Neighbours war with wounded soldiers families
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
Fluffy Bunny of ARRSE is stumping up to pay for the leaflets and you can help reimburse him by sending dosh through PayPal 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.
Last edited by An Teallach; 23rd Jul 2007 at 08:13.
Ah, I see Chappie is in the thread! (welcome) Mole Valley, prepare your finest, you might need 'em!
Hi Chappie, welcome to the fray!
Oh dear dear dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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/
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Deepest darkest sx
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick / Tigs 2 wondermums mate here ...wondermum in Glou havin a spot of bovver ,no leckie ,no water ,no escape ,
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tenet
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear all
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
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
Last edited by weevhearditb4; 23rd Jul 2007 at 09:24. Reason: additional information
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tenet
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Planning Meeting
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tenet
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call in of planning applications
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".
"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".
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agenda now on Council website
http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/p...ges_1_-_34.pdf
It deserves careful scrutiny. This is the battleground!
http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/p...ges_1_-_34.pdf
It deserves careful scrutiny. This is the battleground!
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.
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.
Last edited by alwayslookingup; 24th Jul 2007 at 00:14. Reason: correct typo
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.