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 :(

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:ugh::ugh:

You reap what you Sow eh!

We need about 100 polite letters to hit the council.

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

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

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

Well, it seems the delightful Miss Westphal has been having a busy morning redressing the balance of representations to the Planning Committee with gusto!

As a reminder;The Arrsers are being very proactive about this. Let's give them a hand. My letter sent.

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

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???:confused:

(Or is my computer nadgered??)

I suspect it's down temporarily while Miss Westphal's team uploads a shedload of representations from PPRuNe and ARRSE.

Don't forget (as much as some may want to) the members of E-Goat are participating as well.

Happy to put a tenner in her tea-swindle, just to keep the team going.

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.

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.

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:mad: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

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.

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.

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

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):mad::mad::mad:

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