Thread: Nimby neighbours war with SSAFA - WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT.

Originally Posted by devexwarrior

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?

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.

Originally Posted by devexwarrior

I don't know Headly Court but might not the option be to build inside the wire?

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.

Originally Posted by FARMBOY

Originally Posted by devexwarrior

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?

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!

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.

Originally Posted by ViroBono

Originally Posted by devexwarrior

I don't know Headly Court but might not the option be to build inside the wire?

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 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?

We have days each year when we remove graffiti from walls and fences, but again it is usually only the Committee members who turn up, plus a very few resident volunteers. How many times do you walk past a wall with graffiti sprayed on it and say to yourself, "Something should be done about that!" Well, something is done about it, and you can all help contribute. The Committee cannot do it all.

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

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

How Paul Beresford voted on key issues since 2001:

Has never voted on a transparent Parliament. votes, speeches
Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban. votes, speeches
Voted strongly against introducing ID cards. votes, speeches
Voted strongly against introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches
Voted strongly against introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches
Voted strongly against Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war. votes, speeches
Voted very strongly for investigating the Iraq war. votes, speeches
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident. votes, speeches
Voted very strongly against the fox hunting ban. votes, speeches
Voted strongly against equal gay rights. votes, speeches

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

Originally Posted by ViroBono

Originally Posted by devexwarrior

I don't know Headly Court but might not the option be to build inside the wire?

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.

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 :(