Neighbours war with wounded soldiers families
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shrops
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sweeping statement I know, but I am rapidly tending towards the opinion that, in one sense, the people of this country deserve everything they get. And in another they do not deserve what they actually have, and amongst that I include the excellent people of the armed forces 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far there are about 100 objections. Many of them quote the increased traffic in their road from these 'visitors'. It may be of interest to note that someone just down the road from the SSAFA house recently applied to turn there property in to a cattery. Some of you may know the increase in traffic this would lead to (if you have pets that is), yet there wer NO OBJECTIONS to the plan for the house on the same street. So traffic from petowners is welcome, yet traffic from the families of our wounded are not welcome
You reap what you Sow eh!
We need about 100 polite letters to hit the council.
You reap what you Sow eh!
We need about 100 polite letters to hit the council.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Objections due to increased traffic
(Now I have calmed down)
As many of the Nimby b$%$&ds are quoting the likely increase in traffic, what about doing a little traffic census there? Boring work but it might be useful, especially to establish if the addition of a whole 6 cars would actually make any real difference to the area
It would need several people to be done effectively and ideally for a fair chunk of the day.
Anyone up for that? Thursday?
PM me or post here
CS
As many of the Nimby b$%$&ds are quoting the likely increase in traffic, what about doing a little traffic census there? Boring work but it might be useful, especially to establish if the addition of a whole 6 cars would actually make any real difference to the area
It would need several people to be done effectively and ideally for a fair chunk of the day.
Anyone up for that? Thursday?
PM me or post here
CS
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Cargo
You know me!! I'm up for it!!
Guy's I can't keep up with the info on ARRSE. If you feel strongly about this then please now read through pages 24 to 26 at
http://www.arrse.com/cpgn2/Forums/vi...6.html#1397716
This, like Mr Pun VC is a very important one to win. I think there are a lot out there who can empathise with this ( you, your family, your sons, daughters, wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc etc)
Thanks and good night
Tigs
You know me!! I'm up for it!!
Guy's I can't keep up with the info on ARRSE. If you feel strongly about this then please now read through pages 24 to 26 at
http://www.arrse.com/cpgn2/Forums/vi...6.html#1397716
This, like Mr Pun VC is a very important one to win. I think there are a lot out there who can empathise with this ( you, your family, your sons, daughters, wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc etc)
Thanks and good night
Tigs
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The previous use of the property that SSAFA want to use appears to have been a child-minding business. So Chelsea Tractors dropping off children is acceptable in the neighbourhood, as are cats, but not the families of wounded.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...start=360.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...start=360.html
As a reminder;
The Arrsers are being very proactive about this. Let's give them a hand. My letter sent.
The planning application is here
www.molevalley.gov.uk/...%20Results
This is the address for submissions by e-mail
www.molevalley.gov.uk/.../2007/0863
Or
Miss Lesley Westphal
planning @ molevalley.gov.uk
PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: MO/2007/0863
(36 GRAYS LANE, ASHSTEAD, SURREY, KT21 1BU)
Remember, if you wish to maintain PERSEC , your address must be on a separate sheet and the rider "Not for publication" added. Which tells them to withold your address from public view.
Secondly, we are not going off templates on this, unlike Red Team. Speak from the heart.
Thirdly . Do not be abusive, or even refer to the objectors if you can help it. Do not under any circumstances write directly to an objector .Many people in that area have NOT submitted objections. They may be undecided, we can win them over
_________________
www.molevalley.gov.uk/...%20Results
This is the address for submissions by e-mail
www.molevalley.gov.uk/.../2007/0863
Or
Miss Lesley Westphal
planning @ molevalley.gov.uk
PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: MO/2007/0863
(36 GRAYS LANE, ASHSTEAD, SURREY, KT21 1BU)
Remember, if you wish to maintain PERSEC , your address must be on a separate sheet and the rider "Not for publication" added. Which tells them to withold your address from public view.
Secondly, we are not going off templates on this, unlike Red Team. Speak from the heart.
Thirdly . Do not be abusive, or even refer to the objectors if you can help it. Do not under any circumstances write directly to an objector .Many people in that area have NOT submitted objections. They may be undecided, we can win them over
_________________
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone considered the informing of the local/national TV on this one - getting the TV involved / onside would be a massive boost to the campaign, maybe raise the bar a little - these people leave me totaly speachless, they can not go unchallenged
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Crucible
Age: 55
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just tried to access the Documents section of the application and it appears to be off line. I can access the rest of it OK so would it be safe to assume that the council have removed the documents in light of the publicity they have been recieving on this and other sites???
(Or is my computer nadgered??)
(Or is my computer nadgered??)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Far from the madding crowd
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by An Teallach
I suspect it's down temporarily while Miss Westphal's team uploads a shedload of representations from PPRuNe and ARRSE.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ashtead Residents' Association
For what it is worth, the following now appears on the website of the Ashtead Residents Association . . . . Mr Malcolm Webb has probably felt the heat.
QUOTE!
Some people have read the article published in the Daily Mail of Monday 16th July and expressed their views to this Association.
The article referred to Mr Malcolm Webb as Residents' Association (sic) Chairman. This is not correct. Mr Webb is Chairman of Ashtead Park Estate Management Company Ltd, a company which represents the interests of residents in that part of the village to which this Planning Application refers.
The Ashtead Residents' Association has sympathy with the range of concerns expressed to us as a consequence of this article. Our experience of local residents is that they are proud of the local association with the work undertaken at Headley and are very supportive of our service personnel, their families and their loved ones.
The planning application in relation to 36 Grays Lane has given rise to a range of concerns in the immediate area, which have been included within submissions to Mole Valley District Council as planning objections. We understand however that a high proportion of submissions expressed support for the armed forces and SSAFA.
QUOTE!
Some people have read the article published in the Daily Mail of Monday 16th July and expressed their views to this Association.
The article referred to Mr Malcolm Webb as Residents' Association (sic) Chairman. This is not correct. Mr Webb is Chairman of Ashtead Park Estate Management Company Ltd, a company which represents the interests of residents in that part of the village to which this Planning Application refers.
The Ashtead Residents' Association has sympathy with the range of concerns expressed to us as a consequence of this article. Our experience of local residents is that they are proud of the local association with the work undertaken at Headley and are very supportive of our service personnel, their families and their loved ones.
The planning application in relation to 36 Grays Lane has given rise to a range of concerns in the immediate area, which have been included within submissions to Mole Valley District Council as planning objections. We understand however that a high proportion of submissions expressed support for the armed forces and SSAFA.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I also bring to your attention the following excerpt taken from an ARRSE poster:
In todays dail mail "debate" section, there is a letter from a Shaun Keep defending their actions and he says (quoted verbatim but sadly there is not an electronic copy - I found it via the MOD press cuttings service)
Firstly "the installation of a hostel for families introduces two precedents to the road - a business being run from a property" (coming from Mr Cattery application?)"
"Everyone in Grays lane sympathises with the plight of injured service personnel, but what point is there in our brave troops fighting to secure democracy overseas if charities are allowed to jepoardise something so cherished at home?"
Not sure what his 2nd precedent is but the cattery part was added by my learned colleague with reference to a cattery application that received zero objections from the locals, with nobody mentioning the traffic chaos that might ensue.
The second paragraph hits the spot with regard to the NIMBY phrase and should be addressed by the mail.
In todays dail mail "debate" section, there is a letter from a Shaun Keep defending their actions and he says (quoted verbatim but sadly there is not an electronic copy - I found it via the MOD press cuttings service)
Firstly "the installation of a hostel for families introduces two precedents to the road - a business being run from a property" (coming from Mr Cattery application?)"
"Everyone in Grays lane sympathises with the plight of injured service personnel, but what point is there in our brave troops fighting to secure democracy overseas if charities are allowed to jepoardise something so cherished at home?"
Not sure what his 2nd precedent is but the cattery part was added by my learned colleague with reference to a cattery application that received zero objections from the locals, with nobody mentioning the traffic chaos that might ensue.
The second paragraph hits the spot with regard to the NIMBY phrase and should be addressed by the mail.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just put the phone down following a lengthy conversation with the case officer who is dealing with this deplorable affair. I asked her what was needed to influence the council in making their decision and was advised as follows:
1. Counter any argument suggesting an increase in road traffic
2. Counter any argument pertaining to 'degrading' the area because of its change of use, or changing the charachter of the lane. Also counter the 'detrimental' effect it will have on the ambiance of the lane.
3. Counter any argument regarding the request to install wheelchair ramps - quote the Disability Act whereby it is an offence to discriminate against disabled people.
4. Argue the need for our service men and women to have family close at hand on their return from the Gulf or wherever, and for their continued recovery.
The lady also said that she (they) had received a great many letters of support for SSAFA, so please keep the letters and e mails coming.
Take a look at the links on the earlier pages and see the 2 letters of objection from Mr & Mrs Mander and also Helen & Mark McGaugh. Read them carefully and base your comments directly against what they claim to be the problems. Try NOT to get emotive - it isn't easy, but emotion won't win the day! I want to write to these folks and tell them how utterly ashamed I am of them and suggest that honest, fair minded and responsible service families are better than a bunch of yobs that could purchase the property, but to date I have refrained. The bottom line is that we must be objective in our comments and counter the objections that have been raised.
Finally, might I just ask if anyone has considered putting this on the 10 Downing Street Petition site? I don't know how to do it otherwise I would take it on, but I do think it's worth considering.
We must NOT let a handful of self-opinionated ar
oles get away with this. It a thanks to our servicemen and women that people like this are able to voice their objections in this country. We must not lose this one people - keep up the good work and write your letter to:
Mr Clive Smith or Ms Lesley Westphal
Planning Department
MOle Valley District Council
Pippbrook
Surrey RH4 1SJ
The Winco
1. Counter any argument suggesting an increase in road traffic
2. Counter any argument pertaining to 'degrading' the area because of its change of use, or changing the charachter of the lane. Also counter the 'detrimental' effect it will have on the ambiance of the lane.
3. Counter any argument regarding the request to install wheelchair ramps - quote the Disability Act whereby it is an offence to discriminate against disabled people.
4. Argue the need for our service men and women to have family close at hand on their return from the Gulf or wherever, and for their continued recovery.
The lady also said that she (they) had received a great many letters of support for SSAFA, so please keep the letters and e mails coming.
Take a look at the links on the earlier pages and see the 2 letters of objection from Mr & Mrs Mander and also Helen & Mark McGaugh. Read them carefully and base your comments directly against what they claim to be the problems. Try NOT to get emotive - it isn't easy, but emotion won't win the day! I want to write to these folks and tell them how utterly ashamed I am of them and suggest that honest, fair minded and responsible service families are better than a bunch of yobs that could purchase the property, but to date I have refrained. The bottom line is that we must be objective in our comments and counter the objections that have been raised.
Finally, might I just ask if anyone has considered putting this on the 10 Downing Street Petition site? I don't know how to do it otherwise I would take it on, but I do think it's worth considering.
We must NOT let a handful of self-opinionated ar
oles get away with this. It a thanks to our servicemen and women that people like this are able to voice their objections in this country. We must not lose this one people - keep up the good work and write your letter to:Mr Clive Smith or Ms Lesley Westphal
Planning Department
MOle Valley District Council
Pippbrook
Surrey RH4 1SJ
The Winco
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shrops
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winco, that is outstanding work.
With respect to point 2. though, I would suggest that this is very subjective and actually sits at the heart of the issue, what does 'degrading' actually mean. Clearly the NIMBY residents believe that having a few extra vehicles traversing their road constitues a degradation in their quality of life by changing its 'character', a notion that is utterly laughable to someone who lives in a town and is used to having other people inconveniently driving their vehicles past their door.
With respect to point 2. though, I would suggest that this is very subjective and actually sits at the heart of the issue, what does 'degrading' actually mean. Clearly the NIMBY residents believe that having a few extra vehicles traversing their road constitues a degradation in their quality of life by changing its 'character', a notion that is utterly laughable to someone who lives in a town and is used to having other people inconveniently driving their vehicles past their door.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: South
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live reasonably close, but I too do not have the time to dedicate to this cause, as much as I would like to.
Interestingly, I grew up around this area and have in-laws even closer than me to the area in question. What I can say (and this in no way defends the thoughts and actions of those residents complaining) is that 'locals' in this area of Surrey have seen a huge increase in the amount of developers that have marched in to 'leafy suburban' streets, outbid families massively for a property, before demolishing it and replacing what used to be a nice house, with a set of flats for 6-10 singlies. This has resulted in many areas becoming less desireable than before = less value for their house. There have been a considerable number of neighbourhood associations created by residents to try to stop this happening, with little success, and I can only assume that these people think the same will happen if this goes ahead. Clearly it won't.
For the record, I echo all the sentiments aired here and on ARRSE, but I am able to understand the concerns of the local residents (not that there should be any). Once this SSAFA application gets approval, I am sure that the locals will see that they have not suffered, or are unlikely to suffer, from any problems associated with the house's transformation from a residential house to a 'house' for forces families to visit injured relatives. It has my full support.
Interestingly, I grew up around this area and have in-laws even closer than me to the area in question. What I can say (and this in no way defends the thoughts and actions of those residents complaining) is that 'locals' in this area of Surrey have seen a huge increase in the amount of developers that have marched in to 'leafy suburban' streets, outbid families massively for a property, before demolishing it and replacing what used to be a nice house, with a set of flats for 6-10 singlies. This has resulted in many areas becoming less desireable than before = less value for their house. There have been a considerable number of neighbourhood associations created by residents to try to stop this happening, with little success, and I can only assume that these people think the same will happen if this goes ahead. Clearly it won't.
For the record, I echo all the sentiments aired here and on ARRSE, but I am able to understand the concerns of the local residents (not that there should be any). Once this SSAFA application gets approval, I am sure that the locals will see that they have not suffered, or are unlikely to suffer, from any problems associated with the house's transformation from a residential house to a 'house' for forces families to visit injured relatives. It has my full support.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Jenvey: I am going there tomorrow (Thursday) to carry out an impromptu traffic survey. As so many residents raised the point and it is point number 1 on Winco's list of things the council said need to be addressed.
If anyone wishes to join me in doing a survey or has any suggestions for specific information to collect (e.g. average number of cars per house?) then I'd be grateful for help with either.
CS
If anyone wishes to join me in doing a survey or has any suggestions for specific information to collect (e.g. average number of cars per house?) then I'd be grateful for help with either.
CS
Last edited by cargosales; 18th Jul 2007 at 17:06. Reason: Edit: spelling
I think the whole thing is disgusting,perhaps all the forces could be pulled out of harms way and all the protesting residents could be sent there to replace them ?? (if only)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 85
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cargosales. Great I concur everything Mike says. I look forward to your findings. I will then submit another letter along the lines of the suggestions made at Winco's Post.
Mel
Mel