36 Grays Lane, Ashtead, Surrey

[Toxteth O'Grady]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/6918675.stm

Read more at the url in this poster then please go and sign the petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley

TOG

 

[Elven]

Signed

 

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Signed

Repped :beerchug:



TOG

 

[Elven]

Repped :beerchug:



TOG

WOOT my first ever rep and most welcome

 

[Rastalovich]

I have a question. How does the situation of views change if anything from 1 to, lets say 3, of the residents objecting are amputies from WW2 ?

 

[Toxcity]

Signed MR Tox!

This is outrageous...

 

[Toxteth O'Grady]

I have a question. How does the situation of views change if anything from 1 to, lets say 3, of the residents objecting are amputies from WW2 ?

The objective answer is that it should not make any difference; the planning consent will stand or fall on its own legal merits. If your hypothetical amputees had valid objections they would be taken into consideration. Everyone is entitled to a point-of-view 'for' or 'against.'

The 36grayslane campaign is focussed on refuting each of the objectors' representations as having no lawful bearing on planning policy within Mole Valley District Council. The following is a summary of the objection letters, with counterpoints:

1. SSAFA are intending to open a "hostel". (NOTE: the specific use of the word "Hostel").

A look here shows clearly that what SSAFA has proposed is not for "travellers", (a word used in many of the definitions there), nor is the intent for "overnight" stays, (implying that the occupants will only spend a single night before moving on). Note also that the Bell Cornwall, (SSAFA's representative), in the original application they refuted that claim. Objections using the word "hostel" should be rejected by the committee on the grounds that the objector has been mislead as to the intent of the Applicant.

2. Some objections are based on the high volume of turnover of guests.

The original Bell Cornwall document, using SSAFA and the Fisher House's experience, makes it quite clear that the home would only be occupied for 2/3rds of the time and then not fully. (See Pages 5 and 6 of the attached pdf for details). Objections implying high occupancy should be rejected by the committee.

3. Some objections state that the application does not fall within Policy CF3 usage or that Policy CF3 usage would be inappropriate in the area.

Firstly, the very fact that the local plan allows for a Policy CF3 shows that it is, indeed, appropriate for the area. Secondly, Bell Cornwall noted the six "tests" for Policy CF3 and addresses each quite clearly. It also notes that the Policy is "permissive" meaning that the change of use is allowed unless one of the six tests are failed - think of innocent before proven guilty. Thus, since the tests are not failed, as shown by Bell Cornwall, a Policy CF3 application must be allowed.

4. Some objections state that the area is wholly private, residential etc.

They are trying to show that no business or commerce takes place within the area. There are numerous examples of businesses being registered at addresses within the APEM Company Inc. area including APEM themselves. Greenacres Montessori at 36 Grays Lane itself, Quincewood Limited, (Chemist), Palm Properties Inc., (builders), are examples of other businesses with or have had registered offices on Grays Lane itself. Those objections state that SSAFA should look to an area of "mixed use". It is quite clear that the Ashtead Park Estate is, when it suits the residents, "of mixed use". Objections based upon the area being private, residential etc. should be rejected by the council.

5. Some objections are based on the level of noise rising to unacceptable levels

These objections are based on a "feeling" only. There has been no study and there has been no qualified individual who can, based on relevant experience, reliably predict the increase in noise. Since the objection has not been quantified in a proper fashion the committe should reject the objection.

6. Some objections are based on the amount of rubbish rising to unacceptable levels

Again, these objections are based on a "feeling" only. There has been no study and there has been no qualified individual who can, based on relevant experience, reliably predict the increase in rubbish at the property. Since the objection has not been quantified in a proper fashion the committe should also reject the objection.

7. Some objections are based on the increase in traffic and the resulting additional danger

Yet again these objections are based on a "feeling" only. There has been no study and there has been no qualified individual who can, based on relevant experience, reliably predict the increase in traffic. If the house were sold to a family with four young adults it is quite possible that there would be as many as seven vehicles at the residence 100% of the time. This would be no more than if the house were fully occupied which item 2 above shows would only be for a maximum of 2/3rds of the time. These objections often claim additional danger to the current residences and their chidren, horses etc. The increase in danger assumes that the current residents drive safely and within the rules and that anyone else would not. The argument of increased danger is therefore based on a feeling of superior driving ability and superior ability to abide by the laws of the objectors which is clearly a flawed argument. Thus objections not based on quantifiable data regarding the increase in traffic or objections that cite an increased danger should be rejected by the committee.

8. Some objections cite issues with health and safety.

These objections are again based on a "feeling" and are clearly scare-mongering at it's best. There is no more risk, bearing in mind SSAFA's obligation to abide by the Fire Regulatory Reform Act, (FRFA), that number 36 Grays Lane will initiate a fire that will transfer to it's immediate neighbours than there is of the neighbouring houses igniting and setting fire to number 36. In fact, because of the requirements of the FRFA, the neighbouring houses will be less likely to be detrimentally affected than they currently are and will be, in fact, a greater threat to number 36. Objections citing fire issues should be rejected outright by the committee. Objection regarding other health and Safety issues that have no quantifyable substance should, likewise, be rejected by the committee.

9. Some objections state that a property should be built at Headley Court or that existing facilities belonging to the MoD should be used to house these guests.

These objections are are not objections at all. They are suggestions and, as such, are not material to the application. While it is nice that the objectors are prepared to try to help by making these suggestions the fact that their suggestion demonstrates their lack of understanding of the problem and the relationships between the MoD and SSAFA. Objections that state that SSAFA should look elsewhere for the accommodation should be rejected by the council on the grounds that they are not even objections.

10. Some Objections state that the guests would not be welcome.

This is an objection that is supported by "experts" - the objectors themselves. However, the objection is moot in that it relies upon the fact that the guests actually care whether or not they are welcomed by the objectors and whether or not the objectors do anything more than ignore them and give dirty looks. Whilst stating in a public forum that they would not welcome the guests is somewhat reprehensible of the objectors it is not really an objection and relies upon the feelings of the guests. Objections of this nature should be rejected by the committee as not being a sunstantive objection.

Apologies for the long and boring post but this is the "Serious Discussion" forum and this is a serious matter for many.

If you want to see some really heated and emotive debate on the subject just Google for "Ashtead Nimby"

Shame the Ebay auction was taken down the other day or I would have linked to that. The item on sale was "The Self-respect of the Village of Ashtead" and the Buy-It-Now price was 30 pieces of silver.



TOG

 

[Rastalovich]

Nah Tox u missunderstand what I was proposing. The stuff u`ve posted above I read through and went through the links to the site named around the affair, and continued to link through.

What kept coming back at me was the wife`s repeated arguement of "what if it were u / ur`s" and so on.

My pose was, well what if these, or some of the objectors are of a similar ilk as she puts out.

I guess to look at it from one pov, she`s looking to base the arguement towards the average person in the UK as a whole. To that extent we aren`t the ones that need convincing, or tbh should be used in an arguement to throw the convincing. By petition or whatever.

It`s very easy to just say yes you can agree and add u`r name to something, but even in our wildest imaginations of how bad a group of people`s nature can be - there have to be reasons. Whether financial, moral or otherwize. And more to the point, the basis of `planning application` and it`s various guises are there for reasons too.

We can`t discount the financial over moral as some people may argue some of the injured are pretty much the result of a country`s pursuit for financial gain. It`s hardly a war when it lasts 20 minutes on cnn maybe. And perhaps they`d add there are far worse countries in the world than Iraq.... but hey that`s another discussion.

In an opposing arguement, they can say we went to war with Iraq to defend the UK in some manner.

That aside, an injured solder is an injured solder just as politics are politics.

I also see in excess of 170 beds in this facility, and they`re paying 1.7m to house 6 families... and it`s a quick implementation against the possible 2 years it`d take to build/plan something within the grounds. This does come over a bit selfish to me, maybe that`s the wrong word. They hesitate to build something there, in it`s expansive grounds due to some green-belt ruling also.

What would sway my attention is if they said we`d replace the green concerns elsewhere in the nearby country (replant and so forth, they do it in Wales year after year when some1 wants to build and sell executive apartments and give land monies to farmers and board members - another arguement in itself) - and within the grounds we`ll build a facility for 50+ families. (the grounds are beyond huge.. and are used by who ?? to be blunt and obtuse)

6 families doesn`t cut it for me, that`s too small a number, far too small. What do u have to do ? Apply for the position and judge the result by rank or status ?

Yes there are needs to be had here. Do I think this is the correct way to go about it ? No I don`t know.

[forgive me, this is a serious discussion thread]

 

[outrunner]

As a former serviceman (15 years in the RAF) I signed before I saw this thread, WD Tox for bringing it to public attention.

 

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Article about it from today's Telegraph here

We can`t discount the financial over moral as some people may argue some of the injured are pretty much the result of a country`s pursuit for financial gain.

I'd rather be poor and serve my country than be well-off and a morally bankrupt resident of Gray's Lane.

You do however make some fair points but having just made a long and considered reply which I then mistakenly deleted, I am now tired, emotional and personally too close to the subject matter to debate it further with you. As you say though, it is a serious discussion so I'll get back to you after I've slept on it.



TOG

 

[Rastalovich]

I'd rather be poor and serve my country than be well-off and a morally bankrupt resident .....

They`d say that to the poor man in the street b4 sending them to Southern Africa to fight in smaller countries they`d never heard of to preserve diamond mines for royalites. Either here or in Holland.

Moralities of wars and fighting for "u`r country" is a very debateable subjectline especially alongside finance.

It`s argueable that if a soldier was payed less than a bus driver that would many of us have been soldiers ? So do we argue here that we `fight for our country` as long as it pays well enough.

We can argue further that aside from extending a prime minister`s role in office, has there been a time the UK has been under threat outside of the Falklands, from the Argentinians who are our friends a short number of years l8r. But of course u have to present a threat to defend a threat.

 

[chudley]

Rast, you obviously have your views, and I can understand that.

I have mine, but lets not change what the thread is for, to sign or not, and not argue about the morality, and legal issues etc, and a 20 minute war tell that to the soldiers who are fighting allthrough the night and into the next day. read a couple of accounts here.

http://lightdragoons.org.uk/regiment_today/news_index.php

If you want to discuss it start a new thread about it.

I know the US have a very good centre in germany, which is where the idea of this one come from.

I also received a link to osign prior to this being on the news and have signed.

I am glad it has got attention overseas as well especially across the pond as they say. I have a few friends who have had to go to similar facilities.

My final thought is for it to only house 6 families is not enough IMO, I have been to Hedley court a number of times and it is not the best place for a family to wait while their injured son / daughter/ dad / mam recovers.

SSAFA and the army benelovent fund do a brilliant job for the soldiers they look after.

Oh and yes as you can see from this reply - it is very personal to me, as it could be my family that needs to stay there!!!

NOW SIGN THE PETITION!!!!!

 

[llwyd]

Signed it.

Someone who opposes helping someone injured fighting in the name of our country, despite their views on the cause and agenda might as well, in my opinion, emigrate right now.

Thanks for bringing this up tox.

 

[Rastalovich]

Rast, you obviously have your views, and I can understand that.

I have mine, but lets not change what the thread is for, to sign or not, and not argue about the morality, and legal issues etc, and a 20 minute war tell that to the soldiers who are fighting allthrough the night and into the next day. read a couple of accounts here.

http://lightdragoons.org.uk/regiment_today/news_index.php

If you want to discuss it start a new thread about it.

I know the US have a very good centre in germany, which is where the idea of this one come from.

I also received a link to osign prior to this being on the news and have signed.

I am glad it has got attention overseas as well especially across the pond as they say. I have a few friends who have had to go to similar facilities.

My final thought is for it to only house 6 families is not enough IMO, I have been to Hedley court a number of times and it is not the best place for a family to wait while their injured son / daughter/ dad / mam recovers.

SSAFA and the army benelovent fund do a brilliant job for the soldiers they look after.

Oh and yes as you can see from this reply - it is very personal to me, as it could be my family that needs to stay there!!!

NOW SIGN THE PETITION!!!!!

See this is what cuts the fine line between a "Serious Discussion" forum and whether a discussion can be had outside of emotion and opinion.

None of the statements I`ve made are my opinion, I`m raising the issues for discussion. Of which no1 is willing to take part in outside of ranting and being silly.

If this is a regular blind signing petition thread, without discussion, it should be in "Off Topic" main section perhaps.

I`d emigrate outside of these issues 2morrow if it were practical.

 

[chudley]

With you now Rast and I agree it is perhaps in the wrong place as I think this thread wsas to highlight the option to sign.

IMHO I think every discussion creates opinions otherwise what are you talking about about.

 

[Rastalovich]

Thing is m8, when some1 brings an arguement to me - no matter how blindingly obvious the answer or popularist answer or solution may be - I`d like to think that I would take into account arguements from both sides and consider them, including a neutral stand point if available.

It`s very easy to take an issue somebody puts forward, particularly one that will raise deep emotions in people (that are often used to sway people`s thinking in the first instance) - and just say yes. I`d like to say `hold on a minute` think and discuss, then put forward either an agreement, alternative or flat out objection. Either reply I`d hope not to be based on my own personal interests, but on what`s best for all considered.

EDIT: ^^^^ I meant to add, this is how tv-news and newspapers can work. Do we question them or sign up to their ideas ? Too many people just sign up imo.

On that basis we do seem to have one side of the arguement, in the majority. And as is my nature, during a discussion, I would immediately try and argue/raise points to the contrary to simple try to engage people into thinking more about the bigger picture. Even tho it`s obvious to me and every1 that something of this nature is required, is this even the correct thing to do ? Are the numbers adequate ? Or are they adequate as long as the person fronting the campaign gets to use them ? (I`d hope not but it`s happened b4 I`m sure. Tell them yes, but it`ll come at a time where u`ll have no use for it and the interest fades away or isn`t as strong as it once was - and suddenly the selfishness comes to the forefront - I`d hope I`m wrong, but why would u so strongly argue for a family of 6 versus the requirements of 170+ families - this would nag at me)

I was going to put forward next the notion of "what if this is setting a president for `things` being built against the wishes of the local community, where rules are in place, but if needs must those wishes can be overlooked". Such examples, that have nothing to do with the topic, are the likes of neuclear powerstations. The locals object, but 200 miles away I want cheap electricity. Presidents are set for the first of these kinds of things, usually in a sway to get a larger number of people opposed to the localized community.

I gotta appologize to Toxt out of courtisy to be fair, reflecting on the manner of the thread - it`s, on reflection, not a discussion within a discussion forum. I didn`t intend on winding him or any1 else up in that department. I just hoped we`d go on to talk about it rather than just sign and leave it at that.

Meh, I`m also a cynic so bite me

 

[Toxteth O'Grady]

I gotta appologize to Toxt out of courtisy to be fair, reflecting on the manner of the thread - it`s, on reflection, not a discussion within a discussion forum. I didn`t intend on winding him or any1 else up in that department.

Hi Rast,

Not wound up at all and neither is an apology required nor expected.

You have raised many fair questions and wide ranging points that may merit further philosophical debate by some. There is a paucity of serious non-tech dialogue on this forum (and that's not a criticism, just reality - I think OC3D is superb) and it's good to see your input to this thread.

When I initially posted however my intention was twofold, (a) to make people aware of this issue and allow them to make an informed choice on whether or not to take action, having read the background and (b) to discuss any pertinent clarification that may be sought.

I am not trying to fob you off but, for me, an academic discussion on the morality of war is not germane right now. I am more than willing to engage on factual matters in this thread but no more. Why? Because to do so, imho, obfuscates a straightforward issue. I hope that you will respect that it is my choice on the extent to which I wish to be drawn into a much wider debate than I had, perhaps, anticipated; as it is your choice on whether or not to sign the petition.

HTH



TOG

 

[Rastalovich]

Totally fair comments. (I feel my wording of `winding` up is perhaps not the correct word, but the inclusion of too strong a word in this instance did convey the feeling in this case)

I do empathize with the situation, but I do also think that the informations presented to equip peoples in this instance are too heavily weighed on one side. That could be my train of thought.

It is well raised, and I do hope the best results for all sides concerned.

 

[chudley]

I have to go and look up what obfuscates means, never heard that word before might start a big word thread.

The best thing about this place is we all have our own views, and dont want to force them on others, but do make them public and hope we dont upset anyone in the process.

As I stated before, it is a no brainer for me, as it is personal, I dont mind where it is built as long as it is built soon. If it upsets the locals, sorry, but I hope they could understand how it feels to be put in the positin where you have to use this facility.

 

[AmBush]

GLADLY Signed as an Ex member of HM's RAF Regt I Find it DISGUSTING reading some of the Residents LAME reasons LINK For objecting.

Makes me Wonder WHY They Closed RAF Chessington, which was used for The Treatment and reabilitation of Servise personell.