Neighbours war with wounded soldiers families
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hereford
Age: 62
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all ,i just rang MVDC to check my letter was in ,i spoke to a very nice young lady who said they were sorting thru the 200 or so letters which arrived over the weekend ,she seemed a little overwhelmed (hehe) she said they will send an e mail out as soon as they process each letter ,so it may take all day if you sent since Fri .Hope this helps if anyone was wondering .....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nanny's orchard, UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice graph !
nice graph.....but..er...unless I'm gravely mistook ( which has on occasion been known to happen) the Planning cttee meeting is day after tomorrow ? Eg Wednesday 1st August.
Let's hope decency prevails.
Bill E. Bock
Let's hope decency prevails.
Bill E. Bock
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The house can be google earthed at
51°18'10.03"N, 0°17'34.48"W
Researching the MV planning webpages, the property was rebuilt with 7 bedrooms in the late 90's. Planning was refused but given on appeal. I guess the neighbours objected to it then, due to the potential for a large, young and rich family to move in and become a blot on the landscape. That property is far too big for that lane.
The planning staff report is available on line and guides the committee to focus on planning issues only.
The planning staff recommended a refusal on the sole basis that the peaceful and tranquil existance will be ruined. Its my opinion that the size of the house itself renders that advice meaningless and flawed. If the plan is rejected and SSAFA families do not create the noise, someone else will.
51°18'10.03"N, 0°17'34.48"W
Researching the MV planning webpages, the property was rebuilt with 7 bedrooms in the late 90's. Planning was refused but given on appeal. I guess the neighbours objected to it then, due to the potential for a large, young and rich family to move in and become a blot on the landscape. That property is far too big for that lane.
The planning staff report is available on line and guides the committee to focus on planning issues only.
The planning staff recommended a refusal on the sole basis that the peaceful and tranquil existance will be ruined. Its my opinion that the size of the house itself renders that advice meaningless and flawed. If the plan is rejected and SSAFA families do not create the noise, someone else will.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More good press coverage in today's Daily Telegraph and Guardian,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...1/narmy131.xml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...138249,00.html
CS
Edit:
And a corker from the guestbook of the www.36grayslane.co.uk website, highlighting what a great bunch of people most Ashtead residents are.
Tina K of Ashtead said
"Without wishing to 'pick on' any objector, I note that one of them is the principal of an eponymous estate agency in the area.
As a consequence, I have written to the character at his business address to advise him that if his company ever expects to receive instructions from myself, my family or my friends, that he is very much mistaken."
Way to go Tina
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...1/narmy131.xml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...138249,00.html
CS
Edit:
And a corker from the guestbook of the www.36grayslane.co.uk website, highlighting what a great bunch of people most Ashtead residents are.
Tina K of Ashtead said
"Without wishing to 'pick on' any objector, I note that one of them is the principal of an eponymous estate agency in the area.
As a consequence, I have written to the character at his business address to advise him that if his company ever expects to receive instructions from myself, my family or my friends, that he is very much mistaken."
Way to go Tina
Last edited by cargosales; 31st Jul 2007 at 05:50.
Have just signed the petition and sent details to others who Im sure will sign up. This is a disgrace. The letters of objection are clearly from rich NIMBYs who have no understanding of military life or the people who serve them in our armed forces.
I was wondering if Mr Smith and Mr jones, who reside somewhere near Hereford might like to pay them a visit and show them what life can be like in the military!! A few thunderflashes would do the trick!!
I was wondering if Mr Smith and Mr jones, who reside somewhere near Hereford might like to pay them a visit and show them what life can be like in the military!! A few thunderflashes would do the trick!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Kiwi Chick, I'm not married and it's looking good so far. Send picture of plane and hangar just to confirm you're as good as you sound, and I'll sort you out a UK email errr I mean passport 
Joking aside, we'd like the petition to succeed on its merits, with no cheating from our side, and you do have to be a real Brit to sign the petition. We have the moral high ground and if we keep it that way victory will be all the sweeter.
Sorry you can't take part KC but you can help by emailing details of this to any Brits you know. Even if they may have seen it already, it's better they see it twice than not at all.
CS
Joking aside, we'd like the petition to succeed on its merits, with no cheating from our side, and you do have to be a real Brit to sign the petition. We have the moral high ground and if we keep it that way victory will be all the sweeter.
Sorry you can't take part KC but you can help by emailing details of this to any Brits you know. Even if they may have seen it already, it's better they see it twice than not at all.
CS
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Almost 36000.
Now we know that a small petition like this will have no influence on the council however its existence and the massive support, both at home and abroad, will have an effect on the morale of both sides.
Personnally, had I come under such a considered campaign that highlighted my inadquate letter of objection then I would probably have written to the council withdrawing my letter.
Now we know that a small petition like this will have no influence on the council however its existence and the massive support, both at home and abroad, will have an effect on the morale of both sides.
Personnally, had I come under such a considered campaign that highlighted my inadquate letter of objection then I would probably have written to the council withdrawing my letter.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't sign the petition [like Kiwichick, I'm not eligible], but I've been following the efforts of you all to prove to a miserable bunch of self-centered people that they have picked a fight with the wrong mob.
There are, I know, an awful lot of current and ex-Kiwi service-people who are with you 100 per cent in this.
I've not had much luck logging on to the MV site, and so I doubt I'll be able to watch the meeting live as advertised, so I hope every detail ends up here!
I'm sure it will go well if there is any justice in the world. Well done fellas, and fellaresses.
Samuel: Sqn Ldr RNZAF Rtd
There are, I know, an awful lot of current and ex-Kiwi service-people who are with you 100 per cent in this.
I've not had much luck logging on to the MV site, and so I doubt I'll be able to watch the meeting live as advertised, so I hope every detail ends up here!
I'm sure it will go well if there is any justice in the world. Well done fellas, and fellaresses.
Samuel: Sqn Ldr RNZAF Rtd
All is not lost from NZ. Although currently serving in the RNZAF I still have UK citizenship. So name dutifully added to the petition.
All the best for the hearing.
All the best for the hearing.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X-POsting from Airborne_Aircrew at ARRSE for some updated G2:
Ok... As of 1352hrs my time, (1852 UK time) I can report the following:-
There are 87 unique letters of representation that object to the change of use application. Of those Mr. Buckman, (who initially represented APEM), wrote an additional letter on behalf of himself. Another gentleman, (in a loose sense of the word), had his wife write one, then he wrote one and then he wrote another representing the Ralliwood Road Society. Another gent wrote as himself and another on behalf of The Grays Lane Road Fund... It sort of makes you wonder why APEM exists when every street seems to have it's own Association doesn't it? So, if we remove those "duplicates" we have only 83 letters of objection. Note: You may count more letters than are shown. There were several cases where people wrote an objection, attended a meeting and then wrote another "Letter of Representation" stating that their views hadn't changed. I did not include such letters because, intentionally or not, they slew the actual figures.
To accuse us of "mounting an organized campaign" as I read somewhere was a little naughty of the objectors when you consider that 60% of all letters included the word "hostel". That's a very high number for people to use the same word unprompted, (52 of 87).
The most popular complaint was traffic at 72%.
The least popular was parking at 1%.
41% could see danger in the form of their children being run down or fire leaping uncontrollably from "sensible bungalow" to "sensible bungalow".
30% are convinced that military families have the best parties and are worried about the noise.
14% think that they are so important that the terrorists will be coming for them now.
A single letter was so "interestingly written", (scribbled would be more accurate), that I was unable to determine what was being said...
16% said "not in my back yard" by suggesting a place be built at Headley Court.
13% claimed massive support for SSAFA and/or our military - just before they listed why they don't want either in their Estate...
A full 10% have no compunction about pointing out that their house price is worth more than the wellbeing of our wounded soldiers, (Yep, they stated it).
The real sweethearts, a full 4%, clearly stated that the guests would be unwelcome...
On our side there are 349 letters of representation published. Of those there are nine that are either duplicate submissions or, (in one case), a letter of clarification/expansion was sent. Thus we have 340 unique letters of support for SSAFA.
Four Times the Letters of Objection
There are a total of 31 letters from local, (Ashtead), residents, (almost 10%), and a special note here is that the vast majority of these were posted after the leaflet campaign. Special applause go to our Street Walkers for this because I beleieve that there are many more awaiting MVDC publishing them on their site.
We even had one letter from an ARA member stating that the ARA does not represent her on this matter.
We have a Baroness, a Countess, at least one MP, SAMA82, a couple of SSAFA's, three or four RBL's including both Leatherhead and Ashtead and at least three former patients at Headley Court.
You can all be proud of yourselves if you sent a letter. If you didn't you can still be proud of yourself by sending one... NOW!!
There are 87 unique letters of representation that object to the change of use application. Of those Mr. Buckman, (who initially represented APEM), wrote an additional letter on behalf of himself. Another gentleman, (in a loose sense of the word), had his wife write one, then he wrote one and then he wrote another representing the Ralliwood Road Society. Another gent wrote as himself and another on behalf of The Grays Lane Road Fund... It sort of makes you wonder why APEM exists when every street seems to have it's own Association doesn't it? So, if we remove those "duplicates" we have only 83 letters of objection. Note: You may count more letters than are shown. There were several cases where people wrote an objection, attended a meeting and then wrote another "Letter of Representation" stating that their views hadn't changed. I did not include such letters because, intentionally or not, they slew the actual figures.
To accuse us of "mounting an organized campaign" as I read somewhere was a little naughty of the objectors when you consider that 60% of all letters included the word "hostel". That's a very high number for people to use the same word unprompted, (52 of 87).
The most popular complaint was traffic at 72%.
The least popular was parking at 1%.
41% could see danger in the form of their children being run down or fire leaping uncontrollably from "sensible bungalow" to "sensible bungalow".
30% are convinced that military families have the best parties and are worried about the noise.
14% think that they are so important that the terrorists will be coming for them now.
A single letter was so "interestingly written", (scribbled would be more accurate), that I was unable to determine what was being said...
16% said "not in my back yard" by suggesting a place be built at Headley Court.
13% claimed massive support for SSAFA and/or our military - just before they listed why they don't want either in their Estate...
A full 10% have no compunction about pointing out that their house price is worth more than the wellbeing of our wounded soldiers, (Yep, they stated it).
The real sweethearts, a full 4%, clearly stated that the guests would be unwelcome...
On our side there are 349 letters of representation published. Of those there are nine that are either duplicate submissions or, (in one case), a letter of clarification/expansion was sent. Thus we have 340 unique letters of support for SSAFA.
Four Times the Letters of Objection
There are a total of 31 letters from local, (Ashtead), residents, (almost 10%), and a special note here is that the vast majority of these were posted after the leaflet campaign. Special applause go to our Street Walkers for this because I beleieve that there are many more awaiting MVDC publishing them on their site.
We even had one letter from an ARA member stating that the ARA does not represent her on this matter.
We have a Baroness, a Countess, at least one MP, SAMA82, a couple of SSAFA's, three or four RBL's including both Leatherhead and Ashtead and at least three former patients at Headley Court.
You can all be proud of yourselves if you sent a letter. If you didn't you can still be proud of yourself by sending one... NOW!!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also latest C4I:
The Next Big Push
Ladies and Gentlemen, as previously mentioned, we now need your letters of support to go directly to the members of the committee , who will be meeting on Wednesday to make the final decision on this.
Please make sure your letters deal with the objections only
This isn't the time to bang on about Kipling and sacrifice. We know these things, we know why we're doing it. With nearly 35000 signatures on the petition, they know why we're doing it too.
But in that meeting room, they will only consider the FACTS
To this end, I need you to e-mail the members of the committee detailed below, with an email that deals with each of the objections in tow. By all means repeat your letters to all members of the Committee , but it must be factual, crisp and unemotional.
The members who will be sitting on the committee are
Conservative
1. Emile Aboud cllr.aboud @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Carolyn Corden (Vice Chairman) cllr.corden @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. John Chandler cllr.chandler @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Rosemary Dickson cllr.dickson @ molevalley.gov.uk
5. Chris Hunt (Chairman) cllr.hunt @ molevalley.gov.uk
6. Malcolm Johnson Cllr.Johnson @ molevalley.gov.uk
7. Daphne Ladell cllr.ladell @ molevalley.gov.uk
8. Jean Pearson cllr.pearson @ molevalley.gov.uk
9. Janette Purkiss cllr.purkiss @ molevalley.gov.uk
10. Chris Reynolds cllr.reynolds @ molevalley.gov.uk
Liberal Democrat
1. Derrick Burt cllr.burt @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Margaret Cooksey cllr.margaretcooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Terry Ellis cllr.ellis @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Maurice Homewood cllr.mauricehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk
5. Valerie Homewood cllr.valeriehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk
6. Bridget Lewis-Carr cllr.lewis-carr @ molevalley.gov.uk
7. Iain Murdoch cllr.murdoch @ molevalley.gov.uk
8. Caroline Salmon cllr.salmon @ molevalley.gov.uk
Independent
1. John Northcott cllr.northcott @ molevalley.gov.uk
Substitutes
Conservative
1. Clare Curran cllr.curran @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. David Sharland cllr.sharland @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Sylvia Sharland cllr.sylviasharland @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Ben Tatham cllr.tatham @ molevalley.gov.uk
Liberal Democrat
1. Stephen Cooksey cllr.cooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Andrew Freeman cllr.freeman @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Penny Hedgeland cllr.hedgeland @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Mick Longhurst cllr.longhurst @ molevalley.gov.uk
Independent
1. Chris Townsend cllr.townsend @ molevalley.gov.uk
The list of main objections has been done somewhere, and I'll append it to this post when found.
We must now have as many letters demolishing the objections, in a short, concise and factual way as possible. This is our chance to help influence the outcome, not through emotion, but by reasoned and factual argument.
The list of local concerns is here
www.36grayslane.co.uk/...74&y=6
Read the concerns and the answers, and craft your reply accordingly.
Weight of fire wins the fight, but let's make sure the fire is accurate and in the right direction.
Write your letters, then c.c. all to the Councillors.
Think carefully and review before you send "Have I answered the objections?"
Do not post your replies from councillors anywhere in the public domain.
I have insisted throughout, that our campaign be fair, fun and factual. It has been.
Unfortunately, it seems that there have been allegations of poor treatment of REDTEAM objectors. I had expected such allegations, as it's such an easy allegation to make when you are desperate.
However, I am confident no one connected with BLUETEAM and the core Purple campaign would do such a craven thing.
In correspondence with Councillors, please be meticulously polite , though I don't have to tell you that.
We've been privileged to be offered this opportunity.
Please don't abuse it.
PTP
Ok, let's do it. As soon as you have , just bump the thread to say "sent"
Ladies and Gentlemen, as previously mentioned, we now need your letters of support to go directly to the members of the committee , who will be meeting on Wednesday to make the final decision on this.
Please make sure your letters deal with the objections only
This isn't the time to bang on about Kipling and sacrifice. We know these things, we know why we're doing it. With nearly 35000 signatures on the petition, they know why we're doing it too.
But in that meeting room, they will only consider the FACTS
To this end, I need you to e-mail the members of the committee detailed below, with an email that deals with each of the objections in tow. By all means repeat your letters to all members of the Committee , but it must be factual, crisp and unemotional.
The members who will be sitting on the committee are
Conservative
1. Emile Aboud cllr.aboud @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Carolyn Corden (Vice Chairman) cllr.corden @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. John Chandler cllr.chandler @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Rosemary Dickson cllr.dickson @ molevalley.gov.uk
5. Chris Hunt (Chairman) cllr.hunt @ molevalley.gov.uk
6. Malcolm Johnson Cllr.Johnson @ molevalley.gov.uk
7. Daphne Ladell cllr.ladell @ molevalley.gov.uk
8. Jean Pearson cllr.pearson @ molevalley.gov.uk
9. Janette Purkiss cllr.purkiss @ molevalley.gov.uk
10. Chris Reynolds cllr.reynolds @ molevalley.gov.uk
Liberal Democrat
1. Derrick Burt cllr.burt @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Margaret Cooksey cllr.margaretcooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Terry Ellis cllr.ellis @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Maurice Homewood cllr.mauricehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk
5. Valerie Homewood cllr.valeriehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk
6. Bridget Lewis-Carr cllr.lewis-carr @ molevalley.gov.uk
7. Iain Murdoch cllr.murdoch @ molevalley.gov.uk
8. Caroline Salmon cllr.salmon @ molevalley.gov.uk
Independent
1. John Northcott cllr.northcott @ molevalley.gov.uk
Substitutes
Conservative
1. Clare Curran cllr.curran @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. David Sharland cllr.sharland @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Sylvia Sharland cllr.sylviasharland @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Ben Tatham cllr.tatham @ molevalley.gov.uk
Liberal Democrat
1. Stephen Cooksey cllr.cooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Andrew Freeman cllr.freeman @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Penny Hedgeland cllr.hedgeland @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Mick Longhurst cllr.longhurst @ molevalley.gov.uk
Independent
1. Chris Townsend cllr.townsend @ molevalley.gov.uk
The list of main objections has been done somewhere, and I'll append it to this post when found.
We must now have as many letters demolishing the objections, in a short, concise and factual way as possible. This is our chance to help influence the outcome, not through emotion, but by reasoned and factual argument.
The list of local concerns is here
www.36grayslane.co.uk/...74&y=6
Read the concerns and the answers, and craft your reply accordingly.
Weight of fire wins the fight, but let's make sure the fire is accurate and in the right direction.
Write your letters, then c.c. all to the Councillors.
Think carefully and review before you send "Have I answered the objections?"
Do not post your replies from councillors anywhere in the public domain.
I have insisted throughout, that our campaign be fair, fun and factual. It has been.
Unfortunately, it seems that there have been allegations of poor treatment of REDTEAM objectors. I had expected such allegations, as it's such an easy allegation to make when you are desperate.
However, I am confident no one connected with BLUETEAM and the core Purple campaign would do such a craven thing.
In correspondence with Councillors, please be meticulously polite , though I don't have to tell you that.
We've been privileged to be offered this opportunity.
Please don't abuse it.
PTP
Ok, let's do it. As soon as you have , just bump the thread to say "sent"
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also latest C4I:
Example letter as penned by Biped:
and from Mr PVR'd
Dear Councillor,
APPLICATION MO/07/0863 – 36 GRAYS LANE, ASHTEAD
I wish to respectfully raise my concerns with regard to the objections to the application for change of use at 36 Grays Lane, and with the disappointing recommendation of refusal made by Council Officers. The objections are tackled first, with the recommendation considered at the end of this document.
1. Purpose of the facility – “hostel”. It is difficult to see how this facility could be viewed as a hostel or as any kind of business. It is perhaps the case that the term was seized upon as having a pejorative context that would damage the case for the SSAFA facility. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to see that Officers have recognised the purpose of the facilities as sui generis judged upon the criteria of Adopted Local Plan policy CF3, as a change of use from a dwelling to accommodation providing rehabilitation care and treatment.
2. Traffic impact. The key issue would appear to be the fact that Highways Officers have made no objection on traffic grounds, despite the fact that many objectors raised such concerns in their representations. It is difficult to see how this development would generate an unacceptable level of traffic when compared with previous uses. The site has a history of use as a nursery care facility, which would have generated a similar number – or more – car journeys and Headley Court have offered to reduce the potential for private car journeys by providing a minibus service to and from Headley Court, which should be commended as an example of sustainable transport planning. Although the road is an unadopted private road, SSAFA would share responsibility for the maintenance of the road, and would not be benefiting at the expense of others. There is ample off-street parking, and the applicant could enter into a Section 106 agreement to require visitors to park at Headley Court and rely upon the shuttle bus service.
3. Nuisance caused by noise and rubbish. The prospect of nuisance caused by increase noise and rubbish has been raised by many objectors. It is unlikely that families visiting a severely wounded loved one in hospital would generate much noise, and this objection has perhaps been overplayed to perpetuate a derogatory stereotype of Service families. Families who are visiting the facility will generate significantly less waste than the average family resident in an equivalent dwelling, as their purchases will not include consumer goods with the attendant packaging. It is perhaps the case that any such impact could in fact be less noticeable than that of the average resident family.
4. Alternative location at Headley Court. Even if the viewpoint is taken from the outset that hypothetical alternatives should not be considered as material in a planning application, the viability of a development at Headley Court itself can be discounted on its own grounds. I spent some time as a patient of Headley Court, thankfully with an injury that was trivial compared to what some of the current patients have suffered. I have some familiarity with the site and I believe it would be difficult to erect a similar facility on this site, in part due to the unique heritage aspects of the listed Jacobean mansion that houses the Officers’ Mess and the landscaped surroundings. It would surely be difficult to provide an acceptable design that would be appropriate for the setting of this listed building. A new build would also take time to raise funding for, time to gain planning and building consent, and time to construct. There is an urgent need now for such a facility, and it is to the credit of SSAFA that they have investigated properties in the catchment of Headley Court and have identified this sole opportunity site, which will meet the urgent need at an acceptable cost to what is, after all, a charitable organisation.
5. Impact of potential terrorism and on house prices. I do not believe that either consideration is material in planning terms. Nevertheless, the issue of terrorism deserves some brief consideration, if only for the purpose of reassurance. It is highly unlikely that such a location would be a target for terrorists who wish to cause mass casualties and public impact. This is borne out by the recent history of such atrocities, both actual and attempted. Also, the reason for the facility is to aid the recovery of those wounded in what the Government describes as the essential fight against terrorism (with benefits of the return to productive service of experienced Servicemen and Servicewomen, and of the morale enhancement of those facing danger every day) so in the wider context the SSAFA facility would actually lessen the collective terrorist threat. The impact on house prices does not deserve consideration, and both objections are surely linked by the fact that they are rather selfish in character and undoubtedly uncharacteristic of the true feelings of the majority of Ashtead residents.
6. The Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse permission. It is encouraging that Council Officers have dismissed the vast majority of the objections. Nevertheless, the recommendation to refuse permission based on the general development control criteria ENV22 on the grounds of the impact upon the character of the neighbourhood and neighbours’ amenities is extremely disappointing, particularly as the area is not listed as a residential area of special character in policy ENV17, which places restrictions on alterations and extensions. Indeed, it appears that policy ENV22 may be intended to apply to the design of new buildings, as indicated in the first paragraph of the “Design, Layout and Development Impact” chapter, rather than the very minimal change of use that the SSAFA application proposes.
Even accepting that there might be an impact on character and amenity – as is inherent in all development – policy ENV22 makes reference to the requirement for a design that does not “significantly harm the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overpowering effect, noise, traffic, or other adverse environmental impact”. The main ground for refusal appears to be a perception that there will be a “deterioration of the quiet and peaceful nature of the area” due to the number of people and intensification of use. Given that the property has an established history of use as a Montessori nursery advertised under the name “Greenacres” which requires a staff ratio far in excess of one residential warden, it is difficult to see how the nature of the area – which is not subject to any location-specific protection in any case – would in fact deteriorate. It is perhaps the case that too much weight has been placed on a perception of such an impact in ignorance of the previous use of the property and in the face of vociferous objection, despite the willingness of SSAFA to enter into agreements to minimise any impact.
It is interesting to consider the decision of the Planning Inspectorate with regard to an appeal arising from the refusal of an application to construct a 5-bedroom dwelling at nearby 33 Grays Lane (reference MO/2006/1150/PLA). The inspector upheld the appeal and an extract from the decision notice is below:
“Whereas I acknowledge that the development of the site in the manner proposed would introduce a readily noticeable and significant change in the appearance of this part of the streetscene in Grays Lane, I do not consider that this would be unduly harmful in terms of the prevailing level of visual amenity neither would it be likely to create any unacceptable impact to the residents of the immediately adjoining dwellings. In all these circumstances I conclude that the development is acceptable and in compliance with Policies ENV22, ENV23 and ENV24 of the adopted Local Plan”
In this instance, the construction of a 5-bedroom dwelling following the demolition of a bungalow on the site was approved, but the impact was not seen to be unduly harmful either in terms of visual amenity on in terms of impact to the residents of the immediately adjoining dwellings. The approval of the construction of such a dwelling would appear at odds with the analysis that a change of use (such as that applied for by SSAFA) would constitute an unacceptable impact.
To conclude on the issue of the Planning Officer’s recommendation, perhaps it is the case that the recommendation was made prematurely in the face of a vociferous objection campaign, before the overwhelming need and support for the facility became apparent. The Officer’s recommendation seems to recognise this to an extent and states that “many would say that that the nationally important work of Headley Court and the national sympathy that should be extended to badly injured servicemen/women and their families, should be afforded considerable weight and indeed should outweigh the concerns of local residents….it is for the Committee to decide the weights to be given to opposing arguments”. I therefore respectfully implore the elected Members serving on the Development Control Committee of Mole Valley District Council to consider the urgent need and overwhelming support for the SSAFA facility and to contrast this with the spurious grounds for objection and the debatable ground for refusal by voting to approve this application, in line with the scope for discretion that appears to be offered by the Officer’s recommendation.
Finally, I appreciate the opportunity extended to supporters of this application to make such direct representations to Members with regard to this facility of national importance. I would also like to pay tribute to the Planning Officers and Staff of Mole Valley District Council, who have never failed to be helpful and courteous and who have worked extremely hard to keep on top of the disproportionate workload generated by this rather minor change of use.
Yours faithfully
The Next Big Push
Ladies and Gentlemen, as previously mentioned, we now need your letters of support to go directly to the members of the committee , who will be meeting on Wednesday to make the final decision on this.
Please make sure your letters deal with the objections only
This isn't the time to bang on about Kipling and sacrifice. We know these things, we know why we're doing it. With nearly 35000 signatures on the petition, they know why we're doing it too.
But in that meeting room, they will only consider the FACTS
To this end, I need you to e-mail the members of the committee detailed below, with an email that deals with each of the objections in tow. By all means repeat your letters to all members of the Committee , but it must be factual, crisp and unemotional.
The members who will be sitting on the committee are
Conservative
1. Emile Aboud cllr.aboud @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Carolyn Corden (Vice Chairman) cllr.corden @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. John Chandler cllr.chandler @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Rosemary Dickson cllr.dickson @ molevalley.gov.uk
5. Chris Hunt (Chairman) cllr.hunt @ molevalley.gov.uk
6. Malcolm Johnson Cllr.Johnson @ molevalley.gov.uk
7. Daphne Ladell cllr.ladell @ molevalley.gov.uk
8. Jean Pearson cllr.pearson @ molevalley.gov.uk
9. Janette Purkiss cllr.purkiss @ molevalley.gov.uk
10. Chris Reynolds cllr.reynolds @ molevalley.gov.uk
Liberal Democrat
1. Derrick Burt cllr.burt @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Margaret Cooksey cllr.margaretcooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Terry Ellis cllr.ellis @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Maurice Homewood cllr.mauricehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk
5. Valerie Homewood cllr.valeriehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk
6. Bridget Lewis-Carr cllr.lewis-carr @ molevalley.gov.uk
7. Iain Murdoch cllr.murdoch @ molevalley.gov.uk
8. Caroline Salmon cllr.salmon @ molevalley.gov.uk
Independent
1. John Northcott cllr.northcott @ molevalley.gov.uk
Substitutes
Conservative
1. Clare Curran cllr.curran @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. David Sharland cllr.sharland @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Sylvia Sharland cllr.sylviasharland @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Ben Tatham cllr.tatham @ molevalley.gov.uk
Liberal Democrat
1. Stephen Cooksey cllr.cooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Andrew Freeman cllr.freeman @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Penny Hedgeland cllr.hedgeland @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Mick Longhurst cllr.longhurst @ molevalley.gov.uk
Independent
1. Chris Townsend cllr.townsend @ molevalley.gov.uk
The list of main objections has been done somewhere, and I'll append it to this post when found.
We must now have as many letters demolishing the objections, in a short, concise and factual way as possible. This is our chance to help influence the outcome, not through emotion, but by reasoned and factual argument.
The list of local concerns is here
www.36grayslane.co.uk/...74&y=6
Read the concerns and the answers, and craft your reply accordingly.
Weight of fire wins the fight, but let's make sure the fire is accurate and in the right direction.
Write your letters, then c.c. all to the Councillors.
Think carefully and review before you send "Have I answered the objections?"
Do not post your replies from councillors anywhere in the public domain.
I have insisted throughout, that our campaign be fair, fun and factual. It has been.
Unfortunately, it seems that there have been allegations of poor treatment of REDTEAM objectors. I had expected such allegations, as it's such an easy allegation to make when you are desperate.
However, I am confident no one connected with BLUETEAM and the core Purple campaign would do such a craven thing.
In correspondence with Councillors, please be meticulously polite , though I don't have to tell you that.
We've been privileged to be offered this opportunity.
Please don't abuse it.
PTP
Ok, let's do it. As soon as you have , just bump the thread to say "sent"
Ladies and Gentlemen, as previously mentioned, we now need your letters of support to go directly to the members of the committee , who will be meeting on Wednesday to make the final decision on this.
Please make sure your letters deal with the objections only
This isn't the time to bang on about Kipling and sacrifice. We know these things, we know why we're doing it. With nearly 35000 signatures on the petition, they know why we're doing it too.
But in that meeting room, they will only consider the FACTS
To this end, I need you to e-mail the members of the committee detailed below, with an email that deals with each of the objections in tow. By all means repeat your letters to all members of the Committee , but it must be factual, crisp and unemotional.
The members who will be sitting on the committee are
Conservative
1. Emile Aboud cllr.aboud @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Carolyn Corden (Vice Chairman) cllr.corden @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. John Chandler cllr.chandler @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Rosemary Dickson cllr.dickson @ molevalley.gov.uk
5. Chris Hunt (Chairman) cllr.hunt @ molevalley.gov.uk
6. Malcolm Johnson Cllr.Johnson @ molevalley.gov.uk
7. Daphne Ladell cllr.ladell @ molevalley.gov.uk
8. Jean Pearson cllr.pearson @ molevalley.gov.uk
9. Janette Purkiss cllr.purkiss @ molevalley.gov.uk
10. Chris Reynolds cllr.reynolds @ molevalley.gov.uk
Liberal Democrat
1. Derrick Burt cllr.burt @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Margaret Cooksey cllr.margaretcooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Terry Ellis cllr.ellis @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Maurice Homewood cllr.mauricehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk
5. Valerie Homewood cllr.valeriehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk
6. Bridget Lewis-Carr cllr.lewis-carr @ molevalley.gov.uk
7. Iain Murdoch cllr.murdoch @ molevalley.gov.uk
8. Caroline Salmon cllr.salmon @ molevalley.gov.uk
Independent
1. John Northcott cllr.northcott @ molevalley.gov.uk
Substitutes
Conservative
1. Clare Curran cllr.curran @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. David Sharland cllr.sharland @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Sylvia Sharland cllr.sylviasharland @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Ben Tatham cllr.tatham @ molevalley.gov.uk
Liberal Democrat
1. Stephen Cooksey cllr.cooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk
2. Andrew Freeman cllr.freeman @ molevalley.gov.uk
3. Penny Hedgeland cllr.hedgeland @ molevalley.gov.uk
4. Mick Longhurst cllr.longhurst @ molevalley.gov.uk
Independent
1. Chris Townsend cllr.townsend @ molevalley.gov.uk
The list of main objections has been done somewhere, and I'll append it to this post when found.
We must now have as many letters demolishing the objections, in a short, concise and factual way as possible. This is our chance to help influence the outcome, not through emotion, but by reasoned and factual argument.
The list of local concerns is here
www.36grayslane.co.uk/...74&y=6
Read the concerns and the answers, and craft your reply accordingly.
Weight of fire wins the fight, but let's make sure the fire is accurate and in the right direction.
Write your letters, then c.c. all to the Councillors.
Think carefully and review before you send "Have I answered the objections?"
Do not post your replies from councillors anywhere in the public domain.
I have insisted throughout, that our campaign be fair, fun and factual. It has been.
Unfortunately, it seems that there have been allegations of poor treatment of REDTEAM objectors. I had expected such allegations, as it's such an easy allegation to make when you are desperate.
However, I am confident no one connected with BLUETEAM and the core Purple campaign would do such a craven thing.
In correspondence with Councillors, please be meticulously polite , though I don't have to tell you that.
We've been privileged to be offered this opportunity.
Please don't abuse it.
PTP
Ok, let's do it. As soon as you have , just bump the thread to say "sent"
Dear Councillor
Planning Application MO/2007/0863 36 Grays Lane, Ashtead
I write in support of the above application by the Sailors’ Soldiers’ and Airmens’ Families Association (SSAFA) to make minor alterations for disabled access and for a sui generis change of use to provide a residence for relatives visiting wounded Servicepeople at Headley Court.
REFERENCE POLICY ENV22 OF THE MOLE VALLEY LOCAL PLAN (2000)
You will note that the planning officer’s view is that the only relevant part of the Local Plan to this case is Policy ENV22 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2000) and her recommendation is that the application be refused on the grounds that it would be contrary to Clause 2 of that policy which states:
“does not significantly harm the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overpowering effect, noise, traffic or other adverse environmental impact;”
I note that Miss Westphal has redrafted the policy in an attempt to make it fit this case, in that she can only put her name to the statement that:
“The proposed use, by virtue of the number of residents and short stay nature of the accommodation would adversely affect the quiet and peaceful nature of the surrounding area to the detriment of the amenities currently enjoyed by local residents, contrary to policy ENV22 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.”
You will note that she has left out the crucial word “significantly”. Firstly I would argue that Policy ENV22 pertains only to new developments, and is irrelevant to this case. If, however, you feel that policy is pertinent; I would argue that the applicant’s proposal fits admirably all the remaining clauses (1 and 3 to 7) and only falls foul of clause 2 if one removes the word “significantly” from that clause.
REFERENCE THE INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS RAISED
Even without the notion of significance in the detriments to the local amenity anticipated by the objectors, I submit that the objections are spurious for the following reasons:
Traffic
The objectors anticipate an increase in traffic. I understand that the property is a 7 bedroom family home set in an acre of grounds with a large parking area at the front of the property. It could be assumed that in a family of 7 or more people, that at the least, two of them will drive vehicles, and perhaps teenage/adult children within that family who may be going to work, school, shopping and so on, and submit that the traffic generated by the applicant will in all likelihood be no more than that generated by such a large family. You will note that the applicant has taken further steps to reduce the impact of traffic by organizing a shuttle minibus service to Headley Court.
Current investigation has shown that there is a daily and regular traffic of non-familial vehicles to the neighbouring properties including trade vehicles, skip lorries, delivery lorries and buses, none of which seem to bother the other property owners who live in Grays Lane. I suggest that there will be little if any of this sort of traffic generated by the running of number 36.
Hostel
Whichever emotive terms the current residents of Grays Lane may use for the nature of No. 36 and the use to which the applicant wish to put it to, the nature of the residents and their intended activity at that property should be considered. In this case, the families of injured forces personnel will not be running around and playing in the garden, nor having barbecues or garden parties, or loud internal parties, or for that matter, any form of celebration at all. The families visiting Headley Court will most likely spend their time in quiet reflection and contemplation as they try and adjust and come to terms with the injuries their family members have suffered in service to the UK, whilst helping their loved ones recover by providing emotional support. In this respect, by whichever name the amenity is described, it is fairly obvious that the short-term residents will perhaps be the quietest and best–behaved neighbours in the entire vicinity. The residents of Grays Lane having nothing whatsoever to fear from the people who might stay at No. 36.
Noise
As already pointed out, unlike your average LARGE family who may have garden parties (considering the relative wealth of the area), a number of children playing in the garden, music from various rooms and so on, the residents of No. 36 will be spending their time at that location in QUIET reflection, maybe inside, maybe in the garden, but there will not be any form of frolicking or partying..
Business Use Precedent
Firstly, there are already a number of dwellings in Grays Lane that are registered as business addresses, and this might also explain the rather high incidence of trade vehicles either parking at these addresses or in the lane itself. Notwithstanding this, SSAFA is a registered charity, and as such NO TRADE or COMMERCIAL activity will be taking place at this address. Even in terms of making No. 36 suitable for SSAFA’s needs, there is very little work to be done to the property to get it to conform to any regulatory standard, and nothing bar a small wheelchair ramp at front will be done to the exterior.
Increased Rubbish
One can, on the basis of the ill-considered objections assume that some of the claims are pulled out of thin air, such as the claim about increased rubbish. A number of small families, with or without children, who won’t be unpacking new bikes, televisions, computers, changing nappies, should create no more rubbish than a large family that might occupy this dwelling. Again, notwithstanding this, we can also assume that SSAFA will be liable to pay council tax as a dwelling and as such entitled to and be paying a fair portion towards the costs of rubbish collections. I am sure that they will not be leaving litter all over the lane, or large piles of bin liners all over the lawn. The rubbish objection to the application is merely that – spurious and based on rubbish conjecture as it has no validity in terms of case studies or precedent.
Increased Risk of Terrorism
What terrorist would consider a home for the families of disabled forces personnel a viable alternative to, say, a military barracks, or a recruiting office? 30 years of the troubles in Northern Ireland and subsequent attacks by Islamic extremists have not targeted those already injured, nor their families. Any self-respecting terrorist would consider such an act to be a monumental own-goal in terms of furthering their cause. Personally, I would have thought that terrorists would prefer to bomb the homes of a well-to-do who control the supply of money in the world rather than women and children who were visiting their sick relatives. Having such families at No. 36 will in no way increase the risk of harm to other residents of Grays Lane.
The Residence Should be Built at Headley Court
Headley Court is not owned and run by SSAFA, it is owned and run by the MOD. It is also in green-belt land, and thus planning permission would be extremely hard to obtain. Not only this, but considering the environmental situation vis-à-vis global warming, it would be a short-sighted and foolhardy thing to do to further diminish greenbelt land when there is already a perfectly suitable, new house at No. 36 which is all but ready for SSAFA to begin using.
SSAFA as a charity is seeking dwellings for the families of those injured during service, as is their remit as a family’s charity. This charity is not funded by the MOD, and as such has no claim on any part of MOD land or facilities.
Overall I would ask that you look favourably on this application which in reality will have little impact on the local residents and will provide a much-needed National resource. Many more local residents have expressed their approval since the planning officer’s report was drafted and I hope you will feel able to discount the misguided and spurious objections and grant permission for this applicant to proceed. I am confident that, in time, even the objectors will come to view the SSAFA Residence as an asset to their local community.
Yours sincerely
Planning Application MO/2007/0863 36 Grays Lane, Ashtead
I write in support of the above application by the Sailors’ Soldiers’ and Airmens’ Families Association (SSAFA) to make minor alterations for disabled access and for a sui generis change of use to provide a residence for relatives visiting wounded Servicepeople at Headley Court.
REFERENCE POLICY ENV22 OF THE MOLE VALLEY LOCAL PLAN (2000)
You will note that the planning officer’s view is that the only relevant part of the Local Plan to this case is Policy ENV22 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2000) and her recommendation is that the application be refused on the grounds that it would be contrary to Clause 2 of that policy which states:
“does not significantly harm the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overpowering effect, noise, traffic or other adverse environmental impact;”
I note that Miss Westphal has redrafted the policy in an attempt to make it fit this case, in that she can only put her name to the statement that:
“The proposed use, by virtue of the number of residents and short stay nature of the accommodation would adversely affect the quiet and peaceful nature of the surrounding area to the detriment of the amenities currently enjoyed by local residents, contrary to policy ENV22 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.”
You will note that she has left out the crucial word “significantly”. Firstly I would argue that Policy ENV22 pertains only to new developments, and is irrelevant to this case. If, however, you feel that policy is pertinent; I would argue that the applicant’s proposal fits admirably all the remaining clauses (1 and 3 to 7) and only falls foul of clause 2 if one removes the word “significantly” from that clause.
REFERENCE THE INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS RAISED
Even without the notion of significance in the detriments to the local amenity anticipated by the objectors, I submit that the objections are spurious for the following reasons:
Traffic
The objectors anticipate an increase in traffic. I understand that the property is a 7 bedroom family home set in an acre of grounds with a large parking area at the front of the property. It could be assumed that in a family of 7 or more people, that at the least, two of them will drive vehicles, and perhaps teenage/adult children within that family who may be going to work, school, shopping and so on, and submit that the traffic generated by the applicant will in all likelihood be no more than that generated by such a large family. You will note that the applicant has taken further steps to reduce the impact of traffic by organizing a shuttle minibus service to Headley Court.
Current investigation has shown that there is a daily and regular traffic of non-familial vehicles to the neighbouring properties including trade vehicles, skip lorries, delivery lorries and buses, none of which seem to bother the other property owners who live in Grays Lane. I suggest that there will be little if any of this sort of traffic generated by the running of number 36.
Hostel
Whichever emotive terms the current residents of Grays Lane may use for the nature of No. 36 and the use to which the applicant wish to put it to, the nature of the residents and their intended activity at that property should be considered. In this case, the families of injured forces personnel will not be running around and playing in the garden, nor having barbecues or garden parties, or loud internal parties, or for that matter, any form of celebration at all. The families visiting Headley Court will most likely spend their time in quiet reflection and contemplation as they try and adjust and come to terms with the injuries their family members have suffered in service to the UK, whilst helping their loved ones recover by providing emotional support. In this respect, by whichever name the amenity is described, it is fairly obvious that the short-term residents will perhaps be the quietest and best–behaved neighbours in the entire vicinity. The residents of Grays Lane having nothing whatsoever to fear from the people who might stay at No. 36.
Noise
As already pointed out, unlike your average LARGE family who may have garden parties (considering the relative wealth of the area), a number of children playing in the garden, music from various rooms and so on, the residents of No. 36 will be spending their time at that location in QUIET reflection, maybe inside, maybe in the garden, but there will not be any form of frolicking or partying..
Business Use Precedent
Firstly, there are already a number of dwellings in Grays Lane that are registered as business addresses, and this might also explain the rather high incidence of trade vehicles either parking at these addresses or in the lane itself. Notwithstanding this, SSAFA is a registered charity, and as such NO TRADE or COMMERCIAL activity will be taking place at this address. Even in terms of making No. 36 suitable for SSAFA’s needs, there is very little work to be done to the property to get it to conform to any regulatory standard, and nothing bar a small wheelchair ramp at front will be done to the exterior.
Increased Rubbish
One can, on the basis of the ill-considered objections assume that some of the claims are pulled out of thin air, such as the claim about increased rubbish. A number of small families, with or without children, who won’t be unpacking new bikes, televisions, computers, changing nappies, should create no more rubbish than a large family that might occupy this dwelling. Again, notwithstanding this, we can also assume that SSAFA will be liable to pay council tax as a dwelling and as such entitled to and be paying a fair portion towards the costs of rubbish collections. I am sure that they will not be leaving litter all over the lane, or large piles of bin liners all over the lawn. The rubbish objection to the application is merely that – spurious and based on rubbish conjecture as it has no validity in terms of case studies or precedent.
Increased Risk of Terrorism
What terrorist would consider a home for the families of disabled forces personnel a viable alternative to, say, a military barracks, or a recruiting office? 30 years of the troubles in Northern Ireland and subsequent attacks by Islamic extremists have not targeted those already injured, nor their families. Any self-respecting terrorist would consider such an act to be a monumental own-goal in terms of furthering their cause. Personally, I would have thought that terrorists would prefer to bomb the homes of a well-to-do who control the supply of money in the world rather than women and children who were visiting their sick relatives. Having such families at No. 36 will in no way increase the risk of harm to other residents of Grays Lane.
The Residence Should be Built at Headley Court
Headley Court is not owned and run by SSAFA, it is owned and run by the MOD. It is also in green-belt land, and thus planning permission would be extremely hard to obtain. Not only this, but considering the environmental situation vis-à-vis global warming, it would be a short-sighted and foolhardy thing to do to further diminish greenbelt land when there is already a perfectly suitable, new house at No. 36 which is all but ready for SSAFA to begin using.
SSAFA as a charity is seeking dwellings for the families of those injured during service, as is their remit as a family’s charity. This charity is not funded by the MOD, and as such has no claim on any part of MOD land or facilities.
Overall I would ask that you look favourably on this application which in reality will have little impact on the local residents and will provide a much-needed National resource. Many more local residents have expressed their approval since the planning officer’s report was drafted and I hope you will feel able to discount the misguided and spurious objections and grant permission for this applicant to proceed. I am confident that, in time, even the objectors will come to view the SSAFA Residence as an asset to their local community.
Yours sincerely
Dear Councillor,
APPLICATION MO/07/0863 – 36 GRAYS LANE, ASHTEAD
I wish to respectfully raise my concerns with regard to the objections to the application for change of use at 36 Grays Lane, and with the disappointing recommendation of refusal made by Council Officers. The objections are tackled first, with the recommendation considered at the end of this document.
1. Purpose of the facility – “hostel”. It is difficult to see how this facility could be viewed as a hostel or as any kind of business. It is perhaps the case that the term was seized upon as having a pejorative context that would damage the case for the SSAFA facility. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to see that Officers have recognised the purpose of the facilities as sui generis judged upon the criteria of Adopted Local Plan policy CF3, as a change of use from a dwelling to accommodation providing rehabilitation care and treatment.
2. Traffic impact. The key issue would appear to be the fact that Highways Officers have made no objection on traffic grounds, despite the fact that many objectors raised such concerns in their representations. It is difficult to see how this development would generate an unacceptable level of traffic when compared with previous uses. The site has a history of use as a nursery care facility, which would have generated a similar number – or more – car journeys and Headley Court have offered to reduce the potential for private car journeys by providing a minibus service to and from Headley Court, which should be commended as an example of sustainable transport planning. Although the road is an unadopted private road, SSAFA would share responsibility for the maintenance of the road, and would not be benefiting at the expense of others. There is ample off-street parking, and the applicant could enter into a Section 106 agreement to require visitors to park at Headley Court and rely upon the shuttle bus service.
3. Nuisance caused by noise and rubbish. The prospect of nuisance caused by increase noise and rubbish has been raised by many objectors. It is unlikely that families visiting a severely wounded loved one in hospital would generate much noise, and this objection has perhaps been overplayed to perpetuate a derogatory stereotype of Service families. Families who are visiting the facility will generate significantly less waste than the average family resident in an equivalent dwelling, as their purchases will not include consumer goods with the attendant packaging. It is perhaps the case that any such impact could in fact be less noticeable than that of the average resident family.
4. Alternative location at Headley Court. Even if the viewpoint is taken from the outset that hypothetical alternatives should not be considered as material in a planning application, the viability of a development at Headley Court itself can be discounted on its own grounds. I spent some time as a patient of Headley Court, thankfully with an injury that was trivial compared to what some of the current patients have suffered. I have some familiarity with the site and I believe it would be difficult to erect a similar facility on this site, in part due to the unique heritage aspects of the listed Jacobean mansion that houses the Officers’ Mess and the landscaped surroundings. It would surely be difficult to provide an acceptable design that would be appropriate for the setting of this listed building. A new build would also take time to raise funding for, time to gain planning and building consent, and time to construct. There is an urgent need now for such a facility, and it is to the credit of SSAFA that they have investigated properties in the catchment of Headley Court and have identified this sole opportunity site, which will meet the urgent need at an acceptable cost to what is, after all, a charitable organisation.
5. Impact of potential terrorism and on house prices. I do not believe that either consideration is material in planning terms. Nevertheless, the issue of terrorism deserves some brief consideration, if only for the purpose of reassurance. It is highly unlikely that such a location would be a target for terrorists who wish to cause mass casualties and public impact. This is borne out by the recent history of such atrocities, both actual and attempted. Also, the reason for the facility is to aid the recovery of those wounded in what the Government describes as the essential fight against terrorism (with benefits of the return to productive service of experienced Servicemen and Servicewomen, and of the morale enhancement of those facing danger every day) so in the wider context the SSAFA facility would actually lessen the collective terrorist threat. The impact on house prices does not deserve consideration, and both objections are surely linked by the fact that they are rather selfish in character and undoubtedly uncharacteristic of the true feelings of the majority of Ashtead residents.
6. The Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse permission. It is encouraging that Council Officers have dismissed the vast majority of the objections. Nevertheless, the recommendation to refuse permission based on the general development control criteria ENV22 on the grounds of the impact upon the character of the neighbourhood and neighbours’ amenities is extremely disappointing, particularly as the area is not listed as a residential area of special character in policy ENV17, which places restrictions on alterations and extensions. Indeed, it appears that policy ENV22 may be intended to apply to the design of new buildings, as indicated in the first paragraph of the “Design, Layout and Development Impact” chapter, rather than the very minimal change of use that the SSAFA application proposes.
Even accepting that there might be an impact on character and amenity – as is inherent in all development – policy ENV22 makes reference to the requirement for a design that does not “significantly harm the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overpowering effect, noise, traffic, or other adverse environmental impact”. The main ground for refusal appears to be a perception that there will be a “deterioration of the quiet and peaceful nature of the area” due to the number of people and intensification of use. Given that the property has an established history of use as a Montessori nursery advertised under the name “Greenacres” which requires a staff ratio far in excess of one residential warden, it is difficult to see how the nature of the area – which is not subject to any location-specific protection in any case – would in fact deteriorate. It is perhaps the case that too much weight has been placed on a perception of such an impact in ignorance of the previous use of the property and in the face of vociferous objection, despite the willingness of SSAFA to enter into agreements to minimise any impact.
It is interesting to consider the decision of the Planning Inspectorate with regard to an appeal arising from the refusal of an application to construct a 5-bedroom dwelling at nearby 33 Grays Lane (reference MO/2006/1150/PLA). The inspector upheld the appeal and an extract from the decision notice is below:
“Whereas I acknowledge that the development of the site in the manner proposed would introduce a readily noticeable and significant change in the appearance of this part of the streetscene in Grays Lane, I do not consider that this would be unduly harmful in terms of the prevailing level of visual amenity neither would it be likely to create any unacceptable impact to the residents of the immediately adjoining dwellings. In all these circumstances I conclude that the development is acceptable and in compliance with Policies ENV22, ENV23 and ENV24 of the adopted Local Plan”
In this instance, the construction of a 5-bedroom dwelling following the demolition of a bungalow on the site was approved, but the impact was not seen to be unduly harmful either in terms of visual amenity on in terms of impact to the residents of the immediately adjoining dwellings. The approval of the construction of such a dwelling would appear at odds with the analysis that a change of use (such as that applied for by SSAFA) would constitute an unacceptable impact.
To conclude on the issue of the Planning Officer’s recommendation, perhaps it is the case that the recommendation was made prematurely in the face of a vociferous objection campaign, before the overwhelming need and support for the facility became apparent. The Officer’s recommendation seems to recognise this to an extent and states that “many would say that that the nationally important work of Headley Court and the national sympathy that should be extended to badly injured servicemen/women and their families, should be afforded considerable weight and indeed should outweigh the concerns of local residents….it is for the Committee to decide the weights to be given to opposing arguments”. I therefore respectfully implore the elected Members serving on the Development Control Committee of Mole Valley District Council to consider the urgent need and overwhelming support for the SSAFA facility and to contrast this with the spurious grounds for objection and the debatable ground for refusal by voting to approve this application, in line with the scope for discretion that appears to be offered by the Officer’s recommendation.
Finally, I appreciate the opportunity extended to supporters of this application to make such direct representations to Members with regard to this facility of national importance. I would also like to pay tribute to the Planning Officers and Staff of Mole Valley District Council, who have never failed to be helpful and courteous and who have worked extremely hard to keep on top of the disproportionate workload generated by this rather minor change of use.
Yours faithfully
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: I give in. Wandering around my alter ego.
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick cut and paste for the addresses of all the relevant councillors:
probably best sent bcc with the primary email address to the chairman
It'll save cutting and pasting each individual one like I did!
cllr.aboud @ molevalley.gov.uk,cllr.corden @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.chandler @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.dickson @ molevalley.gov.uk, Cllr.Johnson @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.ladell @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.pearson @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.purkiss @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.reynolds @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.burt @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.margaretcooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.ellis @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.mauricehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.valeriehomewood @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.lewis-carr @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.murdoch @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.salmon @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.northcott @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.curran @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.sharland @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.sylviasharland @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.tatham @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.cooksey @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.freeman @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.hedgeland @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.longhurst @ molevalley.gov.uk, cllr.townsend @ molevalley.gov.uk
cllr.hunt @ molevalley.gov.uk,