Notices

Dismayed

Last time I posted, I said I would henceforth confine my comments to Streetlife.  However, after reading with dismay the Leatherhead Residents’ Association article in the September issue of the Ashtead & Leatherhead Local, I feel I had better write here rather than to a wider public on Streetlife.

In the article,  the Vice-Chairman writes: “Most responsible drivers respect the need for limiting the parking in narrow streets.”  That, in my opinion, is utter tosh.  The Vice-Chairman obviously does not live near enough to the Station to be inconvenienced by commuters.

In July 2010 I write on the LRA Blog: "A month or so back, most residents in the road, a cul-de-sac, went for three weeks without any bin collection simply because the bin lorry was unable to squeeze between the cars parked by commuters on both sides of the road!" Inconsiderate parking had prevented access to bin lorries for three weeks and it was only the initiative of a resident putting up an unofficial "No Parking" sign that allowed the bins to be emptied. See:
http://lrassociation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/too-much-from-piecemeal-and-incoherent.html
http://lrassociation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/what-are-we-to-do.html
http://lrassociation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/today-delivery-lorry-tomorrow-ambulance.html
http://lrassociation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/here-we-go-again.html

At the time those posts were made, the Vice-Chairman was Chairman of the LRA.  Did he not read any of those posts?   Did he not understand them?

When I first moved into this cul-de-sac twenty-two years ago, most drivers did indeed respect the need for limited parking in this narrow street and parking was (almost) entirely restricted to one side. But over the past decade things changed and more and more parking took place on both sides of the road, just as it still does during the week on Park Rise, making that road difficult to drive along.  It has taken a long campaign to get Surrey County Council to restrict parking in our narrow street.  The Vice-Chairman asks whether we need fines to control parking.  Sadly the experience of many of us is that we do.

The article seems to advocating a laissez-faire approach to on-street parking.  Is this the policy of the LRA?  If it is and this becomes known, then I fear the LRA will lose membership not only in my street but in the many that over the years have been plagued with parking problems.  If it is not LRA policy, then what is it doing in the Ashtead & Leatherhead Local with the ‘Vice Chairman of the LRA’ appended to it?

The bit below the article invites people to join the LRA.  Surely the LRA article ought to encouraging people to do that.  Quite frankly, if I was undecided and considering joining, this article would dissuade me.

AGENDA FOR LRA MEETING ON 1st SEPTEMBER

AGENDA for LRA Meeting on 1st Sept 2014 at the INSTITUTE

In the Abraham Dixon Hall at 7.30, preceded by coffee or tea at 7.00.

Short address by the Chairman covering future plans, activities, membership and requests for information

1 Apologies:   Fran Smith
2. Minutes August 2014 for approval, linked here.
3. Matters arising:  None
4. Reports:
            1.The Environment Chairman will explain her ideas for the future
            2. The Planning Committee’s report is attached.   (It will not be read out).
            3. Forward Planning Group: For info only:  Together with many other local
                groups, HC is   to meet with MV Chief Executive Officer, Ms.Yvonne Rees,
                on 16 Sept. to discuss the    hopes and achievements of the whole area.  
               (CB will, unfortunately, be on holiday).  

5. And now for our talk by Mr. Peter Mills, the MV Historic Environment Officer.

6. The next Open Meeting will be Monday, Nov. 3 at 7.30  (unless advised differently) in G6 of the Institute.

BLOCKED DRAINS IN RANDALLS ROAD

The following is from Tim Hall who has been very much on the case for some months:

“Verbal reports from the County Jetter Crew say that
1. They have discovered a blocked Thames Water Pipe between Randalls Way and the drain that was pouring out water.   It had roots in it and may have partly collapsed.   This info has been passed on to Thames Water for further action, although, in the mean time,  the drain had stopped pouring water.   This indicates that the limited clearing by the Jetter may have afforded temporary relief.

2. Pipes and gullies near the railway bridge have been cleared and appear to be working better now.   (25/07/14).   However, there are questions about a Thames Soakaway which need to be followed up when we get the technical report and pictures.

3. They will be returning to do the area from Randalls Way to Springfield Drive in the near future.

4. Written technical reports are awaited.

Open Committee Meeting on Monday 4th August at 7.30 in G6 of the Leatherhead Institute

This is to be an “Open Committee Meeting,” so members may wish to come with written versions of any problems they are facing and then present them orally to those present.      This may be particularly pertinent given the decisions that our local MVDC is going to have to make in the near future in connection with C2C* and Plan L.    We shall hold other meetings in this Open Committee format and are also planning a general meeting for the whole area some time in September.   However, it is not only problems which can be voiced but also we would especially welcome fresh ideas for the town and its surrounding highways and rail system.

*C2C = a large report on the area between London and the coast, i.e. Coast to Capital.    Plan L refers to Leatherhead, but as yet there is no clearly defined future project.

Agenda for Open Committee Meeting on 4th August2014
.
Extra insert: Issues raised by non-committee members attending, which, when heard and understood, can be passed on to the appropriate sub-c. chair for discussion after meeting.   No. 1:   Overgrown path at end of Homelands   No. 2:  Why not lay sound absorbent tarmac on the by-pass?   (from Mr. R. Baddaert)

Apologies for absence, so far, 

Cllr Dixon and Cllr Ashton, Roger Hardwick, Phillipa Shimmin


Presentation for approval plus my ideas for circulating Minutes.   (to be explained)

Matters arising.

Terms of reference – (Possibly the final check, but could be postponed until the Closed Meeing in October)

Future meetings, types of, i.e. Open Meeting with Speaker, Open Committee meeting like 4th August(could have a Speaker in an explanatory role) and Closed Committee meeting.

Content of Newsletter and future ideas for it.   CB to describe.

Increase in Subs and Membership list.   Discussion only at this point.

HC has volunteered to write the article for A &LL, on parking  (N. Street and Highlands Rd)

Correspondence

Reports


Environment

Forward Planning

Membership and Publicity

Highways:  (cycle path)

Outside meetings attended


LAP on 24th July (CA or HP or HC))

Litter Campaign on 30th July (CB )

Nick Gray on 16th July (HC)

Mr. Goldfinch with HC

Future meetings (outside LRA):

16th Sept HC with many other RAs and Yvonne Rees

Next LRA meeting:  Open Meeting with Mr. Peter Mills as speaker on 1st September at 7 pm – coffee first!


Raffle Prizes drawn on Monday 9 June 2014

The Open Gardens on Sunday 8th June gave us all the opportunity to win some excellent Raffle prizes.    Lucky winners are listed below

                                                 

A special “Thank You” to Peter Snell of Barton’s Bookshop for selling the tickets to the gardens and to those who donated the prizes

Laura and Tony* who won a Voucher for a family visit to Polesdon Lacey

 Anne and Peter* who won Kew Garden Orchid hand and body lotion
 Diana Carr* who won Elizabeth Arden body products
 Caroline Brown * who won a bottle of champagne
 D. Gale* who won a bottle of wine
 Peter Humphreys* who won a bottle of Denbies Surrey Gold Wine
  Liz Shepperd* who won 2 cinema tickets at the Leatherhead Theatre
  Edmund Morgan-Warren (Great Bookham) who won the small planter
  Mary (nee Price) and Glyn Bursey* who won the large planter
  Martin and Julie West*  who won the Meal/wine at the Shy Horse, Chessington
  Marjorie Creasy* who won the Yellow Calla Lily
   Elizabeth Watson (Dorking) who won the luxury choclates.

  *(Leatherhead)

       

Open Gardens Raffle Prizes

The Open Gardens on Sunday 8th June gave us all the opportunity to win some excellent raffle prizes.    Listed below are the lucky winners.
A special “thank you” to Peter Snell of Barton’s Bookshop for selling the tickets to the gardens and also to our generous prize donors.

Laura and Tony* won a Voucher for a Family Visit to Polesdon Lacey
Anne and Peter* won some Kew Garden Orchid Hand and body lotion
Diana Carr* won some Elizabeth Arden body products
Caroline Brown* won a bottle of champagne
D. Gale* won a bottle of wine
Peter Humphreys* won some Denbies Surrey Gold Wine
Liz Shepperd* won two cinerma tickets at Leatherhead Theatre
Edmund Morgan-Warren (Great Bookham) won the small planter
Mary (nee Price) and Glyn Bursey* won the large planter
Martin ad Julie West* won the Meal/Wine at the Shy Horse, Chessington
Marjorie Creasy* won the Yellow Calla Lily
Elizabeth Watson (Dorking) won the Luxury Chocolates.

*(Leatherhead).

Mole Valley Housing & Traveller Sites Plan (Ashtead)


CONSULTATION ON ASHTEAD COMMUNITY VISION GREEN BELT BOUNDARY REVIEW AND SITE ASSESSMENTS: 9 JUNE TO 21 JULY 2014
I am writing to invite your views on the following two documents which have been prepared by Ashtead Community Vision and submitted to Mole Valley DC (MVDC) for consideration:
  • Ashtead Green Belt Boundary Review February 2014; and
  • Ashtead Site Assessments May 2014.
Ashtead Community Vision (ACV) is the working group for Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum, which was established in July 2013. The Neighbourhood Forum is tasked with preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan for the Ashtead area, under the powers created by the Localism Act 2011.
The Ashtead Neighbourhood Plan is being prepared under the strategic policy framework set out in Mole Valley’s Core Strategy adopted October 2009. The Core Strategy commits MVDC to a review of Green Belt boundaries, in order to meet the District’s housing requirements to 2026.
The decision about which areas of the Green Belt may be released to meet housing needs rests with Mole Valley DC and will be progressed through preparation of the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan. However, as part of the Neighbourhood Planning process, and in the spirit of localism, ACV took on responsibility for undertaking the Green Belt Boundary Review within the Ashtead neighbourhood area.  They have also appraised a number of specific sites which have been proposed by landowners and developers as potential housing site allocations. Council officers have been working closely with ACV to ensure that their methodology matches that followed by Mole Valley DC, elsewhere in the District.
As a consultee on planning policy issues in Mole Valley, you will have received notification of the first stage of public consultation on the Housing and Travellers Sites Plan, which took place between 10 January and 9 March 2014. However, that consultation did not cover the Ashtead area, because ACV’s work was still in progress.
ACV have now submitted their completed Green Belt Boundary Review and Site Assessments to MVDC. I am therefore writing to invite your views on both documents.  Copies are enclosed with the electronic version of this letter. You can also download them from www.molevalley.gov.uk/localplans: please click on “Neighbourhood Planning in Mole Valley” and scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Comments should be forwarded by email to planning.policy@molevalley.gov.uk or by post to the Planning Policy Team, Mole Valley District Council, Pippbrook, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ.
Please submit your comments by 4pm on Monday 21 July 2014.
Your comments will be considered as part of the process of integrating ACV’s work into the evidence base for the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan.  As it progresses, the Plan will cover the whole District, including Ashtead and other NDP areas.  MVDC is working towards publication of a pre-submission draft early in 2015.

Mole Valley Housing & Traveller Sites Plan

Developers proposals for new homes in Mole Valley – further consultation.

In January this year we wrote to all residents in Mole Valley to let them know that the District Council is preparing a document called the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan which will identify land on which new homes could be built in the future.
We explained that between January and March, local residents could comment on the sites that landowners and developers had suggested should be included in this Plan.  We received over eight thousand comments from over three thousand individuals and organisations.
The responses to the consultation included requests by several landowners asking that MVDC consider their site in addition to those in the Consultation Document. These latest sites to have been suggested have now been published in the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan: Additional Sites – Supplementary Consultation Document.
We are e-mailing you because you have responded to a previous opportunity to comment on MVDC’s plans for new homes.
MVDC is now in the process of considering these additional sites and would like to provide you with the opportunity to comment on them and help it to decide if any are suitable for development and therefore inclusion in the Plan.
If you do want to let us have your views, they should be submitted in writing, by email or on-line by 21st July 2014. They should relate only to the sites in the current Consultation Document as this is not an opportunity to comment on sites in the previous Consultation Document.


The consultation document and supporting information can be viewed on line at http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=16351   or by following the links from the Home page . Alternatively, you can see all the documentation at the Council Offices in Pippbrook in Dorking, the Leatherhead HelpShop or in local libraries.   For further information please phone us on 01306 879281.

Agenda for Open Meeting 2 June 2014 at the Letherhead Institute

SLIGHT AMENDMENT:  At the suggestion of Mr. Collier, at 8.00 we shall close the meeting and walk up to St. John’s School where we will be met at the former Chapel at 8.15 and, after an explanation of the changes there, move on to their multi-media studio where the talk proper will take place.

1. Apologies:  Cllrs. Shimmin and Dickson.

2. Minutes of the last Open Meeting, i.e. February 3rd.  All on the Website, but I do have some spare copies.

3. Matters arising
        a. A local Flood Forum has been/is being set up by Tim Hall.
            .
4. Correspondence
        a.  A couple from Mr. Roland McKinney,    questioning the number of homes available for       development over the next 5 years.
        b. A letter forwarded by Mr. and Mrs. Moyer from Mr. Mark Ambrose about the dreadful water leaks/flows in Randalls Road
        c. A letter forwarded by a Committee member from people who sit outside restaurants, pubs etc in the
High Street.   They compalin about a. speeding, b. inconsiderate parking and c. parking too early.

5. Sub-committee reports  (only outstanding items only, please)
        a. Planning – the care home mooted for Highlands Avenue  off the Headley Road
        b. Environment – the Open Gardens will be “open” next Sunday, 8th June.
        c. Highways
        d. Membership and publicity, future speakers
        e. Forward planning, Plan L etc.

6. Meetings attended.
        a. The BleAF, from which I will just mention a couple of things.

7. Future Action
        a. Ideas for the next A&L Local?   Also, the Newsletter needs to be started, so, articles, please.

8. Our invited speaker, Mr. Michael Collier of St. John’s School where changes and improvements have been being made thick and fast.

This is and always has been a public interest case.

Possibly some readers of this Blog have wondered why Fulvius has remained silent on the latest twist in the Cherkley Court saga.   The simple reason is that I was out of the country when the Appeal Court judgment was given; and since my return I have been sorting out things and contributing to the debate on Streetlife (as, no doubt, some of you will have seen).

Lord Justice Richards wrote “I should say at once that Haddon-Cave J examined the case with great thoroughness and style”, and then proceeded to ‘respectfully’ point out that Haddon-Cave J was wrong on practically every matter!

I find it incomprehensible how a judge, serving on the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales, who examined a case with thoroughness could have got everything wrong – especially as Martin Edwards, a specialist planning barrister, and John Martin, a planning law consultant, took quite the opposite view in an article in the Estates Gazette (21st September, 2013) where they also agreed that the “local authority that approved the golf course neglected a series of key considerations in the process.”

Their article concluded:
“It is difficult to summarise a 209-paragraph judgment and it is worthy of reading in full.  It is one of the best planning judgments for a long time, partly due to the issues discussed and partly to the fact that it is entirely readable.  For this judgment, the judge’s scorecard should show a ‘hole in one’.”

Did that specialist planning barrister and that planning law consultant also both get everything wrong? To my simple mind, something does not add up.

This is and always has been a public interest case, not merely about local issues. 

The paragraph in the letter on the back page of last Thursday’s Leatherhead Advertiser (LA) beginning “Unfortunately, we are also aware that Cherkley Campaign Ltd may seek to continue the legal process …” is rank hypocrisy.  Does anyone seriously imagine that if the Appeal Court had overturned, say, just one of Haddon-Cave’s findings but maintained the the other two (thus, effectively, keeping the planning permission quashed), the directors of Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd would not be considering appeal to the Supreme Court?  Of course they would – and be shedding no crocodile tears for MVDC’s costs.

To say “probably with a view to causing further delay” is, as the four directors know very well, untrue and, presumably, part of a smear campaign.  If recourse is made to the Supreme Court it will be for sound, legal reasons – and they know it.

The paragraph which follows is quite out of order as the settling of costs are part of the judicial process and, as far as I am aware, going forward as one would expect.  The inclusion of the paragraph is, at best, unethical; it is defamatory and possibly libellous.

I repeat: this is a public interest case.  It seems to me that one purpose of the letter on the back page of the LA is to smear Cherkley Campaign and to stop it raising funds or recruiting yet more members.

Finally, it seems to me that Streetlife is now doing what this Blog was once intended to do.  The Blog has, in effect, (apart from my odd postings) become merely a bulletin board, with mainly the webmaster and the secretary posting bulletins.  So I think this may be my last posting here and I’ll confine myself Streetlife in future.

Archived Posts