h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Snippit heard at 0835 on 'Today'(BBC R4)) so forgive inaccuracy of names.

It appears that SSAFA have applied for permission to turn a large 7 bedroomed house in Grays Lane into residential accommodation for the families of personnel seriously injured inIraq and Afghanistan, so that they can visit the forces personnel recuperating at a local MOD unit. A fair and resonable thing in few of the sacrifices made by the military personnel, you might think.....

But not to the residents of Grays Lane , 80 of whom have raised objections to the Planing Committee, on the grounds of noise, and disturbance to the peace and quiet of the area!

I would be ashamed to live there.
Novo

Apologies to Ashfield, the town quoted was ASHSTEAD


Also readas " a reasonable thing in view of the sacrifces,,,"

Novo

Hard to say without knowing more detail.

I place a high value on peace and quiet, and I know that many people don't so it's very easy for quiet places to be lost. You don't see quiet places being created to offset this, so there is a general move to more and more noise.

I have no idea what the noise issues would be in this situation though. Maybe cars coming and going? Lots of kids at odd hours?

Although I don't necessarily agree with the objections, imagine the amount of chaos and noise it's going to create during the renovation works. Building and renovation work is always noisy and there's no getting away from that.

Once it's built there's always the problem of traffic. Even if it's a small lane the smallest increase in traffic or roadworks can completely foul up the flow.

Morning both,

I accept the points which you both make.

It is already an established building however (7 bedrooms) and the proposal is to house a limited number of families who would otherwise have to travel for hours.

Of.course there would be some traffic as they arrived - and perhaps excited children too, but I'm sure the residents have cars , maybe more than one, and I am sure they are not all in bed by 10.00pm

It just seems another case of sweeping under the carpet the injured men and women and their shattered families, rather like the returning Vietnam Veterans in the USA. I would have hoped that we were above that.

Novo

It does seem odd to me too, Novo. I'd have no issue with such a place. If my partner was wounded or sick I'd want to be able to visit them often, and if I lived at the opposite end of the country accomodation woulf be a huge relief.

It sounds like a great use of a large building which would undoubtedly be used by a small family or simply left to rot. It could also potentially provide a little bit of employment for local people too.

I think if I've understood this objection correctly, that were I in a similar position I would not object to such a facilty exisiting (and not for the reasons stated) I ask only that it is then not infered from the absence of an objection that I am necessarily in support of the military or the mission in which they were injured. I am not.

And as VIP points out their are practical reasons to think it a relatively good idea, forgoing the disturbance of building work which is noisy and distracting wherever it is.

Without more information it's hard to know if it's a legitimate objection or just people being picky or snobby or what have you.

I wouldn't want a seven room motel next door to me. In fact a neighbour did consider building one, and everyone else in the area said no bloody way.

Seven rooms could mean 14 people coming and going at all hours. It's quite different from having a family where usually you get a routine of comings and goings.

If it's already a quiet neighbourhood then presumably there isn't alot of noisy coming and going from people who already live there.

It's just NIMBYs yet again. A respite home for kids with mental problems got closed near me because people "whilst in favour of such a thing, didn't want it anywhere near them thankyou very much."

So, you think because you had NIMBYs everyone else does too?

Morning Kea,

The whole thing was resolved at last nights Planning Meeting. The committee voted 17 to 9 to grant SSAFA permission to use the house for service families.

Interestingly last nights BBC News reporter, on the scene, said that none of the objectors were available for interview....surprise, surprise.

Just for interest , the house concerned is a very large , relatively modern property (20 yrs I'd guess), with a gravel drive, double garage etc etc. It stands quite well back from the road, and in my view extensive building or alterations are extremely unlikely.

I am obviously pleased with the result but still ashamed of the 34.6% who voted against.

Novo

"So, you think because you had NIMBYs everyone else does too?"

Not an unreasonable assumption?? I mean, if the NIMBY brigade were confined to one small corner of Northern England there wouldn't be an easily identifiable acronym for them, would there?

True enough - but just because one decision is caused by NIMBYism, it doesn't automatically follow that another one is.

It seemed a feasible enough explanation to me. Just throwing it out there.

I agree that its a reasonable assumption, just that that's all it is, an assumption.

And I'm the first person in here to make an assumption? Give me a break!

I think, given the level of NIMBYism that goes on, that it's a perfectly reasonable assumption


(Glad to hear that SSAFA are getting use of the house though, they are one of only 2 or 3 organisations that I regularly give money to)

You're not the first person to get called on one either