Neighbours war with wounded soldiers families
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Deepest darkest sx
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSAFA House Ashtead
having had personal experience of Headley Court from a family perspective over the last year n more, the support which I've read over the last 4 pages has been blimmin brill, it means a helluva lot, esp all of those letters going to Mole Valley Council! Keep up the good work, this will help so many families yet to come!!!!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
splitbrain,
If you go to page 1 of this thread you can read the comments made by the Manders regarding the degradation of the area and how it would be 'detrimental' to the ambiance of the lane. Those comments in particular I have found extremely offensive and disturbing to the point where I intend to write to them myself and express my disgust at them.
As a matter of interest to others, I did ask the case officer why the planning department were involved at all in this matter in the first place. SSAFA already own this property, so why all the fuss? It appears that SSAFA have asked for a change of occupancy from a normal 'residential' dwelling for a single family, to a one that will be available to others to use. I still fail to understand why there is so much hostility towards it however.
cargosales, well done Sir! I look forward to reading your comments tomorrow.
Keep it up chaps, well done to one and all!
The Winco
If you go to page 1 of this thread you can read the comments made by the Manders regarding the degradation of the area and how it would be 'detrimental' to the ambiance of the lane. Those comments in particular I have found extremely offensive and disturbing to the point where I intend to write to them myself and express my disgust at them.
As a matter of interest to others, I did ask the case officer why the planning department were involved at all in this matter in the first place. SSAFA already own this property, so why all the fuss? It appears that SSAFA have asked for a change of occupancy from a normal 'residential' dwelling for a single family, to a one that will be available to others to use. I still fail to understand why there is so much hostility towards it however.
cargosales, well done Sir! I look forward to reading your comments tomorrow.
Keep it up chaps, well done to one and all!
The Winco
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Deepest darkest sx
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, did so last night before I read these fab threads!
Many unexpected big guns working to see this project through, we just cannot let it fail, too much to lose in human terms.
Gawd bless yous all!
Many unexpected big guns working to see this project through, we just cannot let it fail, too much to lose in human terms.
Gawd bless yous all!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headley Court
Moved to enter the lists for the first time on this topic. If there is one thing this country should be able to promise the people sent on wars at its Government's behest, it is the very best care and support for them and their families if they get injured, or worse. This is fundamental to the Moral Component of Warfare and whilst the "Ashstead Residents Association" may lack the base common sense, or fibre, to recognise this, our politicians should not. Let us direct our fire accordingly.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Jenvey et all: Thank you for the support. At best it may help the successful application by SSAFA. At worst, I will have spent a day counting cars (probably in the rain!).
Looking at the location (roads) of residents who sent in letters objecting to this proposed development,
(copied from AARSE):
Grays Lane 28
Berry Walk 3
Chalk Lane 14
Dene Walk 1
Druids Close 1
Oaken Coppice 8
No Address Given 3
Park Lane 1
Ralliwood Road 23
many of them would not even be affected by any increase in traffic (although 72% of them cited it as a reason for objecting), even if that actually were the case. I.e Families and loved ones would drive straight to the A24 (Grays Lane, Dene Road, Parkers Hill Lane) and onto the A24, to get to Headley Court as quickly as possible.
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.c...&addr3=&addr1=
Would anyone who has the time care to go through the objections and pick out those which fit into that category and which may therefore might be classified as vexatious objections? Maybe make up a table of the different objections raised and cross referenced to the road those complainants live in?
E.g. there are 8 objections from people living in Oaken Coppice but logic says that people travelling from Grays Lane to Headley Court would not go anywhere near Oaken Coppice, so it is a vexatious/spurious objection rather than a valid reason to object.
CS
Looking at the location (roads) of residents who sent in letters objecting to this proposed development,
(copied from AARSE):
Grays Lane 28
Berry Walk 3
Chalk Lane 14
Dene Walk 1
Druids Close 1
Oaken Coppice 8
No Address Given 3
Park Lane 1
Ralliwood Road 23
many of them would not even be affected by any increase in traffic (although 72% of them cited it as a reason for objecting), even if that actually were the case. I.e Families and loved ones would drive straight to the A24 (Grays Lane, Dene Road, Parkers Hill Lane) and onto the A24, to get to Headley Court as quickly as possible.
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.c...&addr3=&addr1=
Would anyone who has the time care to go through the objections and pick out those which fit into that category and which may therefore might be classified as vexatious objections? Maybe make up a table of the different objections raised and cross referenced to the road those complainants live in?
E.g. there are 8 objections from people living in Oaken Coppice but logic says that people travelling from Grays Lane to Headley Court would not go anywhere near Oaken Coppice, so it is a vexatious/spurious objection rather than a valid reason to object.
CS
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo are you still up? Call me mobile chum if you are. You need to read P2's excellent recce on ARRSE. The vehicle count will complete the evidence.
Pics from P2s recce are here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10219376@N03/
PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THE BUSINESS NAMES OR HOUSE NUMBERS BELOW IN LETTERS TO THE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME. Suffice to say that business' are registered in the lane.
Note the parking space infront of number 36.
One of the main objections is setting a precedent for running a business from Grays Rd as they say it is purely residential. Well apart from the fact that SSAFA is a charity, bugger me what a litttle bit of investigation has turned up
36 used to be a Nursery.
Russell Mander and Co Ltd 29 Grays Lane
West Buckland Investments Ltd 17 Grays Lane
Palm Propertys Ltd No42
PSB Consultancy services No 26 (the owner is also a Director of Ashstead Park Estate Management Ltd - a The Main Objector - SEE BELOW)
18 wanted to be a Cattery. The business was to be in the house.
And 38, who incidentaly raised concerns about privacy and fire risks of the added number of families in 36 in their objection letter, run a chemists business from there (shop located just down the road) and have a business Quincewood ltd registered there.
36 was previously a nursery (noise!!)
Jenner Associates No 8
need I go On?
Several of the 'objectors' refer to the Ashtead Park Estate Management Co Ltd. (APEM) who seem to be leading the campaign to prevent the application succeeding.
APEM appears to be a Mr. XX who lives at number 26 Grays Lane.
This is what he wrote in his letter:
Quote::
This company (APEM) owns, amongst other land and property rights, the unadopted roads at Grays Lane and Chalk Lane under HM Registry Title no SY340032.
Red team, you are unmasked. And, it seems, so is your motive!
Blue Team I think soon we can declare check! Get some numbers from cargo sales and a few other minor legal details and it could soon be checkmate!
Advice - read from page 38 onwards on ARRSE.
Pics from P2s recce are here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10219376@N03/
PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THE BUSINESS NAMES OR HOUSE NUMBERS BELOW IN LETTERS TO THE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME. Suffice to say that business' are registered in the lane.
Note the parking space infront of number 36.
One of the main objections is setting a precedent for running a business from Grays Rd as they say it is purely residential. Well apart from the fact that SSAFA is a charity, bugger me what a litttle bit of investigation has turned up
36 used to be a Nursery.
Russell Mander and Co Ltd 29 Grays Lane
West Buckland Investments Ltd 17 Grays Lane
Palm Propertys Ltd No42
PSB Consultancy services No 26 (the owner is also a Director of Ashstead Park Estate Management Ltd - a The Main Objector - SEE BELOW)
18 wanted to be a Cattery. The business was to be in the house.
And 38, who incidentaly raised concerns about privacy and fire risks of the added number of families in 36 in their objection letter, run a chemists business from there (shop located just down the road) and have a business Quincewood ltd registered there.
36 was previously a nursery (noise!!)
Jenner Associates No 8
need I go On?
Several of the 'objectors' refer to the Ashtead Park Estate Management Co Ltd. (APEM) who seem to be leading the campaign to prevent the application succeeding.
APEM appears to be a Mr. XX who lives at number 26 Grays Lane.
This is what he wrote in his letter:
Quote::
This company (APEM) owns, amongst other land and property rights, the unadopted roads at Grays Lane and Chalk Lane under HM Registry Title no SY340032.
Red team, you are unmasked. And, it seems, so is your motive!
Blue Team I think soon we can declare check! Get some numbers from cargo sales and a few other minor legal details and it could soon be checkmate!
Advice - read from page 38 onwards on ARRSE.
Last edited by Tigs2; 19th Jul 2007 at 00:19.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diplomat over on ARRSE has analysed the objections so you can use the information in your letter. Well done him.
Originally Posted by diplomat
UPDATE
PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: MO/2007/0863
(36 GRAYS LANE, ASHSTEAD, SURREY, KT21 1BU)
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS (INCLUDING ARGUMENTS THAT COULD BE USED AGAINST EACH OBJECTION) (AS AT 18 JULY 2007)
99 Letters of Application opposing the bid to date (72%).
39 Letters of Application supporting bid to date (28%).
(134 Letters on site, but total above of 138. Spme seem to have been lost during MVDC server crash on 18 Jul 07 - luckily we have copies so have included them in the analysis)
82 Residents have responded (some more than once).
78% of objections included the reason of Increased Traffic Volume.
There have been 82 residents object. If each has an average of 2 cars that equates to 164 cars.
An extra 6 cars (one per family at max useage) plus a Wardens car = 7.
This equates to an MAXIMUM increase of cars in the immediate area of 4.3%.
The real % difference will be less as this estimate does not factor in residents who have not complained, or the nomal daily useage by other road users.
Hence increased traffic volume will be minimal and have a negligable impact on the immediate area.
49% of objections included the reason that the SSAFA accommodation is ‘effectively’ a Hostel.
The primary purpose of accommodating families is so that they can visit their injured relatives; it is not proposed or intended to be a commercial venture to make money. It is entirely possible and reasonable that SSAFA recover some of their operating costs - but the residents will be so tightly defined that it is unreasonable to directly compare it with a Hostel or Hotel.
26% of objections included the reason that there would be increased Noise.
There is no evidence to sugest that there would be any significant increase in noise pollution.
Most of the visitors staying at 36 Grays Lane would wish to spend as much time as possible with their injured relatives during their short stay. They are unlikely to be ‘partying’ in Grays Lane!
26% of objections included the reason that the house would be run as a ‘Business’
SSAFA clearly is a charity, and whatever they do, wherever they do it, is NOT classified as ‘business’.
No profit is made, although it is acceoted that the use of business processes is necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the charity. This is a legal requirement of the Charity Commissioners.
12% of objections included the reason that SSAFA should build in the grounds of Headley Court.
Headley Court is a listed building.
The grounds are also classified as Green Belt.
Therefore planning permission would be required, which would take time.
Additional time would be needed to build the accommodation.
Accommodation is needed NOW, and not in 18 months time.
Therefore these objections are not practicable, although it is certainly a mid to long term option that SSAFA should consider.
In the short term the purchase and use of 36 Grays Lane will meet the inarguable needs of families visiting injured servicemen and women.
11% of objections included the reason that such an initiative would increase increase risks of terrorism or compromise security.
There is little evidence to suggest that extermist groups or terrorists are targeting service families.
Indeed ALL the evidence suggests they are targeting ANY family who happens to be in a public place.
The extremists and terrorists would gain more publicity attacking high profile targets such as the capital and transportation network. All the available evidence in the public domain suports this statement.
In todays society EVERYONE is at risk of terrorist or extremist attack.
The increase in risk to the local residents because SSAFA wishes to use a house in their area is negligable.
Finally, it is the very people that protect them from terrorist attacks that would benefit from this SSAFA facility - a little gratitude would not go amiss!
10% of objections included the reason that there would be a significant increase in rubbish and waste.
There have been 82 residents object. If each has an average of 3 waste rubbish sacks per week that equates to 246 rubbish sacks.
An extra 14 rubbish sacks (two per family at max useage) plus two for the Warden = 16.
This equates to an MAXIMUM increase of rubbish sacks requiring collection of 6.5%.
The real % difference will be less as this estimate does not factor in residents who have not complained, or the nomal daily rubbish produced by other residents who have not objected.
Hence increased rubbish and waste will be minimal and have a negligable impact on the refuse collection requirements.
The remainder of objection reasons (seven) were insignificant in % terms (>10%).
HOW YOU CAN HELP IN THE BATTLE OF THE LETTERS ! !
The planning application is here
http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg...863&theTabNo=3
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. But feel free to use some of the arguments above in support of the SSAFA proposal.
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.
WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW
Red Team have now submitted virtually all the Objection Letters they can. Any more will be repeats that will be ignored by the Planning Committee.
Your NEW Letters of Support will not be ignored.
So please start E Mailing now so that we can demonstrate overwhelming public support for the SSAFA proposal, whilst exposing the residents for the NIMBYs they undoubtedly are!!
WRITE NOW PLEASE
PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: MO/2007/0863
(36 GRAYS LANE, ASHSTEAD, SURREY, KT21 1BU)
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS (INCLUDING ARGUMENTS THAT COULD BE USED AGAINST EACH OBJECTION) (AS AT 18 JULY 2007)
99 Letters of Application opposing the bid to date (72%).
39 Letters of Application supporting bid to date (28%).
(134 Letters on site, but total above of 138. Spme seem to have been lost during MVDC server crash on 18 Jul 07 - luckily we have copies so have included them in the analysis)
82 Residents have responded (some more than once).
78% of objections included the reason of Increased Traffic Volume.
There have been 82 residents object. If each has an average of 2 cars that equates to 164 cars.
An extra 6 cars (one per family at max useage) plus a Wardens car = 7.
This equates to an MAXIMUM increase of cars in the immediate area of 4.3%.
The real % difference will be less as this estimate does not factor in residents who have not complained, or the nomal daily useage by other road users.
Hence increased traffic volume will be minimal and have a negligable impact on the immediate area.
49% of objections included the reason that the SSAFA accommodation is ‘effectively’ a Hostel.
The primary purpose of accommodating families is so that they can visit their injured relatives; it is not proposed or intended to be a commercial venture to make money. It is entirely possible and reasonable that SSAFA recover some of their operating costs - but the residents will be so tightly defined that it is unreasonable to directly compare it with a Hostel or Hotel.
26% of objections included the reason that there would be increased Noise.
There is no evidence to sugest that there would be any significant increase in noise pollution.
Most of the visitors staying at 36 Grays Lane would wish to spend as much time as possible with their injured relatives during their short stay. They are unlikely to be ‘partying’ in Grays Lane!
26% of objections included the reason that the house would be run as a ‘Business’
SSAFA clearly is a charity, and whatever they do, wherever they do it, is NOT classified as ‘business’.
No profit is made, although it is acceoted that the use of business processes is necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the charity. This is a legal requirement of the Charity Commissioners.
12% of objections included the reason that SSAFA should build in the grounds of Headley Court.
Headley Court is a listed building.
The grounds are also classified as Green Belt.
Therefore planning permission would be required, which would take time.
Additional time would be needed to build the accommodation.
Accommodation is needed NOW, and not in 18 months time.
Therefore these objections are not practicable, although it is certainly a mid to long term option that SSAFA should consider.
In the short term the purchase and use of 36 Grays Lane will meet the inarguable needs of families visiting injured servicemen and women.
11% of objections included the reason that such an initiative would increase increase risks of terrorism or compromise security.
There is little evidence to suggest that extermist groups or terrorists are targeting service families.
Indeed ALL the evidence suggests they are targeting ANY family who happens to be in a public place.
The extremists and terrorists would gain more publicity attacking high profile targets such as the capital and transportation network. All the available evidence in the public domain suports this statement.
In todays society EVERYONE is at risk of terrorist or extremist attack.
The increase in risk to the local residents because SSAFA wishes to use a house in their area is negligable.
Finally, it is the very people that protect them from terrorist attacks that would benefit from this SSAFA facility - a little gratitude would not go amiss!
10% of objections included the reason that there would be a significant increase in rubbish and waste.
There have been 82 residents object. If each has an average of 3 waste rubbish sacks per week that equates to 246 rubbish sacks.
An extra 14 rubbish sacks (two per family at max useage) plus two for the Warden = 16.
This equates to an MAXIMUM increase of rubbish sacks requiring collection of 6.5%.
The real % difference will be less as this estimate does not factor in residents who have not complained, or the nomal daily rubbish produced by other residents who have not objected.
Hence increased rubbish and waste will be minimal and have a negligable impact on the refuse collection requirements.
The remainder of objection reasons (seven) were insignificant in % terms (>10%).
HOW YOU CAN HELP IN THE BATTLE OF THE LETTERS ! !
The planning application is here
http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg...863&theTabNo=3
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. But feel free to use some of the arguments above in support of the SSAFA proposal.
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.
WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW
Red Team have now submitted virtually all the Objection Letters they can. Any more will be repeats that will be ignored by the Planning Committee.
Your NEW Letters of Support will not be ignored.
So please start E Mailing now so that we can demonstrate overwhelming public support for the SSAFA proposal, whilst exposing the residents for the NIMBYs they undoubtedly are!!
WRITE NOW PLEASE
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change of Use
Here's an idea! Tell these NIMBY 
ssers that a new application will be put in for use of the the building as
1. Bail Hostel
2. Paedophile Hostel
3. Druggy rehabilitation centre
4. Homeless hostel
5. Care home for unmarried mothers of Eastern European origin
6. Etc etc.
Rant off!
ssers that a new application will be put in for use of the the building as1. Bail Hostel
2. Paedophile Hostel
3. Druggy rehabilitation centre
4. Homeless hostel
5. Care home for unmarried mothers of Eastern European origin
6. Etc etc.
Rant off!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could I please reiterate the need for as many letters as possible to be placed onto the "those for" group in order to directly oppose "those against"!
If you enclose your letter on an email with name and address on the email only they will only publish your letter and not your name thus allowing you to keep your anonymity (hmm spelling) as well as keeping your address out of the public domain for security reasons.
If you enclose your letter on an email with name and address on the email only they will only publish your letter and not your name thus allowing you to keep your anonymity (hmm spelling) as well as keeping your address out of the public domain for security reasons.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tenet
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weevhearditb4
Dear all,
Thank god someone cares; our son is serving in Iraq. Those who are getting injured and killed in Afghanistan and Iraq need our support as well as the families who have to deal with the aftermath when their loved one turns up home broken and battered awaiting HC to make them better.
Planning matters, there is nothing in the local plan that supports either side however SAFFA's application has regard to the local plan. Under the DDA this local authority has to take into account disabled access it cannot do otherwise ditto cars however many who come to pick up Disabled service personnel from the house.
There are two main points that the planners and the planning committee has to take into account and I feel that these are the main points
- This application is of more than local importance.
- The Wednesbury principle applies.
On no 2 I suspect SAFFA will take action via the courts.
Either way with the other good investigation by blue and red teams it appears game over 1-0 to the great and good on this site and the others.
Best wishes to all
Last edited by weevhearditb4; 19th Jul 2007 at 09:53.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tenet
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weevhearditb4
I hear that Mole Valley DC (planning) is not supporting this application and is recommending that its turned down, i suggest people ask the person who is dealing with this application to verify. They are under duty to tell you if they are or not.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have e-mailed the links for the application to my daughter who is a very experienced planning officer. She said she would go through it and see if there are any precedents which we can use to counter the objections. Failing that she will send ideas on what actions to take in the event that the application is rejected.
Will keep you posted on that.
Plus my MP is getting another letter from me - we're becoming quite pally now - perish the thought!!
Keep up the struggle
Will keep you posted on that.
Plus my MP is getting another letter from me - we're becoming quite pally now - perish the thought!!
Keep up the struggle
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Words fail me. 
Just sent this off.
Just sent this off.
Dear Sr/Madam
I wish to register my overwhelming support for the above application by SSAFA to change the use of No.36 Grays Lane.
I do not live near the subject area, nor I am not in the services, however I have many friends and acquaintances who do currently serve.
I will attempt (and possibly fail) to steer clear of evangelising on the moral and ethical side of the discussion. Suffice it to say I believe that we, as residents of the United Kingdom, have a duty of care towards those who protect us with their lives. Speaking personally, I would be honoured to be in the exact position that residents of Ashtead Park seem to dread; to be able to give comfort and support to those families staying in an unfamiliar location and going through a very difficult time. To my mind that would elevate the Community spirit, not diminish it.
I will attempt to address some of the factual arguments put forward by local residents.
- Business use of the property, setting a precedent: I am sure this precedent has already been set. As far as I can tell after a morning searching the internet, the property at No.36 was formerly a child care establishment. Other correspondents have already highlighted the Cattery business elsewhere in the road (no objections were raised to that application, particularly with regard to traffic and noise). Many other businesses appear to be registered to properties on Grays Lane, ironically the residents of those said properties have opposed this application on the 'business use' argument.
- Noise: I would ask those who will deliberate on this application to consider exactly what will be going on at this property. Families will be visiting their relatives at Headley Court. I would imagine those families will be wanting to spend as much time as possible with those recovering from injury, thus the property would most likely be virtually unoccupied during the day. Even if not the case, I hardly think that four to six concerned families would create more noise than the young children that formerly occupied No.36 when it was a nursery.
- Increase in road traffic: Again, this can surely be no more than when No.36 was a nursery (perhaps less). As mentioned above, surely the residents will be leaving for Headley Court in the morning, and returning in the evening. To further diminish the opposing argument, I am led to believe that SSAFA have stated they hope to provide transport for families to Headley Court, so one minibus journey in the morning, and one again in the evening; that probably adds up to fewer road journeys than if No.36 were a 'normal' residence, with '2.4' children. It also occurs to me that many opposing residents who cite increase in traffic levels are well away from the route that anyone might take from No.36 to Headley Court.
'NIMBY'ism is distasteful at the very least. In a case such as this, words fail me. I appeal to all residents to sit down and think about what they are doing here. We as a nation should be doing everything humanly possible to help those convalescing at Headley Court, and their families staying nearby, actively helping them to recover, in their time of need. They deserve the very best of everything. They certainly do not deserve to be treated as common criminals, with no regard for their fellow man.
Yours faithfully
Adam Spink.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can they be so hypocritical!
Check out the link:
http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4222
And check out the councillors quote:
Mole Valley District Councils Leader, Councillor Tim Hall said: "Local organisers have this year chosen 'In War and Peace' as the theme for Mole Valleys 2007 Open Heritage Days in September. The theme will celebrate the people, events, places, buildings and monuments in Mole Valley that have a connection with war and its aftermath. Every year I find out something new about the history of our District during the Open Heritage Days weekend, I would encourage everyone to take advantage of this unique, interesting and fun opportunity and pick up / download an event booklet today to find out more."
It beggars belief.
http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4222
And check out the councillors quote:
Mole Valley District Councils Leader, Councillor Tim Hall said: "Local organisers have this year chosen 'In War and Peace' as the theme for Mole Valleys 2007 Open Heritage Days in September. The theme will celebrate the people, events, places, buildings and monuments in Mole Valley that have a connection with war and its aftermath. Every year I find out something new about the history of our District during the Open Heritage Days weekend, I would encourage everyone to take advantage of this unique, interesting and fun opportunity and pick up / download an event booklet today to find out more."
It beggars belief.
Every year I find out something new about the history of our District
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just sent this to my MP:
Dear Andrew,
I wrote to you last month regarding the case of a Gurkha, Cpl. Rai who had been injured in the Falkland Islands and was attempting to enter the UK for medical treatment. You kindly said you would write to the Defence Secretary. I was curious as to whether you got an answer.
Further to this, may I bring to your attention another matter regarding the shameful way that military personnel are treated in this country. A planning application has been submitted by SSAFA to turn a £1.7m six bedroom house into accommodation for use by the relatives of injured service personnel who are undergoing treatment at Headley Court in Surrey.
Mole Valley District Council are dealing with the planning application. However, the number of objections and the reasons behind them from local residents of Ashtead make me ashamed to be British. The provision of this facility should not be veiwed in the narrow context of a District Council or constituency issue, but of national interest and importance for the role it is hoped it will play in providing ease of access to injured loved ones for the families of the service personnel; and the much needed close support that these men and women so rightly deserve.
Could I ask you to make contact with Sir Paul Beresford who represents the area, and appeal to his good nature to support this application on behalf of the service personnel currently in Headley Court and sadly, those who will be in need of its services in the future if this country is to maintain its role of world peacekeeper.
Yours sincerely,
And got this info back from my daughter:
Right, I've had a look at the applicant's statements and a sample of objections. The applicant states that pre-application discussions took place before the proposal was formally submitted as a planning application. The meeting will have hopefully included someone from Policy and someone from Highways along with a Development Control Officer. If this is the case and they have put the application in then that would tend to suggest that the officers thought the proposals were acceptable in principle - otherwise they would have been told that there was no chance of it being approved.
Also, Policy and Highways will have been consulted formally on the application (just like the residents) and their comments are public record so you should be able to either read them online or arrange to go and see the DC case officer. Their comments are the ones that count. Many residents have commented but they have to be "material" objections. For example, I don't think you can argue that the application should be refused as it would 'destroy the character and appearance of the lane' as that's just stupid. I think the key issues in determining the application will therefore be:
- Are the current access arrangements adequate (Highways);
- Will on site parking provision be adequate (Highways); and
- Does the Use accord with the development plan (Policy).
I would therefore recommend you see what the in-house comments are and discuss it with the DC case officer.
If there are material objections the DC officer will have them on file.
I will be contacting the Case Officer forthwith.
Dear Andrew,
I wrote to you last month regarding the case of a Gurkha, Cpl. Rai who had been injured in the Falkland Islands and was attempting to enter the UK for medical treatment. You kindly said you would write to the Defence Secretary. I was curious as to whether you got an answer.
Further to this, may I bring to your attention another matter regarding the shameful way that military personnel are treated in this country. A planning application has been submitted by SSAFA to turn a £1.7m six bedroom house into accommodation for use by the relatives of injured service personnel who are undergoing treatment at Headley Court in Surrey.
Mole Valley District Council are dealing with the planning application. However, the number of objections and the reasons behind them from local residents of Ashtead make me ashamed to be British. The provision of this facility should not be veiwed in the narrow context of a District Council or constituency issue, but of national interest and importance for the role it is hoped it will play in providing ease of access to injured loved ones for the families of the service personnel; and the much needed close support that these men and women so rightly deserve.
Could I ask you to make contact with Sir Paul Beresford who represents the area, and appeal to his good nature to support this application on behalf of the service personnel currently in Headley Court and sadly, those who will be in need of its services in the future if this country is to maintain its role of world peacekeeper.
Yours sincerely,
And got this info back from my daughter:
Right, I've had a look at the applicant's statements and a sample of objections. The applicant states that pre-application discussions took place before the proposal was formally submitted as a planning application. The meeting will have hopefully included someone from Policy and someone from Highways along with a Development Control Officer. If this is the case and they have put the application in then that would tend to suggest that the officers thought the proposals were acceptable in principle - otherwise they would have been told that there was no chance of it being approved.
Also, Policy and Highways will have been consulted formally on the application (just like the residents) and their comments are public record so you should be able to either read them online or arrange to go and see the DC case officer. Their comments are the ones that count. Many residents have commented but they have to be "material" objections. For example, I don't think you can argue that the application should be refused as it would 'destroy the character and appearance of the lane' as that's just stupid. I think the key issues in determining the application will therefore be:
- Are the current access arrangements adequate (Highways);
- Will on site parking provision be adequate (Highways); and
- Does the Use accord with the development plan (Policy).
I would therefore recommend you see what the in-house comments are and discuss it with the DC case officer.
If there are material objections the DC officer will have them on file.
I will be contacting the Case Officer forthwith.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freedom of Information request
Just sent this FOI request in to see if we can shed any light into the background discussions:
F.A.O. Lesley Westphal
I am writing to you in relation to the planning application MO/2007/0863 submitted by SSAFA. I understand that pre application discussions took place. Could I ask who was included in these discussions?
If there were officers from Policy, Highways and Planning Development present what were their comments in relation to the application? Particularly in relation to:
- Adequacy of the current access arrangements (Highways);
- Adequacy of on site parking provision (Highways); and
- Does the Use accord with the development plan (Policy).
I would be interested to see the minutes of these meetings if that is at all possible. I make this request under the Freedom of Information Act and would like to receive answers by e-mail please.
Regards,
See where that gets us
F.A.O. Lesley Westphal
I am writing to you in relation to the planning application MO/2007/0863 submitted by SSAFA. I understand that pre application discussions took place. Could I ask who was included in these discussions?
If there were officers from Policy, Highways and Planning Development present what were their comments in relation to the application? Particularly in relation to:
- Adequacy of the current access arrangements (Highways);
- Adequacy of on site parking provision (Highways); and
- Does the Use accord with the development plan (Policy).
I would be interested to see the minutes of these meetings if that is at all possible. I make this request under the Freedom of Information Act and would like to receive answers by e-mail please.
Regards,
See where that gets us
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: wilderness
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rocket Chucker, Thanks for reminding me that I have an MP... and so I followed you lead and wrote to her. I followed most of your letter but changed some of it to avoid the template issue.
This issue has touched a raw nerve with me and I think this should get the widest possible audience. It is the first time that I have been so angered by Nimbyism that I have written letters to both planning and my MP. With the news from Mike J, may I suggest those that haven't yet written letters yet they do so sooner rather than later!
I have lived in ***** for a year and a half and feel that it is a vibrant and welcoming community. I currently serve in the Royal Air Force as a ****. As such I have seen multiple active tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where I have been scrambled to recover severely injured troops, directly from the battlefield. I am sure that you will agree that these troops have been wounded whilst supporting UK foreign policy and deserve the best possible treatment and support from their country.
May I bring to your attention a matter regarding the shameful way that injured military personnel returning from operations are treated in this country. The charity, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA) has submitted a planning application to turn a £1.7m six-bedroom house into families’ accommodation. This would be used for relatives visiting injured service personnel, whilst undergoing treatment at Headley Court in Surrey. The close support from families cannot be underestimated in the psychological recovery of men and women recovering from traumatic amputations and other severe injuries.
The planning application is being dealt with Mole Valley District Council with reference MO/2007/0863. There have been a number of objections from local residents who cite increased fire risks from visitors, dramatic increased traffic potential, noise and several other emotive arguments. I fail to see why families visiting very sick patients would be in the mood to be socially obtuse. Frankly the objections from local residents of Ashtead make me ashamed to be British. This facility should be provided by the service; however, a charity has needed to intervene and should be supported by the wider population. This application is of national interest and importance and should not only be viewed in the narrow context of a district council planning team.
Could I ask you to raise this issue with Sir Paul Beresford MP for Mole Valley. I hope that you could appeal to his good nature to support this application on behalf of the service personnel currently in Headley Court and sadly, those who will be in need of its services in the future.
Yours sincerely,
SIA
This issue has touched a raw nerve with me and I think this should get the widest possible audience. It is the first time that I have been so angered by Nimbyism that I have written letters to both planning and my MP. With the news from Mike J, may I suggest those that haven't yet written letters yet they do so sooner rather than later!
I have lived in ***** for a year and a half and feel that it is a vibrant and welcoming community. I currently serve in the Royal Air Force as a ****. As such I have seen multiple active tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where I have been scrambled to recover severely injured troops, directly from the battlefield. I am sure that you will agree that these troops have been wounded whilst supporting UK foreign policy and deserve the best possible treatment and support from their country.
May I bring to your attention a matter regarding the shameful way that injured military personnel returning from operations are treated in this country. The charity, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA) has submitted a planning application to turn a £1.7m six-bedroom house into families’ accommodation. This would be used for relatives visiting injured service personnel, whilst undergoing treatment at Headley Court in Surrey. The close support from families cannot be underestimated in the psychological recovery of men and women recovering from traumatic amputations and other severe injuries.
The planning application is being dealt with Mole Valley District Council with reference MO/2007/0863. There have been a number of objections from local residents who cite increased fire risks from visitors, dramatic increased traffic potential, noise and several other emotive arguments. I fail to see why families visiting very sick patients would be in the mood to be socially obtuse. Frankly the objections from local residents of Ashtead make me ashamed to be British. This facility should be provided by the service; however, a charity has needed to intervene and should be supported by the wider population. This application is of national interest and importance and should not only be viewed in the narrow context of a district council planning team.
Could I ask you to raise this issue with Sir Paul Beresford MP for Mole Valley. I hope that you could appeal to his good nature to support this application on behalf of the service personnel currently in Headley Court and sadly, those who will be in need of its services in the future.
Yours sincerely,
SIA
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Deepest darkest sx
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Fisher House and SSAFA House Ashtead
Mike,
The Fisher House is the gold standard, which I experienced just over 2yrs ago, that is where this all started - the Americans do get something right! Hence this is our first UK version and it so MUST succeed, failure is NOT acceptable and we Brits do NOT give in, not blimmin likely
The Fisher House is the gold standard, which I experienced just over 2yrs ago, that is where this all started - the Americans do get something right! Hence this is our first UK version and it so MUST succeed, failure is NOT acceptable and we Brits do NOT give in, not blimmin likely
Last edited by wondermum; 19th Jul 2007 at 13:05. Reason: missed title!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scientia:
Nice one (you must be a hossifer - I was but a lowly Rock and so my rantings are not as eloquently put) and I fully support the 'call to arms' to get MPs in on this action.
And as Wondermum so forcefully puts it - we do not give in
Nice one (you must be a hossifer - I was but a lowly Rock and so my rantings are not as eloquently put) and I fully support the 'call to arms' to get MPs in on this action.
And as Wondermum so forcefully puts it - we do not give in