Neighbours war with wounded soldiers families
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tenet
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe POP
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrangements
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
What are the arrangements/meeting points established if any?
Any Wiltshire based bods want a lift please PM me.
Per Ardua
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrangements for Ashtead
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/...tart=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
Have a look at this page: http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...tart=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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/servingsoldie..._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.
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/servingsoldie..._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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps not technically the best letter of representation from a planning point of view, but ... Gaun yersel's the auld yins!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Swindon
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Over 6800 names on the petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/
It seems to be growing more rapidly.
It seems to be growing more rapidly.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tenet
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cargosales
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:
Phwwww and there is more SSAFA can appeal if they lose on Planning grounds.
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.
Phwwww and there is more SSAFA can appeal if they lose on Planning grounds.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
He also rounded off by saying the recommendation was to refuse...
I suspect and hope that one's going to haunt him...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Swindon
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Representative to speak at the meeting
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
CS
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a corker from the comments on NHS Blog Doctor. 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.
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
36 Gray's Lane 'Fit for purpose?'
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...arch%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/ge...Representation
(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
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...arch%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/ge...Representation
(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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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...
Please tell me it's late & this is delusion on my part or a v.large foot in mouth - too tired to appreciate subtlety...
Last edited by Double Zero; 25th Jul 2007 at 19:15.
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,”
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,”