bit of googlework. I thought I was being very restrained:uhoh:
SJ

Rocket Chucker

26th Jul 2007, 09:05

Slop Jockey,

Excellent post and first class int. gathering mate. :D

Well doesn't this say it all! :ugh:

The more I read of these self serving t@ss pots the more bl@@dy angry I get. :*

Let's just hope the planning committe see these objections for what they are - a way to make money out of other peoples misery and a case of terminal NIMBYism.

Does that just about fit the bill Red Team? :yuk:

Per Ardua

swerve

26th Jul 2007, 11:35

Of all the posts I've ever read or followed on this site, none have gripped my interest or determination as much as this one. Some of the posts are little short of superb, so well researched and very professionally put together. There are a group of 25 of us here who are following your progress and whilst we can do little more than sign the petition and write all the letters (due to the distance involved)- rest assured there are many people who are willing you on and wish you/SAFFA all you deserve on the 1st - courage will prevail, as will justice.
These low life objectors do not deserve to get their way, anyone with the simplest of common sense, who looks at this application without any form of bias or pre judgement must allow it through. Any other result would be a real travesty.
Keep going folks, your day is soon

alwayslookingup

26th Jul 2007, 11:35

Mods,

I posted on this thread earlier to day and it hasn't appeared. Any idea why?

Rgds.

I suggest you post again. There is nothing hung up..........cyberspace has struck again.

Wader2

26th Jul 2007, 12:21

Always, are you sure? You said it hadn't appeared as opposed to being puled.

Sometimes between composing and pressing send my connection has dropped. Unless you saw the screen refesh and return to the thread and display your post then you did not post it.

Mr-Burns

26th Jul 2007, 13:57

Chaps,

If the words sucking and eggs come to mind please forgive me, however, I have been present at 3 Planning Application meetings where each side was given 3 minutes to put their case forward. In each case, the speaker who counted upon emotion and getting the council on his side due to hardship etc etc lost the case. Whoever is in touch with the guy from ARSE who is going to speak for us, can they please let him know. On each ocassion, the team that concentrated upon contradicting the evidence (traffic, noise, pollution etc) won the day. I know that they probably appreciate this fact but just thought they may like to know.

Mr-B

Rocket Chucker

26th Jul 2007, 14:45

Mike,

Excellent poster and excellent site. I guess probably not but - do you have any objection to me hawking your pster around a number of service related bulletin boards that I've been keeping posted on the campaign?

Just thgought I'd better get your OK before hand.

Per Ardua

Padraig Murphy

26th Jul 2007, 18:40

MJ, How's about posting it throughout Surrey's Royal British Legions?

Just picked this off their website:

[Surrey][The Legion is very active in the Surrey area, with 74 Branches, sub Branches, 37 Women's Sections and 35 Clubs, and 15,086 members around the county. The county offices are in Leatherhead, where the County Field Officer, County Field Administrator and County Secretary are based.]

Maybe already covered?

m5dnd

26th Jul 2007, 20:20

RE. Surrey British Legions,

I spoke to the Ashtead, Bookham/Effingham Branches and the Leatherhead County person last week and they support the cause and are letter writing etc....

Amazing support for this...

M5DND

air pig

26th Jul 2007, 20:27

Have sent an e-mail to the local BBC talk show host, Roger Phillips, hopefully he will read it out. Pointed out that, what SSAFA are proposing is the same concept as the Ronald McDonald House at Alder Hey hospital, where families can stay whilst someone is in the hospital for little or no cost. Also pointed out that service personnel locally are have been, are, and are preparing to deploy to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ( opsec, noted in local press ) or in the flood relief work. Asked that ex service personnel look at the various web sites for which I have provided addresses including MVDC.

May get a reply or he could even contact local BBC in the area, who knows ???

Keep up the action. if i can help, if only by writing letters, please PM me.

Regards Air Pig

An Teallach

26th Jul 2007, 20:35

I Was in contact with the RBL County Sec last week and he gave us the contacts in Ashtead. The legion boys are helping out with the leafletting campaign.

I see the petition is at 17,879 and seems to be moving at @ 400 per hour - great stuff!

MightyGem

26th Jul 2007, 20:48

Gentlemen, I am moved to tears with all that is going on here. I have signed the peptition and emailed the council, but the effort that is being put in here, and on Arrse, is truly amazing. :D

JessTheDog

26th Jul 2007, 21:18

Further, JessTheDog, I don’t know where you are coming from with your assertion in the second paragraph re ENV22, but in my reading, everything about this policy is designed to relate to, and moderate, NEW DEVELOPMENT, not change of use of existing development

I don't want to get into any debate about planning(!) but from what I read of ENV22 it only mentioned development, which includes change of use by definition. I don't think the planning officer is wrong as such by counting change of use as development, but they are unreasonable to recommend refusal on the grounds of impact rather than unacceptable impact. I believe the planning inspector upheld an appeal for a development just around the corner from Grays Lane on this point. Sorry for sending everyone to sleep, I'll get my coat......

By the way, I fully support the application and have made the representation etc.

alwayslookingup

26th Jul 2007, 22:57

Evening all,

just in from work again and catching up before watching the Tour de France highlights.

Jess, sorry, can’t agree. I speak as someone who has current experience of framing and using Council development control policies, as well as using them as an activist to resist developments in a previous incarnation (poacher turned gamekeeper).

The title of ENV22 is “Design, Layout and Development Impact”. The last sentence of the Introduction, 4.101, states “Through the policies in this section of the Plan the Council aims to raise the general standard of design of new buildings (my emphasis).

Thus, the intentions of the policy are quite clear. It seeks to provide guidance on what is or is not acceptable for new build, not conversion or re-use.

From this, in my view, everything else flows. Ergo, if the proposal at 36 Grays Lane is not a new building then, by definition, this policy is inapplicable. If that is the case then the planner has erred. As that is the only ground upon which she recommends refusal it must then fall. If it falls there are no grounds to recommend refusal so it must pass. Hoist by her own petard, so to speak. It really should be that simple.

Don’t apologise for sending all to sleep. That’s exactly the way this debate should be conducted. Planning law is at times deadly boring.

And, since I haven’t had a chance to say it for a couple of days, I’ll repeat, this application should be decided purely on planning policy grounds. Mr-Burns, Sir, your post 279 hits the nail very squarely on the head and you are completely correct. I have extensive direct experience of being lobbied by some very emotional characters alleging all manners of calumny that would befall them if a particular application succeeds. Moreover, it’s always fashionable to have a go at elected representatives. They’re an easy target. However, occasionally politics are a place where people can stand tall. I’ve been lucky to be able to make some good decisions in my time as a Councillor. Let’s hope the Councillors in Mole Valley will take a similar humanitarian view here. There’s really no good reason why they shouldn’t.

alwayslookingup

26th Jul 2007, 23:10

Evening all (again).

My missing post from this morning was an expanded reply to a PM I received, as follows:-

It is really unfortunate that all of this came to light after the planner had made her report with its recommendation. As I said in one of my posts, as it stands it is now perfectly competent for the Councillors to simply acept that recommendation without giving any justification ie she's done their job for them.

If that happens, however, rest assured that SSAFA will have some good expensive lawyers. They're probably preparing their appeal even as we speak. Up here Appeals go to the Scottish Executive Independent Enquiries Unit. This is composed of experienced and knowledgeable Planning experts who are interested only in the law, not politics and local opinion. My experience is that they take a very dim view of Councils playing politics and taking decisions contrary to their own policies. I trust a similar government department exists down where you are.

On my own reading of the case I personally would be staggered if this was lost on appeal (assuming, of course, that it is turned down as recommended next week).

An Teallach - ah, the well loved tropicana of the Outer Hebrides.Yes indeed I am about 130 miles north of you (Abz) and slightly west.

The most magical flight I ever had was a commercial route from Stornoway to Benbecula. Visibility was 20/20 so the pilot announced we'd take full advantage by huggging the east coast of Lewis. To our left, across the Minch, were the mountains of Torridon and Knoydart, below, the coast and mountains of Harris. Ahead was the Sound of Berneray, the Machair of Lochmaddy and North Uist whilst 40 miles west, St Kilda shimmered on the horizon in the slight heat haze being generated. I was about to say you couldn't buy memeories like that but in fact I had with the plane ticket. Truly, under the right conditions, this is the best country in the world to live in.

Radar Command T/O

27th Jul 2007, 08:20

I've been following this with interest and mounting indignation at the sheer narrow-mindedness of some of those opposed to this project. I signed the petition last week, the 36 Grays Lane guestbook yesterday and had been looking for an appropriate point of law/planning on which to base my letter of support. Thanks to AlwaysLookingUp for bringing ENV22 to our attention and his suggested letter on the previous page.

I agree with him that since the recommendation for refusal is based solely on the application of ENV22, should this go to appeal, all SSAFA would have to do is show that ENV22 is inapplicable in this case. No new grounds for rejection may be introduced at appeal, so if we can shoot down their one, single argument, then the proposal must be approved. If we can shoot down the argument in the initial hearing, then that is even better.

My admiration to those who have been out there campaigning and investigating, keep up the good work.

:D

plans123

27th Jul 2007, 08:33

I've been following this with great interest across all the sites, but came across this late last night on E-Goat. It appears that someone from the Yellow Ribbon Foundation has been nominated as spokesperson for the blue team.......

Interesting to see the response she received and also food for thought.....

E-Goat link (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=8186)

cargosales

27th Jul 2007, 09:14

Just to clarify the position with regards to who speaks on behalf of those in support of the application.

Everyone who writes in support of the proposed planning application is contacted by the council and offered the opportunity to speak. Where one or more people say they wish to do so, the council ask them to liase with each other and discuss which of them will speak. In the event of no agreement being reached, the first person who contacted the council asking to speak will be the one to do so.

As far as her posts on Pprune, e-goat etc are concerned, I think Mrs Cheeks has jumped the gun slightly. She was first to ask the council if she could speak but no agreement has been discussed or reached with other parties as to who will be the most appropriate one to do so. Indeed as of yesterday afternoon, the council was saying that the process of applying to speak is still open.

There is no point vilifying a lady who obviously works hard for, and feels passionately about, the group she represents (Yellow Ribbon Foundation). Whether she is the most appropriate person to speak at the Council meeting on 1st August is a completely different matter and one which I would ask Ppruners to refrain from commenting on here.

I hope that clarifies things.

CS