Suggested planning points for spokesperson

Discussion in 'Campaigns' started by MrPVRd, Jul 29, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I've put some points below that might be of use in drafting the statement of support to be delivered on Wednesday. It is designed to be about 50% of the statement, depending on what is drafted about the overwhelming need for the Headley Court facility. It may read like a drafted speech but it isn't intended to be such, it's just the way the arguments have developed in writing it. I am sure that others can write far more eloquently and turn whatever parts of this sow's ear fit well into the silk purse it undoubtedly will turn out to be! This is draft although 80% there, I could do with revisiting some information about the Montessori nursery that will be miles back in the main thread somewhere!

  2. Mr PVR

    Looks good to me. I was just reading through the letters, and

    this one

    is from a chap who also looks like he knows of what he speaks. Is there anything useful in it that might be added?
  3. Can we have a competition for this amongst the punters?

    First prize being some fine Arrse merchandise?

    Only I've already been approached by men of letters and book-lerrning and the like, that have offered to pen a dit.....
  4. My favourite so far was on Pprune, a councillor who reckoned the policy ENV22 only applied to new buildings. I don't think he is correct, but it sounds good!

    Perhaps a competition on the main thread for killer reasons why permission should be granted might work, both general points and planning-related. Short statements may well be easier to sift through than epic speeches.

    My suggestion (not for the main thread): if you don't grant permission at this stage, you'll get Mrs Cheeks at the appeal! :twisted:
  5. On a very related topic:

    Those of good character look away now. Cashbar, Peter & Sue, you can come back in a minute .....

    Ref Cllr Davis (?) who's wife was an objector. Do we know if he has declared his interest in this? If he hasn't been recusant, then do we keep schtumm and point out the fact if SSAFA lose as grounds for an appeal?

    Or do we be upfront and make sure he's dobbed out before the meeting starts?

    And do we know who's speaking for the objectors? If they haven't got one yet, do we do a quick objection letter and take the slot, only to not show up on the night?

    Deviousness ends. Welcome back the Nortons and SSAFA.
  6. I believe the same will apply for the objectors as for us....I am sure they have agreed someone already, so the Machiavellian trick may not work!

    As for declaring interest, it is hard to take a view. Does Cllr Davis have any interest beyond his wife's objection? I am not sure that her objection alone may constitute a conflict of interest, it will be a matter of going through the Council code of conduct to check for sure. It may annoy the planning committee if there isn't a clear conflict.
  7. No they hadn't as of 17.30 on Friday.
  8. Just supposing some devious sod were to try it then, my name is already blown as a supporter. Any horses, stalking l1A1 we might know?
  9. Thinking about it, should we ask people to PM points or email (happy for my email address to be used as 'collecting point' for me to post into here later) in order that Red Team aren't pre-advised. They'll probably know our main thrusts already, from the main thread, but we don't have to give them a précis...
  10. We are beginning to work up the SSAFA representation with our nominated speaker. What is becoming very clear is that it's extremely difficult to say anything very much in 3 minutes. Therefore, from our point of view, we intend to deal pretty much solely with the hard planning facts. Even there, we will have to stick to the main ones (although we have already sent a 6 pager to the MVDC following their recent report and recommendation)

    It would seem to make sense, therefore, if we could co-ordinate this with what Sue says, leaving her to deal pretty much entirely with the need and what the families will (and will not) do (i.e. not be there in the daytime, need peace and quiet, etc.) and how the facility will be used. Obviously, we can supply any background information to support this piece.

    Does that make sense? Be assured that in no way is this our attempt to micro-manage or specify how the second slot is used, simply a suggestion as to how to get maximum impact from the total 6 minutes. I am very happy to PM our representation to anyone who needs to see it. Our speaker is currently working in it but a reasonably accurate draft should be available very soon.


  11. Or 5 minutes of dealing with objections and a powerful one minute speech in conclusion?
    2 speakers , 6 minutes , share the objection dealing.
  12. No point in saying something twice unless it is very compelling - rehashing the applicant's planning points is probably not the best thing to do, although the speech needs some planning context.

    Suggest the second speaker concentrates on the overwhelming need and support for the facility, and reinforces the crucial planning points by way of making a comparison between the overwhelming need for this facility and the minor and misguided objections and planning obstacles.
  13. I'm at work all day and can't get ARRSE or Hotmail. My work is if anyone needs me. Usual persec stuff please
  14. Do the speakers need to spend more than a few seconds covering the objections the council have already discounted in the agenda?

    If we can pick the running order, I'd suggest the SSAFA planner do the detail work then Sue does a "need for the unit and the difference it would make" fol by a recap in layman's language of the reasons the two main objections are bonk, fol by a killer last line.
  15. Was wondering that too FB. Seems the business / hotel / various other issues would be covered by "the planning report shows them to be invalid concerns" or words to that effect, then concentrate on the rest.

    Mrs N would be much better speaking on the "wider matters" that the report has accepted may have a bearing