l urge the council in question to construct a survey, and enquire how many minority groups will use this outstanding facility, such gay/lesbian/ethnic; the Armed Forces are an equal opportunities employer - so, there should be no problem.

Hopefully then, there might not be an argument; do these same locals mind when using disable facilities themselves for example disabled parking/ramps/transport/doors/baths the list is endless. Can they possibly explain what the difference would be, if a neighbour/themselves have had their own home altered to cater for disability? ls anyone else a little bit confused because l am?

Shame on these locals. lt is absolutely soul destroying to actually think these people are called human!

You can write in support of the planning application assuming the deadline has not expired. Remember that objections and statements of support must be "material considerations" in planning terms. I will look into this in more detail tonight, once I can get some PC time! Objections may be either not material or they may have some reasonable basis which should be respected.

The views of the Community Council will also be of interest.

The local authority should make such representations public - if they were up to speed they would be PDF'd and online, like most planning authorities. I am happy to request and put into the public domain.

If this is NIMBYism, then those who are objecting should be named and shamed. If they are well-heeled, then their business activities or social and political advancement could be significantly dependent upon goodwill. Said prospects could be easily shattered by a campaign of concerned serving and ex-serving! I wonder if any NIMBYs include the reckless driver who knocked the medic off the bike some years ago...

Aaah - it's all starting to fit into place, now.....

Surrey - the only county with an apology for a name.

The Daily Mail may have embelished the story, but the locals have the right to object to what amounts to a change of use for the building. Perhaps this is not the most suitable building in the area. It might be at the end of a narrow lane or have limited access-hard to tell from the picture. Having a family member who served on planning comittees for a long time I know that the final decision will be made by the planning group of the council. These individuals are usually adept at seeing through the emotion of the situation. I wish SSAFA the best of luck, but one of the nice things about living in a democracy is that these issues are discussed and objections can be raised. I don't know Headly Court but might not the option be to build inside the wire?

I think that if you read some of the objections,reported in the paper,one was that it would have an effect on PROPERTY PRICES,which was I recall mentioned before security concerns!

I hope the Mole overflows,then you can live in the slime you deserve,maybe the mistake that was made,was not running the M25 through your quaint little village?

Understood devex but the intention of purchasing this property is to provide accomodation for those families visiting their relatives in Headly Court. This is hardly going to test the infrastructure, even if it is at the end of a narrow lane. I suspect that there is an element of snobbism here, you know, how come we paid xmillion for our dream home and these soldiers families can just waltz in etc. I really hope I'm wrong but the smart money says that the locals are t*ssers. And even is I am wrong I bet there're t*ssers anyway!

Although the "Comment on this application" button still works, the planning authority information for this application also states "Statutory Consultation Period Ended".

PS: this info obtained by another poster 'Sven': "I have just spoken to a planning officer on Mole Valley council who has said that no decision has been made and they are still accepting letters of representation - they can be sent to planning @ molevalley.gov.uk. I warned the officer off that there might be one or two letters coming from ex servicemen and she assured me that letters of representation can be sent from anyone, not just local residents."

Cracking email by VB.

I see no reason to doubt the basic facts in the Daily Mail story; their quote from the SSAFA spokesman seems unambiguous. However, as PTP suggested, any emails or representations which are other than sensible could be very counter-productive at this stage. (Not saying I disagree with earlier comments here on ARRSE!)

I thought VB hit exactly the right note - reassuring, while at the same time not hiding his distaste at some of the reported remarks.

Surely the last thing any of us should be doing is to reinforce the completely false idea that service-related visitors will be "trouble".

I have not been able to access the Letters of Representation but, like VB, I suspect that many of the arguments will not prove to be valid planning considerations. It may well be that some "concerned resident" has been going round stirring up opposition in this leafy neighbourhood.

It appears that the objectors have got things profoundly wrong, but let's not do anything too hastily to reinforce their misconceptions.

D.Y.

Last edited by hackle on Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

I agree; there is a good deal of space around the site that would be suitable. See my earlier comments about MOD's disgraceful failure to provide any family accommodation whatever at Headley Court.

I too applaud SSAFA's initiative, but at the same time cannot help wondering whether the efforts of those responsible for it might have bent their husband's ears more in the direction of persuading the politicians to meet their obligations and fund on-site facilities.

I agree with you-I hope the planning process sees through the snobbishness and assesses the situation objectively. I quoted the examples "for illustrative purposes only". I am sure the planners will do their job corectly and SSAFA will get to do what they do so well.

I'll wait out on this one, until the facts become clear. If it does turn out to be as reported, then I'm willing to 'have a go', if another campaign is deemed to be in order. It's not really my scene, but it's the least we can do. Wounded troops lowering the tone, indeed.

I agree too VB but I also believe that there is a principle at stake here and that is the civilian perception of the armed services - and wounded armed service men and women at that. In the last century many large private homes were comandeered and used as convalesant centres and hospitals, they must have been equally incovenient to local residents (not least the owners) It seems that these residents are perfectly happy to publicly show indifferance to the suffering of honourable men and women. What is proposed is not a bail hostel or drug rehabilitation centre but something that I believe would be a positive addition to the community.

VB please do not think I am having a go at you and I fully agree with and support the approach you have recommended in handling this issue. I know that the practicalities of planning law will decide what happens here but I cannot help the feeling that in my heart this issue is also about how we are perceived as soldiers by society at large.

If it is true then whoever they are need their arses kicking! and introducing to the soldiers who are going to be staying there open up there blinkered eyes a bit!

Similarly outraged by the story, and am sure, that if it is true that, the residents association will be highlighted in many more media articles over the coming days.

Having just read the read the following on the residents association website, it would appear that a little more military presence, may actually help in cutting down the incidence of petty crime?


I look forward to the newsletter's leading article next month, detailing how Ashtead Residents Association is leading the fight in the war on terror.

I do wonder though, just how representative the view is, and how many residents are as outraged by these comments, as posters here?

Nosher - it is true mate, although as has been said - with the Daily Hate all facts have to be checked because they are inconsistent

I have just spoken to a planning officer on Mole Valley council who has said that no decision has been made and they are still accepting letters of representation - they can be sent to planning @ molevalley.gov.uk. I warned the officer off that there might be one or two letters coming from ex servicemen and She assured me that letters of representation can be sent from anyone, not just local residents.

I am trying at the moment to find out who the councillors on the planning committee are




Sven, changed the wording in your descriptive of the Mail , before we get more dramas...... PTP

Last edited by Sven on Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

The MP for Mole Valley is Sir Paul Beresford (Con). According to TheyWorkForYou.com:



As he is such a keen supporter of the War in Iraq, perhaps a polite email to him is in order.

Or one to the editor of the local Dorking Advertiser?

Ian Carter
Editor-in-Chief
Email: editor @ surreymirror.co.uk

Yes there is a great deal of land within the grounds - and (at least when I was there in the late 70s) it was beautifully landscaped. I suspect building within the perimeter would face all sorts of planning problems, given that Headley Court is listed. The families accommodation is needed NOW, not in a few years time.
Equally importantly, perhaps, would be the disruption/noise/dust etc, caused by construction work and the loss of a beautiful, calm environment in which one can wander/exercise with the superb staff and fellow patients.

On the NIMBY problem, a group of us were up in the pub at the top of the hill (can't remember the name)one eveining. One of our number had been tasked to carry the wherewithal to pay for a pre-dinner sherbet or three. When it came time to pay, he hitched up his trouser leg revealing a pylon into which he had stuffed the cash. He shook the 'leg' and money fell out like a fruit-machine jackpot.
At this, another customer complained to the landlord and demanded we all be thrown out. The landlord's response to said idiot was magnificent: "All of them are here because they have been wounded while serving. If you don't like it FERK OFF!"

Sorry Mc , your post removed.

Gentlemen , I can't encourage or condone individual letters to named objectors. I can see that path fraught with peril.

However, there is no reason why a sensible letter cannot be entered on the council website as highlighted by Mc and Sven.

Possibly a letter to Dr. Liam Fox MP as well may be a possibility.

I am loathe to encourage the full weight of Arrse behind a campaign , until such time as we know the facts surrounding this case.

I still cannot gain access to the letters on the site, so I don't know the tone they take.

There is an email contact on site for the planning officer involved, and Sven has already spoken to them.

In the interim, I suggest that any polite and well constructed letters which people wish to send , go to Ashtead Residents Association to seek a clarification on their position.

Once that is done, then we can decide on the next course of action.

On a more general note. Once again, this is a delicate situation, and the welfare of those we care about is the issue. Please consider carefully , any correspondence that you are sending.

Thanks
PTP

Well Done SFB

I have just found out that CHRIS HUNT is Chairing the planning committee, perhaps an email to Him might not go amiss. (the name is a link to His council webpage - I don't know about You but links aren't as obvious to me as they once were)

Sorry about that PTP but I am angry that someone who has made his wealth from the very substance that our injured troops are having to fight to defend and protect feels unable to stand up to defend them himself.

I felt exactly the same way when I googled him this morning Mc.

The irony wasn't lost on me at all