Neighbours war with wounded soldiers families
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. 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
By the way, I fully support the application and have made the representation etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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
Interesting to see the response she received and also food for thought.....
E-Goat link
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mrs Cheeks
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
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
Like others I am overwhelmed at the activity and input going on here and elsewhere on behalf of SSAFA. A fantastic effort by one and all! This must surely be good not only in its own right, but as a precursor for the many more fights which must be waged on behalf of those serving or who have served. In this context the more such people we can get on board for this campaign, the stronger will be our core support in future ones. Both this one and the one on behalf of Mr Pun VC seem to draw mostly from Arrse, eGoat and PPRune. Might I suggest therefore that if you are registered with other service sites that you recommend members there to scan this thread and its sister ones to discover the strength and purpose of a campaign that they may be little aware of? They can then throw in their support by mailing MVDC, their MP etc without necessarily registering here or at Arrse or eGoat if they do not want to. Apologies to those that I am teaching egg sucking to!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaker Update
As it's now in the public domain.
There were various reasons that Blue Team over on ARRSE could not say so publicly before. However, it's now in the public domain. The issue of who will speak on behalf of the supporters has not yet been resolved but..
Capt Peter Norton GC has offered to speak on behalf of the supporters and Blue Team would like him to do so.
Let us hope that agreement can be reached with the other parties to allow this to happen.
CS
There were various reasons that Blue Team over on ARRSE could not say so publicly before. However, it's now in the public domain. The issue of who will speak on behalf of the supporters has not yet been resolved but..
Capt Peter Norton GC has offered to speak on behalf of the supporters and Blue Team would like him to do so.
Let us hope that agreement can be reached with the other parties to allow this to happen.
CS
Morning all,
that's good news ref possible agreement on spokesperson. Following Plans123's link I'd had a read of the correspondence and my thoughts were "f
hell, if we can't agree amongst ourselves we've no chance." The correspondence there was taking some very unfortunate turns, but hopefully all will be clear now.
Rgds to one and all (especially Grays Lane residents, enjoy your weekend), sky's clear and blue hear again.
Remember, more is accomplished by the little things we do than by the big things we plan to do
that's good news ref possible agreement on spokesperson. Following Plans123's link I'd had a read of the correspondence and my thoughts were "f
hell, if we can't agree amongst ourselves we've no chance." The correspondence there was taking some very unfortunate turns, but hopefully all will be clear now.Rgds to one and all (especially Grays Lane residents, enjoy your weekend), sky's clear and blue hear again.
Remember, more is accomplished by the little things we do than by the big things we plan to do
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Job Mike Jenvey
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Last edited by JessTheDog; 27th Jul 2007 at 14:06.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F'in hell it has been a long, long time since I last posted in this place!
Right: latest G2 indicates that the address was formerly listed as "Greenacres Montessori nursery school" . I suspect that that fact being corroborated and brought out will have an impact on the traffic objection given ther number of Chelsea tractors that will have dropped little Piers and Fenella off to Prep School in years past.
A quick read through the letters submitted to MVDC will show support from Liam Fox and Countess Moutbatten of Burma. A couple of heavy hitters. This callsign working on drumming up other support via alternate means.
Last sitrep:
Keep up the good work. I'm off back to ARRSE. After stopping off here on the dark side I feel some how "dirty" and not in a "my pods are tingling" kind of way either. 
Right: latest G2 indicates that the address was formerly listed as "Greenacres Montessori nursery school" . I suspect that that fact being corroborated and brought out will have an impact on the traffic objection given ther number of Chelsea tractors that will have dropped little Piers and Fenella off to Prep School in years past.
A quick read through the letters submitted to MVDC will show support from Liam Fox and Countess Moutbatten of Burma. A couple of heavy hitters. This callsign working on drumming up other support via alternate means.
Last sitrep:
Evening all
SITREP as at 2607225507Z
BLUETEAM(Night) RVd at ASHTEAD railhead at approx 1750Z.
P2, Sven, Saintstone and Farmboy proceeded to RV with Tigs2 and RoyalTankR in the LOMAC. Were advised by members of BLUETEAM(day) that Duty Rumour (from Local Caff) has it that 36 Grays Lane is to be a hostel for either Paedophiles or Drug Addicts (depending on who you talk to). Sadly no concrete source could be found for these rumours, but it shows you what we're up against.
By and large, response from civpop was again favourable. One woman promised to do everything possible on behalf of her father who flew Spitfires during the war. Her partner asked for more info, asking "if we had been posting people's names and addresses online". P2 assured him that any names and addresses online would be from the MVDC planning site and thus in the public domain, and had not been posted by members of ARRSE. Thus placated, he spoke out in favour.
Then followed Contact with REDTEAM. Came over for a "chat" . "Are you some of those scurrilous people from ARRSE? I wanted to see what you were like" - obviously expected us to have two heads, or be chavs or something). Attempted to argue objection based on how this change of use would be a conversion to HMO status (house of multiple occupancy). Also argued application would create dangerous precedent. When questioned on why no objections were raised to cattery application, reply was "how do you know". P2 explained that MVDC planning site had been consulted and no further reply was forthcoming.
Killer quote was, however: "I agree there is a need for such a facility but..." Tigs2:"Not in your backyard?" Red "Yes, not in my backyard"
Eventually he left, with Tigs2 shaking his hand and offering his name. He, however, refused to give his name, or any indication of his LOCSTAT, saying in parting "I've read your website". It is highly probable that this is a Grays Lane resident, and no doubt one of the objectors - although he would not be drawn as to whether he had in fact written to MVDC to object.
We switched fire to the Brewery Inn and met with a far more favourable response, before popping smoke and withdrawing.
Anyhow, hope this has been useful. You will all be pleased to know that we were consummate professionals, and however much we wanted to clock the REDTEAM representative with an ETH and use up all our black nasty and green hairy string, we didn't.
All best
P2
SITREP as at 2607225507Z
BLUETEAM(Night) RVd at ASHTEAD railhead at approx 1750Z.
P2, Sven, Saintstone and Farmboy proceeded to RV with Tigs2 and RoyalTankR in the LOMAC. Were advised by members of BLUETEAM(day) that Duty Rumour (from Local Caff) has it that 36 Grays Lane is to be a hostel for either Paedophiles or Drug Addicts (depending on who you talk to). Sadly no concrete source could be found for these rumours, but it shows you what we're up against.
By and large, response from civpop was again favourable. One woman promised to do everything possible on behalf of her father who flew Spitfires during the war. Her partner asked for more info, asking "if we had been posting people's names and addresses online". P2 assured him that any names and addresses online would be from the MVDC planning site and thus in the public domain, and had not been posted by members of ARRSE. Thus placated, he spoke out in favour.
Then followed Contact with REDTEAM. Came over for a "chat" . "Are you some of those scurrilous people from ARRSE? I wanted to see what you were like" - obviously expected us to have two heads, or be chavs or something). Attempted to argue objection based on how this change of use would be a conversion to HMO status (house of multiple occupancy). Also argued application would create dangerous precedent. When questioned on why no objections were raised to cattery application, reply was "how do you know". P2 explained that MVDC planning site had been consulted and no further reply was forthcoming.
Killer quote was, however: "I agree there is a need for such a facility but..." Tigs2:"Not in your backyard?" Red "Yes, not in my backyard"
Eventually he left, with Tigs2 shaking his hand and offering his name. He, however, refused to give his name, or any indication of his LOCSTAT, saying in parting "I've read your website". It is highly probable that this is a Grays Lane resident, and no doubt one of the objectors - although he would not be drawn as to whether he had in fact written to MVDC to object.
We switched fire to the Brewery Inn and met with a far more favourable response, before popping smoke and withdrawing.
Anyhow, hope this has been useful. You will all be pleased to know that we were consummate professionals, and however much we wanted to clock the REDTEAM representative with an ETH and use up all our black nasty and green hairy string, we didn't.
All best
P2
E-mail aired on radio Merseyside today, they were aware of the situation from a caller last week,. Just trying to keep it as a news item locally, and hopefully garner some more support.