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...

Originally Posted by PartTimePongo

.

Unfortunately, I know the area having grown up near there , and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.

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?

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.