Proud to be British
Not welcome in SurreyThree days ago I was walking around the coast of Anglesey with a good friend whose great-grandfather was, once upon a time, a much respected school master in Holyhead. We walked past a small stone memorial which used to have a brass plaque on it. A simple plaque with the name of a local young man, a squaddie, who was killed during the invasion of the Falklands.
The plaque was stolen some years ago. Complete lack of respect for the young man, and for his family. Most of all, I thought, a spectacular piece of meanness.
They would not steal brass plaques in Surrey.
I returned home to find an email from an army medical officer detailing an even more disturbing example of meanness.
Meanness and hypocrisy.
Britain is currently at war in two countries. Iraq and Afghanistan. Our sanitised news bulletins present these wars without showing violence. Heavens, we would not want to upset all those middle class TV suppers.
Most days, the newspapers report the name of a soldier who has been killed, a soldier like the squaddie from Holyhead.
What the news does not show, and what the newspapers rarely describe, is the soldiers who are injured. Amputees with burnt faces are not photogenic. Soldiers with brain injuries, physical or mental, act strangely.
It is all most unpalatable for the general public. Best ignored.
Fortunately, the RAMC looks after these injured service men at Headley Court, which is located in leafy-laned Surrey. Headley Court is the combined forces defence medical rehabilitation centre (DMRC) and has world class medical facilities specifically designed for injured service personnel. It has recently been extended.
The 200 staff at the DMRC provide specialist care for members of all three Armed Services with orthopaedic and sports injuries, spinal injuries, neurological and rheumatic conditions. There are also workshops that include the manufacture of prosthetic body parts for those who have lost limbs.Despite the excellence of Headley Court, there is a problem. Headley Court is a long way from Holyhead. And from Doncaster. And from Penzance. A lot of squaddies come from working class families who can barely afford to travel to Surrey let alone check into a hotel.
The aim of the centre is to return those who have been injured or are seriously ill to full physical and psychological fitness and back to duty in the shortest possible time. (source)
Enter the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA). They are buying a large six bed-roomed house at 36 Gray’s Lane, Ashtead, in the aforementioned leafy laned Surrey. It is situated close to Headley Court and offers peace and space for the families. Take a look at its location here
It is envisaged that up to six families from all over the country will be able to stay allowing them to visit the hospital. The only structural change needed to 36 Gray's Lane will be the installation of a disabled ramp.
Because this is a change in use of the house, and because a disabled ramp has to be installed, planning permission is required. Surely, a mere formality.
Sadly not.
A army medical colleague writes:
The home will benefit the inpatients of Headley Court by allowing them to see their families, many are there for over a year, alone and hundreds of miles from their children, wives and parents. Making visiting them easier, and supported by trained staff (the proposal includes an on-site house manager/social worker) will aid massively in their treatment and rehabilitation.
One could not imagine how this could cause an issue, but sadly SSAFA had not reckoned with the stockbroker belt and its NIMBY-ism.
Around 100 letters of objection were lodged complaining about
1. Increased traffic (based on 3 minibus journeys a day to and fro at most the increase is around 3% a day for the whole estate)
2. Noise (do you really think family visiting their seriously injured relatives many of whom have suffered amputations, severe nerve or brain injury are going to be partying)
3. Affecting house prices by introducing a "hostel" into an "exclusively residential area" (if we ignore the various business offices they have registered at their addresses in the lane, probably for the purposes of tax etc.)
The overall tone of the letters was one of not wanting to let 'unsuitable' people into their neighbourhood.
Is it really as bad as this? Time for a bit of research. The planning application can be found here. Take a look.
I read through about a third of the objections but gradually began to lose the will to live. A few are supportive, some movingly so. Read the comments from Carole Adair, Malcolm Holden and Ed Sparrow.
Then, if you can stomach it, read the complaints from the likes of S. Vafadari, Chairman of the Residents Association. Look at the semi-illegible diatribe from the illegible inhabitant of Lantern Cottage. Read the comments of Norma Chapman and her compliant and possibly illiterate husband, and of Andrew Widman and “her indoors” who is as compliant as Mr Chapman.
Rest assured, though, that Vafadari and Chapman and Widman and their compliant spouses and all the other nauseating nimbies still do their best for "our boys out there". (Just where is Afghanistan, by the way?).
Come November, they will all be first in the queue to buy their poppies.
People like this make me proud to to be British.
88 Comments:
Thanks for posting this John.
Although I no longer have any formal connection the military, I still give a monkeys about the lads and lasses that do. Having seen Headly Court (pre-war), I know that they do bloody amazing work and I support them wholeheartedly.
The fact that the SSFA (and RBL and the rest) are son well supported by us gives me hope.
I hope that the local coucil see sense and that the residents accept that these people are there through circumstance and no fault of their own.
"It's Tommy this and Tommy that ...."
You may want to put a stronger warning ahead of the links to the NIMY-comments. Right now, I feel the strong urge to pour bleach into my orbits until it trickles out through my ears.
Felix.
Thank you John for publicising this.
The planning meeting is on the 1st August,and we have until then to form an overwhelming tide of opinion to influence the committee to do the right thing.
If you have read this and want to do the RIGHT thing then write a letter and send it as an attachment to the planning council at this address.
http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/wphmakerep.displayURL?ApnID=MO/2007/0863
And then make all your friends aware of this and sign the following petition. We don't expect the PM to do anything but we can use it as evidence at the hearing.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Headley/
Thank you on behalf of the patients and their families.
I hope I never join a residents' association that has maintaining exclusivity as a premise. *shudder*
p.s. should that be "semi-intelligible" diatribe from the illegible inhabitant of Lantern Cottage? :)
I can see the nimbies point.
Looking at a house for sale in the new location:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-15211484.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=buy
it appears their hostel is worth somewhere in the region of £1.5m-£2m
Yet, looking at the hospital:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=KT18+6JW&ie=UTF8&ll=51.286199,-0.284657&spn=0.009703,0.019956&t=h&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1
It appears to be fairly substantial and with considerable grounds.
So why not sell the house, and use a small part of the £1.5 million house, some miles away, to build an annex on site? I cannot understand why they do not do it.
These people are not saying they do not care about the soldiers, simply that there would be a more appropriate location for the hostel. This is apparently the case - they have taken a house 3 miles away in a residential road of undoubted character and said "oh you can't object to this, we're doing it for the poor injured soldiers, we should be able to do what we like, just think of the soldiers'.
Surely it would have been sensible to plan in advance what they were going to do, and establish a suitable property before insisting they had a right to violate the covenants on the properties in the area?
Of course the residents have a point! I mean, if chav relatives of wounded soldiers are allowed into an exclusive neighbourhood, where will it all end?
not sure your point "the muller". Why should they experience an endless procession of "chavs" as you so charmingly term them, having gone to considerable effort to maintain a stable neighbourhood? Much as you would sneer at their nimbyism, I think it is admirable that people wish to preserve a stable environment.
The house is not particularly close to the hospital, and the residents do not want it. There is plenty of land near the hospital, and the argument that they should be able to do what they like just doesn't wash.
A quick google search elicits the following information:
"DMRC Headley Court is set in 84 acres of magnificent landscaped gardens adjacent to National Trust parkland."
84 acres!!!
However much you would deride those who have strived and worked to achieve their patch of English idyll in an area like Grays Lane, I doubt that many of the have 0.84 acres, let alone 84.
I am sorry, but I think this emotional blackmail and abuse is quite wrong.
FFS, they have 84 acres of their own!
It is all very well to accuse the residents of Grays Lane of not wanting them in their back yard, but what is wrong with Headley Court's own, 84-acre back yard?
Modern detached houses are typically constructed in small fractions of an acre, so to fit in a six-bedroom dwelling in 84 acres would hardly be an onerous task.
One can only imagine that Headley Court is concerned about their own landscaped gardens, which appear from an aerial view to be attractive indeed, but with just 36 hospital beds (plus 130 in mess accommodation), it is hard to imagine that with the seven-figure budget they could have from the sale of this Gray's Lane property (which looks much bigger than any of the neighbouring ones), that it would not be possible to build a sympathetic extension to house the relatives.
And as for the welfare of patients and relatives, I imagine that these people, so effortlessly stereotyped by Dr. Crippen, coming from their grim council estates, would much prefer the chance to stroll around the 84 acres of landscaped gardens, quite possibly having never experienced formal gardens before. A further walk across the adjoining National Trust parklands would no doubt bring further serenity.
Furthermore, having relatives on site, rather than subject to a bus travelling only once or twice a day, would, as I'm sure Dr. Crippen knows, allow them to assist in the convalescence of their loved ones. It is doubtful that medical staff could spare much time to accompany patients on a stroll around the gardens, but relatives on site would be far better able to engage in minor but important acts of rehabilitation such as this.
I find it unlikely that a building such as a hospital (which is rather lovely: see here)
would be denied planning permission for needed extensions, but if this is so, perhaps your anger is misplaced, and should be directed at other nimbys who stopped this.
If we pretend that our boys are fighting to defend our civilisation
(rather than for the vainglory of Toni), then honouring contracts - and therefore covenants - are the sort of thing they are defending. DO has a good point: if we are to do well by the soldiers by doing well by their families, then why not do the job properly and build a hostel at the hospital? If selling the house doesn't raise enough cash, start an appeal. I'll contribute.
'Disintrested Outsider' my Arrse
It is all very well to accuse the residents of Grays Lane of not wanting them in their back yard, but what is wrong with Headley Court's own, 84-acre back yard?
This facility is needed now - not in five years after overcoming the covenants restricting building on the Headley Court grounds (an historic listed building).
FFS, they have 84 acres of their own
Actually they do not - it is SSAFA, a charity, not the MOD which is purchasing the property. The MOD could perhaps provide the land, but no building could be done for a number of years.
Furthermore, having relatives on site, rather than subject to a bus travelling only once or twice a day, would, as I'm sure Dr. Crippen knows, allow them to assist in the convalescence of their loved ones.
Actually, the choice of location takes in to consideration the need to give convalescent forces personel respite from the hospital where their gruelling daily routine takes place. Having the families stay on the grounds themselves, even if an immediate build were an option, would not be ideal.
I imagine that these people, so effortlessly stereotyped by Dr. Crippen, coming from their grim council estates, would much prefer the chance to stroll around the 84 acres of landscaped gardens
I'm sure they would love to stroll - unfortunately, many have no legs. Hence the need for disabled access to the property.
Are you familiar with Gray's lane? - the idea that this is some particularly important part of english heritage which needs to be protected from a small amount of additional traffic is given the lie by the fact that it is not included in the rather large list of areas designated by Ashtead council as being of special character.
It is simply a quiet suburban road (one which I might add is rather close to Headley Court) which would be ideally suited to such a welfare facility.
By all means lets leave emotion to one side - in which case, none of the spurious objections to this facility hold water.
Thanks for linking, Dr C.
I am currently peeling my dad (ex-RAMC doc) off the ceiling. Injured soldiers deserve better than such craven snobbery.
Yup, that would really bring down the whole tone of the area dontcha know? Surely there's some working class scheme within a radius of say 20 miles to bus these people in? I mean, what kind of clothes might they wear? Do they wash?
More pertinently, I could get no links to work and it appears their site no longer gives access to the complaints. Peculiar?
STB
> 'Disintrested Outsider' my Arrse
Ahem. I myself live in a pretty crappy town in Middlesex with my wife and two small children. I have no connection to this whatsoever, other than commenting on Dr. Crippen's ever-stimulating and interesting blog. I can however empathise with those living in the area, in that I might aspire one day to live in such a lovely area. And I simply cannot accept that they should be entitled to trample on the rights of others by false emotional blackmail.
> This facility is needed now - not in five years after overcoming the covenants restricting building on the Headley Court grounds (an historic listed building).
I note that they say in their application that it is green belt land, but this is clearly BS, the house and grounds CANNOT be green belt, even though the surrounding National Trust fields are.
I am sure that they can put families up in any of the dozen or more b&bs and hotels within the vicinity until such time as they have actually got a sensible plan.
>Furthermore, having relatives on site, rather than subject to a bus travelling only once or twice a day, would, as I'm sure Dr. Crippen knows, allow them to assist in the convalescence of their loved ones.
>Actually, the choice of location takes in to consideration the need to give convalescent forces personel respite from the hospital where their gruelling daily routine takes place. Having the families stay on the grounds themselves, even if an immediate build were an option, would not be ideal.
Gruelling daily routine? I thought it was supposed to be a hospital with 84 acres of grounds. I would certainly prefer that than a six-bedroom house converted into a hostel.
>>I imagine that these people, so effortlessly stereotyped by Dr. Crippen, coming from their grim council estates, would much prefer the chance to stroll around the 84 acres of landscaped gardens
>I'm sure they would love to stroll - unfortunately, many have no legs. Hence the need for disabled access to the property.
Indeed, and it is blindingly obvious that they with families on site, whether on foot, or in a wheelchair, they could better support their relatives, as I said, it is my experience that medical staff are too busy to provide this kind of important assistance.
>Are you familiar with Gray's lane? - the idea that this is some particularly important part of english heritage which needs to be protected from a small amount of additional traffic is given the lie by the fact that it is not included in the rather large list of areas designated by Ashtead council as being of special character.
I am not, the closest I imagine I have come to it is at 70mph driving past on the M25. Nonetheless, all the properties in this area are designated residential.
The idea that residents should be subject to abuse, and going so far as to petition the government based on emotional claims, is plainly absurd. This mob rule style behaviour of "if enough people complain to the government, we can ignore the local residents" is surely not what soldiers are fighting to uphold.
> It is simply a quiet suburban road (one which I might add is rather close to Headley Court) which would be ideally suited to such a welfare facility.
Rather close? It is three miles away, across the other side of the M25. This seems more than a little inconvenient, if wishing to visit ones spouse at night, and subject to a minibus journey. Perhaps they should have sought out residents' opinion before spending the rather shocking sum of £1.7m on the property; there do appear to be properties far closer.
Perhaps they could promise to only allowed the families of officers ?
Thank you for this. I have passed it on to several websites as I know many people will be appalled by this attitude to service personnel. They will undoubtedly write to the planning committee.
Thank you particularly for highlighting those people who expressed support.
How many of those people who wish to support this mission, including Dr. C, would seriously like this hostel to be next door to where they live. Just a thought.
"this hostel..."
Wouldn't bother me. I wouldn't use the word "hostel" either. Are you suggesting that the relatives of seriously injured personnel are going to create havoc? Do you have any grasp of the wider world?
Get a grip.
My goodness. I can not believe some of those responses to the planning application.
There is a misuse of the word hostel here, for most people "hostel" conjours up an image of junkies and homeless people, not families of service people who need somewhere to stay for a few days. Would these people be so keen to object to a facility for the use of parents of critically ill children?
To anonymous at 3:26, yes, I'd be perfectly happy for SAFFA to open such an establishment next door to me. My father served for 22 years in the Army, and is now a regional welfare officer for SAFFA.
To those who say build at Headley Court, where are these families to stay in the meantime? It could take 5 years or more, and surely SAFFA have already looked into, and discounted this as an option.
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. It's a 6 bed house. The complainers moan so vociferously that you would think they are going to build a 10 storey high rise youth centre.
Perhaps permission should be granted as an interim step before something is built on the grounds away from this ridiculous nimbys (lest the families staying there suffer abuse or criminal damage from such a pompous bunch of little Englanders).
Fine with me (there already is a similar thing round the corner).
I really do hope that this is not based on the naive prejudice that all members of our armed forces are some form of council housed and voilent underclass.
They are, by and large, from all social classes, from all over the country and seem not to reflect society because there are so few members of societies that the residents association would likely object to.
Disinterested Observer;
"Gruelling daily routine?"
You sir are a cnut of the highest order, please come back to us when you have a slightly less vague appreciation of what you're talking about.
Ah, how charming, "a cnut of the highest order". Utterly delightful, the best way to deal with people who disagree with you is clearly to call them cunts.
Why bother with explaining yourself, when "YOU ARE A CUNT", and not just that but a "highest order" cunt is so much easier.
Perhaps you could go around to everyone in the area and tell them this as well, as plainly abusing people is the best way to calm their fears and bring them on side.
Alternatively, you can bully councils, and the government and with trite petitions, and then you can simply ignore the "cunts".
I feel duty-bound to point out that losing a limb or two is unlikely to put paid to the desire to have a party or be a bit noisy. These servicemen and women are going to have enough trouble asserting themselves as people who are experiencing disability without those who are supposedly "helping" them painting them up as tragic, helpless victims, to be pitied and given charity.
They are people who have been sent to do a risky job by their employer. Their injuries, while unfortunate, are far from unexpected and it makes me mad that adequate provision is not already in place to help them deal with their new impairments.
Can we stop individual name calling in these comments, please.
I also had my dad and younger brother in the military and hence I do know what the soldiers have gone through. Also, personally I would not mind establishment next door of a rest place for the families.
But we are not the people who live in that neighborhood and we should not try to ram our opinions on them. Why could the SSAFA have not gotten the opinion of the neighborhood association before purchasing the house or made the purchase contingent on approval from the planning commission. It could have avoided all this confusion. I agree that most families are going to be in sorrow and well behaved, but if things do get out of hand, who will be responsible.
Finally I do agree that some emotional blackmail is being used against the neighbors who are not supportive of this proposal, as if being against this zoning change is an unpatriotic deed. George Bush is using the same tactic in order to continue getting funding for the Iraq war by stating that cutting off the war funding will put the troops in harm’s way and cause deaths of the soldiers. Which politician wants to have that hanging over their heads? Hence they dutifully fork over $10 billion each month to fund an unpopular war. It is unfair to use such tactics and political pressure to try and go over local planning commission process and unduly influence them.
Ah DO, you want an proper debate do you? Well get on with it or fuck off. Do you actually know anything about the military or Headley Court or does my 'comment' stand?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/07/23/dl2302.xml
FWIW, Dr. Crippen's comments are somewhat misleading, referring to "S. Vafadari, Chairman of the Residents Association"
In fact, S. Vafadari is Chairman only of Chalk Lane Residents Association. Looking at the map, Chalk Lane consists of a dozen houses, at most.
OTOH, Ashtead Residents Association says that:
"The Association has 6,389 members in 3,576 homes?
That's 59.1% of all adults in Ashtead, and 64.4% of households."
Their statement on the planning proposal is if anything, mildly supportive to the proposal.
It reads as follows:
"Some people have read the article published in the Daily Mail of Monday 16th July and expressed their views to this Association.
The article referred to Mr Malcolm Webb as Residents' Association (sic) Chairman. This is not correct. Mr Webb is Chairman of Ashtead Park Estate Management Company Ltd, a company which represents the interests of residents in that part of the village to which this Planning Application refers.
The Ashtead Residents' Association has sympathy with the range of concerns expressed to us as a consequence of this article. Our experience of local residents is that they are proud of the local association with the work undertaken at Headley and are very supportive of our service personnel, their families and their loved ones.
The planning application in relation to 36 Grays Lane has given rise to a range of concerns in the immediate area, which have been included within submissions to Mole Valley District Council as planning objections. We understand however that a high proportion of submissions expressed support for the armed forces and SSAFA."
There has been a lot of inverse snobbery in relation to this, something that is sadly a modern British trait, to sneer at the middle class and anything they stand for and uphold. The practice of disparaging the middle class as "little Englanders", etc. is a modern and rather fashionable trend, but it is not one that we should celebrate. There is no other group that is the subject of such contempt as those who dare to mow their lawn, trim their hedges, polish their car on a Sunday, and generally maintain the kind of society that most foreigners at least would see as 'English'. Woe betide anybody that dare criticise working class communities, but the cake bakers and 4x4 drivers of Surrey? Scum, the lot of them.
Despite these rather lamentable bash-the-posh tendencies, there is simply no cause, regardless of the merits of the application, for deriding the entire population of Surrey (as common as it might be deride the strivers who got educated and succeeded while celebrating the antics of those who did not, and did not care) as nimbys as some are doing -- as can be seen from the statement above, this is not the case, and objections of some residents do not correlate with grounds to abuse the entire county.
The quote normally attributed to Orwell "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." seems apposite. Unless you leave in certain parts of the Mole Valley where "bugger you lot, I'm OK" is appropriate ....
I'm not sure that "fuck off" really works that well as a communication gambit either, though it is a small improvement I guess on "cnut of the highest order".
If I, or indeed anyone, says something that is wrong, it would be more constructive to explain yourself.
Regardless of how gruelling the regime might be, I would prefer to relax in the 84-acre landscaped gardens of the hospital than in some residential road three miles up the road.
re "Woe betide anybody that dare criticise working class communities" this is of course nonsense, the current fashion is to take the mickey out of the working classes big time, and you only have to look at current comedy such as "little britain" to see this, if they were taking the mickey out of a racial group rather than council estate dwellers they would be locked up
the dominant news, the dominant political chattering classes, the media, is all dominated by the same old public school wankers, and grammer school kids
a large part of the problem with the uk is that its so up its own bum and judges people on how they speak and where they live rather than their abilities
ive lived in surrey, its got its own share of working class folk, many of them "mow the lawn" and take pride in their community
the provision of health services for the uk forces, like much else of government provision is CRAP, and ill thought out, really such a house should not be being provided by charity
the uk today is setup to encourage bad attitudes, the postcode lottery of treatment, the needing to be in the right catchment area to be able to see a decent GP, all of this encourages selfish attitudes
it is the politically correct chattering classes dominating out civil service, local govt, political parties, bbc etc where we should direct our anger
I can't believe what I've been reading. I returned from Afghanistan last week, where I have been nursing our boys, many of who have been critically ill. I also have a friend at Headley at the moment whose family live in Manchester and find it difficult to visit him due to the cost of accommodation. Headley Court changes the lives of the girls and guys that are unlucky enough to be badly injured in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Within the NHS, visitors are more than welcome, as they boost morale and help speed up the healing process. Our service men and women deserve the same.
Dr. Crippen, some good news here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-24-katrina_N.htm
The grand jury reflused to indict Dr. Anna Pou.
...........arf
I'm not sure nurse that your analogy with NHS visitors is quite correct.
My wife recently gave birth, and we had to pay quite a bit of money for all the trips there for parking. And they didn't put me up in a bed next to her - they told me to go home and sleep there.
Disinterested outsider (a more aposite name I could not conjour up for such a heartless person), it is people like you who make me question my nigh on 30 year commitment to my country as a serving Officer. I would quite happily die to protect you, my job and you wouldn't bat a saguine eyelid, who the fuck am I after all, you pay your taxes, you expect me to die for you. But if I were ONLY severely injured you would wish me to be disadvantaged by planning regulations rather than clinical need.
It's a good job my commitment to your well being is a fuck sight higher than yours to mine. Absolute shame on you, a quite disgusting line of argument.
DO seems o have been reading Horatio Alger, Jr.
Don't worry when you finally win the lottery i'm sur eyou can live in an area which is exclusive enough to turn away the disabled and injured.
Maybe we should try that in A&E, make life a lot easier.
You are indeed either heartless or a troll.
I wonder if i should stay out of the military... i mean i would hate to ruin your area by staying close by if i was injured in conflict.
Then again i already live in a better area than you so maybe we should be wondering if your really a person who needs to be turned away from a nice area like ours (i mean our nice middle class nieghbours may not like a stuck up-walter mitty like you living next door).
Dr Crippen
My sister went to Iraq last year, her boyfriend is back there for his second tour in less than a year, in 18 months he will have spent a year in Basra. We may have shut down our camps and have just Basra main and the palace but it means they are shelled 24/7. The stress on the army is immense. The yoof want out. The 20-year-olds are committed to the army and love their jobs buts believe the army isn't committed to them. The shit living accomodation at barracks, the unsympathetic leave when not on tour (ie, my sister's boyfriend has two weeks leave in his 6-month tour and her CO will not allow her to have matching leave so she can see him) and the shit help when they come home from tour with mental strain or for those who are injured means many are talking of leaving.
In two years, when my sis, her boyf and their mates, are free of their binding to the army they all want to leave.
Just a bit of thought and money into caring for our soldiers who live in squallor, needlessly, would help retain these people and save money on trying to find others and train them up.
It's a mess and meanwhile, 2 soldiers die a day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
PS Brass plaques are being stolen UK-wide. There is a huge demand for valuable metals because of global market prices. Copper and lead are the usual ones but homeowners are reporting door plaques being taken now.
My first reaction was of horror at the objections. Then I thought about it a bit and also read all the comments.
Unless things have changed in the last 40 years, Leatherhead is not stockbroker country it is more "working class made good" country. That would have been the situation for the parents, or more probably Grandparents, of the present inhabitants. "Working class made good" can produce some terrible snobs (I knew a few in that general area 40 years ago) and they do tend to congregate in similar areas.
The quote from the Ashtead Resident's Assocoation put it into a slightly different, and more agreeable, light.
I agree with Mary, it is disgraceful that measures such as this have not been in place for years but the forces medical facilities have been run down and our boys (and girls) have to make do with the NHS.
D.O. makes some very good points but we do not know how much effort has been put in by the SSAFA to find the most suitable place. For all we know this might be the very best that they can do.
One point that I do not think has been made is that granting of planning permission for this facility would create a precedent. It may be that the local residents are more concerned with the difficulty of subsequently refusing planning permission for something less desirable than in not having this particular facility.
Personally, I would not object to this application but, given the area, I might be concerned about possible subsequent applications.
D.O. I came onto this message board fired up like everyone else with outrage at these selfish homeowners. Your responses made me question my initial gut reaction. I believe your take on the situation is spot-on. This private home is 3 miles away? They're going to run a bus service through some sleepy little privately maintained streets? The whole thing stinks, but the worst part is the emotional blackmail aspect mentioned above. Everyone's gut reaction is going to be rah-rah-rah "no sacrifice is too great for our injured soldiers!". Easy enough for the pontificators on this board to so graciously call for sacrifice on the part of these homeowners... And very few people will bother to think the issues (and alternatives) through before castigating the homeowners or anyone who raises any questions about this - much like this anal or renal guy above.
Anon 11:57, if your not DO posting in another name then i will be surprised.
There is no sacrifice for these stuck up, idiotic, selfish twerps who live in the street already.
Oh they are going to have to put up with a mini-bus going too and fro... damn how will the tarmac cope.
The objections to this home is what stinks.
These are the same people who will pu their parents in old olks homes as far away as possible as it may bring offend having them too close.
'Disintrested Outsider' wrote
I note that they say in their application that it is green belt land, but this is clearly BS, the house and grounds CANNOT be green belt, even though the surrounding National Trust fields are.
Au contraire - the gounds of Headley Cort are under a restrictive covenant. But this is irrelevant - the facility is needed now, not in two or five years time.
I am sure that they can put families up in any of the dozen or more b&bs and hotels within the vicinity until such time as they have actually got a sensible plan.
Of course you are sure, this is often the case with people who refuse to entertain the opposing arguments. Can you explain how a mutually supporting environment for the families and injured service people would be provided within the local Travel Lodge?
Gruelling daily routine? I thought it was supposed to be a hospital with 84 acres of grounds. I would certainly prefer that than a six-bedroom house converted into a hostel.
Yes, gruelling daily routine. I am not surprised that you are ignorant of the hard physical and mental routine required to help seriously physically injured people towards recovery and some semblance of a normal life. Learning to walk on prosthetics, or perhaps learning to read again. As to your preferences, or mine, they are irrelevant. Fortunately you will almost certainly never have the misfortune to attend Headley Court as a patient.
it is blindingly obvious that they with families on site, whether on foot, or in a wheelchair, they could better support their relatives, as I said, it is my experience that medical staff are too busy to provide this kind of important assistance.
Please, by all means let us have the benefit of your experience, which I am sure trumps the medical opinion of the staff at Headley Court who strongly support this application.
The idea that residents should be subject to abuse, and going so far as to petition the government based on emotional claims, is plainly absurd. This mob rule style behaviour of "if enough people complain to the government, we can ignore the local residents" is surely not what soldiers are fighting to uphold.
Hang on, I thought you were all for democracy a moment ago? Surely this petition is an example of such democracy at work. Peaceful protest and campaigning, freedom of speech and conscience are very much what service people fight for. As for abuse, I think you will find the campaign in support quite free from it, but individuals are bound to be emotive about such an emotive topic
Rather close? It is three miles away, across the other side of the M25. This seems more than a little inconvenient
Don’t worry, I don't suppose they will be doing wheelchair races across the M25 (I understand there are actually bridges over it). Three miles should equate to around five to ten minutes in a minibus (not a bus).
Perhaps they should have sought out residents' opinion before spending the rather shocking sum of £1.7m on the property.
I understand they did, and were naturally mystified at the reaction. SSAFA have not yet purchased the property.
there do appear to be properties far closer
Excellent. Perhaps the collective efforts of the local residents could go to locating a suitable property. Or perhaps you could employ your no doubt valuable time helping to locate a suitable alternative. The criteria for such a property are listed in the application. I think you might find it more difficult to find a suitable property than you suspect.
Anonymous wrote:
How many of those people who wish to support this mission, including Dr. C, would seriously like this hostel to be next door to where they live. Just a thought.
Me - absolutely. I'd be bloody proud.
Old Coger,
good on you for the support:
One point that I do not think has been made is that granting of planning permission for this facility would create a precedent. It may be that the local residents are more concerned with the difficulty of subsequently refusing planning permission for something less desirable than in not having this particular facility.
It is within the power of Mole Valley District Council to place restrictions on the application to ensure no precedent is granted - in fact SSAFA volunteered for just such a restrictive covenant in the application.
Of course you are sure, this is often the case with people who refuse to entertain the opposing arguments.
Oh, let me guess -
you have carefully weighed up the arguments and decided in favour of the SSAFA, it's everyone
else who are simply refusing to entertain the opposing arguments....
One hopes that those submitting objections would at least read 'Disabled' by Wilfred Owen. But one fears not.
julia at a quick count i see more people on here supposrting the application than against it.
It seems to me that there are the NIMBY group and those like DO who aspire to be a NIMBY.... very very sad.
"julia at a quick count i see more people on here supposrting the application than against it.
"
An overwhelming number of blog commenters agree with the application? Well, then, that's good enough for me! Let's scrap the planning laws forthwith....
"..those like DO who aspire to be a NIMBY.."
Interesting! We have a mindreader here. How do you know that he or she 'aspires to be a NIMBY'? Isn't it just possible that DO has weighed up the issues and reached a different conclusion (as I have)?
Or is having a differing opinion automatic disqualification from further discourse, in your book?
Greetings from New Zealand.
First to all those who
support this house being used by relatives of the
wounded, good on you mates.
For the nimby types, think it through, your new neighbors could end
up far, far, worse than
the relatives of the
wounded.
Once you have chewed that over, go and get a
copy of Kipling.
Reading Tommy may help
some of you see your military in a new light.
i do not expect a soldier to die for me. i never asked anyone to 'die for me'.
all military personnel are complicit participants and not innocent. they are volunteers and aware of the risks of the job. my sympathies are limited.
i believe the objections are valid - there should be a more suitable property nearer to the hospital than the proposed one.
simply throwing out the emotional blackmail card of "Think of The Poor Soldiers!" does not overcome the validity of the objections.
There is a common chord through many of the replies here, john at 1:30pm accuses me of not being an outsider, as if nobody outside would dare sympathise with the residents, who have objected in their dozens presumably just for the fun of it.
Funny pseudonym is further disbelieving, claiming, without justification, that anonymous at 11:57 must be me.
I concur somewhat with the last poster at 9:38. The emotional blackmail of "brave soldiers" doesn't wash. I visited the army recruiters while at school, who offered to pay me in the sixth form a reasonable sum, and even greater riches (or so it seemed to me, aged 16) while at university, in return for joining the army officer program. I chose not to take up their offer, but had I done so, would not expect that I would somehow be given treatment that the rest of society is not, any more than had I accepted the Procter and Gambler recruitment programme. Soldiers are not conscripts heeding Lord Kitchener's call, to save the nation from tyranny, they are professional fighters, following a career path, and subject to a recruitment process designed to attract them.
Do we imagine that the bouncer shot by someone smoking a cigarette has been afforded free car parking while his residents visit him in hospital? Perhaps some charity would wish to support his family, and it would be wonderful if they did, but I would not expect them to demand concessions based on emotion.
I am not clear what exactly the planning regulations are, but these decisions should be made in accordance with the rule of law, not emotional appeal to ignore it. Perhaps the planning regulations and relevant covenants mean it should be permitted, perhaps not, but it is on this basis alone, that the decision must be made.
Lest my last comment was not clear, the appeal that "they need it now" is not one I fully understand.
Plenty of things are needed *now*, be it adequate nursing care for elderly war heroes festering in NHS hospitals, proper discipline in schools to allow the majority of children to get an acceptable education, or indeed urgent operations for those on long waiting lists.
All of these things (and others), worthy though they are, are subject to process and might not be instantly forthcoming, I cannot see that this is different.
"...if nobody outside would dare sympathise with the residents."
FFS, nobody is disputing the right of residents to object (however spurious those objections might be).
Emotional blackmail? Don't make me laugh, you utter clowns. Some of the language used by the objectors is - quite simply - beyond contempt. Petty-minded bitching about the effect on property values? It actually makes me want to vomit.
Bitching about property values? Why should they not do that? If I owned a house and were told that next door was going to be turned into a hostel, the overwhelming majority of whom would stay for just a day or two (according to the documents), and as a result I would get £100,000 less for the house, making it impossible to pay off my mortgage/retire to Spain/achieve my life's dream, I would call any 'bitching' anything other than petty.
Do please explain how this is petty? Yes, these soldiers have suffered horribly, but so have abused children, and that doesn't give them the right to site a children's home anywhere they like without reference to proper planning legislation.
Especially when the documents indicated Headley Court recently constructed a 38-bed annexe, indicating that building is possible there? (And john, who is claiming it is better for the family to be 3 miles away is not convincing anybody.)
It is VERY clear, either the proposed usage is allowable under normal planning regulations or it is not. It seems to me that a short-stay hostel is not allowable, but I would bow to the planners on this. If it is not, then it should be rejected, and not subject to false policy based on emotional pleas about wounded soldiers.
They have already decided to choose a property 3 miles away. Is it truly not possible to find somewhere that is appropriately zoned with planning regulations in Leatherhead, which is just 2 miles away?
"...false policy based on emotional pleas about wounded soldiers."
Ah, I see. But for the sake of your argument, it's ok to evoke war heroes "festering" in the NHS?
The application stands on its merits. The need is urgent. The property is suitable. And I think you underestimate the degree of support, both in Ashstead and elsewhere.
Petty? It's beyond petty. It's pathetic, small-minded insularity of the worst kind.
er, lost_nurse, you are rather missing my point: I evoked war heroes festering in the NHS, and said that they too are worthy, but they aren't demanding to break planning regulations by recourse to emotional pleas about heroism and being unable to walk! This soldiers' charity is the only one that is doing that.
Again, I am not sure I would want a hostel with continuing turnover of people next to my house, just as, should I live in a road of detatched houses, I would not want flats next door, with continuing turnover of tenants, and would object to that a swell. This country has very clear planning laws designed to preserve the character of areas, and to deride this system as petty is rather odd considering how integral it is to the character of our nation.
JuliaM, try to keep up little girl.
You said
"it's everyone else who are simply refusing to entertain the opposing arguments"
As the majority of the people on this thread seem to support the "hostel" your statment is a nonsense.
The people on here who object to the planning application are some of the saddest people i have come across. i hope you do make it big before you get old or i suspect with your attitides your kids will be putting you in a very secluded nursing home.. some where shit to keep the property prices up.
And no idon't need to be a mind reader...just able to read.
DO has already expressed his wish that one day he will be able to move into an exclusive area and be in the position of the residents to object to changes to his area.
That makes him an aspiring NIMBY no?
Read back, engage brain before typing and maybe i won't ignore your posts in future.
"...you are rather missing my point."
Not really. I was merely pointing out the "emotive" strand to your own argument.
Nor do I deride planning regulations as being petty (besides, decisions are also subject to external considerations - you might care to note the hefty groundswell of anger...).
As to "emotional pleas about heroism and being unable to walk!" - how easy for you to say. Do a search on the George Cross. And ponder what it means. And I don't fcuking care if you view that as cheap sentiment.
why do people deem it acceptable to refer to people as "little girl" for daring to come online with a female name (Julia).
Support the "war heroes", but abuse the wimmin.
"Do please explain how this is petty?"
Simple: it's because it isn't something 'lost_nurse' cares about, so other people's concerns are irrelevant, and therefore to be ignored.
"JuliaM, try to keep up little girl."
Lol! That sweet touch of misogyny - does it make your argument more accurate, 'funny pseudonym'...? Maybe you should 'ignore my posts (I presume you meant comments?) in future'. As a woman, I'm obviously not fit to hold any. Oh, look at the time! I should be in the kitchen by now....
oh, and: "the degree of support, both in Ashstead and elsewhere" & "hefty groundswell of anger". Please don't assume these comments on blogs translate into real world action, or you may be in for a nasty surprise....
"why do people deem it acceptable to refer to people as "little girl" for daring to come online with a female name (Julia)."
It's an old lawyers gambit, DO. "When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler."
These commenters just substitute 'abuse others according to race/sex/perceived class' for 'holler' when they have lost the facts and any concept of the law.
Reason goes out (if it was ever in) and emotion rules. Hence, the frequent exhortations and appeals to emotion such as 'search on the George Cross'.
DO
why do people deem it acceptable to refer to people as "little girl" for daring to come online with a female name (Julia).
par for the course, don't you think? particularly from the creme de la creme, like funny pseud.
Julia, funny pseud is a medical student, a little boy.
ah, juliam - I do so enjoy your comments. Would soldiers be more or less acceptable as neighbours than, say, midwives?*
"Please don't assume these comments on blogs translate into real world action..."
Really? Seeing as you are possessed of so much spine, perhaps you could visit the off-duty and ex-serving of www.arrse.com - and set them straight.
"Reason goes out (if it was ever in) and emotion rules."
God forbid, eh? What a robotic sense of history you must have. All these areas of character to preserve in aspic - however did we come to enjoy such freedom?
(*historical reference to recent encounter - Dr Crippen and midwives need not panic.)
"I do so enjoy your comments"
Yes, I can tell by the way you react....
"Would soldiers be more or less acceptable as neighbours than, say, midwives?"
Never had a problem with midwives as neighbours or even in general, just didn't want the incompetent, careless, rude ones in that particular incident working for the NHS. Would have thought other NHS employees would have felt the same (shrug).....
"Seeing as you are possessed of so much spine, perhaps you could visit the off-duty and ex-serving of www.arrse.com - and set them straight."
Ah, the irony of seeing someone else merely commenting on a blog referring to 'spine' is almost offset by (yet again) the appeal to emotion vs any coherent facts.
"Ah, the irony of seeing someone else merely commenting on a blog referring to 'spine'"
You, dearest, are the one asserting that there is no groundswell of anger - or that I simply imagine it. As you say, "when you have the facts...argue the facts."
No, you are claiming a groundswell based on blog comments. Don't be too surprised if that proves not to help the case in the reral world one iota.
People say all kinds of things on blogs, knowing they won't be held to them.
Why, some even trot out sexist claptrap when their argument fails them, or resort to accusations of class hatred, when I'm sure they are perfectly nice people who wouldn't say boo to a goose in real life .. ;)
"No, you are claiming a groundswell based on blog comments."
More than blog comments. For I am offspring of one of Dr Crippen's famed one percenters! (see NHS Blog Doc passim), an old & grey RAMC dog (sorry, dad) whose ex-HM Forces bush telegraph is working overtime.
And I didn't say that best intentions always help in the real world (I'm a nurse, after all). But that's no excuse not to crack on. Or even say boo to a goose, once in a while. :)
I'm horrified at these comments. These soldiers are sent to risk life & limb at the behest of our government. I may not agree with the government (and usually I don't), but I'd support the families to come and visit their wounded relative, no matter what their origins are. Do you lot have no humanity left? If not, I think that the locals will welcome you with open arms.
John
It is within the power of Mole Valley District Council to place restrictions on the application to ensure no precedent is granted - in fact SSAFA volunteered for just such a restrictive covenant in the application.
A planning authority may well state that it does not consider a precedent has been set but, if it approves this application, a precedent has been set and it will be more difficult to refuse other similar applications. It is also possible that a subsequent council may be less inclined to uphold the precedent. I am afraid that statements like this from any council (indeed from any political body) are, IMHO, not worth the paper they are written on.
Of course, whatever the current planning policy for the area the council, or the Government, could change this at any time or the whole street could be compulsorily purchased for a new motorway, to build a prison, or almost any other official purpose.
Hi, it's anon 11:57 again. Stopped back by to see how the conversation was proceeding and I see I'm a suspected sock puppet of D.O. I'm actually flattered. D.O. has posted some of the most insightful comments on this thread.
But, just to clarify, I'm not D.O. Just a random American following links to an interesting blog item. This whole comment thread goes into the file as additional evidence that despite your fancy accents you Brits are no less prone to extended flights of emotionalism in place of reason than your average Jerry Springer watching American. It looks like that whole Diana teddy-bear circus from a few years ago wasn't an anomaly - sappy sentimentality is the order of the day, from the doctor host on down through the lost nurses. I'd hope for a little more rationality and a little less emotionalism from health care professionals.
If you guys want to know how this problem SHOULD be addressed, take a look at the attached re the Fisher Houses (public/private) program in America:
“Because members of the military and their families are stationed worldwide and must often travel great distances for specialized medical care, Fisher House™ Foundation donates "comfort homes," built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers. These homes enable family members to be close to a loved one at the most stressful times - during the hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease, or injury.
There is at least one Fisher House™ at every major military medical center to assist families in need and to ensure that they are provided with the comforts of home in a supportive environment. Annually, the Fisher House™ program serves more than 8,500 families, and have made available more than two million days of lodging to family members since the program originated in 1990.”
http://www.fisherhouse.org/aboutUs/aboutUs.shtml
Notably, they don’t go and buy a house in a residential subdivision miles away from the hospital and bus people back and forth like in some ghetto courtesy van service. Damn! Missed the 8:30 bus. Guess I’ll wait around for the 11:30 bus…
I am an ex Army Officer and more importantly was a patient at Headley Court. It is an amazing place and I am full of praise for the Staff who work there.
I was lucky enough for my injuries not to be serious enough to warrant my family coming to stay, but many are not that lucky.
http://www.36grayslane.co.uk/
SSAFA only want to do some minor modifications to the house - not make massive changes.
Another big question is why is SSAFA having to fork out £1.6 million when the MOD should be paying for this Family Support centre?
Please don't call it a 'Hostel' as it is clearly not and the use of the word Hostel is misleading.
Why should having a SSAFA house next door devalue your house? I would be proud to have the families of injuried servicemen/women staying close to me.
What really got me was the stupid excuses the local residents gave.... "lots of people in wheelchairs are a fire hazard" WTF?
"These soldiers are sent to risk life & limb at the behest of our government."
The soldiers signed up freely to fight. They were not forced to do so by the government.
"Please don't call it a 'Hostel' as it is clearly not and the use of the word Hostel is misleading."
I am not sure what is misleading about it? Looking at the planning documents submitted by SSAFA, for their relatives accommodation, fewer than 5% of relatives stayed 4 days or more. So you have a succession of people staying one or two days and moving on. I don't see that this is a family home by any meaning.
I've read through with interest, and don't have the energy or, frankly, the will to quote and answer every point. So, some random comments:
1) Headley Court itself is listed and its grounds are restricted. The surrounding areas are greenbelt
2) MVDC's planning report on this accepts that the proposal would not be incompatible with existing use of the area, also that most of the objections raised are foundless.
3)Walking in the grounds of a hospital, however pretty, is no substitute for being able to spend a few hours completely away from it. Remember, many of these people have injuries that, a very few years ago, they wouldn't have survived from. as the medical care improves,the possible psychological trauma increases immeasurably. Experiencing the (relative) normality of being with family completely outside the hospital for a while can help enormously.
4)The Ashtead Residents Association has, in fact, publicly updated its statement today to the effect that its committee supports the application. There may well have been a certain amount of "railroading" and "emotional blackmail" by a few local residents to encourage them to object in the first place. That we'll probably never know but, the fact remains, they've now stated that they're in favour.
Anyone who wants to see the background to what I've said, with suitable links and references, visit:
www.36grayslane.co.uk
joe, as with others in this thread, you are once again maligning the residents of Ashtead due to poor attention to detail.
As I pointed out above, the Ashtead Residents Association did not object in the first place, it was Chalk Lane Residents Association (which consists of perhaps half-a-dozen people), as i pointed out on Tuesday.
Do you have their latest statement?
"I'd hope for a little more rationality..."
Like this, you mean?
"Some are concerned - in these awful days when these ghastly terrorists go after the softest targets - about the security situation."
Sappy sentimentality? Well - I'm just sorry we can't match your evident sophistication, oh voice of reason.
(1) I have been an inpatient in a military hospital (not Headley Court) for several weeks and was glad of respite away from the place in the middle of my stay. Military hospitals are not the most relaxed of environments.
(2) I live in a "nice" area in the Midlands, with largely professional middle class residents. The road of less than 100 houses I live in has (a) the headquarters of a women's refuge; (b)a large hostel(at one time, I think, a hotel) for people dual diagnosis mental illness and drink/drug abuse problems; (c) a hostel for homeless young women (mostly of "chav" appearance); (d) just round the corner, 3 houses down, a bail hostel.
House prices remain very good and match those in the rest of the local area without such hostels. The average price in this town for a semi is £158,388, and one semi in the road just sold for the best part of £500,000. There is no more noise from the hostels than from family homes.
(3) I have stayed more than once in a psychiatric respite house in an ordinary street in a nearby area. Again, it was good to get away from hospital and home. House prices in that street remain buoyant and there is no evidence of problems with the neighbours. The same can be said for other respite houses I am aware of.
Maybe the people that are so opposed to this new facility should go and visit neighbours of similar facilities in other parts of the country so that they can be reassured that there is no need to worry.
Disinterested Outsider,
As I pointed out above, the Ashtead Residents Association did not object in the first place, it was Chalk Lane Residents Association (which consists of perhaps half-a-dozen people), as i pointed out on Tuesday
Please check your facts. ARA submitted a letter of objection, which you can read for yourself on the Mole Valley District Council Website. They clearly admit as much and are now rapidly backtracking.
If you are truly a disinterested observer then I apologise for inferring otherwise from your continuing and misinformed defence of these spurious objections.
I think DO raises some valid points - there is far too much emotion involved in this. Of course the service personnel need support, just as any other person in need of medical attention does.
At the end of the day this application needs to be judged on its planning merits and not on anything else. Incidentally, the planning officers who make the recommendations (which can be ignored by Councillors who are mindful of public opinion & votes) can only base their recommendation on planning law, so in reality all of these additional emotional opinions are irrelevant from a planning perspective. That is not to say that they won't be taken into account by the Councillors though.
But really why should this be treated any differently from any other planning application? It shouldn't. Just because you, quite rightly IMO, support the soldiers does this mean that this should influence the planning process? No.
I also note that the letters of support for the hostel come from people who don't live in the area. It is very easy to support it if you don't live there. I would also be surprised if there will 'only' be a total of 3 extra return journeys a day to the house. There will also be extra traffic from staff, deliveries, new residents arriving & leaving etc.
I hope that the planners come to the right decision for the area (whatever that might be), based on the correct planning principles.
Anonymous,
Since I posted I have looked at some of the other related stuff. The comments to newspaper reports are very interesting and there are posts from folk in Leatherhead and Ashtead, including I think at least one person who claimed to live in the lane, deploring the attitude of these residents and fully supporting the application.
It appears some of the houses in the road are the registered head offices of various businesses and the house in question has been used as a kindergarten, I wonder how many Chelsea Tractors that attracted daily. I therefore cannot see that the residents who are objecting have any sort of case, planning or moral. I trust the planning authority will pass the application without conditions.
It seems that 36 Grays Lane used to be a Montissori Nursery School.
So why the sudden objection to increased traffic? A number of houses on Grays Lane have 2-3 cars or SUVs parked outside. If traddic was a real concern perhaps residents might care to walk or cycle a bot more.
( that is if they are fortunate enough to have arms and legs to walk and cycle with)
I have been reading this blog, and many others on the internet for days now, and it has become quite apparent that Disinterested Outsider and Anonymous are losing the plot somewhat.
This is not about emotional blackmail that our soldiers are injured and they have not got sufficient support of their families. This is about FACTS. It is the lie attached to the FACTS that has got peoples backs up.
The case is that SSAFA need to buy this house and convert it NOW. A new build will take up to 5 years. SSAFA have searched high and low for a suitable property, this is it. The issue is that the residents of Grays Lane et al, don't want what they perceive as ‘ lower class’ military families in their back yard. It is as simple as that.
It has been put that the objections to the plan are valid. They quite clearly are NOT and it is this that makes the case for pure snobbery at its best. Read on:
They complain that this would set a precedent for a business in the area. This particular property was a child minding business prior to it being sold. The residents did not complain once at that application to convert the property to a business. No doubt one of their pals!
They also didn't object when planning permission was sought to turn another of their houses into a cattery! No doubt another pal on a business venture - good luck to him I hear them say.
They cite increased traffic. There will be less traffic using the property under SSAFA than there was at the childminders or would have been at the cattery!
The traffic will cause danger to the current users of the lane. Are there current dangers now? If not, why should there be any in the future. After all, this lane is extremely wide and open spaced, not narrow, twisty turney.
As for noise levels, I am sure the child minding business caused more noise on a summers day than any grieving family is likely to. No objection then of course. Not to mention the row from a proposed cattery.
As for breaking the local covenants on the area, there are none that would be broken by this proposal. However, the child minding business did do just that. Please also note, that three other properties on the lane are registered business premises, one of them a stone mason's. No complaints there then?
This is literally a hyped up over the top objection brought about by the word 'hostel' that it is not, and the thought that all military personnel are inner city yobs, which I can assure them, after all my years with the military (30 in all) they are not. They are a good bunch of people, used to adversity and adaptation to circumstances and surroundings.
So I am sorry to Anonymous and Disinterested Outsider, but the residents of Grays Lane et al, have no other objection than pure snobbery.
Enjoy your life.
Roger
I am absolutely disgusted!!!!!
It is only because generations of soldiers have fought and been killed or seriously wounded that the stuck up mofo's of Ashtead can live in the '4 x4 driving pseudo upper class' manner that they currently do. I am in the military and I would class my family as being a long way from 'chavs' and I take extreme offence that some of you pig headed arrrseholes coukld suggest such things. I can only hope that some of your families become seriously ill in the near future and that they have to be cared for in a hospital/hospice/care home which is located far from where you live, then you could perhaps see what it may be like for servicemens families to have to be far from home, whilst being worried out of thier minds about thier loved ones.
My god my blood is boiling here, some of you, 'anonymous' & 'disinterested wanker' especially, need to be very close to the next islamist who wants to meet his maker (with any luck!)
mmm
OK, apologies for my last entry, I would never wish anyone harm and that was a bit heavy. This is an emotive subject and some of the views posted here really upset me. Once again, apologies
DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!!!
thats all I will say
Sorry anon i think we have already laid out a banquet for you.
As for juliaM 9 i nearly missed the relplies as there have been so many).
I was of course giving a little retort to your mention that i thought i was a "mind reader" base don my response to a prior post which actually meant i didn't need to mind read... just read.
I think you missed what i was tyring to achieve.. its not your sex i have a problem with just your post.
Don't put words in my mouth, i'm pretty sure i'm better than you in the kitchen anyway :)
Jayann, nice of you to jump in, wimmin whoud stick together even when its to be fight against percieved injustices. Just becasue i should have just called her an idiot and avioded the vitriol.
Thanks for calling me the cream :) i like that term...makes me hungry.
Oh and by the way, i'm a it old to be a "boy"...say it more often and i may feel the years slip away.
Thank you everyone as last night the Planning Proposal was APPROVED!
Link to BBC News of the event
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/110000/bb/110348_16x9_bb.asx
In the end over 600 letters of support, 45,000 signitures on the petition, all in 12 days, and one new haven being created in Ashtead.
Hurrah!
Excellent news.
Not only would I be happy for such a use to be made of my neighbour's house, I'd be round there with a paintbrush offering to help do it up.
Those in the armed forces serve on behalf of us all, and walk into harm's way at the behest of our democratically-elected representatives. They get killed and injured for us, and because of us, whether or not you as an individual support a particular armed conflict.
We owe them.
To compare a soldier injured on active duty with an injured doorman is absurd.
Would you happen to have archived copies of any of the complaints ? All the links to the Mole Valley Council site are now resulting in a blank page. And the WayBack Machine doesn't have any copy either :(
It is easy to control and pick up more all kinds of latale online gold and weapons or equipment which were dropped by those monsters. You will experience a wide range of attack and strikingly gorgeous combat effects with your own latale gold. You can also freely customize your character by equipping cool armors and weapons which those you must first have need to buy latale online gold and then you can have them. There is no doubt La Tale and its very cheap latale gold will attract female gamer and as well as young gamer eyeballs. You see my problem is that I do not what class is good or fun to play without any more necessary latale money.
You know ,I have some flyff penya,and my friend also has some
flyff money,do you kouw they have the same meaning,Both of them can be called flyff gold，I just want to
buy flyff penya,because there are many
cheap penya
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home