This is something I PM'd to PTP. It's some suggestions as to how the representation by the spokesperson/spokespeople could go. Obviously if there are 2 then more ground can be covered. I don't believe for a minute that I can teach anyone from this campaign anything about advocating the need for this facility. However, I've prepared planning reports for, and spoken at, Planning Committees, and I can offer some suggestions and - if desired - some feedback. I believe there are maybe 2 other ARRSErs who have better development control knowledge than I do (not my field, I work on the policy side, mainly retail and housing), as well as PPruners. It might be worth considering a PM to some key posters beyond this secret forum to get additional feedback. Most of the objections have effectively been dismissed and the recommendation to refuse is based on the subjective interpretation of this minor development based on a general development control policy ENV22 rather than a specific policy relating directly to the land. My suggestions: 1. Spokesperson - we have the best advocates possible, from this side of things anyway! 2. Stressing the need. The need for the facility should constitute the majority of the speech. The planning agent will tackle the planning issues (more below). However, the personal experience of being war wounded or being the family of war wounded will carry enormous weight and sympathy. MoD should be providing this facility and they are not. SSAFA have stepped in to fill the breach, and after searching various sites, they have identified this site as the only viable one. Some Headley Court statistics would be useful - number of patients, extent of injuries, time spent in treatment, number of times they currently get to see their families, statement of effectiveness in familial contact in promoting rehabilitation 3. Brief rebuttal. This needs gone over in more detail. I wouldn't recommend directly attacking the planning decision as a wrong one, as this is debatable and may encourage the closure of ranks. The fact that many objections ("hostel", "traffic" etc) have been overturned should be mentioned briefly, as should the pathetic excuses of terrorism and property prices. The only ground for refusal (I will look at this again) is ENV22. It is important that the character of a neighbourhood is respected and SSAFA will surely do all they can to ensure this through planning agreements and conditions. Nevertheless, the development is so minor that it is difficult to see how the amenity of the neighbourhood would be adversely effected to such a degree as to warrant refusal, particularly as many objections have been discounted. 4. Killer conclusion. Headley Court is the only rehabilitation centre of its kind in the UK dealing with such severe war wounds. There is an urgent need for this visiting facility, to allow wounded personnel to spend time with their families, which has been neglected until now. There is overwhelming support for this facility from across the UK and we implore you to do the right thing tonight, for the war wounded and their families, lest we forget their sacrifices. It's a bit wooly, but I would recommend something along those lines - I am sure it is in hand already!