A notable victory

Some time ago, some time on or around June 29th 2009 (see the other place http://www.pumpkinstrokemarrow.blogspot.co.uk/), we visited a place called Cherkley Court, blogged as Chertley Court, which slowed up finding the post by some seconds. So we were interested to read that the place has been the subject of a notable victory for the sheep huggers banded together under the aegis of the Cherkley Campaign.

It seems that a wicked developer wanted to turn the Court and its 400 acres of ground into a fancy hotel and golf course for the exclusive use of the nouveaux riches who were too nouveaux to be allowed to play at places like Wentworth. Maybe footballers on their days off. The relevant council thought that this was a good idea and gave their consent.

Whereupon the Campaign went into action and took the matter to the High Court where Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, once a barrister who made a very good thing out of aviation and other insurance law in Hong Kong, saw fit to strike down the council's decision in this matter. According to our free Guardian, he said that the council's decision was irrational, flawed and generally unsatisfactory. I dare say that on the matter of law the man is right, although I find it ironic that someone who has spent his most of his working life arguing the toss about insurance overseas, should now be the arbiter of greenery in Surrey. The friend of the sheep huggers.

But I find the sheep huggers more puzzling. What do they have against golf courses? I don't much care for golf myself, mainly because I would be no good at it, not having enough hand eye coordination, but a great many people do care for it. It is a social game involving a reasonable amount of light exercise which does not make a lot of noise, like some other country sports one can think of. It is also the case that the owners of golf courses go to a lot of trouble and expense to make their courses into handsome parks, for example the place noticed on 10th June last (http://www.catawbacc.org/). They may well be into the preservation of endangered species. So why are people wandering about the rolling hills of Surrey less worthy, less natural or less organic than the sheep which the sheep huggers want there? Why should we use public money to have sheep when footballers are more than willing to use their money to have golf? And what about all the trees who were the aborigines when the ice first retreated? What about the tree huggers? Sheep are not natural in the least, being very unnatural animals who only exist to provide smelly humans with meat (heaven forfend) and wool.

And I don't much care for the fact that the local authority does not have the last say. Central authorities, judicial or otherwise, should only be meddling in extremis. Let our local authorities have some authority and they might start behaving with authority and gravitas. They might then be able to attract more serious people to work in and around them.

My own solution would be to allow the fancy hotel and golf course, but to require the hotel to work within the confines, more or less, of the existing building and to preserve the gardens. Perhaps even to allow a certain amount of public access - speaking for myself, I quite like taking tea and cake in such places. Often very good value. But otherwise to allow market forces to have their way with the sheep.