Home | Links | .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) | Videos | Oxted Paris Cycle Ride | Scarlett | Site notices

About This Site

A personal weblog with photographs and comments. Quiet ramblings, quite rambling...


Login | Register | Why?


Advanced Search

Most recent entries

Recent entries with comments



Monthly Archives


Lately listening to

Site Statistics

Site Credits

Next entry: Danger - Deep Excavations

Previous entry: Police in Oxted

Saturday, 17 June 2006
Threat to Oxted environment


Thanks to revoxted for highlighting this issue in his comment on yesterday’s post.  Above is a photograph of the site of the proposed road development off Chichele Road, leading to a proposed borehole development.  Click on the picture above to go to the short video clip, or you can view it at

The sign on the gate reads:

Gateway to
new road for new
borehole with future
planning permission
for new housing estate.
Don’t let them build a new
road to Barnett Shaw,
through here killing trees
and chasing away the wildlife
with diggers and concrete mixers.
You only have until Tuesday
(ie 20 June 2006)
to block it. Go on Tandridge Council
Website, Planning Application 2006/735.
Do it before it’s too late!!!
We know what the plan is
building access to prime
building land and draining it
ready for greedy developers.

Unfortunately I have been experiencing problems accessing the Tandridge District Council Planning Website, as it just seems to hang.  I also noted in yesterday’s post that I find some of the information on the Council website about Commenting on a Planning Application to be rather strange.  In particular it states

You can comment either in support or against any application on any planning grounds. There are no formal rules that need to be followed. As long as we receive your comments in writing within 21 days of the date of the neighbour notification letter we guarantee they will be considered as part of the planning application process.

The Council cannot advise you what comments to make on an application nor will they enter into correspondence about the application or about objections to an application.

However, the following matters are generally held not to be relevant in considering planning applications:

  * effect on property values;
  * aspects covered by other legislation;
  * protection of a private view;
  * the existence of covenants and other private legal restrictions;
  * impact of construction noise;
  * private neighbour disputes;
  * financial gain/commercial interests;
  * character or motives of the applicant.

I think that one should just argue that some of these should be taken into account in this particular case. The fact that we are in a green belt area which should afford a higher degree of protection to the environment, whether or not this is covered by other legislation, and the impact of construction (and other noise) are clearly important as the site is next door to a school! I also cannot see why the motives of the applicant (ie in potentially preparing a site for stealth-development) should not be raised, nor the fact that they have financial and commercial interests that are in conflict with the rest of the community.

I would like to comment more on this specific application, but I cannot access the planning application (number: 2006/735) from the Tandridge District Council Planning Interactive Website. I suppose that makes the website as interactive as the Council in this case!

Posted by bigblue on 17/06/2006 at 11:50 PM
Filed under: EuropeUnited KingdomEngland • (2) CommentsPermalinkBookmark or Share

A bright good morning!

It looks like we may be winning… I haven’t been able to confirm this overnight, but I did have a phone call last night from a Greenacres resident reporting that Sutton and East Surrey Water were about to withdraw their planning application.

If this is so, thanks to everyone who helped to push.

It may be that my conversation with SESWC pointing out how badly the planning application had been advertised, and the intervention of our MP Peter Ainsworth (Tory Environment Spokesman no less!) supporting the school governors’ objection had some effect.

It was drawn to my attention by one of the objectors to the borehole and road scheme.
It looks like the Health Trust is about to renege on its promise to provide Xray facilities at its Silkham Road site.
The reason why we need Xray facilities here is that without them he nearest NHS Xray dept is in Catherham or East Surrey Hospital, neither of which is easily accessible by public transport.
People quite rightly protested when Oxted Memorial Hospital closed, and the promise of facilities at the Silkham Road/Johnsdale site went a little way towards surgaring the pill.
If you want to support the retention of Xray facilities in Oxted you need to write to Elaine Bert at the Primary Healthcare Trust, St John’s Court, St John’s Road, Redhill RH1 6HT

Posted by revoxted  on  21/06/2006  at  08:13 AM

This is good news! Thanks too for the heads-up about the Health Trust issue.

Posted by bigblue  on  22/06/2006  at  11:42 PM

To post a comment Login or Register (Why?)