Local press coverage

Picked up copies of Epsom Guardian and Leatherhead Advertiser.


Epsom Guardian

Headline: Self-respect auction

"Ashtead Residents Association pointed out that many local people had expressed support but that only onjectors letters were published by Mole Valley District Council."

That must be news to all of us who've had our letters of support published!
Meanwhile, we're front page of the Leatherhead Advertiser:

Headline: "Hostel plan for service families faces rejection"


"council officers have recommended the proposal is refused because 'it is considered this would adversely impact the quiet, peaceful nature of the existing area'.
However, their report also says there are no planning reasons why the application cannot be granted."

Does this tally with others' understanding of the case?


"Derek Twigg MP, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, has said he hopes the application will go through. He said: "I have to let the planning process take place but I will be very saddened if the planning application does not go through because clearly it is important for the injured servicement to have their families here."

One for the website?


"Chris Grayling, MP ... said: "My view is that there are genuine planning issues and it is right that MVDC is looking at the planning application. When you put a change of use in you are potentially setting a planning precedent for the area and other people might put forward other proposals like this."

He must really, really need those 80 votes...


"Paul Le Versha ... said: ... "It is a matter of great regret that the ARA has been erroneously linked by recent national press coverage with comments which have created a very different impression [of the support Ashtead residents have for Headley Court]"

Still can't find that reverse gear, Paul?

Perhaps we (or SSAFA) could offer a statement backing the ARA attempts at distancing themselves? Gently, of course. But if someone wants to jump off a bandwagon, it's only polite to give 'em a thin mattress to land on :)

Also, does Chris H realise that (a) Dr Fox has written effectively in support and (b) the Council's own planning report scraps the precedent argument because they don't see this as incompatible with residential use, which they clearly would for any "similar" use as commercial venture?

New Posts

Latest Threads