This policeman was horrifically injured in the line of duty...now 100 neighbours have said they don't want his home to be adapted so he can leave hospital

Echo: This policeman was horrifically injured in the line of duty...now 100 neighbours have said they don't want his home to be adapted so he can leave hospital This policeman was horrifically injured in the line of duty...now 100 neighbours have said they don't want his home to be adapted so he can leave hospital

A POLICEMAN horrifically injured in the line of duty cannot return home after councillors rejected plans to adapt a bungalow for him in Thorpe Bay.

Former Special Constable Reece Clarke, 21, has been waiting to go back home from a special rehabilitation unit in Surrey, where he has received treatment for severe brain injuries sustained in a police car crash in Basildon two years ago.

His father, Steve, applied to extend his new bungalow in Thorpe Hall Close, Thorpe Bay, so a nurse could give Reece the round-the-clock care he needs, but Southend councillors threw out the plans on Wednesday, fearing they would spoil the look of the upmarket area.

Planning officers backed the proposal to add a two-storey extension to the back of the bungalow, which already has a room in the roof, and extension to the front.

But 13 of 17 members of the development control committee voted down the conversion after almost 100 neighbours signed a petition objecting to it.

Councillors from across the political spectrum lined up to defend the character of the culde- sac, whose bungalows were designed by notable Southend architect and builder FW Goldsworthy.

Ron Woodley, Independent councillor for Thorpe, said: “This application isamisguided attempt to turn a characterful bungalow into a full two-storey house. The provision of roof lights to the first-floor rooms and obscure glazing illustrates the unsatisfactory nature of this development.

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

David Garston, Conservative councillor for Southchurch, who admitted he had considered moving to the close, said: “This would put extra stress and strain on Thorpe Hall Close, which already suffers problems with parking.”

Steve Clarke will lodge an appeal against the decision on Monday.

An independent planning inspector assigned by the Government will decide the appeal.

Comments (190)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:45am Mon 16 Dec 13

bee.man says...

100 neighbours have said they don't want his home to be adapted so he can leave hospital ,not that many peaple live in a cul-de-sac you knobs,All your neighbours are complete arse holes so are the councilors .Stuck up sons of **** the poor mans disabled if he needs carring for it should be permitted,I have a disabled child she is now 17 and my council lets me adapt anything i need without any agro...Sounds like their kind of racist against disabled people and dont want a man that served and protected them to be cared for on there door step.
100 neighbours have said they don't want his home to be adapted so he can leave hospital ,not that many peaple live in a cul-de-sac you knobs,All your neighbours are complete arse holes so are the councilors .Stuck up sons of **** the poor mans disabled if he needs carring for it should be permitted,I have a disabled child she is now 17 and my council lets me adapt anything i need without any agro...Sounds like their kind of racist against disabled people and dont want a man that served and protected them to be cared for on there door step. bee.man

7:35am Mon 16 Dec 13

Leon__ says...

Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt. Leon__

7:44am Mon 16 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
[quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house? profondo asbo

8:07am Mon 16 Dec 13

Leon__ says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly. Leon__

8:15am Mon 16 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
[quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article? profondo asbo

8:40am Mon 16 Dec 13

Southend Andy says...

How would these 'neighbors' feel if one of them needed to adapt there home as they become disabled? Hope everyone then kicks off again & say no.
How would these 'neighbors' feel if one of them needed to adapt there home as they become disabled? Hope everyone then kicks off again & say no. Southend Andy

8:42am Mon 16 Dec 13

CHRISTMAS CAROL says...

Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye. CHRISTMAS CAROL

9:00am Mon 16 Dec 13

BIRLIS says...

Shameful. Let's hope these neighbors never need an urgent police response!

I thought we were in a planning permission amnesty anyway? Obviously not.
Shameful. Let's hope these neighbors never need an urgent police response! I thought we were in a planning permission amnesty anyway? Obviously not. BIRLIS

9:02am Mon 16 Dec 13

Dan-Hockley says...

There are plenty of more suitable houses for sale - does sound like the dad is profiting from his son's tragic accident
There are plenty of more suitable houses for sale - does sound like the dad is profiting from his son's tragic accident Dan-Hockley

9:02am Mon 16 Dec 13

southendfanman says...

I agree with the councils choice, 100 people have objected. Just because somebody disabled is living there doesn't mean the planning rules can be circumvented. Imagine what precedent that would set; everyone and his dog with a slight impediment would be trying to build 10 story extensions. This is just a headline grabbing story by a newspaper that has very little to write about.
I agree with the councils choice, 100 people have objected. Just because somebody disabled is living there doesn't mean the planning rules can be circumvented. Imagine what precedent that would set; everyone and his dog with a slight impediment would be trying to build 10 story extensions. This is just a headline grabbing story by a newspaper that has very little to write about. southendfanman

9:03am Mon 16 Dec 13

Test Tickle says...

Ron Woodley independent councillor for Thorpe says:...

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

Sorry but is it not Government and Councillors that keep telling us there is a chronic housing shortage and that we need to build more of them, or is that just a selective opinion for when it suits you all?.
Ron Woodley independent councillor for Thorpe says:... “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” Sorry but is it not Government and Councillors that keep telling us there is a chronic housing shortage and that we need to build more of them, or is that just a selective opinion for when it suits you all?. Test Tickle

9:06am Mon 16 Dec 13

BarryTanner says...

Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area. BarryTanner

9:18am Mon 16 Dec 13

whataday says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
I don't suppose for one minute when they bought the bungalow they had envisaged their son would become disabled through going to work, doing a job protecting society.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]I don't suppose for one minute when they bought the bungalow they had envisaged their son would become disabled through going to work, doing a job protecting society. whataday

9:24am Mon 16 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

whataday wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
I don't suppose for one minute when they bought the bungalow they had envisaged their son would become disabled through going to work, doing a job protecting society.
the bungalow is empty and has never been lived in by the family.
[quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]I don't suppose for one minute when they bought the bungalow they had envisaged their son would become disabled through going to work, doing a job protecting society.[/p][/quote]the bungalow is empty and has never been lived in by the family. profondo asbo

9:28am Mon 16 Dec 13

InTheKnowOk says...

I feel for the copper but given that the bungalow has already been extended I don't see why they would want a double story extension so that a nurse can care for him on a daily basis? I also don't get how this would affect 100 neighbours? ..
I feel for the copper but given that the bungalow has already been extended I don't see why they would want a double story extension so that a nurse can care for him on a daily basis? I also don't get how this would affect 100 neighbours? .. InTheKnowOk

9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13

whataday says...

JUst read Barry Tanner's response. However, understanding the needs of people with disabilities I can understand why the family bought the bungalow as it would be more suitable for somebody with disabilities. The other point regarding their former house in Admirals Close would be were the doors wide enough for wheelchair - would he have been able to get upstairs etc.

People are converting bungalows by adding rooms in the roof and extensions all the time round here. Does seem that people in these "more upmarket" areas have a grievance about people adapting their homes to become suitable for people with disabilities - remember the opposition to the paralysed stunt man near Belfairs?
JUst read Barry Tanner's response. However, understanding the needs of people with disabilities I can understand why the family bought the bungalow as it would be more suitable for somebody with disabilities. The other point regarding their former house in Admirals Close would be were the doors wide enough for wheelchair - would he have been able to get upstairs etc. People are converting bungalows by adding rooms in the roof and extensions all the time round here. Does seem that people in these "more upmarket" areas have a grievance about people adapting their homes to become suitable for people with disabilities - remember the opposition to the paralysed stunt man near Belfairs? whataday

9:32am Mon 16 Dec 13

InTheKnowOk says...

You can get round the clock care no matter what your accommodation is
You can get round the clock care no matter what your accommodation is InTheKnowOk

9:39am Mon 16 Dec 13

bee.man says...

southendfanman wrote:
I agree with the councils choice, 100 people have objected. Just because somebody disabled is living there doesn't mean the planning rules can be circumvented. Imagine what precedent that would set; everyone and his dog with a slight impediment would be trying to build 10 story extensions. This is just a headline grabbing story by a newspaper that has very little to write about.
100 people in a tiny cul-de-sac ,dont talk crap ,i know the area they are taliking about 100 people do not live there.
[quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: I agree with the councils choice, 100 people have objected. Just because somebody disabled is living there doesn't mean the planning rules can be circumvented. Imagine what precedent that would set; everyone and his dog with a slight impediment would be trying to build 10 story extensions. This is just a headline grabbing story by a newspaper that has very little to write about.[/p][/quote]100 people in a tiny cul-de-sac ,dont talk crap ,i know the area they are taliking about 100 people do not live there. bee.man

9:39am Mon 16 Dec 13

Katiealicia says...

Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect. Katiealicia

9:41am Mon 16 Dec 13

bee.man says...

BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
he is intitled to be cared for by his parents.
[quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]he is intitled to be cared for by his parents. bee.man

9:49am Mon 16 Dec 13

southendfanman says...

Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else.
[quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else. southendfanman

9:51am Mon 16 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

southendfanman wrote:
Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else.
now where have i heard that before...hmmmm.
[quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else.[/p][/quote]now where have i heard that before...hmmmm. profondo asbo

9:53am Mon 16 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

It would have been a better idea to gain planning permission first before buying the high priced place in Thorpe bay..tick all the boxes before committing, something like this there will always be hurdles and hoops, surely theres other suitable options around seeing as this one looks like a no go.
It would have been a better idea to gain planning permission first before buying the high priced place in Thorpe bay..tick all the boxes before committing, something like this there will always be hurdles and hoops, surely theres other suitable options around seeing as this one looks like a no go. DogsMessInLeigh

9:54am Mon 16 Dec 13

InTheKnowOk says...

Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
Nobody is having a go at this dude, it's about the planning issues.
[quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]Nobody is having a go at this dude, it's about the planning issues. InTheKnowOk

9:55am Mon 16 Dec 13

I-say-you-say says...

Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
Well said young lady!

I hope that these "100 neighbors" are never in a position where they need permission to amend their home due to illness/disability. To deprive a 21 year old young man whose life has been devastated enough doing something to protect and help these people who have stood against him as a VOLUNTEER is a disgusting example of the politics of this country!

Irrespective of the "full story", a young man needs a place to go where amendments are needed and a bungalow is the most suitable. Perhaps we should start our own petition to get them to reconsider and allow it - I'm sure we'd get more that 100 signatures!

Perhaps the Court of Human RIghts should be made aware as well!
[quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]Well said young lady! I hope that these "100 neighbors" are never in a position where they need permission to amend their home due to illness/disability. To deprive a 21 year old young man whose life has been devastated enough doing something to protect and help these people who have stood against him as a VOLUNTEER is a disgusting example of the politics of this country! Irrespective of the "full story", a young man needs a place to go where amendments are needed and a bungalow is the most suitable. Perhaps we should start our own petition to get them to reconsider and allow it - I'm sure we'd get more that 100 signatures! Perhaps the Court of Human RIghts should be made aware as well! I-say-you-say

9:56am Mon 16 Dec 13

Test Tickle says...

southendfanman wrote:
Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else.
I think you will find it has everything to do with showing a bit of respect, care and compassion to someone who has served the community, these Councillors and the 100 people who objected should be hanging their heads in shame.
[quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else.[/p][/quote]I think you will find it has everything to do with showing a bit of respect, care and compassion to someone who has served the community, these Councillors and the 100 people who objected should be hanging their heads in shame. Test Tickle

10:21am Mon 16 Dec 13

InTheKnowOk says...

Test Tickle wrote:
southendfanman wrote:
Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else.
I think you will find it has everything to do with showing a bit of respect, care and compassion to someone who has served the community, these Councillors and the 100 people who objected should be hanging their heads in shame.
Full respect to the copper, 100% compassion, but 100 people have every right to object to a two story extension being erected in their street if it's not in keeping to the rest ... Also, once extended this family might move, plus if you give the go ahead for one, it's the green light for everyone for any circumstances under the sun ..
[quote][p][bold]Test Tickle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else.[/p][/quote]I think you will find it has everything to do with showing a bit of respect, care and compassion to someone who has served the community, these Councillors and the 100 people who objected should be hanging their heads in shame.[/p][/quote]Full respect to the copper, 100% compassion, but 100 people have every right to object to a two story extension being erected in their street if it's not in keeping to the rest ... Also, once extended this family might move, plus if you give the go ahead for one, it's the green light for everyone for any circumstances under the sun .. InTheKnowOk

10:35am Mon 16 Dec 13

southendfanman says...

Test Tickle wrote:
southendfanman wrote:
Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else.
I think you will find it has everything to do with showing a bit of respect, care and compassion to someone who has served the community, these Councillors and the 100 people who objected should be hanging their heads in shame.
Hanging there heads in shame? Why. For exercising their right to object to an extension on a bungalow , bought as a bungalow, in a street full of bungalows? It is out of keeping with the area and could affect property prices.
[quote][p][bold]Test Tickle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]No you are wrong and using a strawman fallacious argument. This has to do with planning law/consent and nothing else.[/p][/quote]I think you will find it has everything to do with showing a bit of respect, care and compassion to someone who has served the community, these Councillors and the 100 people who objected should be hanging their heads in shame.[/p][/quote]Hanging there heads in shame? Why. For exercising their right to object to an extension on a bungalow , bought as a bungalow, in a street full of bungalows? It is out of keeping with the area and could affect property prices. southendfanman

10:40am Mon 16 Dec 13

sosad 1 says...

after reading this news I feel totally ashamed to say I come from southend the people who objected should be named you cant shame them because they are evil
after reading this news I feel totally ashamed to say I come from southend the people who objected should be named you cant shame them because they are evil sosad 1

10:40am Mon 16 Dec 13

southendfanman says...

bee.man wrote:
southendfanman wrote:
I agree with the councils choice, 100 people have objected. Just because somebody disabled is living there doesn't mean the planning rules can be circumvented. Imagine what precedent that would set; everyone and his dog with a slight impediment would be trying to build 10 story extensions. This is just a headline grabbing story by a newspaper that has very little to write about.
100 people in a tiny cul-de-sac ,dont talk crap ,i know the area they are taliking about 100 people do not live there.
I am guessing that 100 people objected on principle , I was not saying they are from the same street. Too many people converting houses and ruining the areas look at the Burgess Estate all of them breaking the covenants. If people buy a property in an area which has a theme or trend of property type then they should a right to protest if an out of character property is to be built of converted.
[quote][p][bold]bee.man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: I agree with the councils choice, 100 people have objected. Just because somebody disabled is living there doesn't mean the planning rules can be circumvented. Imagine what precedent that would set; everyone and his dog with a slight impediment would be trying to build 10 story extensions. This is just a headline grabbing story by a newspaper that has very little to write about.[/p][/quote]100 people in a tiny cul-de-sac ,dont talk crap ,i know the area they are taliking about 100 people do not live there.[/p][/quote]I am guessing that 100 people objected on principle , I was not saying they are from the same street. Too many people converting houses and ruining the areas look at the Burgess Estate all of them breaking the covenants. If people buy a property in an area which has a theme or trend of property type then they should a right to protest if an out of character property is to be built of converted. southendfanman

10:46am Mon 16 Dec 13

southendfanman says...

Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
No one is suggesting that the family has not gone through hell and are not loving and caring but if you go to the paper you should expect comment. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander in the sense that if you bring something to the media as a comment or view you should expect comment and opposing views. This is a planning decision, that is it a planning decision, anything else is irrelevant. No one is judging the family.
[quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]No one is suggesting that the family has not gone through hell and are not loving and caring but if you go to the paper you should expect comment. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander in the sense that if you bring something to the media as a comment or view you should expect comment and opposing views. This is a planning decision, that is it a planning decision, anything else is irrelevant. No one is judging the family. southendfanman

10:49am Mon 16 Dec 13

sosad 1 says...

ron Woodley= Thorpe residents lackey poodle they say to him jump he barks back how high
ron Woodley= Thorpe residents lackey poodle they say to him jump he barks back how high sosad 1

11:11am Mon 16 Dec 13

BarryTanner says...

bee.man wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
he is intitled to be cared for by his parents.
Nobody is saying that he shouldn't.
[quote][p][bold]bee.man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]he is intitled to be cared for by his parents.[/p][/quote]Nobody is saying that he shouldn't. BarryTanner

11:26am Mon 16 Dec 13

supermadmax says...

This time last year, just before christmas, I was on the broadway and there was a foreign big issue seller, female around 20 years of age. Although she looked very out of place she seemed friendly enough and was certainly not 'harassing' the thorpe bayers nor really causing a nuisance. A few minutes later, viewing from the other side of the road, I was startled to see a fat man in his 60's or 70's push her a number of times and shout whilst towering over his intimated victim, he the then proceeded to pour, what looked like, a mini bottle of coke over her head.
I prefer not to concern myself with the disputes of others however the thorpe bayer was becoming so aggressive I had to intervene.

The thorpe bay mafia are a nasty bunch, which as been confirmed once more today. The irony is that many of this 100 will be putting on their sunday best for church again next week.
This time last year, just before christmas, I was on the broadway and there was a foreign big issue seller, female around 20 years of age. Although she looked very out of place she seemed friendly enough and was certainly not 'harassing' the thorpe bayers nor really causing a nuisance. A few minutes later, viewing from the other side of the road, I was startled to see a fat man in his 60's or 70's push her a number of times and shout whilst towering over his intimated victim, he the then proceeded to pour, what looked like, a mini bottle of coke over her head. I prefer not to concern myself with the disputes of others however the thorpe bayer was becoming so aggressive I had to intervene. The thorpe bay mafia are a nasty bunch, which as been confirmed once more today. The irony is that many of this 100 will be putting on their sunday best for church again next week. supermadmax

11:28am Mon 16 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
Why not that do it all the time on Canvey?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]Why not that do it all the time on Canvey? John T Pharro

11:34am Mon 16 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

southendfanman wrote:
bee.man wrote:
southendfanman wrote:
I agree with the councils choice, 100 people have objected. Just because somebody disabled is living there doesn't mean the planning rules can be circumvented. Imagine what precedent that would set; everyone and his dog with a slight impediment would be trying to build 10 story extensions. This is just a headline grabbing story by a newspaper that has very little to write about.
100 people in a tiny cul-de-sac ,dont talk crap ,i know the area they are taliking about 100 people do not live there.
I am guessing that 100 people objected on principle , I was not saying they are from the same street. Too many people converting houses and ruining the areas look at the Burgess Estate all of them breaking the covenants. If people buy a property in an area which has a theme or trend of property type then they should a right to protest if an out of character property is to be built of converted.
Objections on principal have no weight. Only local residents would have been notified. It SHOULD be dealt with purely within the planning rules. However as we all know they are frequently interpreted differently.
[quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bee.man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: I agree with the councils choice, 100 people have objected. Just because somebody disabled is living there doesn't mean the planning rules can be circumvented. Imagine what precedent that would set; everyone and his dog with a slight impediment would be trying to build 10 story extensions. This is just a headline grabbing story by a newspaper that has very little to write about.[/p][/quote]100 people in a tiny cul-de-sac ,dont talk crap ,i know the area they are taliking about 100 people do not live there.[/p][/quote]I am guessing that 100 people objected on principle , I was not saying they are from the same street. Too many people converting houses and ruining the areas look at the Burgess Estate all of them breaking the covenants. If people buy a property in an area which has a theme or trend of property type then they should a right to protest if an out of character property is to be built of converted.[/p][/quote]Objections on principal have no weight. Only local residents would have been notified. It SHOULD be dealt with purely within the planning rules. However as we all know they are frequently interpreted differently. John T Pharro

11:40am Mon 16 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

" Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

David Garston, Conservative councillor for Southchurch, who admitted he had considered moving to the close, said: “This would put extra stress and strain on Thorpe Hall Close, which already suffers problems with parking.”

whats it got to do with the Belfairs councillor...and what stupid comment about the Goldsworthy chap...how would she know he would be spinning...did she know him personally..? doubt that, for all she knows he could have been all for it...ridiculous comment.

and the Hadleigh Shop shop chap wants to move in the close but don't want the development in his back yard by the sounds of it....this lot would have been better off keeping their mouths shut as from where i am sitting they don't look too clever.

its not over yet and an appeal is in....and if it gets permission (albeit with a few changes) this lot will look even sillier..(if thats possible).
" Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” David Garston, Conservative councillor for Southchurch, who admitted he had considered moving to the close, said: “This would put extra stress and strain on Thorpe Hall Close, which already suffers problems with parking.” whats it got to do with the Belfairs councillor...and what stupid comment about the Goldsworthy chap...how would she know he would be spinning...did she know him personally..? doubt that, for all she knows he could have been all for it...ridiculous comment. and the Hadleigh Shop shop chap wants to move in the close but don't want the development in his back yard by the sounds of it....this lot would have been better off keeping their mouths shut as from where i am sitting they don't look too clever. its not over yet and an appeal is in....and if it gets permission (albeit with a few changes) this lot will look even sillier..(if thats possible). DogsMessInLeigh

12:07pm Mon 16 Dec 13

reg reg says...

he was injured upholding the law
paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so
now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have
the law says no should we change the law just for you ?
sorry for your situation reece
but not for your family's attitude
as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law
if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not
he was injured upholding the law paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have the law says no should we change the law just for you ? sorry for your situation reece but not for your family's attitude as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not reg reg

12:19pm Mon 16 Dec 13

digger2003 says...

lets hope his dad wins the appeal. the self centered arseholes should hang their heads in shame. this young man was serving the public. if anything the council should be paying for the extension. I don't know how old these bungalows are but if decades then they would not have had double glazing satellite dishes multiple cars etc so they should ALL be returned to their original state or let them adjust the property for a local hero
lets hope his dad wins the appeal. the self centered arseholes should hang their heads in shame. this young man was serving the public. if anything the council should be paying for the extension. I don't know how old these bungalows are but if decades then they would not have had double glazing satellite dishes multiple cars etc so they should ALL be returned to their original state or let them adjust the property for a local hero digger2003

1:04pm Mon 16 Dec 13

bee.man says...

InTheKnowOk wrote:
You can get round the clock care no matter what your accommodation is
as i said my daughter is 17 with quadraplegic cerebral palsy ,gastric fed with severe epilepsy and she is blind ,we have had a hard 17 years trying to get help with her care ,we have had no luck ,round the clock care only exist at home with family.
[quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: You can get round the clock care no matter what your accommodation is[/p][/quote]as i said my daughter is 17 with quadraplegic cerebral palsy ,gastric fed with severe epilepsy and she is blind ,we have had a hard 17 years trying to get help with her care ,we have had no luck ,round the clock care only exist at home with family. bee.man

1:45pm Mon 16 Dec 13

I-say-you-say says...

reg reg wrote:
he was injured upholding the law paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have the law says no should we change the law just for you ? sorry for your situation reece but not for your family's attitude as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not
There is absolutely no comparison between a mosque to the home of a young man injured while voluntarily in the line of duty!

What has money got to do with it?! It's not going to change the fact that he is severely disabled for the rest of his life at the age of 21!

You say you're sorry for his situation and yet you do not show any compassion just ignorance and disrespect for his family.

As for manipulation, I am sure that you've never EVER tried to manipulate the law to suit yourself have you?!
[quote][p][bold]reg reg[/bold] wrote: he was injured upholding the law paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have the law says no should we change the law just for you ? sorry for your situation reece but not for your family's attitude as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not[/p][/quote]There is absolutely no comparison between a mosque to the home of a young man injured while voluntarily in the line of duty! What has money got to do with it?! It's not going to change the fact that he is severely disabled for the rest of his life at the age of 21! You say you're sorry for his situation and yet you do not show any compassion just ignorance and disrespect for his family. As for manipulation, I am sure that you've never EVER tried to manipulate the law to suit yourself have you?! I-say-you-say

1:47pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

I think the headline is falsely misleading. I imagine that nobody wants a bungalow (belonging to anyone) converted into a house in an area dominated with bungalows. It'd set a precedent. How would they be aware that it was for this chap? Planning send out letters describing the proposed development not a CV of the applicant.

That's why we have planning laws else every Tom Dick and Harry would build whatever they wanted.

I think his parents made a mistake and wish to blame someone else for it.
I think the headline is falsely misleading. I imagine that nobody wants a bungalow (belonging to anyone) converted into a house in an area dominated with bungalows. It'd set a precedent. How would they be aware that it was for this chap? Planning send out letters describing the proposed development not a CV of the applicant. That's why we have planning laws else every Tom Dick and Harry would build whatever they wanted. I think his parents made a mistake and wish to blame someone else for it. Rochford Rob

1:49pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Bernard Manning says...

Well this is one that was always going to provoke an emotional response wasn’t it? To an extent the Echo made sure of that by virtue of it’s provocative editorial style headline at the top of a news story.

I feel sorry for the guy, his injuries weren’t his fault, he was a passenger in the car driven by PC Ian Thompson who in responding to an emergency alarm from the custody suite at Basildon station decided to go through red lights at 70mph and collided with a taxi at a busy junction whilst it was going through on green. The driver of the police car was prosecuted for careless driving and fined £250. The judge on the case said of Thompson “There is no question the red mist descended. You were responding in what you believed to be a proportionate way, but it wasn’t”. The consequences of that policeman’s action have been shouldered by this young guy, his family and society in general.

As for the cost of the property and his continued care, the money is coming from compensation package from the police insurers.

But all that aside the issue here is whether the applicant in this case should be allowed to put a two storey extension on a recently acquired property in an area where there are currently only bungalows.
Well this is one that was always going to provoke an emotional response wasn’t it? To an extent the Echo made sure of that by virtue of it’s provocative editorial style headline at the top of a news story. I feel sorry for the guy, his injuries weren’t his fault, he was a passenger in the car driven by PC Ian Thompson who in responding to an emergency alarm from the custody suite at Basildon station decided to go through red lights at 70mph and collided with a taxi at a busy junction whilst it was going through on green. The driver of the police car was prosecuted for careless driving and fined £250. The judge on the case said of Thompson “There is no question the red mist descended. You were responding in what you believed to be a proportionate way, but it wasn’t”. The consequences of that policeman’s action have been shouldered by this young guy, his family and society in general. As for the cost of the property and his continued care, the money is coming from compensation package from the police insurers. But all that aside the issue here is whether the applicant in this case should be allowed to put a two storey extension on a recently acquired property in an area where there are currently only bungalows. Bernard Manning

1:58pm Mon 16 Dec 13

rayleigh123 says...

Bernard Manning wrote:
Well this is one that was always going to provoke an emotional response wasn’t it? To an extent the Echo made sure of that by virtue of it’s provocative editorial style headline at the top of a news story. I feel sorry for the guy, his injuries weren’t his fault, he was a passenger in the car driven by PC Ian Thompson who in responding to an emergency alarm from the custody suite at Basildon station decided to go through red lights at 70mph and collided with a taxi at a busy junction whilst it was going through on green. The driver of the police car was prosecuted for careless driving and fined £250. The judge on the case said of Thompson “There is no question the red mist descended. You were responding in what you believed to be a proportionate way, but it wasn’t”. The consequences of that policeman’s action have been shouldered by this young guy, his family and society in general. As for the cost of the property and his continued care, the money is coming from compensation package from the police insurers. But all that aside the issue here is whether the applicant in this case should be allowed to put a two storey extension on a recently acquired property in an area where there are currently only bungalows.
Bottom line, would it not be better to move to a house that could be then more easily converted to the needs of this poor young man.



.
[quote][p][bold]Bernard Manning[/bold] wrote: Well this is one that was always going to provoke an emotional response wasn’t it? To an extent the Echo made sure of that by virtue of it’s provocative editorial style headline at the top of a news story. I feel sorry for the guy, his injuries weren’t his fault, he was a passenger in the car driven by PC Ian Thompson who in responding to an emergency alarm from the custody suite at Basildon station decided to go through red lights at 70mph and collided with a taxi at a busy junction whilst it was going through on green. The driver of the police car was prosecuted for careless driving and fined £250. The judge on the case said of Thompson “There is no question the red mist descended. You were responding in what you believed to be a proportionate way, but it wasn’t”. The consequences of that policeman’s action have been shouldered by this young guy, his family and society in general. As for the cost of the property and his continued care, the money is coming from compensation package from the police insurers. But all that aside the issue here is whether the applicant in this case should be allowed to put a two storey extension on a recently acquired property in an area where there are currently only bungalows.[/p][/quote]Bottom line, would it not be better to move to a house that could be then more easily converted to the needs of this poor young man. . rayleigh123

2:22pm Mon 16 Dec 13

reg reg says...

I-say-you-say wrote:
reg reg wrote:
he was injured upholding the law paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have the law says no should we change the law just for you ? sorry for your situation reece but not for your family's attitude as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not
There is absolutely no comparison between a mosque to the home of a young man injured while voluntarily in the line of duty!

What has money got to do with it?! It's not going to change the fact that he is severely disabled for the rest of his life at the age of 21!

You say you're sorry for his situation and yet you do not show any compassion just ignorance and disrespect for his family.

As for manipulation, I am sure that you've never EVER tried to manipulate the law to suit yourself have you?!
@ I-say-you-say
no I haven't OK
in the line of duty ?
local hero ?
because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it
so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then
thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year
WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ?
GO ON TELL ME WHY ?
(REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY
AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ?
[quote][p][bold]I-say-you-say[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]reg reg[/bold] wrote: he was injured upholding the law paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have the law says no should we change the law just for you ? sorry for your situation reece but not for your family's attitude as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not[/p][/quote]There is absolutely no comparison between a mosque to the home of a young man injured while voluntarily in the line of duty! What has money got to do with it?! It's not going to change the fact that he is severely disabled for the rest of his life at the age of 21! You say you're sorry for his situation and yet you do not show any compassion just ignorance and disrespect for his family. As for manipulation, I am sure that you've never EVER tried to manipulate the law to suit yourself have you?![/p][/quote]@ I-say-you-say no I haven't OK in the line of duty ? local hero ? because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ? GO ON TELL ME WHY ? (REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ? reg reg

2:24pm Mon 16 Dec 13

reg reg says...

rayleigh123 wrote:
Bernard Manning wrote:
Well this is one that was always going to provoke an emotional response wasn’t it? To an extent the Echo made sure of that by virtue of it’s provocative editorial style headline at the top of a news story. I feel sorry for the guy, his injuries weren’t his fault, he was a passenger in the car driven by PC Ian Thompson who in responding to an emergency alarm from the custody suite at Basildon station decided to go through red lights at 70mph and collided with a taxi at a busy junction whilst it was going through on green. The driver of the police car was prosecuted for careless driving and fined £250. The judge on the case said of Thompson “There is no question the red mist descended. You were responding in what you believed to be a proportionate way, but it wasn’t”. The consequences of that policeman’s action have been shouldered by this young guy, his family and society in general. As for the cost of the property and his continued care, the money is coming from compensation package from the police insurers. But all that aside the issue here is whether the applicant in this case should be allowed to put a two storey extension on a recently acquired property in an area where there are currently only bungalows.
Bottom line, would it not be better to move to a house that could be then more easily converted to the needs of this poor young man.



.
NO ITS NOT ABOUT HIM IS IT
IF IT WAS THEY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT A READY MADE HOUSE
[quote][p][bold]rayleigh123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bernard Manning[/bold] wrote: Well this is one that was always going to provoke an emotional response wasn’t it? To an extent the Echo made sure of that by virtue of it’s provocative editorial style headline at the top of a news story. I feel sorry for the guy, his injuries weren’t his fault, he was a passenger in the car driven by PC Ian Thompson who in responding to an emergency alarm from the custody suite at Basildon station decided to go through red lights at 70mph and collided with a taxi at a busy junction whilst it was going through on green. The driver of the police car was prosecuted for careless driving and fined £250. The judge on the case said of Thompson “There is no question the red mist descended. You were responding in what you believed to be a proportionate way, but it wasn’t”. The consequences of that policeman’s action have been shouldered by this young guy, his family and society in general. As for the cost of the property and his continued care, the money is coming from compensation package from the police insurers. But all that aside the issue here is whether the applicant in this case should be allowed to put a two storey extension on a recently acquired property in an area where there are currently only bungalows.[/p][/quote]Bottom line, would it not be better to move to a house that could be then more easily converted to the needs of this poor young man. .[/p][/quote]NO ITS NOT ABOUT HIM IS IT IF IT WAS THEY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT A READY MADE HOUSE reg reg

2:27pm Mon 16 Dec 13

reg reg says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
I think the headline is falsely misleading. I imagine that nobody wants a bungalow (belonging to anyone) converted into a house in an area dominated with bungalows. It'd set a precedent. How would they be aware that it was for this chap? Planning send out letters describing the proposed development not a CV of the applicant.

That's why we have planning laws else every Tom Dick and Harry would build whatever they wanted.

I think his parents made a mistake and wish to blame someone else for it.
THAT'S RIGHT
END OF STORY
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: I think the headline is falsely misleading. I imagine that nobody wants a bungalow (belonging to anyone) converted into a house in an area dominated with bungalows. It'd set a precedent. How would they be aware that it was for this chap? Planning send out letters describing the proposed development not a CV of the applicant. That's why we have planning laws else every Tom Dick and Harry would build whatever they wanted. I think his parents made a mistake and wish to blame someone else for it.[/p][/quote]THAT'S RIGHT END OF STORY reg reg

2:29pm Mon 16 Dec 13

reg reg says...

sosad 1 wrote:
after reading this news I feel totally ashamed to say I come from southend the people who objected should be named you cant shame them because they are evil
WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT
I WILL BUY THE HOUSE NEXT TO YOU THEN AND BUILD A 30 FOOT WALL AROUND IT OK
[quote][p][bold]sosad 1[/bold] wrote: after reading this news I feel totally ashamed to say I come from southend the people who objected should be named you cant shame them because they are evil[/p][/quote]WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT I WILL BUY THE HOUSE NEXT TO YOU THEN AND BUILD A 30 FOOT WALL AROUND IT OK reg reg

3:06pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Loosers says...

Burges Estate residents for the most part want to preserve the appearance of the neighbourhood which has a large number of bungalows.

If you want, or need, a two story dwelling then you should buy a house and not expect to change a bungalow into a house.

For anybody with special needs, I would have thought a one level property would be preferable, not the other way around.
Burges Estate residents for the most part want to preserve the appearance of the neighbourhood which has a large number of bungalows. If you want, or need, a two story dwelling then you should buy a house and not expect to change a bungalow into a house. For anybody with special needs, I would have thought a one level property would be preferable, not the other way around. Loosers

3:07pm Mon 16 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Bernard Manning wrote:
Well this is one that was always going to provoke an emotional response wasn’t it? To an extent the Echo made sure of that by virtue of it’s provocative editorial style headline at the top of a news story.

I feel sorry for the guy, his injuries weren’t his fault, he was a passenger in the car driven by PC Ian Thompson who in responding to an emergency alarm from the custody suite at Basildon station decided to go through red lights at 70mph and collided with a taxi at a busy junction whilst it was going through on green. The driver of the police car was prosecuted for careless driving and fined £250. The judge on the case said of Thompson “There is no question the red mist descended. You were responding in what you believed to be a proportionate way, but it wasn’t”. The consequences of that policeman’s action have been shouldered by this young guy, his family and society in general.

As for the cost of the property and his continued care, the money is coming from compensation package from the police insurers.

But all that aside the issue here is whether the applicant in this case should be allowed to put a two storey extension on a recently acquired property in an area where there are currently only bungalows.
Yes by the sounds of it The PC who lost control whilst driving was giving it the biggun for not a lot really an alarm back at the nick, i really can't help thinking that theres much better houses available to meet this lads needs, i would like to think his parents didn't think it would be plain sailing for a conversion, there was another case recently in Eastwood i recall, the Stunt bloke from the potter movies.
[quote][p][bold]Bernard Manning[/bold] wrote: Well this is one that was always going to provoke an emotional response wasn’t it? To an extent the Echo made sure of that by virtue of it’s provocative editorial style headline at the top of a news story. I feel sorry for the guy, his injuries weren’t his fault, he was a passenger in the car driven by PC Ian Thompson who in responding to an emergency alarm from the custody suite at Basildon station decided to go through red lights at 70mph and collided with a taxi at a busy junction whilst it was going through on green. The driver of the police car was prosecuted for careless driving and fined £250. The judge on the case said of Thompson “There is no question the red mist descended. You were responding in what you believed to be a proportionate way, but it wasn’t”. The consequences of that policeman’s action have been shouldered by this young guy, his family and society in general. As for the cost of the property and his continued care, the money is coming from compensation package from the police insurers. But all that aside the issue here is whether the applicant in this case should be allowed to put a two storey extension on a recently acquired property in an area where there are currently only bungalows.[/p][/quote]Yes by the sounds of it The PC who lost control whilst driving was giving it the biggun for not a lot really an alarm back at the nick, i really can't help thinking that theres much better houses available to meet this lads needs, i would like to think his parents didn't think it would be plain sailing for a conversion, there was another case recently in Eastwood i recall, the Stunt bloke from the potter movies. DogsMessInLeigh

3:21pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

The slant on the story is that the poor sod can't come out of hospital because the evil neighbours don't want his house converted for special needs.

I suspect they have no idea about him other than someone wants to convert a bungalow into a house. In that area - no a great idea. I.M.O

Someone has put spin on the story. Why? To sell papers or garner sympathy? or cover up a mistake?

Really, what are the odds of 100 residents knowing the circumstances of someone who doesn't even live there and then mustering so much support against him?

More like 100 recipients of planning notices reading 'convert a bungalow here? ' What !! ??
The slant on the story is that the poor sod can't come out of hospital because the evil neighbours don't want his house converted for special needs. I suspect they have no idea about him other than someone wants to convert a bungalow into a house. In that area - no a great idea. I.M.O Someone has put spin on the story. Why? To sell papers or garner sympathy? or cover up a mistake? Really, what are the odds of 100 residents knowing the circumstances of someone who doesn't even live there and then mustering so much support against him? More like 100 recipients of planning notices reading 'convert a bungalow here? ' What !! ?? Rochford Rob

4:07pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Kim Gandy says...

I-say-you-say wrote:
Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
Well said young lady!

I hope that these "100 neighbors" are never in a position where they need permission to amend their home due to illness/disability. To deprive a 21 year old young man whose life has been devastated enough doing something to protect and help these people who have stood against him as a VOLUNTEER is a disgusting example of the politics of this country!

Irrespective of the "full story", a young man needs a place to go where amendments are needed and a bungalow is the most suitable. Perhaps we should start our own petition to get them to reconsider and allow it - I'm sure we'd get more that 100 signatures!

Perhaps the Court of Human RIghts should be made aware as well!
The "Court of Human Rights" is only there if you are a traveller on an illegal settlement, illegal asylum seeker, health tourist, people trafficker, drug pusher, terrorist. rapist, paedophile, prisoner who wants a vote, or any kind of other ne'er do well.

It was not set up for the likes of us. Anybody who works for a living and falls on hard times or needs some help is not included. Particularly if you are white and English. Forget it.

The travesty at Dale Farm has gone on for 12 years despite numerous planning applications, appeals, public inquiries being turned down etc etc... I rest my case.
[quote][p][bold]I-say-you-say[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]Well said young lady! I hope that these "100 neighbors" are never in a position where they need permission to amend their home due to illness/disability. To deprive a 21 year old young man whose life has been devastated enough doing something to protect and help these people who have stood against him as a VOLUNTEER is a disgusting example of the politics of this country! Irrespective of the "full story", a young man needs a place to go where amendments are needed and a bungalow is the most suitable. Perhaps we should start our own petition to get them to reconsider and allow it - I'm sure we'd get more that 100 signatures! Perhaps the Court of Human RIghts should be made aware as well![/p][/quote]The "Court of Human Rights" is only there if you are a traveller on an illegal settlement, illegal asylum seeker, health tourist, people trafficker, drug pusher, terrorist. rapist, paedophile, prisoner who wants a vote, or any kind of other ne'er do well. It was not set up for the likes of us. Anybody who works for a living and falls on hard times or needs some help is not included. Particularly if you are white and English. Forget it. The travesty at Dale Farm has gone on for 12 years despite numerous planning applications, appeals, public inquiries being turned down etc etc... I rest my case. Kim Gandy

4:16pm Mon 16 Dec 13

I-say-you-say says...

reg reg wrote:
I-say-you-say wrote:
reg reg wrote: he was injured upholding the law paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have the law says no should we change the law just for you ? sorry for your situation reece but not for your family's attitude as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not
There is absolutely no comparison between a mosque to the home of a young man injured while voluntarily in the line of duty! What has money got to do with it?! It's not going to change the fact that he is severely disabled for the rest of his life at the age of 21! You say you're sorry for his situation and yet you do not show any compassion just ignorance and disrespect for his family. As for manipulation, I am sure that you've never EVER tried to manipulate the law to suit yourself have you?!
@ I-say-you-say no I haven't OK in the line of duty ? local hero ? because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ? GO ON TELL ME WHY ? (REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ?
reg reg wrote:
@ I-say-you-say no I haven't OK in the line of duty ? local hero ? because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ? GO ON TELL ME WHY ? (REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ?

Would you care to respond in english sentences and not just nonsensical questions?

What has buying porters grange and turning it into a nightclub got to do with this? (Same question regarding the mosque before!) and it isn't "change of use" it would still be a home, not a business or place of worship etc.

Why isn't he special? Answer ME that! As for the question regarding soldiers, I say it's a load of rubbish and I completely disagree with the way they are treated but that's irrelevant in this case.

Oh and your response to sosad 1 about the 30ft wall - really?! Again another ridiculous comment that is totally irrelevant to this situation.
[quote][p][bold]reg reg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I-say-you-say[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]reg reg[/bold] wrote: he was injured upholding the law paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have the law says no should we change the law just for you ? sorry for your situation reece but not for your family's attitude as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not[/p][/quote]There is absolutely no comparison between a mosque to the home of a young man injured while voluntarily in the line of duty! What has money got to do with it?! It's not going to change the fact that he is severely disabled for the rest of his life at the age of 21! You say you're sorry for his situation and yet you do not show any compassion just ignorance and disrespect for his family. As for manipulation, I am sure that you've never EVER tried to manipulate the law to suit yourself have you?![/p][/quote]@ I-say-you-say no I haven't OK in the line of duty ? local hero ? because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ? GO ON TELL ME WHY ? (REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ?[/p][/quote]reg reg wrote: @ I-say-you-say no I haven't OK in the line of duty ? local hero ? because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ? GO ON TELL ME WHY ? (REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ? Would you care to respond in english sentences and not just nonsensical questions? What has buying porters grange and turning it into a nightclub got to do with this? (Same question regarding the mosque before!) and it isn't "change of use" it would still be a home, not a business or place of worship etc. Why isn't he special? Answer ME that! As for the question regarding soldiers, I say it's a load of rubbish and I completely disagree with the way they are treated but that's irrelevant in this case. Oh and your response to sosad 1 about the 30ft wall - really?! Again another ridiculous comment that is totally irrelevant to this situation. I-say-you-say

4:20pm Mon 16 Dec 13

News Bunny says...

Let the planning application go ahead but only on the condition that the owners sign a deed of covenant to say that should the extension increase the size of the house by 15% then 15% of the profits upon sale of the house, in the future, would be paid to charity. If they agree then we know that they aren't simply trying to make a few quid on the property.
Let the planning application go ahead but only on the condition that the owners sign a deed of covenant to say that should the extension increase the size of the house by 15% then 15% of the profits upon sale of the house, in the future, would be paid to charity. If they agree then we know that they aren't simply trying to make a few quid on the property. News Bunny

5:11pm Mon 16 Dec 13

reg reg says...

I-say-you-say wrote:
reg reg wrote:
I-say-you-say wrote:
reg reg wrote: he was injured upholding the law paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have the law says no should we change the law just for you ? sorry for your situation reece but not for your family's attitude as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not
There is absolutely no comparison between a mosque to the home of a young man injured while voluntarily in the line of duty! What has money got to do with it?! It's not going to change the fact that he is severely disabled for the rest of his life at the age of 21! You say you're sorry for his situation and yet you do not show any compassion just ignorance and disrespect for his family. As for manipulation, I am sure that you've never EVER tried to manipulate the law to suit yourself have you?!
@ I-say-you-say no I haven't OK in the line of duty ? local hero ? because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ? GO ON TELL ME WHY ? (REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ?
reg reg wrote:
@ I-say-you-say no I haven't OK in the line of duty ? local hero ? because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ? GO ON TELL ME WHY ? (REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ?

Would you care to respond in english sentences and not just nonsensical questions?

What has buying porters grange and turning it into a nightclub got to do with this? (Same question regarding the mosque before!) and it isn't "change of use" it would still be a home, not a business or place of worship etc.

Why isn't he special? Answer ME that! As for the question regarding soldiers, I say it's a load of rubbish and I completely disagree with the way they are treated but that's irrelevant in this case.

Oh and your response to sosad 1 about the 30ft wall - really?! Again another ridiculous comment that is totally irrelevant to this situation.
it is change of use from a single storey dwelling into a house
so every one around that area can do the same and turn bungalows into houses ? yes or no ?
no i haven't twisted the law to suite me who do you think you are accusing some one of doing so
no he is not special he got injured at work that's all by his work mate !
so if i fall of a roof i am entitled to alter any building i want to suite my needs
rubbish mate total garbage
and as for that fool name and shame ?
shame for what sticking up 4 the law
so as i said if i built a 30 ft wall next to your house is that ok
[quote][p][bold]I-say-you-say[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]reg reg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I-say-you-say[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]reg reg[/bold] wrote: he was injured upholding the law paid handsomely for his injuries whilst doing so now you try and manipulate the same laws to get what you think you should have the law says no should we change the law just for you ? sorry for your situation reece but not for your family's attitude as regards the law being wrong we wont know until we change them so the law is the law if it was a mosque would you still be on here saying well why not[/p][/quote]There is absolutely no comparison between a mosque to the home of a young man injured while voluntarily in the line of duty! What has money got to do with it?! It's not going to change the fact that he is severely disabled for the rest of his life at the age of 21! You say you're sorry for his situation and yet you do not show any compassion just ignorance and disrespect for his family. As for manipulation, I am sure that you've never EVER tried to manipulate the law to suit yourself have you?![/p][/quote]@ I-say-you-say no I haven't OK in the line of duty ? local hero ? because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ? GO ON TELL ME WHY ? (REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ?[/p][/quote]reg reg wrote: @ I-say-you-say no I haven't OK in the line of duty ? local hero ? because change of use is change of use and 100 people don't like it so if i want to buy porters grange and turn it into i night club is that ok with you then thousands of people get injured maimed and are born or left disabled every year WHY IS HE SO SPECIAL ? GO ON TELL ME WHY ? (REAL) SOLDIERS CANT GET A BEAN FOR RISKING LIFE AND LIMB EVERY DAY AND YOU SAY WHAT TO THAT ? Would you care to respond in english sentences and not just nonsensical questions? What has buying porters grange and turning it into a nightclub got to do with this? (Same question regarding the mosque before!) and it isn't "change of use" it would still be a home, not a business or place of worship etc. Why isn't he special? Answer ME that! As for the question regarding soldiers, I say it's a load of rubbish and I completely disagree with the way they are treated but that's irrelevant in this case. Oh and your response to sosad 1 about the 30ft wall - really?! Again another ridiculous comment that is totally irrelevant to this situation.[/p][/quote]it is change of use from a single storey dwelling into a house so every one around that area can do the same and turn bungalows into houses ? yes or no ? no i haven't twisted the law to suite me who do you think you are accusing some one of doing so no he is not special he got injured at work that's all by his work mate ! so if i fall of a roof i am entitled to alter any building i want to suite my needs rubbish mate total garbage and as for that fool name and shame ? shame for what sticking up 4 the law so as i said if i built a 30 ft wall next to your house is that ok reg reg

5:21pm Mon 16 Dec 13

sosad 1 says...

reg reg its a shame they shut runwell hospital
reg reg its a shame they shut runwell hospital sosad 1

5:26pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Nola Hedderman says...

News Bunny wrote:
Let the planning application go ahead but only on the condition that the owners sign a deed of covenant to say that should the extension increase the size of the house by 15% then 15% of the profits upon sale of the house, in the future, would be paid to charity. If they agree then we know that they aren't simply trying to make a few quid on the property.
How can you actually say that?! This story is true. He is disabled. Why would they want to 'make a profit' It is so he can come home and be with his Dad and his sister and end the 2 years he has spent in rehabilitation.
I for one think some of these comments are disgusting and heartless. lets hope none of your families have to ever experience anything of this magnitude!
[quote][p][bold]News Bunny[/bold] wrote: Let the planning application go ahead but only on the condition that the owners sign a deed of covenant to say that should the extension increase the size of the house by 15% then 15% of the profits upon sale of the house, in the future, would be paid to charity. If they agree then we know that they aren't simply trying to make a few quid on the property.[/p][/quote]How can you actually say that?! This story is true. He is disabled. Why would they want to 'make a profit' It is so he can come home and be with his Dad and his sister and end the 2 years he has spent in rehabilitation. I for one think some of these comments are disgusting and heartless. lets hope none of your families have to ever experience anything of this magnitude! Nola Hedderman

5:34pm Mon 16 Dec 13

reg reg says...

sosad 1 wrote:
reg reg its a shame they shut runwell hospital
whooooooooo get you
name and shame
vigilante are we for the people who cant get what they want
idiot .
he is not a hero
he is not special
his family messed up thinking well it will be fine and its not is it so it has nothing to do with this poor lad
its his family ok
[quote][p][bold]sosad 1[/bold] wrote: reg reg its a shame they shut runwell hospital[/p][/quote]whooooooooo get you name and shame vigilante are we for the people who cant get what they want idiot . he is not a hero he is not special his family messed up thinking well it will be fine and its not is it so it has nothing to do with this poor lad its his family ok reg reg

5:43pm Mon 16 Dec 13

reg reg says...

Nola Hedderman wrote:
News Bunny wrote:
Let the planning application go ahead but only on the condition that the owners sign a deed of covenant to say that should the extension increase the size of the house by 15% then 15% of the profits upon sale of the house, in the future, would be paid to charity. If they agree then we know that they aren't simply trying to make a few quid on the property.
How can you actually say that?! This story is true. He is disabled. Why would they want to 'make a profit' It is so he can come home and be with his Dad and his sister and end the 2 years he has spent in rehabilitation.
I for one think some of these comments are disgusting and heartless. lets hope none of your families have to ever experience anything of this magnitude!
but the point is they will make a profit wont they.
turning a goldsworthy bungalow into a house.
so why cant i do that and everyone else for that matter.
tell me why is he or this case so special ?
[quote][p][bold]Nola Hedderman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]News Bunny[/bold] wrote: Let the planning application go ahead but only on the condition that the owners sign a deed of covenant to say that should the extension increase the size of the house by 15% then 15% of the profits upon sale of the house, in the future, would be paid to charity. If they agree then we know that they aren't simply trying to make a few quid on the property.[/p][/quote]How can you actually say that?! This story is true. He is disabled. Why would they want to 'make a profit' It is so he can come home and be with his Dad and his sister and end the 2 years he has spent in rehabilitation. I for one think some of these comments are disgusting and heartless. lets hope none of your families have to ever experience anything of this magnitude![/p][/quote]but the point is they will make a profit wont they. turning a goldsworthy bungalow into a house. so why cant i do that and everyone else for that matter. tell me why is he or this case so special ? reg reg

6:14pm Mon 16 Dec 13

woolstone says...

Nice to see the Christmas spirit is alive in Thorpe Bay, so people are less important than buildings. I hope it turns out well for this brave young man.
Nice to see the Christmas spirit is alive in Thorpe Bay, so people are less important than buildings. I hope it turns out well for this brave young man. woolstone

6:33pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Tich25 says...

Sounds like the two story building would be to house a full time nurse.
If planning fails just put in some caravans or mobile homes putting your fingers up
Sounds like the two story building would be to house a full time nurse. If planning fails just put in some caravans or mobile homes putting your fingers up Tich25

6:38pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
I-say-you-say wrote:
Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
Well said young lady!

I hope that these "100 neighbors" are never in a position where they need permission to amend their home due to illness/disability. To deprive a 21 year old young man whose life has been devastated enough doing something to protect and help these people who have stood against him as a VOLUNTEER is a disgusting example of the politics of this country!

Irrespective of the "full story", a young man needs a place to go where amendments are needed and a bungalow is the most suitable. Perhaps we should start our own petition to get them to reconsider and allow it - I'm sure we'd get more that 100 signatures!

Perhaps the Court of Human RIghts should be made aware as well!
The "Court of Human Rights" is only there if you are a traveller on an illegal settlement, illegal asylum seeker, health tourist, people trafficker, drug pusher, terrorist. rapist, paedophile, prisoner who wants a vote, or any kind of other ne'er do well.

It was not set up for the likes of us. Anybody who works for a living and falls on hard times or needs some help is not included. Particularly if you are white and English. Forget it.

The travesty at Dale Farm has gone on for 12 years despite numerous planning applications, appeals, public inquiries being turned down etc etc... I rest my case.
Rest your case?

You are a case...

Even on a rather sad article like this you use it to bluster your rubbish..

The court of human rights is for all? Why lie about something that is easily identified as a lie?

DF is over! Get over it...your little bit of power in claiming insider knowledge has gone.. go get yourself a life!
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I-say-you-say[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]Well said young lady! I hope that these "100 neighbors" are never in a position where they need permission to amend their home due to illness/disability. To deprive a 21 year old young man whose life has been devastated enough doing something to protect and help these people who have stood against him as a VOLUNTEER is a disgusting example of the politics of this country! Irrespective of the "full story", a young man needs a place to go where amendments are needed and a bungalow is the most suitable. Perhaps we should start our own petition to get them to reconsider and allow it - I'm sure we'd get more that 100 signatures! Perhaps the Court of Human RIghts should be made aware as well![/p][/quote]The "Court of Human Rights" is only there if you are a traveller on an illegal settlement, illegal asylum seeker, health tourist, people trafficker, drug pusher, terrorist. rapist, paedophile, prisoner who wants a vote, or any kind of other ne'er do well. It was not set up for the likes of us. Anybody who works for a living and falls on hard times or needs some help is not included. Particularly if you are white and English. Forget it. The travesty at Dale Farm has gone on for 12 years despite numerous planning applications, appeals, public inquiries being turned down etc etc... I rest my case.[/p][/quote]Rest your case? You are a case... Even on a rather sad article like this you use it to bluster your rubbish.. The court of human rights is for all? Why lie about something that is easily identified as a lie? DF is over! Get over it...your little bit of power in claiming insider knowledge has gone.. go get yourself a life! Lastlaugh,,.

6:50pm Mon 16 Dec 13

whataday says...

Let it out as multi-occupancy and use the rent money to pay for a purpose built place for his needs, including annexe for nurse/carer
Let it out as multi-occupancy and use the rent money to pay for a purpose built place for his needs, including annexe for nurse/carer whataday

7:56pm Mon 16 Dec 13

seafrontres says...

This is a form of disability discrimination from Ron Woodley and his little village of vile individuals. What a shame for Reece and his family after all they have been through to then come up against a bunch of small minded idiots who believe they know what a deceased architect would be thinking, I am sure he would be delighted to see how his work could be improved. As for Ron Woodley, this man should really not be in council, a man who we only see on our road when him and his little gopher need votes. Shame on those in Thorpe Bay!
This is a form of disability discrimination from Ron Woodley and his little village of vile individuals. What a shame for Reece and his family after all they have been through to then come up against a bunch of small minded idiots who believe they know what a deceased architect would be thinking, I am sure he would be delighted to see how his work could be improved. As for Ron Woodley, this man should really not be in council, a man who we only see on our road when him and his little gopher need votes. Shame on those in Thorpe Bay! seafrontres

8:23pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Scribus says...

Is it beyond 90% of the people who post their ill thought through comments to stop and consider what they are saying before they click the send button. No?
Silly question really. The decision to refuse the application had nothing to do with the disability of the young man. The opposition to the proposals had nothing to do with the young man's disability and this was made clear in the hearing at the Development Control Committee. The reason the plans were refused was because they did not comply with the Council's development plan and guidlines regarding altering the look of property, the size of extensions and whether the proposals are in keeping with the area.

More than one Councillor suggested that the needs of Mr Clark are better met with the purchase of a house and not a bungalow because of the scale of the proposals which necessitate two self contained flats being created in the property. Do the people who have posted the offensive and moronic comments prefer to have a free for all in the development of property in the town or do they want some form of check and balance? And that is what the decision was about and nothing else. Perhaps you could think about that in between your attendances at your Mensa meetings.
Is it beyond 90% of the people who post their ill thought through comments to stop and consider what they are saying before they click the send button. No? Silly question really. The decision to refuse the application had nothing to do with the disability of the young man. The opposition to the proposals had nothing to do with the young man's disability and this was made clear in the hearing at the Development Control Committee. The reason the plans were refused was because they did not comply with the Council's development plan and guidlines regarding altering the look of property, the size of extensions and whether the proposals are in keeping with the area. More than one Councillor suggested that the needs of Mr Clark are better met with the purchase of a house and not a bungalow because of the scale of the proposals which necessitate two self contained flats being created in the property. Do the people who have posted the offensive and moronic comments prefer to have a free for all in the development of property in the town or do they want some form of check and balance? And that is what the decision was about and nothing else. Perhaps you could think about that in between your attendances at your Mensa meetings. Scribus

8:57pm Mon 16 Dec 13

echoforum says...

Thorpe Bay Ugly Town for Ugly people..avoid!!!!
Thorpe Bay Ugly Town for Ugly people..avoid!!!! echoforum

9:41pm Mon 16 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Scribus wrote:
Is it beyond 90% of the people who post their ill thought through comments to stop and consider what they are saying before they click the send button. No?
Silly question really. The decision to refuse the application had nothing to do with the disability of the young man. The opposition to the proposals had nothing to do with the young man's disability and this was made clear in the hearing at the Development Control Committee. The reason the plans were refused was because they did not comply with the Council's development plan and guidlines regarding altering the look of property, the size of extensions and whether the proposals are in keeping with the area.

More than one Councillor suggested that the needs of Mr Clark are better met with the purchase of a house and not a bungalow because of the scale of the proposals which necessitate two self contained flats being created in the property. Do the people who have posted the offensive and moronic comments prefer to have a free for all in the development of property in the town or do they want some form of check and balance? And that is what the decision was about and nothing else. Perhaps you could think about that in between your attendances at your Mensa meetings.
brother can you spare the abridged version?
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: Is it beyond 90% of the people who post their ill thought through comments to stop and consider what they are saying before they click the send button. No? Silly question really. The decision to refuse the application had nothing to do with the disability of the young man. The opposition to the proposals had nothing to do with the young man's disability and this was made clear in the hearing at the Development Control Committee. The reason the plans were refused was because they did not comply with the Council's development plan and guidlines regarding altering the look of property, the size of extensions and whether the proposals are in keeping with the area. More than one Councillor suggested that the needs of Mr Clark are better met with the purchase of a house and not a bungalow because of the scale of the proposals which necessitate two self contained flats being created in the property. Do the people who have posted the offensive and moronic comments prefer to have a free for all in the development of property in the town or do they want some form of check and balance? And that is what the decision was about and nothing else. Perhaps you could think about that in between your attendances at your Mensa meetings.[/p][/quote]brother can you spare the abridged version? profondo asbo

9:53pm Mon 16 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
so the family go to the newspaper to spin their side of the story but any free comment is off limits. if you don't want free comment don't go to the press. rocket science it ain't
[quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]so the family go to the newspaper to spin their side of the story but any free comment is off limits. if you don't want free comment don't go to the press. rocket science it ain't profondo asbo

9:54pm Mon 16 Dec 13

ciscosquid says...

I would let the house as a needle exchange or similar, until I had the money to rebuild as a house.
Funny that Dave Garston wants to move there - to regenerate Southend he should be campaigning to get bungalows replaced with houses - more population for the same footprint..

Stinks to the rafters.
I would let the house as a needle exchange or similar, until I had the money to rebuild as a house. Funny that Dave Garston wants to move there - to regenerate Southend he should be campaigning to get bungalows replaced with houses - more population for the same footprint.. Stinks to the rafters. ciscosquid

10:13pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Seasider90 says...

Says more about the plastic snobs of Thorpe Bay than anything else. They forget they have Shoebury as neighbours one side and asylum town Southend on the other. Thorpe Bay the last bastion of the old conservative party. You've got to laugh.
Says more about the plastic snobs of Thorpe Bay than anything else. They forget they have Shoebury as neighbours one side and asylum town Southend on the other. Thorpe Bay the last bastion of the old conservative party. You've got to laugh. Seasider90

10:47pm Mon 16 Dec 13

tac123 says...

I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted?

This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it?
I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted? This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it? tac123

10:49pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Scribus says...

Hey Seasider 90, if the residents of Thorpe Bay are plastic snobs does this mean they are not authentic snobs? They will be so disappointed.
Hey Seasider 90, if the residents of Thorpe Bay are plastic snobs does this mean they are not authentic snobs? They will be so disappointed. Scribus

11:02pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Scribus says...

tac123 wrote:
I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted?

This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it?
Hi tac123, is it 10 or 12 properties in the cul de sac? You say you have had a look, therefore you should be able to get the number right even using your fingers to count ( now now, you have more than two fingers) . By the way, there are no houses in the close. Is it this uncanny ability to be so cavalier with the facts which give your comments their undoubted credibility?
[quote][p][bold]tac123[/bold] wrote: I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted? This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it?[/p][/quote]Hi tac123, is it 10 or 12 properties in the cul de sac? You say you have had a look, therefore you should be able to get the number right even using your fingers to count ( now now, you have more than two fingers) . By the way, there are no houses in the close. Is it this uncanny ability to be so cavalier with the facts which give your comments their undoubted credibility? Scribus

11:28pm Mon 16 Dec 13

tac123 says...

Scribus wrote:
tac123 wrote:
I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted?

This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it?
Hi tac123, is it 10 or 12 properties in the cul de sac? You say you have had a look, therefore you should be able to get the number right even using your fingers to count ( now now, you have more than two fingers) . By the way, there are no houses in the close. Is it this uncanny ability to be so cavalier with the facts which give your comments their undoubted credibility?
Wow... you clearly have issues!

There are 10 bungalows, at least four of which have loft conversions, there are 2 houses which are located at the junction of the close, both of which front the close and clearly form part of the street scene.

I can't help but notice you have failed to address the issue surrounding the planning officers advice to the planning committee, perhaps this is because you don't have a witty joke to share with us in response! Or is it that you can not argue with fact?

I wish this family every success in their fight to get the decision overturned, in the meantime i suggest you rent the place out to one of the many problem familys from the kursaal, that ought to cheer up the street!
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tac123[/bold] wrote: I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted? This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it?[/p][/quote]Hi tac123, is it 10 or 12 properties in the cul de sac? You say you have had a look, therefore you should be able to get the number right even using your fingers to count ( now now, you have more than two fingers) . By the way, there are no houses in the close. Is it this uncanny ability to be so cavalier with the facts which give your comments their undoubted credibility?[/p][/quote]Wow... you clearly have issues! There are 10 bungalows, at least four of which have loft conversions, there are 2 houses which are located at the junction of the close, both of which front the close and clearly form part of the street scene. I can't help but notice you have failed to address the issue surrounding the planning officers advice to the planning committee, perhaps this is because you don't have a witty joke to share with us in response! Or is it that you can not argue with fact? I wish this family every success in their fight to get the decision overturned, in the meantime i suggest you rent the place out to one of the many problem familys from the kursaal, that ought to cheer up the street! tac123

4:47am Tue 17 Dec 13

KB Wickford says...

tac123 wrote:
Scribus wrote:
tac123 wrote:
I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted?

This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it?
Hi tac123, is it 10 or 12 properties in the cul de sac? You say you have had a look, therefore you should be able to get the number right even using your fingers to count ( now now, you have more than two fingers) . By the way, there are no houses in the close. Is it this uncanny ability to be so cavalier with the facts which give your comments their undoubted credibility?
Wow... you clearly have issues!

There are 10 bungalows, at least four of which have loft conversions, there are 2 houses which are located at the junction of the close, both of which front the close and clearly form part of the street scene.

I can't help but notice you have failed to address the issue surrounding the planning officers advice to the planning committee, perhaps this is because you don't have a witty joke to share with us in response! Or is it that you can not argue with fact?

I wish this family every success in their fight to get the decision overturned, in the meantime i suggest you rent the place out to one of the many problem familys from the kursaal, that ought to cheer up the street!
I agree with what youve said and add that if they bought the bungalow in a street of bungalows with compensation for the accident and then decided that after all they fancied a two storey extension after all might better suit his needs then selling the bungalow and buying a house might have of course been a better plan and to delay doing so when he is stuck in hospital whilst they try to change the planning law in a street which clearly doesnt WANT them, his 24 hour care, ambulances, nursing attendance, etc etc extra noise from cars reversing in and out at all hours.. whether this is in fact heartless or not… its clearly not viable for this small cul de sac. Surely extending it on one ground floor level would have made more sense? ( if its for him)

The markets picking up though…. suggest they sell it and find a property which is already converted or is convertable without any issues THAT will then allow the young man to come home….. and really that should be their priority assuming it was after all his compensation money that bought the place!

Planning rules exist for everyones benefit… not only for the street scene but to make sure that your neighbour doesnt build an extension right up to the boundary on his own property and encroach on your right to enjoy sun and light on your own.

The article It may have an emotional heading but planning regs are planning regs, they arent emotional. They are law…amnesty or not..whoever bought this bungalow is wasting time, this young man deserves to be with his family, as long as he remains in focus for them, I dont see the issue.
[quote][p][bold]tac123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tac123[/bold] wrote: I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted? This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it?[/p][/quote]Hi tac123, is it 10 or 12 properties in the cul de sac? You say you have had a look, therefore you should be able to get the number right even using your fingers to count ( now now, you have more than two fingers) . By the way, there are no houses in the close. Is it this uncanny ability to be so cavalier with the facts which give your comments their undoubted credibility?[/p][/quote]Wow... you clearly have issues! There are 10 bungalows, at least four of which have loft conversions, there are 2 houses which are located at the junction of the close, both of which front the close and clearly form part of the street scene. I can't help but notice you have failed to address the issue surrounding the planning officers advice to the planning committee, perhaps this is because you don't have a witty joke to share with us in response! Or is it that you can not argue with fact? I wish this family every success in their fight to get the decision overturned, in the meantime i suggest you rent the place out to one of the many problem familys from the kursaal, that ought to cheer up the street![/p][/quote]I agree with what youve said and add that if they bought the bungalow in a street of bungalows with compensation for the accident and then decided that after all they fancied a two storey extension after all might better suit his needs then selling the bungalow and buying a house might have of course been a better plan and to delay doing so when he is stuck in hospital whilst they try to change the planning law in a street which clearly doesnt WANT them, his 24 hour care, ambulances, nursing attendance, etc etc extra noise from cars reversing in and out at all hours.. whether this is in fact heartless or not… its clearly not viable for this small cul de sac. Surely extending it on one ground floor level would have made more sense? ( if its for him) The markets picking up though…. suggest they sell it and find a property which is already converted or is convertable without any issues THAT will then allow the young man to come home….. and really that should be their priority assuming it was after all his compensation money that bought the place! Planning rules exist for everyones benefit… not only for the street scene but to make sure that your neighbour doesnt build an extension right up to the boundary on his own property and encroach on your right to enjoy sun and light on your own. The article It may have an emotional heading but planning regs are planning regs, they arent emotional. They are law…amnesty or not..whoever bought this bungalow is wasting time, this young man deserves to be with his family, as long as he remains in focus for them, I dont see the issue. KB Wickford

9:31am Tue 17 Dec 13

Scribus says...

tac123 wrote:
Scribus wrote:
tac123 wrote:
I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted?

This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it?
Hi tac123, is it 10 or 12 properties in the cul de sac? You say you have had a look, therefore you should be able to get the number right even using your fingers to count ( now now, you have more than two fingers) . By the way, there are no houses in the close. Is it this uncanny ability to be so cavalier with the facts which give your comments their undoubted credibility?
Wow... you clearly have issues!

There are 10 bungalows, at least four of which have loft conversions, there are 2 houses which are located at the junction of the close, both of which front the close and clearly form part of the street scene.

I can't help but notice you have failed to address the issue surrounding the planning officers advice to the planning committee, perhaps this is because you don't have a witty joke to share with us in response! Or is it that you can not argue with fact?

I wish this family every success in their fight to get the decision overturned, in the meantime i suggest you rent the place out to one of the many problem familys from the kursaal, that ought to cheer up the street!
Re Tact 123 at 10.28 16 Dec.
I do have issues with the truth not being told. The houses you refer to are in Thorpe Hall Avenue!!!! Now I think you will find that Thorpe Hall Avenue is a different road.

The planning officers advice to the Committee was flawed, factually incorrect and ignored the guidlines given to the planning officers by the Council. Lo and behold the committee decided to over rule the planning officers. Now that is a fact. There is nothing funny in that and there is nothing funny in the poor advice being given to Mr Clark's family about this property. Perhaps you and the rest of the unthinking numptys might like to question why the architect pressed ahead with plans he ought to have known would be thrown out.
[quote][p][bold]tac123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tac123[/bold] wrote: I'm not trying to be argumentative but if it's simply a matter of the plans not meeting the local planning rules then why was it supported by the planning control officer? Surely if they're employed by the council to do the job they know the rules and would have suggested refusal as opposed to suggesting it be granted? This comes down to Nimbyism, I've had a look and out of the ten or twelve properties in the cul de sac, two are houses and four have loft conversions making them two story! People just don't want the mi or inconvenience of six months of building work or the shame of another house in the street looking better than theirs! Besides I'd love to know how they got 100 signatures from neighbouring properties if there are less then 15 properties in the whole road, are they multiple occupancy or is it a case of every family in the road getting their friends and extended family to sign it?[/p][/quote]Hi tac123, is it 10 or 12 properties in the cul de sac? You say you have had a look, therefore you should be able to get the number right even using your fingers to count ( now now, you have more than two fingers) . By the way, there are no houses in the close. Is it this uncanny ability to be so cavalier with the facts which give your comments their undoubted credibility?[/p][/quote]Wow... you clearly have issues! There are 10 bungalows, at least four of which have loft conversions, there are 2 houses which are located at the junction of the close, both of which front the close and clearly form part of the street scene. I can't help but notice you have failed to address the issue surrounding the planning officers advice to the planning committee, perhaps this is because you don't have a witty joke to share with us in response! Or is it that you can not argue with fact? I wish this family every success in their fight to get the decision overturned, in the meantime i suggest you rent the place out to one of the many problem familys from the kursaal, that ought to cheer up the street![/p][/quote]Re Tact 123 at 10.28 16 Dec. I do have issues with the truth not being told. The houses you refer to are in Thorpe Hall Avenue!!!! Now I think you will find that Thorpe Hall Avenue is a different road. The planning officers advice to the Committee was flawed, factually incorrect and ignored the guidlines given to the planning officers by the Council. Lo and behold the committee decided to over rule the planning officers. Now that is a fact. There is nothing funny in that and there is nothing funny in the poor advice being given to Mr Clark's family about this property. Perhaps you and the rest of the unthinking numptys might like to question why the architect pressed ahead with plans he ought to have known would be thrown out. Scribus

11:50am Tue 17 Dec 13

heartbeat says...

Seasider90 wrote:
Says more about the plastic snobs of Thorpe Bay than anything else. They forget they have Shoebury as neighbours one side and asylum town Southend on the other. Thorpe Bay the last bastion of the old conservative party. You've got to laugh.
I wonder why Reece's family have decided they want to live in Thorpe Bay instead of Shoebury? If Thorpe Bay really is so awful the Council is obviously doing them a favour, and so are you by pointing out what a terrible place to live it must be. At least they will now be able to flee to somewhere else, where planning rules don't exist and neighbours don't give a monkey's about their environment being changed, or dare I whisper it, property values. I can't actually think of anywhere that fits the bill off-hand though.

There must be masses of established 4+ bedroom bungalows and houses within a five mile radius of Shoebury, some of which are likely to be for sale, and it's not as if this one in Thorpe Bay was ever Reece's home so why should there be any kind of "emotional attachment" to it? I would have thought Reece might prefer to live as near to his old home as possible.
[quote][p][bold]Seasider90[/bold] wrote: Says more about the plastic snobs of Thorpe Bay than anything else. They forget they have Shoebury as neighbours one side and asylum town Southend on the other. Thorpe Bay the last bastion of the old conservative party. You've got to laugh.[/p][/quote]I wonder why Reece's family have decided they want to live in Thorpe Bay instead of Shoebury? If Thorpe Bay really is so awful the Council is obviously doing them a favour, and so are you by pointing out what a terrible place to live it must be. At least they will now be able to flee to somewhere else, where planning rules don't exist and neighbours don't give a monkey's about their environment being changed, or dare I whisper it, property values. I can't actually think of anywhere that fits the bill off-hand though. There must be masses of established 4+ bedroom bungalows and houses within a five mile radius of Shoebury, some of which are likely to be for sale, and it's not as if this one in Thorpe Bay was ever Reece's home so why should there be any kind of "emotional attachment" to it? I would have thought Reece might prefer to live as near to his old home as possible. heartbeat

12:25pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Shoeburygem says...

Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.
Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house. Shoeburygem

12:43pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Firestormgjc says...

Its a shame that the lads disability is being dragged into something which is basically a dispute bricks, mortar and local regulations

I hope they find the ideal property to care for their son, maybe even without the need to such extensive building works to disrupt his already traumatic life.

I also hope that when they find this peaceful retreat that the neighbours are considerate to his enviroment and don't ruin it with inappropriate developments
Its a shame that the lads disability is being dragged into something which is basically a dispute bricks, mortar and local regulations I hope they find the ideal property to care for their son, maybe even without the need to such extensive building works to disrupt his already traumatic life. I also hope that when they find this peaceful retreat that the neighbours are considerate to his enviroment and don't ruin it with inappropriate developments Firestormgjc

2:08pm Tue 17 Dec 13

CHRISTMAS CAROL says...

supermadmax wrote:
This time last year, just before christmas, I was on the broadway and there was a foreign big issue seller, female around 20 years of age. Although she looked very out of place she seemed friendly enough and was certainly not 'harassing' the thorpe bayers nor really causing a nuisance. A few minutes later, viewing from the other side of the road, I was startled to see a fat man in his 60's or 70's push her a number of times and shout whilst towering over his intimated victim, he the then proceeded to pour, what looked like, a mini bottle of coke over her head.
I prefer not to concern myself with the disputes of others however the thorpe bayer was becoming so aggressive I had to intervene.

The thorpe bay mafia are a nasty bunch, which as been confirmed once more today. The irony is that many of this 100 will be putting on their sunday best for church again next week.
Should have contacted the police
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: This time last year, just before christmas, I was on the broadway and there was a foreign big issue seller, female around 20 years of age. Although she looked very out of place she seemed friendly enough and was certainly not 'harassing' the thorpe bayers nor really causing a nuisance. A few minutes later, viewing from the other side of the road, I was startled to see a fat man in his 60's or 70's push her a number of times and shout whilst towering over his intimated victim, he the then proceeded to pour, what looked like, a mini bottle of coke over her head. I prefer not to concern myself with the disputes of others however the thorpe bayer was becoming so aggressive I had to intervene. The thorpe bay mafia are a nasty bunch, which as been confirmed once more today. The irony is that many of this 100 will be putting on their sunday best for church again next week.[/p][/quote]Should have contacted the police CHRISTMAS CAROL

3:46pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Scribus says...

Shoeburygem wrote:
Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.
You are clearly a public spirited citizen who would like to make us all aware of the extent of fraud being committed by all the people of Thorpe Bay. I think you should take your obviously well researched evidence to the police so that they may act upon it. I am sure you will agree that the risk of you being sectioned is a price worth paying if you clean up the place.

As you are such an expert on fiscal matters why don't you ask who is the trustee of Reece Clark's trust fund? Who has spent the compensation money without exercising any care as to the viability of the project to change a bungalow into two flats. What is the cost compared with buying a house that would require less modification? Are they throwing good money after bad in pursuing an appeal? Do they in fact understand their (oh sorry, on this site you have to say t h e r e at all times) responsibilities? Responsibility for this sorry affair lies with the advisers to Reece Clark and not the Bernie Maddoffs' of Thorpe Bay. However, that requires reasoning and all you can do is rant; you waste of space.
[quote][p][bold]Shoeburygem[/bold] wrote: Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.[/p][/quote]You are clearly a public spirited citizen who would like to make us all aware of the extent of fraud being committed by all the people of Thorpe Bay. I think you should take your obviously well researched evidence to the police so that they may act upon it. I am sure you will agree that the risk of you being sectioned is a price worth paying if you clean up the place. As you are such an expert on fiscal matters why don't you ask who is the trustee of Reece Clark's trust fund? Who has spent the compensation money without exercising any care as to the viability of the project to change a bungalow into two flats. What is the cost compared with buying a house that would require less modification? Are they throwing good money after bad in pursuing an appeal? Do they in fact understand their (oh sorry, on this site you have to say t h e r e at all times) responsibilities? Responsibility for this sorry affair lies with the advisers to Reece Clark and not the Bernie Maddoffs' of Thorpe Bay. However, that requires reasoning and all you can do is rant; you waste of space. Scribus

4:08pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

Shoeburygem wrote:
Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.
You appear a tad envious towards your neighbours in slightly more affluent Thorpe Bay.

It's not a nice trait.

Nor is libelling every resident there as a fraudster either.

You live in a rented hovel don't you?

It shows.
[quote][p][bold]Shoeburygem[/bold] wrote: Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.[/p][/quote]You appear a tad envious towards your neighbours in slightly more affluent Thorpe Bay. It's not a nice trait. Nor is libelling every resident there as a fraudster either. You live in a rented hovel don't you? It shows. Rochford Rob

5:11pm Tue 17 Dec 13

whataday says...

InTheKnowOk wrote:
You can get round the clock care no matter what your accommodation is
You must be joking
[quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: You can get round the clock care no matter what your accommodation is[/p][/quote]You must be joking whataday

7:39pm Tue 17 Dec 13

PhatBloke says...

CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
Nope, Shoebury doesn't exist any more. It's just Southend!
[quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]Nope, Shoebury doesn't exist any more. It's just Southend! PhatBloke

10:41pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Mark Willmore says...

How ashamed I am to say that I live in Thorpe Bay and have done so for 47 years. It is a pleasant place to live but nothing special and as for the people here, well they think they're special and better than others, but no one is, we are all the same.
What right do these councillors have to make comments about Mr Goldsworthy turning in his grave ? Have you seen some of the "tacky look at my flash trash tasteless pillars" at properties in Thorpe bay. Where were the planning committee when many of these properties were approved ?
We live in the middle of "goldsworthy land", we like the houses but more important than bricks and mortar are people........people matter.
Reece, his sister and father have been through a dreadful time, most of us thankfully and hopefully will never know such suffering.
As for those ignorant people who think financial compensation is true compensation for loss or injury are more stupid and heartless than their comment portray .
As for parking in Thorpe hall close being an issue, what rubbish.
These councillors are meant to represent the residents of their Ward - well such a stance does not represent me or my family nor many people I've spoken to, so exactly whose interests are they representing ?
I look forward to the independent planning official investigating why the planning committee refused an application that it's own planning officers approved.
I wish Reece, his sister and father every success with the appeal and I and others would be more than willing to offer support if required. They should not be put through this by heartless, selfish, self important busy bodies who see Thorpe bay as something more than a place to live - I hope you feel ashamed, remember its people that matter nothing else.
Best wishes Reece and family, our thoughts are with you especially at this time of year, if only we lived in a place that truly believed in goodwill to all men.
How ashamed I am to say that I live in Thorpe Bay and have done so for 47 years. It is a pleasant place to live but nothing special and as for the people here, well they think they're special and better than others, but no one is, we are all the same. What right do these councillors have to make comments about Mr Goldsworthy turning in his grave ? Have you seen some of the "tacky look at my flash trash tasteless pillars" at properties in Thorpe bay. Where were the planning committee when many of these properties were approved ? We live in the middle of "goldsworthy land", we like the houses but more important than bricks and mortar are people........people matter. Reece, his sister and father have been through a dreadful time, most of us thankfully and hopefully will never know such suffering. As for those ignorant people who think financial compensation is true compensation for loss or injury are more stupid and heartless than their comment portray . As for parking in Thorpe hall close being an issue, what rubbish. These councillors are meant to represent the residents of their Ward - well such a stance does not represent me or my family nor many people I've spoken to, so exactly whose interests are they representing ? I look forward to the independent planning official investigating why the planning committee refused an application that it's own planning officers approved. I wish Reece, his sister and father every success with the appeal and I and others would be more than willing to offer support if required. They should not be put through this by heartless, selfish, self important busy bodies who see Thorpe bay as something more than a place to live - I hope you feel ashamed, remember its people that matter nothing else. Best wishes Reece and family, our thoughts are with you especially at this time of year, if only we lived in a place that truly believed in goodwill to all men. Mark Willmore

11:05pm Tue 17 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Mark Willmore wrote:
How ashamed I am to say that I live in Thorpe Bay and have done so for 47 years. It is a pleasant place to live but nothing special and as for the people here, well they think they're special and better than others, but no one is, we are all the same.
What right do these councillors have to make comments about Mr Goldsworthy turning in his grave ? Have you seen some of the "tacky look at my flash trash tasteless pillars" at properties in Thorpe bay. Where were the planning committee when many of these properties were approved ?
We live in the middle of "goldsworthy land", we like the houses but more important than bricks and mortar are people........people matter.
Reece, his sister and father have been through a dreadful time, most of us thankfully and hopefully will never know such suffering.
As for those ignorant people who think financial compensation is true compensation for loss or injury are more stupid and heartless than their comment portray .
As for parking in Thorpe hall close being an issue, what rubbish.
These councillors are meant to represent the residents of their Ward - well such a stance does not represent me or my family nor many people I've spoken to, so exactly whose interests are they representing ?
I look forward to the independent planning official investigating why the planning committee refused an application that it's own planning officers approved.
I wish Reece, his sister and father every success with the appeal and I and others would be more than willing to offer support if required. They should not be put through this by heartless, selfish, self important busy bodies who see Thorpe bay as something more than a place to live - I hope you feel ashamed, remember its people that matter nothing else.
Best wishes Reece and family, our thoughts are with you especially at this time of year, if only we lived in a place that truly believed in goodwill to all men.
brother can you spare some buscopan?
[quote][p][bold]Mark Willmore[/bold] wrote: How ashamed I am to say that I live in Thorpe Bay and have done so for 47 years. It is a pleasant place to live but nothing special and as for the people here, well they think they're special and better than others, but no one is, we are all the same. What right do these councillors have to make comments about Mr Goldsworthy turning in his grave ? Have you seen some of the "tacky look at my flash trash tasteless pillars" at properties in Thorpe bay. Where were the planning committee when many of these properties were approved ? We live in the middle of "goldsworthy land", we like the houses but more important than bricks and mortar are people........people matter. Reece, his sister and father have been through a dreadful time, most of us thankfully and hopefully will never know such suffering. As for those ignorant people who think financial compensation is true compensation for loss or injury are more stupid and heartless than their comment portray . As for parking in Thorpe hall close being an issue, what rubbish. These councillors are meant to represent the residents of their Ward - well such a stance does not represent me or my family nor many people I've spoken to, so exactly whose interests are they representing ? I look forward to the independent planning official investigating why the planning committee refused an application that it's own planning officers approved. I wish Reece, his sister and father every success with the appeal and I and others would be more than willing to offer support if required. They should not be put through this by heartless, selfish, self important busy bodies who see Thorpe bay as something more than a place to live - I hope you feel ashamed, remember its people that matter nothing else. Best wishes Reece and family, our thoughts are with you especially at this time of year, if only we lived in a place that truly believed in goodwill to all men.[/p][/quote]brother can you spare some buscopan? profondo asbo

11:52pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
Shoeburygem wrote:
Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.
You appear a tad envious towards your neighbours in slightly more affluent Thorpe Bay.

It's not a nice trait.

Nor is libelling every resident there as a fraudster either.

You live in a rented hovel don't you?

It shows.
What an ugly specimen you continue to show yourself to be!
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoeburygem[/bold] wrote: Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.[/p][/quote]You appear a tad envious towards your neighbours in slightly more affluent Thorpe Bay. It's not a nice trait. Nor is libelling every resident there as a fraudster either. You live in a rented hovel don't you? It shows.[/p][/quote]What an ugly specimen you continue to show yourself to be! Lastlaugh,,.

3:20am Wed 18 Dec 13

Chelsie.clarke says...

Dan-Hockley wrote:
There are plenty of more suitable houses for sale - does sound like the dad is profiting from his son's tragic accident
You should be ashamed to think that my dad is profiting from my brothers accident. Haven't you heard 'if you haven't got nothing nice to say, don't say nothing at all' everyone should KNOW THE **** FACTS BEFORE THEY COMMENT then there would literally be no **** comments. My mum was fighting to get my brother home since the day of his accident, now she is no longer with us me and my dad will do whatever it takes to get my brother back where he belongs. There is no point judging my family when you don't know us and that goes for everyone who is talking negatively. The neighbours in thorpe hall close just have nothing better to do then to spend all their day doing this. One specific lady had been against anyone from when people were first viewing the place but no one knows that do they! And the property has an upstairs so technically it is viewed as a chalet bungalow/house. I personally will fight to get what my mum was fighting for for the last 2 1/2 years as her wish to getting her boy home. All the negative people are a bunch of hypocrites. Live your lives don't butt into ours.
[quote][p][bold]Dan-Hockley[/bold] wrote: There are plenty of more suitable houses for sale - does sound like the dad is profiting from his son's tragic accident[/p][/quote]You should be ashamed to think that my dad is profiting from my brothers accident. Haven't you heard 'if you haven't got nothing nice to say, don't say nothing at all' everyone should KNOW THE **** FACTS BEFORE THEY COMMENT then there would literally be no **** comments. My mum was fighting to get my brother home since the day of his accident, now she is no longer with us me and my dad will do whatever it takes to get my brother back where he belongs. There is no point judging my family when you don't know us and that goes for everyone who is talking negatively. The neighbours in thorpe hall close just have nothing better to do then to spend all their day doing this. One specific lady had been against anyone from when people were first viewing the place but no one knows that do they! And the property has an upstairs so technically it is viewed as a chalet bungalow/house. I personally will fight to get what my mum was fighting for for the last 2 1/2 years as her wish to getting her boy home. All the negative people are a bunch of hypocrites. Live your lives don't butt into ours. Chelsie.clarke

3:25am Wed 18 Dec 13

Chelsie.clarke says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident. Chelsie.clarke

3:26am Wed 18 Dec 13

Chelsie.clarke says...

Katiealicia wrote:
Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.
Thanks Katie means a lot to us :) xx
[quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: Let me just say one thing guys and girls.... if you don't know the full story PLEASE don't comment. Reece's younger sister or father might see these comments and as a friend of Reece I have found some of them rather upsetting so imagine how they would feel. They are a beautiful, loving, caring family & have been through a hell of a lot the past few years and they don't need people judging them. That isn't the point of this article at all, it's to show people how disgusting some humans behaviour is towards a young man who was seriously injured for life whilst volunteering to be a special constable. People should have more respect.[/p][/quote]Thanks Katie means a lot to us :) xx Chelsie.clarke

3:33am Wed 18 Dec 13

Chelsie.clarke says...

The residents of the close live sad sadistic lives where they have nothing better to do then to cause other people lives hell. They know every detail which have happened in our lives and when they found out about mine and Reece's mum they hit us harder. I think this is so disrespectful. They should know manners and curtesy from all the years they have been on this earth and should feel they can help a 21 yr old finally get home and be with his family and friends and start his life again but no they want to halt all that. I'll let them tell Reece shall I that he won't be coming home when my mum, me and my dad had told him it would be around a certain time in 2014, they can tell him and see how it affects him. But they won't because they are too cowardly they hide behind a petition and the council and don't act like real human beings. Our family has more strength in just us three then what they have as a whole close, they don't know what love is, they have none.

Since losing our mum I just really want my brother back with me. I've lost one of the most important people in my life and I don't want to miss out on anymore time without another one. My brother deserves the right to come back to somewhere where he can access mostly all areas, as it's his house. This property offered that. Of we got a HOUSE he wouldn't be able to access 50% of his house and that's unfair to him. Have a heart people. Have compassion! Heartless **** whoever is talking negatively.

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING NICE TO SAY DONT SAY NOTHING AT ALL!!
The residents of the close live sad sadistic lives where they have nothing better to do then to cause other people lives hell. They know every detail which have happened in our lives and when they found out about mine and Reece's mum they hit us harder. I think this is so disrespectful. They should know manners and curtesy from all the years they have been on this earth and should feel they can help a 21 yr old finally get home and be with his family and friends and start his life again but no they want to halt all that. I'll let them tell Reece shall I that he won't be coming home when my mum, me and my dad had told him it would be around a certain time in 2014, they can tell him and see how it affects him. But they won't because they are too cowardly they hide behind a petition and the council and don't act like real human beings. Our family has more strength in just us three then what they have as a whole close, they don't know what love is, they have none. Since losing our mum I just really want my brother back with me. I've lost one of the most important people in my life and I don't want to miss out on anymore time without another one. My brother deserves the right to come back to somewhere where he can access mostly all areas, as it's his house. This property offered that. Of we got a HOUSE he wouldn't be able to access 50% of his house and that's unfair to him. Have a heart people. Have compassion! Heartless **** whoever is talking negatively. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING NICE TO SAY DONT SAY NOTHING AT ALL!! Chelsie.clarke

8:21am Wed 18 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Shoeburygem wrote:
Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.
You appear a tad envious towards your neighbours in slightly more affluent Thorpe Bay.

It's not a nice trait.

Nor is libelling every resident there as a fraudster either.

You live in a rented hovel don't you?

It shows.
What an ugly specimen you continue to show yourself to be!
Stop talking to yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoeburygem[/bold] wrote: Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.[/p][/quote]You appear a tad envious towards your neighbours in slightly more affluent Thorpe Bay. It's not a nice trait. Nor is libelling every resident there as a fraudster either. You live in a rented hovel don't you? It shows.[/p][/quote]What an ugly specimen you continue to show yourself to be![/p][/quote]Stop talking to yourself. Rochford Rob

8:55am Wed 18 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.
[quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.[/p][/quote]with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it. profondo asbo

9:07am Wed 18 Dec 13

Mark Willmore says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.
Chelsea, please ignore such comments from ignorant. uncaring people who clearly have no ability to empathise or understand anything outside of their selfish, small minded lives.
You will win through, good people eventually do. Best wishes.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.[/p][/quote]with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.[/p][/quote]Chelsea, please ignore such comments from ignorant. uncaring people who clearly have no ability to empathise or understand anything outside of their selfish, small minded lives. You will win through, good people eventually do. Best wishes. Mark Willmore

9:11am Wed 18 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

or better still don't go public....
or better still don't go public.... profondo asbo

9:38am Wed 18 Dec 13

Katiealicia says...

profondo asbo wrote:
or better still don't go public....
you are an absolute fool!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or better still don't go public....[/p][/quote]you are an absolute fool! Katiealicia

10:06am Wed 18 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

profondo asbo wrote:
or better still don't go public....
Very true profondo
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: or better still don't go public....[/p][/quote]Very true profondo Dr Martin

11:14am Wed 18 Dec 13

Chelsie.clarke says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.
And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.[/p][/quote]with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.[/p][/quote]And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all! Chelsie.clarke

11:20am Wed 18 Dec 13

Chelsie.clarke says...

Mark Willmore wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.
Chelsea, please ignore such comments from ignorant. uncaring people who clearly have no ability to empathise or understand anything outside of their selfish, small minded lives.
You will win through, good people eventually do. Best wishes.
Thank you! My dad thanks you for your support it's greatly appreciated! It's nice to know there are actually caring people out there.
[quote][p][bold]Mark Willmore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.[/p][/quote]with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.[/p][/quote]Chelsea, please ignore such comments from ignorant. uncaring people who clearly have no ability to empathise or understand anything outside of their selfish, small minded lives. You will win through, good people eventually do. Best wishes.[/p][/quote]Thank you! My dad thanks you for your support it's greatly appreciated! It's nice to know there are actually caring people out there. Chelsie.clarke

11:25am Wed 18 Dec 13

Chelsie.clarke says...

We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.
We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible. Chelsie.clarke

11:26am Wed 18 Dec 13

KB Wickford says...

The press by the way are a fiendish bunch, long time ago they chucked the case of my daughters plight aside (which was rather tragic since she had died aged 2 iin a hospital waiting on a trolley with no help..). aside as soon as they found out she had Downs Syndrome they actually said it didnt make such a good story anymore...… so really if you use the press ( add to this the millions of keyboard heroes that can now attack anonymously) then Chelsie youll have to develop a thicker skin…. this is so normal today, this commentary on events some folks are unduly harsh Im glad this wasnt possible back then as in my grief I couldnt have handled it at all.

I hope you get your brother home soon and this situation resolves to the best for him.. he must feel utterly miserable.
All the best to you Chelsea and to your family for Christmas, I hope the new year brings a swift and helpful resolution for your brother and you to all be back together.
The press by the way are a fiendish bunch, long time ago they chucked the case of my daughters plight aside (which was rather tragic since she had died aged 2 iin a hospital waiting on a trolley with no help..). aside as soon as they found out she had Downs Syndrome they actually said it didnt make such a good story anymore...… so really if you use the press ( add to this the millions of keyboard heroes that can now attack anonymously) then Chelsie youll have to develop a thicker skin…. this is so normal today, this commentary on events some folks are unduly harsh Im glad this wasnt possible back then as in my grief I couldnt have handled it at all. I hope you get your brother home soon and this situation resolves to the best for him.. he must feel utterly miserable. All the best to you Chelsea and to your family for Christmas, I hope the new year brings a swift and helpful resolution for your brother and you to all be back together. KB Wickford

12:27pm Wed 18 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs.

As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said:

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ).

And...

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built...

Someone actually voted for these people...

Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!!

Say "hello" to your Dad for me...
Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs. As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said: “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ). And... Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built... Someone actually voted for these people... Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!! Say "hello" to your Dad for me... BrainTumourMax

12:38pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

If you are wanting to stop all comments from people that either “shouldn’t comment unless you know all the facts” or “if you don't know the full story and every little detail “,
The comments section any given story would be one or 2 comments at most.

Much as I might disagree with another persons view, they are entitled to their opinion, after all this is a free country
If you are wanting to stop all comments from people that either “shouldn’t comment unless you know all the facts” or “if you don't know the full story and every little detail “, The comments section any given story would be one or 2 comments at most. Much as I might disagree with another persons view, they are entitled to their opinion, after all this is a free country Dr Martin

1:12pm Wed 18 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.
And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all!
the newspaper invites comments. do you feel your family should be able to circumvent the planning process?
[quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.[/p][/quote]with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.[/p][/quote]And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all![/p][/quote]the newspaper invites comments. do you feel your family should be able to circumvent the planning process? profondo asbo

1:14pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Scribus says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs.

As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said:

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ).

And...

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built...

Someone actually voted for these people...

Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!!

Say "hello" to your Dad for me...
There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules.

Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs. As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said: “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ). And... Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built... Someone actually voted for these people... Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!! Say "hello" to your Dad for me...[/p][/quote]There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules. Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done. Scribus

1:37pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Shoeburygem wrote:
Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.
You appear a tad envious towards your neighbours in slightly more affluent Thorpe Bay.

It's not a nice trait.

Nor is libelling every resident there as a fraudster either.

You live in a rented hovel don't you?

It shows.
What an ugly specimen you continue to show yourself to be!
Stop talking to yourself.
As I posted "an ugly specimen"
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoeburygem[/bold] wrote: Thorpe bay-upmarket! since when, it's full of people who commit fraud. This lad put himself in the line of duty, and needs care, so how is it going to make the place look any different. The council didn't complain a few years back, when the couple who's home burnt down were allowed to convert their bungalow into a house.[/p][/quote]You appear a tad envious towards your neighbours in slightly more affluent Thorpe Bay. It's not a nice trait. Nor is libelling every resident there as a fraudster either. You live in a rented hovel don't you? It shows.[/p][/quote]What an ugly specimen you continue to show yourself to be![/p][/quote]Stop talking to yourself.[/p][/quote]As I posted "an ugly specimen" Lastlaugh,,.

1:41pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Mark Willmore wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.
Chelsea, please ignore such comments from ignorant. uncaring people who clearly have no ability to empathise or understand anything outside of their selfish, small minded lives.
You will win through, good people eventually do. Best wishes.
There are some people on here who are so damaged they hate everyone...the ex-plod being a good example.
[quote][p][bold]Mark Willmore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.[/p][/quote]with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.[/p][/quote]Chelsea, please ignore such comments from ignorant. uncaring people who clearly have no ability to empathise or understand anything outside of their selfish, small minded lives. You will win through, good people eventually do. Best wishes.[/p][/quote]There are some people on here who are so damaged they hate everyone...the ex-plod being a good example. Lastlaugh,,.

1:46pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Chelsie.clarke wrote:
We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.
Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans.
[quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.[/p][/quote]Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans. Lastlaugh,,.

1:48pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.
And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all!
the newspaper invites comments. do you feel your family should be able to circumvent the planning process?
Brother can you spare another Tesco?
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.[/p][/quote]with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.[/p][/quote]And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all![/p][/quote]the newspaper invites comments. do you feel your family should be able to circumvent the planning process?[/p][/quote]Brother can you spare another Tesco? Lastlaugh,,.

3:04pm Wed 18 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs.

As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said:

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ).

And...

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built...

Someone actually voted for these people...

Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!!

Say "hello" to your Dad for me...
There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules.

Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.
You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs. As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said: “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ). And... Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built... Someone actually voted for these people... Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!! Say "hello" to your Dad for me...[/p][/quote]There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules. Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.[/p][/quote]You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems. BrainTumourMax

5:16pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Scribus says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs.

As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said:

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ).

And...

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built...

Someone actually voted for these people...

Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!!

Say "hello" to your Dad for me...
There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules.

Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.
You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.
You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs. As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said: “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ). And... Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built... Someone actually voted for these people... Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!! Say "hello" to your Dad for me...[/p][/quote]There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules. Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.[/p][/quote]You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.[/p][/quote]You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought. Scribus

5:42pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.
Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans.
What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?

It has nothing to do with the boy, it is about planning laws - what you are able to do, or not do and stay within the rules.

Oh, I can see a vague connection.

Trust you to encourage someone to circumnavigate the rules simply because you don't like them.
[quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.[/p][/quote]Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans.[/p][/quote]What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for? It has nothing to do with the boy, it is about planning laws - what you are able to do, or not do and stay within the rules. Oh, I can see a vague connection. Trust you to encourage someone to circumnavigate the rules simply because you don't like them. Rochford Rob

5:56pm Wed 18 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs.

As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said:

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ).

And...

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built...

Someone actually voted for these people...

Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!!

Say "hello" to your Dad for me...
There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules.

Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.
You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.
You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.
Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc...

I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor.
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs. As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said: “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ). And... Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built... Someone actually voted for these people... Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!! Say "hello" to your Dad for me...[/p][/quote]There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules. Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.[/p][/quote]You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.[/p][/quote]You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.[/p][/quote]Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc... I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor. BrainTumourMax

7:22pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Scribus says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs.

As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said:

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ).

And...

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built...

Someone actually voted for these people...

Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!!

Say "hello" to your Dad for me...
There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules.

Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.
You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.
You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.
Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc...

I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor.
Well I must ask you to make allowances for my limited mental capacity and in the meantime I think you should comment on the Advisers and I will just have to take my chances as to whether I can comprehend what you have to say. As you have said you could comment, this is your chance to put your comment where your mouth is. We are all waiting.
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs. As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said: “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ). And... Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built... Someone actually voted for these people... Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!! Say "hello" to your Dad for me...[/p][/quote]There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules. Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.[/p][/quote]You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.[/p][/quote]You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.[/p][/quote]Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc... I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor.[/p][/quote]Well I must ask you to make allowances for my limited mental capacity and in the meantime I think you should comment on the Advisers and I will just have to take my chances as to whether I can comprehend what you have to say. As you have said you could comment, this is your chance to put your comment where your mouth is. We are all waiting. Scribus

7:49pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.
Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans.
What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?

It has nothing to do with the boy, it is about planning laws - what you are able to do, or not do and stay within the rules.

Oh, I can see a vague connection.

Trust you to encourage someone to circumnavigate the rules simply because you don't like them.
"What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?"

Why shouldn't I? What's it to do with you? Do I need your permission?

You're not bullying people now using your uniform sad sack so dont try it with me!

I know as much about the matter as you do...perhaps a little more..so perhaps its a case of; What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for, something you know nothing about in this case!

Aha, more groundless accusations "M'lud and members of the jury Im a policeman and so when I lie to you its the truth"

Where do i encourage any circumnavigating of the rules? You have obviously seen that because if you didnt you would be lying so where did you see this?
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.[/p][/quote]Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans.[/p][/quote]What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for? It has nothing to do with the boy, it is about planning laws - what you are able to do, or not do and stay within the rules. Oh, I can see a vague connection. Trust you to encourage someone to circumnavigate the rules simply because you don't like them.[/p][/quote]"What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?" Why shouldn't I? What's it to do with you? Do I need your permission? You're not bullying people now using your uniform sad sack so dont try it with me! I know as much about the matter as you do...perhaps a little more..so perhaps its a case of; What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for, something you know nothing about in this case! Aha, more groundless accusations "M'lud and members of the jury Im a policeman and so when I lie to you its the truth" Where do i encourage any circumnavigating of the rules? You have obviously seen that because if you didnt you would be lying so where did you see this? Lastlaugh,,.

8:48pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Scribus says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Mark Willmore wrote:
How ashamed I am to say that I live in Thorpe Bay and have done so for 47 years. It is a pleasant place to live but nothing special and as for the people here, well they think they're special and better than others, but no one is, we are all the same.
What right do these councillors have to make comments about Mr Goldsworthy turning in his grave ? Have you seen some of the "tacky look at my flash trash tasteless pillars" at properties in Thorpe bay. Where were the planning committee when many of these properties were approved ?
We live in the middle of "goldsworthy land", we like the houses but more important than bricks and mortar are people........people matter.
Reece, his sister and father have been through a dreadful time, most of us thankfully and hopefully will never know such suffering.
As for those ignorant people who think financial compensation is true compensation for loss or injury are more stupid and heartless than their comment portray .
As for parking in Thorpe hall close being an issue, what rubbish.
These councillors are meant to represent the residents of their Ward - well such a stance does not represent me or my family nor many people I've spoken to, so exactly whose interests are they representing ?
I look forward to the independent planning official investigating why the planning committee refused an application that it's own planning officers approved.
I wish Reece, his sister and father every success with the appeal and I and others would be more than willing to offer support if required. They should not be put through this by heartless, selfish, self important busy bodies who see Thorpe bay as something more than a place to live - I hope you feel ashamed, remember its people that matter nothing else.
Best wishes Reece and family, our thoughts are with you especially at this time of year, if only we lived in a place that truly believed in goodwill to all men.
brother can you spare some buscopan?
I see that your answer as to whose interests the councillors are representing has not been answered.
Well I guess they are representing all of us in this issue because they are maintaining the rules in the Council's development plan and also the recommendations contained in the appendix 4 guidlines to the Development plan. Without thes rules any are with housing risks becoming a shanty town.

So before you malign people who are doing their best to preserve what little architectural heritage the town has why don't you do some homework and find out why decisions have been made. As for investigating the Councillors decision you may find the planning officers are investigated for blatantly ignoring the development rules. Why don't you question the advisers to the Clarkes who suggested that a Goldsworthy bungalow requiring massive changes was appropriate for the needs of Reece Clarke. The extent of the changes always meant that they would be challenged and thus a delay to having the family together was inevitable. It is not rocket science. All the stuff I have mentioned is on the council website together with the plans for the bungalow in question. It is not about lack of sympathy for Reece Clarke it is about expecting the same rules to apply to this application as to all others and if a fit and healthy person had made the same application the result would be the same. You however, are supporting and encouraging people to break the rules in your rather ignorant remarks about an appeal. Or do you believe rules should only apply when it it suits you.
Now I think you should apologise for your comments.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark Willmore[/bold] wrote: How ashamed I am to say that I live in Thorpe Bay and have done so for 47 years. It is a pleasant place to live but nothing special and as for the people here, well they think they're special and better than others, but no one is, we are all the same. What right do these councillors have to make comments about Mr Goldsworthy turning in his grave ? Have you seen some of the "tacky look at my flash trash tasteless pillars" at properties in Thorpe bay. Where were the planning committee when many of these properties were approved ? We live in the middle of "goldsworthy land", we like the houses but more important than bricks and mortar are people........people matter. Reece, his sister and father have been through a dreadful time, most of us thankfully and hopefully will never know such suffering. As for those ignorant people who think financial compensation is true compensation for loss or injury are more stupid and heartless than their comment portray . As for parking in Thorpe hall close being an issue, what rubbish. These councillors are meant to represent the residents of their Ward - well such a stance does not represent me or my family nor many people I've spoken to, so exactly whose interests are they representing ? I look forward to the independent planning official investigating why the planning committee refused an application that it's own planning officers approved. I wish Reece, his sister and father every success with the appeal and I and others would be more than willing to offer support if required. They should not be put through this by heartless, selfish, self important busy bodies who see Thorpe bay as something more than a place to live - I hope you feel ashamed, remember its people that matter nothing else. Best wishes Reece and family, our thoughts are with you especially at this time of year, if only we lived in a place that truly believed in goodwill to all men.[/p][/quote]brother can you spare some buscopan?[/p][/quote]I see that your answer as to whose interests the councillors are representing has not been answered. Well I guess they are representing all of us in this issue because they are maintaining the rules in the Council's development plan and also the recommendations contained in the appendix 4 guidlines to the Development plan. Without thes rules any are with housing risks becoming a shanty town. So before you malign people who are doing their best to preserve what little architectural heritage the town has why don't you do some homework and find out why decisions have been made. As for investigating the Councillors decision you may find the planning officers are investigated for blatantly ignoring the development rules. Why don't you question the advisers to the Clarkes who suggested that a Goldsworthy bungalow requiring massive changes was appropriate for the needs of Reece Clarke. The extent of the changes always meant that they would be challenged and thus a delay to having the family together was inevitable. It is not rocket science. All the stuff I have mentioned is on the council website together with the plans for the bungalow in question. It is not about lack of sympathy for Reece Clarke it is about expecting the same rules to apply to this application as to all others and if a fit and healthy person had made the same application the result would be the same. You however, are supporting and encouraging people to break the rules in your rather ignorant remarks about an appeal. Or do you believe rules should only apply when it it suits you. Now I think you should apologise for your comments. Scribus

8:50pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Point-of-view says...

So I've read through all these comments in reply to article about a disabled young man and his family wanting to convert a property into a liveable home for them all.
It left me thinking a few things....
1)What exactly did the 100 people object to?? Does the proposed extension encroach their property? will it block their right to light? will it devalue the price of their own property??
2) All those harping on about the family trying to flout planning law...... Are they not entitled to buy a property and then apply to convert it (and to be allowed to appeal a decision)? People do this every day in this country...... the difference here is that Reece and his family are not doing this out of wanting to profit from it, they are doing this out of necessity.
3) If the 100 people don't want a bungalow extended/converted in their neighbourhood, what do they suggest the Clarke family do?? Go elsewhere? Leave Reece in rehab? neither of which seem ideal.

I do not know Reece, however if I found myself in his situation: A perfectly healthy young person permanently disabled coupled with recently loosing my mum, I would like to think that those in my community would say "How can we help?".
So I've read through all these comments in reply to article about a disabled young man and his family wanting to convert a property into a liveable home for them all. It left me thinking a few things.... 1)What exactly did the 100 people object to?? Does the proposed extension encroach their property? will it block their right to light? will it devalue the price of their own property?? 2) All those harping on about the family trying to flout planning law...... Are they not entitled to buy a property and then apply to convert it (and to be allowed to appeal a decision)? People do this every day in this country...... the difference here is that Reece and his family are not doing this out of wanting to profit from it, they are doing this out of necessity. 3) If the 100 people don't want a bungalow extended/converted in their neighbourhood, what do they suggest the Clarke family do?? Go elsewhere? Leave Reece in rehab? neither of which seem ideal. I do not know Reece, however if I found myself in his situation: A perfectly healthy young person permanently disabled coupled with recently loosing my mum, I would like to think that those in my community would say "How can we help?". Point-of-view

9:13pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.
Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans.
What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?

It has nothing to do with the boy, it is about planning laws - what you are able to do, or not do and stay within the rules.

Oh, I can see a vague connection.

Trust you to encourage someone to circumnavigate the rules simply because you don't like them.
"What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?"

Why shouldn't I? What's it to do with you? Do I need your permission?

You're not bullying people now using your uniform sad sack so dont try it with me!

I know as much about the matter as you do...perhaps a little more..so perhaps its a case of; What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for, something you know nothing about in this case!

Aha, more groundless accusations "M'lud and members of the jury Im a policeman and so when I lie to you its the truth"

Where do i encourage any circumnavigating of the rules? You have obviously seen that because if you didnt you would be lying so where did you see this?
Well I've read lots of your diatribes about a certain section of 'society' that likes to pitch up in a field and start living in it for starters.

You are so dense you must have a Newton rating.

'Don't try it with me !' Ooooh, get you, calm down dearie.

I also happen to know quite a bit about planning rules so I imagine I know a tad more than you on the subject. Like most things actually, save gypsies, caravans and the like. I'll grant you that.
[quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.[/p][/quote]Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans.[/p][/quote]What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for? It has nothing to do with the boy, it is about planning laws - what you are able to do, or not do and stay within the rules. Oh, I can see a vague connection. Trust you to encourage someone to circumnavigate the rules simply because you don't like them.[/p][/quote]"What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?" Why shouldn't I? What's it to do with you? Do I need your permission? You're not bullying people now using your uniform sad sack so dont try it with me! I know as much about the matter as you do...perhaps a little more..so perhaps its a case of; What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for, something you know nothing about in this case! Aha, more groundless accusations "M'lud and members of the jury Im a policeman and so when I lie to you its the truth" Where do i encourage any circumnavigating of the rules? You have obviously seen that because if you didnt you would be lying so where did you see this?[/p][/quote]Well I've read lots of your diatribes about a certain section of 'society' that likes to pitch up in a field and start living in it for starters. You are so dense you must have a Newton rating. 'Don't try it with me !' Ooooh, get you, calm down dearie. I also happen to know quite a bit about planning rules so I imagine I know a tad more than you on the subject. Like most things actually, save gypsies, caravans and the like. I'll grant you that. Rochford Rob

9:31pm Wed 18 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.
And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all!
the newspaper invites comments. do you feel your family should be able to circumvent the planning process?
Brother can you spare another Tesco?
i suspect even tesco and their oversized brown envelopes might struggle to get in to thorpe hall close. it would be quite entertaining watching the locals sweat over it though...
[quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.[/p][/quote]with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.[/p][/quote]And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all![/p][/quote]the newspaper invites comments. do you feel your family should be able to circumvent the planning process?[/p][/quote]Brother can you spare another Tesco?[/p][/quote]i suspect even tesco and their oversized brown envelopes might struggle to get in to thorpe hall close. it would be quite entertaining watching the locals sweat over it though... profondo asbo

10:19pm Wed 18 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs.

As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said:

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ).

And...

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built...

Someone actually voted for these people...

Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!!

Say "hello" to your Dad for me...
There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules.

Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.
You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.
You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.
Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc...

I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor.
Well I must ask you to make allowances for my limited mental capacity and in the meantime I think you should comment on the Advisers and I will just have to take my chances as to whether I can comprehend what you have to say. As you have said you could comment, this is your chance to put your comment where your mouth is. We are all waiting.
Before I comment further, seeing as you have such a low opinion of the paper ( even going as far as saying they can only get the date correct ) why on earth would you read and comment on an article in a paper which you don't like??

Anyway, the Advice thing. If you are specifically referring to the planning issue then with some tweaks to the plan I think they'll be allowed on appeal. The petition doesn't help - although for 100 people to sign it I think about half that figure would even be the slightest bit affected. The Father "may" have been poorly advised but he most certainly isn't stupid himself. I also severely doubt they'll be suing anyone regardless of what happens.

We can offer our opinions until we're blue in the face but let's see where we are in 3 months. I expect the Father has a Plan B ( and C etc )...
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs. As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said: “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ). And... Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built... Someone actually voted for these people... Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!! Say "hello" to your Dad for me...[/p][/quote]There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules. Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.[/p][/quote]You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.[/p][/quote]You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.[/p][/quote]Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc... I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor.[/p][/quote]Well I must ask you to make allowances for my limited mental capacity and in the meantime I think you should comment on the Advisers and I will just have to take my chances as to whether I can comprehend what you have to say. As you have said you could comment, this is your chance to put your comment where your mouth is. We are all waiting.[/p][/quote]Before I comment further, seeing as you have such a low opinion of the paper ( even going as far as saying they can only get the date correct ) why on earth would you read and comment on an article in a paper which you don't like?? Anyway, the Advice thing. If you are specifically referring to the planning issue then with some tweaks to the plan I think they'll be allowed on appeal. The petition doesn't help - although for 100 people to sign it I think about half that figure would even be the slightest bit affected. The Father "may" have been poorly advised but he most certainly isn't stupid himself. I also severely doubt they'll be suing anyone regardless of what happens. We can offer our opinions until we're blue in the face but let's see where we are in 3 months. I expect the Father has a Plan B ( and C etc )... BrainTumourMax

10:29pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Scribus says...

Point-of-view wrote:
So I've read through all these comments in reply to article about a disabled young man and his family wanting to convert a property into a liveable home for them all.
It left me thinking a few things....
1)What exactly did the 100 people object to?? Does the proposed extension encroach their property? will it block their right to light? will it devalue the price of their own property??
2) All those harping on about the family trying to flout planning law...... Are they not entitled to buy a property and then apply to convert it (and to be allowed to appeal a decision)? People do this every day in this country...... the difference here is that Reece and his family are not doing this out of wanting to profit from it, they are doing this out of necessity.
3) If the 100 people don't want a bungalow extended/converted in their neighbourhood, what do they suggest the Clarke family do?? Go elsewhere? Leave Reece in rehab? neither of which seem ideal.

I do not know Reece, however if I found myself in his situation: A perfectly healthy young person permanently disabled coupled with recently loosing my mum, I would like to think that those in my community would say "How can we help?".
If and it seems it is a big if, you have read all the comments you will surely understand the reasons for the application being refused. If an able bodied person had made the same application they would have been refused. Reece's disability has nothing to with it. Planning rules are impartial. Got it now?

They are allowed to appeal and no one has said they cannot. I dont why I bother really. Bloody well read it all again, only slowly this time and out loud if you must but do try and keep up.
[quote][p][bold]Point-of-view[/bold] wrote: So I've read through all these comments in reply to article about a disabled young man and his family wanting to convert a property into a liveable home for them all. It left me thinking a few things.... 1)What exactly did the 100 people object to?? Does the proposed extension encroach their property? will it block their right to light? will it devalue the price of their own property?? 2) All those harping on about the family trying to flout planning law...... Are they not entitled to buy a property and then apply to convert it (and to be allowed to appeal a decision)? People do this every day in this country...... the difference here is that Reece and his family are not doing this out of wanting to profit from it, they are doing this out of necessity. 3) If the 100 people don't want a bungalow extended/converted in their neighbourhood, what do they suggest the Clarke family do?? Go elsewhere? Leave Reece in rehab? neither of which seem ideal. I do not know Reece, however if I found myself in his situation: A perfectly healthy young person permanently disabled coupled with recently loosing my mum, I would like to think that those in my community would say "How can we help?".[/p][/quote]If and it seems it is a big if, you have read all the comments you will surely understand the reasons for the application being refused. If an able bodied person had made the same application they would have been refused. Reece's disability has nothing to with it. Planning rules are impartial. Got it now? They are allowed to appeal and no one has said they cannot. I dont why I bother really. Bloody well read it all again, only slowly this time and out loud if you must but do try and keep up. Scribus

10:50pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Scribus says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs.

As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said:

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ).

And...

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built...

Someone actually voted for these people...

Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!!

Say "hello" to your Dad for me...
There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules.

Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.
You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.
You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.
Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc...

I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor.
Well I must ask you to make allowances for my limited mental capacity and in the meantime I think you should comment on the Advisers and I will just have to take my chances as to whether I can comprehend what you have to say. As you have said you could comment, this is your chance to put your comment where your mouth is. We are all waiting.
Before I comment further, seeing as you have such a low opinion of the paper ( even going as far as saying they can only get the date correct ) why on earth would you read and comment on an article in a paper which you don't like??

Anyway, the Advice thing. If you are specifically referring to the planning issue then with some tweaks to the plan I think they'll be allowed on appeal. The petition doesn't help - although for 100 people to sign it I think about half that figure would even be the slightest bit affected. The Father "may" have been poorly advised but he most certainly isn't stupid himself. I also severely doubt they'll be suing anyone regardless of what happens.

We can offer our opinions until we're blue in the face but let's see where we are in 3 months. I expect the Father has a Plan B ( and C etc )...
1. I have not commented on the article but rther I have rtesponded to the posts from people that have been misled by the article.
2.They have tweaked the plan already.They withdrew the first plan as it made the property look like a jumbo jet.
3. What tweaks do you think they will make that will be acceptable.
4. They have to go to appeal with the design that was turned down.
5.How are you cognisant of the father's level of intelligence.
6. What maked you qualified to judge another persons intelligence.
7.I am pleased you acknowledge he may have been poorly advised.
8. Is it not time to encourage the family to wonder what they will do if the appeal, should they make one, is turned down.
If they appeal I do not know how long it will take but it is likely to be months rather than weeks and surely that time can be better spent sourcing another property that can be converted wothout breaching the planning
rules. They need a lot of square footage, much more than the bungalow has. The priority is a home for Reece as soon as possible and fighting the neighbours and the council may not achieve that objective any time soon.
They should consider selling the bungalow whilst making an appeal and looking around for an easier property such as a house which will take a double storey extension at the back to give the family the enlarged accommodation they need. I think your timescale of 3 months is optomistic.
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs. As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said: “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ). And... Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built... Someone actually voted for these people... Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!! Say "hello" to your Dad for me...[/p][/quote]There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules. Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.[/p][/quote]You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.[/p][/quote]You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.[/p][/quote]Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc... I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor.[/p][/quote]Well I must ask you to make allowances for my limited mental capacity and in the meantime I think you should comment on the Advisers and I will just have to take my chances as to whether I can comprehend what you have to say. As you have said you could comment, this is your chance to put your comment where your mouth is. We are all waiting.[/p][/quote]Before I comment further, seeing as you have such a low opinion of the paper ( even going as far as saying they can only get the date correct ) why on earth would you read and comment on an article in a paper which you don't like?? Anyway, the Advice thing. If you are specifically referring to the planning issue then with some tweaks to the plan I think they'll be allowed on appeal. The petition doesn't help - although for 100 people to sign it I think about half that figure would even be the slightest bit affected. The Father "may" have been poorly advised but he most certainly isn't stupid himself. I also severely doubt they'll be suing anyone regardless of what happens. We can offer our opinions until we're blue in the face but let's see where we are in 3 months. I expect the Father has a Plan B ( and C etc )...[/p][/quote]1. I have not commented on the article but rther I have rtesponded to the posts from people that have been misled by the article. 2.They have tweaked the plan already.They withdrew the first plan as it made the property look like a jumbo jet. 3. What tweaks do you think they will make that will be acceptable. 4. They have to go to appeal with the design that was turned down. 5.How are you cognisant of the father's level of intelligence. 6. What maked you qualified to judge another persons intelligence. 7.I am pleased you acknowledge he may have been poorly advised. 8. Is it not time to encourage the family to wonder what they will do if the appeal, should they make one, is turned down. If they appeal I do not know how long it will take but it is likely to be months rather than weeks and surely that time can be better spent sourcing another property that can be converted wothout breaching the planning rules. They need a lot of square footage, much more than the bungalow has. The priority is a home for Reece as soon as possible and fighting the neighbours and the council may not achieve that objective any time soon. They should consider selling the bungalow whilst making an appeal and looking around for an easier property such as a house which will take a double storey extension at the back to give the family the enlarged accommodation they need. I think your timescale of 3 months is optomistic. Scribus

10:56pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.
Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans.
What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?

It has nothing to do with the boy, it is about planning laws - what you are able to do, or not do and stay within the rules.

Oh, I can see a vague connection.

Trust you to encourage someone to circumnavigate the rules simply because you don't like them.
"What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?"

Why shouldn't I? What's it to do with you? Do I need your permission?

You're not bullying people now using your uniform sad sack so dont try it with me!

I know as much about the matter as you do...perhaps a little more..so perhaps its a case of; What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for, something you know nothing about in this case!

Aha, more groundless accusations "M'lud and members of the jury Im a policeman and so when I lie to you its the truth"

Where do i encourage any circumnavigating of the rules? You have obviously seen that because if you didnt you would be lying so where did you see this?
Well I've read lots of your diatribes about a certain section of 'society' that likes to pitch up in a field and start living in it for starters.

You are so dense you must have a Newton rating.

'Don't try it with me !' Ooooh, get you, calm down dearie.

I also happen to know quite a bit about planning rules so I imagine I know a tad more than you on the subject. Like most things actually, save gypsies, caravans and the like. I'll grant you that.
Oh look someone beat me to voting you down...drat...what's happening to the forum..

Im not sure you know anything about anything being so bitter about everything..

So the question was and is..where do I suggest that the family "circumnavigate the rules"?

You did make that accusation didnt you? Or have you forgotten?

Can you point out where I did this or is this more of your err..umm..lets be polite and say misunderstandings...
of which you have been caught out in so many you must use your nose to type without bending your neck..Ex PC Pinocchio
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: We chose to move back to thorpe bay with Reece because it is close for both his family and friends so he can have a normal life as possible.[/p][/quote]Sister, dont bother trying to explain anything to those who have no empathy...they are soulless..There are people on here who hope it works out the way you want it...a lot dont post because they know the Echo hate-mongers will set about them...evil pack of forum curs..ignore them and keep on keeping on with your plans.[/p][/quote]What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for? It has nothing to do with the boy, it is about planning laws - what you are able to do, or not do and stay within the rules. Oh, I can see a vague connection. Trust you to encourage someone to circumnavigate the rules simply because you don't like them.[/p][/quote]"What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for?" Why shouldn't I? What's it to do with you? Do I need your permission? You're not bullying people now using your uniform sad sack so dont try it with me! I know as much about the matter as you do...perhaps a little more..so perhaps its a case of; What are you getting involved in a debate about planning for, something you know nothing about in this case! Aha, more groundless accusations "M'lud and members of the jury Im a policeman and so when I lie to you its the truth" Where do i encourage any circumnavigating of the rules? You have obviously seen that because if you didnt you would be lying so where did you see this?[/p][/quote]Well I've read lots of your diatribes about a certain section of 'society' that likes to pitch up in a field and start living in it for starters. You are so dense you must have a Newton rating. 'Don't try it with me !' Ooooh, get you, calm down dearie. I also happen to know quite a bit about planning rules so I imagine I know a tad more than you on the subject. Like most things actually, save gypsies, caravans and the like. I'll grant you that.[/p][/quote]Oh look someone beat me to voting you down...drat...what's happening to the forum.. Im not sure you know anything about anything being so bitter about everything.. So the question was and is..where do I suggest that the family "circumnavigate the rules"? You did make that accusation didnt you? Or have you forgotten? Can you point out where I did this or is this more of your err..umm..lets be polite and say misunderstandings... of which you have been caught out in so many you must use your nose to type without bending your neck..Ex PC Pinocchio Lastlaugh,,.

10:58pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Chelsie.clarke wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.
you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?
I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.
with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.
And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all!
the newspaper invites comments. do you feel your family should be able to circumvent the planning process?
Brother can you spare another Tesco?
i suspect even tesco and their oversized brown envelopes might struggle to get in to thorpe hall close. it would be quite entertaining watching the locals sweat over it though...
Or better still an Netto
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chelsie.clarke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]It sounds like it's his family home, and he naturally wants to return to it. I have visited other EU countries where tree-lined, tucked out of the way posh cul de sacs and other private streets have family-owned tyre fitters and car repair workshops literally slap bang next door to stunning detached houses with prices easily matching Thorpe Bay's any day of the week, and no one bats an eyelid and their bubbled up loose credit house prices still remain intact, oh bless. This is an embarrassing case of blinkered NIMBYism and makes me ashamed to be a local, frankly.[/p][/quote]you carry on being ashamed. it is not his family home. the headline is a shameless piece of PR fed to the echo by the applicant's father that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. did you even bother to read the article?[/p][/quote]I will inform you now whatever the headlines are are not down to us. Oh yh btw I'm Reece's sister and one of his main carers along with my dad! My dad in no way has been feeding headlines to the echo for PR. Ur the shallow one if you think that. IF YOU DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH YOU DONT, DONT ANSWER! Simple as for the **** that's coming out of ur mouth. Me and my dad are continuing the fight to get my brother home that my mum started from the day he had his accident.[/p][/quote]with the greatest of respect your family are not above the planning laws regardless of family situation. if you go public you should expect free comment. if you don't like it don't read it.[/p][/quote]And if you have nothing good to say don't talk at all. We knew we'd have comments from ignorant people like you but if you don't know the full story and every little detail about everything then it's pointless commenting isn't it because you know jack all![/p][/quote]the newspaper invites comments. do you feel your family should be able to circumvent the planning process?[/p][/quote]Brother can you spare another Tesco?[/p][/quote]i suspect even tesco and their oversized brown envelopes might struggle to get in to thorpe hall close. it would be quite entertaining watching the locals sweat over it though...[/p][/quote]Or better still an Netto Lastlaugh,,.

2:07am Thu 19 Dec 13

essex bad boy says...

Loosers wrote:
Burges Estate residents for the most part want to preserve the appearance of the neighbourhood which has a large number of bungalows.

If you want, or need, a two story dwelling then you should buy a house and not expect to change a bungalow into a house.

For anybody with special needs, I would have thought a one level property would be preferable, not the other way around.
This is correct, no disrespect why buy such an inappropriate property in the first place? all on one level was the right thing, why the need for a 2nd floor? I live in a one level property with wide sweeping views of the whole of the estuary, far better than those of THORPE BAY, at just £100-00 per week.

If you appeal a government inspector will view and agree with the council, A carer only needs one room, Severe head injuries are traumatic for the patient and family, Has Headway been asked to assist him? Most bungalows are adapted for use for the infirm old or disabled,

Before you all jump down my throat I too have a severe brain injury and know EXACTLY what he is going through, so please just a little compassion, I see both sides of the argument but..... until any of you actually know from EXPERIENCE like me you have NO idea what it is like to have this type of injury. In defence of the decision it has to be in whatever the word is for the area, a poor choice but a choice, I wish him well and if the family wish to get some support then I will offer what I HAVE gained FROM the last few years. Good luck take it very slow and a very Happy Xmas....
[quote][p][bold]Loosers[/bold] wrote: Burges Estate residents for the most part want to preserve the appearance of the neighbourhood which has a large number of bungalows. If you want, or need, a two story dwelling then you should buy a house and not expect to change a bungalow into a house. For anybody with special needs, I would have thought a one level property would be preferable, not the other way around.[/p][/quote]This is correct, no disrespect why buy such an inappropriate property in the first place? all on one level was the right thing, why the need for a 2nd floor? I live in a one level property with wide sweeping views of the whole of the estuary, far better than those of THORPE BAY, at just £100-00 per week. If you appeal a government inspector will view and agree with the council, A carer only needs one room, Severe head injuries are traumatic for the patient and family, Has Headway been asked to assist him? Most bungalows are adapted for use for the infirm old or disabled, Before you all jump down my throat I too have a severe brain injury and know EXACTLY what he is going through, so please just a little compassion, I see both sides of the argument but..... until any of you actually know from EXPERIENCE like me you have NO idea what it is like to have this type of injury. In defence of the decision it has to be in whatever the word is for the area, a poor choice but a choice, I wish him well and if the family wish to get some support then I will offer what I HAVE gained FROM the last few years. Good luck take it very slow and a very Happy Xmas.... essex bad boy

8:06am Thu 19 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

Denser than a 24 kN/m3 concrete block wrote:

So the question was and is..where do I suggest that the family "circumnavigate the rules"?

You did make that accusation didnt you? Or have you forgotten?

(There's an apostrophe in didn't you 'tard)

I didn't say THIS family in particular your dummy, I meant in general. After all, your entire raison d'etre is defending the indefensible and then spouting rubbish on here about it.

Go away and have a little think. Actually, just go away - after all your are very fond of travelling and travellers - try some. This thread is about normal people, bricks and mortar.

And rules. You know, those things you and your type don't like.
Denser than a 24 kN/m3 concrete block wrote: So the question was and is..where do I suggest that the family "circumnavigate the rules"? You did make that accusation didnt you? Or have you forgotten? (There's an apostrophe in didn't you 'tard) I didn't say THIS family in particular your dummy, I meant in general. After all, your entire raison d'etre is defending the indefensible and then spouting rubbish on here about it. Go away and have a little think. Actually, just go away - after all your are very fond of travelling and travellers - try some. This thread is about normal people, bricks and mortar. And rules. You know, those things you and your type don't like. Rochford Rob

12:28pm Thu 19 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs.

As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said:

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ).

And...

Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows.

Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built...

Someone actually voted for these people...

Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!!

Say "hello" to your Dad for me...
There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules.

Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.
You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.
You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.
Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc...

I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor.
Well I must ask you to make allowances for my limited mental capacity and in the meantime I think you should comment on the Advisers and I will just have to take my chances as to whether I can comprehend what you have to say. As you have said you could comment, this is your chance to put your comment where your mouth is. We are all waiting.
Before I comment further, seeing as you have such a low opinion of the paper ( even going as far as saying they can only get the date correct ) why on earth would you read and comment on an article in a paper which you don't like??

Anyway, the Advice thing. If you are specifically referring to the planning issue then with some tweaks to the plan I think they'll be allowed on appeal. The petition doesn't help - although for 100 people to sign it I think about half that figure would even be the slightest bit affected. The Father "may" have been poorly advised but he most certainly isn't stupid himself. I also severely doubt they'll be suing anyone regardless of what happens.

We can offer our opinions until we're blue in the face but let's see where we are in 3 months. I expect the Father has a Plan B ( and C etc )...
1. I have not commented on the article but rther I have rtesponded to the posts from people that have been misled by the article.
2.They have tweaked the plan already.They withdrew the first plan as it made the property look like a jumbo jet.
3. What tweaks do you think they will make that will be acceptable.
4. They have to go to appeal with the design that was turned down.
5.How are you cognisant of the father's level of intelligence.
6. What maked you qualified to judge another persons intelligence.
7.I am pleased you acknowledge he may have been poorly advised.
8. Is it not time to encourage the family to wonder what they will do if the appeal, should they make one, is turned down.
If they appeal I do not know how long it will take but it is likely to be months rather than weeks and surely that time can be better spent sourcing another property that can be converted wothout breaching the planning
rules. They need a lot of square footage, much more than the bungalow has. The priority is a home for Reece as soon as possible and fighting the neighbours and the council may not achieve that objective any time soon.
They should consider selling the bungalow whilst making an appeal and looking around for an easier property such as a house which will take a double storey extension at the back to give the family the enlarged accommodation they need. I think your timescale of 3 months is optomistic.
Actually I don't disagree with a lot of points you've made although you may be splitting hairs with your first point. Since you said "The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right" I'm suprised you look at their comments or anything else to do with them.

Anyway, I'm sure the thought has crossed their mind that they could loose the appeal. 3 months might well be optimistic especially if the process gets caught up in red tape. They may decide they don't like the neighbours etc.

I don't have any formal qualifications but I have met Mr Clarke on numerous occasions. It's just my opinion but think he is anyone's fool. He probably has a contingency plan in place if it all goes wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Well said Chelsie. The original article makes it quite clear that there is an extension on the front and that work has already been done upstairs. As for Ron Woodley, Independent councillor who said: “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” What an idiot. It should be clear Reece needs the living room,bathroom, bedroom etc on the ground floor - which would rule out a lot of houses ( at least without extensive work ). And... Fay Evans, Conservative councillor for Belfairs, said: “These are Goldsworthy bungalows. Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” What a snob. I wonder if Mr Goldsworthy was "spinning in his grave" when the front extension and the room upstairs was built... Someone actually voted for these people... Lastly, I wonder how many people would actually be affected by the planned work?? Certainly not 100!!! Say "hello" to your Dad for me...[/p][/quote]There is no extension on the front of the bungalow, never has been and never will be under the council development plan and no, repeat no work has been done upstairs. It is a storage room. Stop making things uo you idiot. No one has said they have it in for Reece so why do you people jump on the emotional bandwagon and refuse to understand that it was a planning decision because the alterations to enlarge the building were outside the rules. Just who is advising the Clarks? They are in this horrible position because of poor advice. Did someone tell them they could change a building just like that? Why don't you spit your dummy out at the advisers who should have known better. If I were the Clarks I would consider suing them for the cost of all this. They are using the Clarks, just as the newspaper has done.[/p][/quote]You are the idiot. I was directly quoting the article in the Echo. It's ill informed morons like you that create problems.[/p][/quote]You really are thick! It is believing what the Echo says that causes the problem you Neanderthal. The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right; and you wonderbrain are so gullible you swallow it all. Do you have any comment to make on the advice the Clarks are getting or is that too difficult for you because it is not in the paper and requires a bit of original thought.[/p][/quote]Are your Mum and Dad in fact Brother and Sister?? It certainly would explain you. You are so naive it's actually almost funny. I've got a "storage room" downstairs. It's where I "store" the fridge/freezer, cooker etc... I could comment on the Advice thing but I doubt you'd understand due to your obvious limited mental capacity. In the meantime you should go back to your dribbling on the floor.[/p][/quote]Well I must ask you to make allowances for my limited mental capacity and in the meantime I think you should comment on the Advisers and I will just have to take my chances as to whether I can comprehend what you have to say. As you have said you could comment, this is your chance to put your comment where your mouth is. We are all waiting.[/p][/quote]Before I comment further, seeing as you have such a low opinion of the paper ( even going as far as saying they can only get the date correct ) why on earth would you read and comment on an article in a paper which you don't like?? Anyway, the Advice thing. If you are specifically referring to the planning issue then with some tweaks to the plan I think they'll be allowed on appeal. The petition doesn't help - although for 100 people to sign it I think about half that figure would even be the slightest bit affected. The Father "may" have been poorly advised but he most certainly isn't stupid himself. I also severely doubt they'll be suing anyone regardless of what happens. We can offer our opinions until we're blue in the face but let's see where we are in 3 months. I expect the Father has a Plan B ( and C etc )...[/p][/quote]1. I have not commented on the article but rther I have rtesponded to the posts from people that have been misled by the article. 2.They have tweaked the plan already.They withdrew the first plan as it made the property look like a jumbo jet. 3. What tweaks do you think they will make that will be acceptable. 4. They have to go to appeal with the design that was turned down. 5.How are you cognisant of the father's level of intelligence. 6. What maked you qualified to judge another persons intelligence. 7.I am pleased you acknowledge he may have been poorly advised. 8. Is it not time to encourage the family to wonder what they will do if the appeal, should they make one, is turned down. If they appeal I do not know how long it will take but it is likely to be months rather than weeks and surely that time can be better spent sourcing another property that can be converted wothout breaching the planning rules. They need a lot of square footage, much more than the bungalow has. The priority is a home for Reece as soon as possible and fighting the neighbours and the council may not achieve that objective any time soon. They should consider selling the bungalow whilst making an appeal and looking around for an easier property such as a house which will take a double storey extension at the back to give the family the enlarged accommodation they need. I think your timescale of 3 months is optomistic.[/p][/quote]Actually I don't disagree with a lot of points you've made although you may be splitting hairs with your first point. Since you said "The paper gets the date correct and that's about all they do get right" I'm suprised you look at their comments or anything else to do with them. Anyway, I'm sure the thought has crossed their mind that they could loose the appeal. 3 months might well be optimistic especially if the process gets caught up in red tape. They may decide they don't like the neighbours etc. I don't have any formal qualifications but I have met Mr Clarke on numerous occasions. It's just my opinion but think he is anyone's fool. He probably has a contingency plan in place if it all goes wrong. BrainTumourMax

2:01pm Thu 19 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Obviously I meant that "I don't think Mr Clarke is anybody's fool" in my last post...
Obviously I meant that "I don't think Mr Clarke is anybody's fool" in my last post... BrainTumourMax

3:10pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
Denser than a 24 kN/m3 concrete block wrote:

So the question was and is..where do I suggest that the family "circumnavigate the rules"?

You did make that accusation didnt you? Or have you forgotten?

(There's an apostrophe in didn't you 'tard)

I didn't say THIS family in particular your dummy, I meant in general. After all, your entire raison d'etre is defending the indefensible and then spouting rubbish on here about it.

Go away and have a little think. Actually, just go away - after all your are very fond of travelling and travellers - try some. This thread is about normal people, bricks and mortar.

And rules. You know, those things you and your type don't like.
It would seem while some are for planning permission and some against and some on the sidelines cosmirationg with the family there are others like you rubbing your hands together at the distress of a young boy ( for thats what he is) and his family...its you who needs to go away and consider your humanity..

You denigrate whole communities, post hateful comments against people with mental issues saying you would mock those in a institute and now this hate by you on a thread about this unfortunate family...go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings..
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Denser than a 24 kN/m3 concrete block wrote: So the question was and is..where do I suggest that the family "circumnavigate the rules"? You did make that accusation didnt you? Or have you forgotten? (There's an apostrophe in didn't you 'tard) I didn't say THIS family in particular your dummy, I meant in general. After all, your entire raison d'etre is defending the indefensible and then spouting rubbish on here about it. Go away and have a little think. Actually, just go away - after all your are very fond of travelling and travellers - try some. This thread is about normal people, bricks and mortar. And rules. You know, those things you and your type don't like.[/p][/quote]It would seem while some are for planning permission and some against and some on the sidelines cosmirationg with the family there are others like you rubbing your hands together at the distress of a young boy ( for thats what he is) and his family...its you who needs to go away and consider your humanity.. You denigrate whole communities, post hateful comments against people with mental issues saying you would mock those in a institute and now this hate by you on a thread about this unfortunate family...go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings.. Lastlaugh,,.

3:13pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Denser than a 24 kN/m3 concrete block wrote:

So the question was and is..where do I suggest that the family "circumnavigate the rules"?

You did make that accusation didnt you? Or have you forgotten?

(There's an apostrophe in didn't you 'tard)

I didn't say THIS family in particular your dummy, I meant in general. After all, your entire raison d'etre is defending the indefensible and then spouting rubbish on here about it.

Go away and have a little think. Actually, just go away - after all your are very fond of travelling and travellers - try some. This thread is about normal people, bricks and mortar.

And rules. You know, those things you and your type don't like.
It would seem while some are for planning permission and some against and some on the sidelines cosmirationg with the family there are others like you rubbing your hands together at the distress of a young boy ( for thats what he is) and his family...its you who needs to go away and consider your humanity..

You denigrate whole communities, post hateful comments against people with mental issues saying you would mock those in a institute and now this hate by you on a thread about this unfortunate family...go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings..
*commiserating*

Edited in case the pedantic (ex-Booby) has a heart attack via the error.
[quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Denser than a 24 kN/m3 concrete block wrote: So the question was and is..where do I suggest that the family "circumnavigate the rules"? You did make that accusation didnt you? Or have you forgotten? (There's an apostrophe in didn't you 'tard) I didn't say THIS family in particular your dummy, I meant in general. After all, your entire raison d'etre is defending the indefensible and then spouting rubbish on here about it. Go away and have a little think. Actually, just go away - after all your are very fond of travelling and travellers - try some. This thread is about normal people, bricks and mortar. And rules. You know, those things you and your type don't like.[/p][/quote]It would seem while some are for planning permission and some against and some on the sidelines cosmirationg with the family there are others like you rubbing your hands together at the distress of a young boy ( for thats what he is) and his family...its you who needs to go away and consider your humanity.. You denigrate whole communities, post hateful comments against people with mental issues saying you would mock those in a institute and now this hate by you on a thread about this unfortunate family...go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings..[/p][/quote]*commiserating* Edited in case the pedantic (ex-Booby) has a heart attack via the error. Lastlaugh,,.

4:23pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

Produce one single post where I have denigrated this unfortunate family. You can't. You mendacious moron you.

I should demand an apology but since it's you, hell would freeze over first.

All of my comments have been with regard to the planning process or my usual barbs at you, the forum village idiot.

Now put up or shut up you mentally feeble fantasist.

And L I A R.

BTW pedantry usually relates to typos. I pick up on your grammatical, spelling and syntax errors. You allude to being some sort of smart @rse whereas you are just an ill educated idiot.

Your posts prove this every time.

Again, produce a post or quote me making any derogatory remarks toward THIS FAMILY, in this THREAD.

You muppet.
Produce one single post where I have denigrated this unfortunate family. You can't. You mendacious moron you. I should demand an apology but since it's you, hell would freeze over first. All of my comments have been with regard to the planning process or my usual barbs at you, the forum village idiot. Now put up or shut up you mentally feeble fantasist. And L I A R. BTW pedantry usually relates to typos. I pick up on your grammatical, spelling and syntax errors. You allude to being some sort of smart @rse whereas you are just an ill educated idiot. Your posts prove this every time. Again, produce a post or quote me making any derogatory remarks toward THIS FAMILY, in this THREAD. You muppet. Rochford Rob

4:49pm Thu 19 Dec 13

runwellian says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care.

Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care. Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live! runwellian

4:49pm Thu 19 Dec 13

runwellian says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care.

Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care. Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live! runwellian

4:49pm Thu 19 Dec 13

runwellian says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care.

Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care. Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live! runwellian

5:13pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
Produce one single post where I have denigrated this unfortunate family. You can't. You mendacious moron you.

I should demand an apology but since it's you, hell would freeze over first.

All of my comments have been with regard to the planning process or my usual barbs at you, the forum village idiot.

Now put up or shut up you mentally feeble fantasist.

And L I A R.

BTW pedantry usually relates to typos. I pick up on your grammatical, spelling and syntax errors. You allude to being some sort of smart @rse whereas you are just an ill educated idiot.

Your posts prove this every time.

Again, produce a post or quote me making any derogatory remarks toward THIS FAMILY, in this THREAD.

You muppet.
Did I state you denigrated this family?

Beyond reading the posts do you actually understand what you are reading?

It would seem not...Which begs the question why would anyone consider a comment from you on the matter or any matter?

You accuse people of being mendacious when you have failed to understand what you have read!

So you use a thread(s) to post barbs at a poster you feel is mentally restricted?

Why?

Does a disability allow you to do this because it is a disabilty?

You admit to discriminating against a poster you deem to be mentally unstable on a thread about a young man with a physical disability?

Is there no depth you wouldn't sink to?

"BTW pedantry usually relates to typos"

Does it indeed? "usually" Isn't always, is it? So you defeat your own point...oh dear!

You believe someone posting comments with " grammatical, spelling and syntax errors" should be labelled "mentally feeble"?

I again admonish you for your crassness and again advise you " go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings.."

You have hi-jacked this thread long enough with your hate!
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Produce one single post where I have denigrated this unfortunate family. You can't. You mendacious moron you. I should demand an apology but since it's you, hell would freeze over first. All of my comments have been with regard to the planning process or my usual barbs at you, the forum village idiot. Now put up or shut up you mentally feeble fantasist. And L I A R. BTW pedantry usually relates to typos. I pick up on your grammatical, spelling and syntax errors. You allude to being some sort of smart @rse whereas you are just an ill educated idiot. Your posts prove this every time. Again, produce a post or quote me making any derogatory remarks toward THIS FAMILY, in this THREAD. You muppet.[/p][/quote]Did I state you denigrated this family? Beyond reading the posts do you actually understand what you are reading? It would seem not...Which begs the question why would anyone consider a comment from you on the matter or any matter? You accuse people of being mendacious when you have failed to understand what you have read! So you use a thread(s) to post barbs at a poster you feel is mentally restricted? Why? Does a disability allow you to do this because it is a disabilty? You admit to discriminating against a poster you deem to be mentally unstable on a thread about a young man with a physical disability? Is there no depth you wouldn't sink to? "BTW pedantry usually relates to typos" Does it indeed? "usually" Isn't always, is it? So you defeat your own point...oh dear! You believe someone posting comments with " grammatical, spelling and syntax errors" should be labelled "mentally feeble"? I again admonish you for your crassness and again advise you " go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings.." You have hi-jacked this thread long enough with your hate! Lastlaugh,,.

5:15pm Thu 19 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
[quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal... BrainTumourMax

5:15pm Thu 19 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
[quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal... BrainTumourMax

5:19pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

runwellian wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care.

Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live!
Well Mr Runwellian, there's not need to repeat yourself.

Now, if you read the article and comments, I think you might find that the boy's father bought the bungalow with compensation proceeds.

How he managed to do that BEFORE his son's accident, I'm not sure, but since you are an expert, kindly elucidate.

Oh, and whilst we're at it, geographically, that road falls within Bournes Green and not Thorpe Bay per sé. (According to someone I know who lives in TB)

Tellingly, not all the @rseholes of Essex live there, I know of one that appears to be in Runwell.
[quote][p][bold]runwellian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care. Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live![/p][/quote]Well Mr Runwellian, there's not need to repeat yourself. Now, if you read the article and comments, I think you might find that the boy's father bought the bungalow with compensation proceeds. How he managed to do that BEFORE his son's accident, I'm not sure, but since you are an expert, kindly elucidate. Oh, and whilst we're at it, geographically, that road falls within Bournes Green and not Thorpe Bay per sé. (According to someone I know who lives in TB) Tellingly, not all the @rseholes of Essex live there, I know of one that appears to be in Runwell. Rochford Rob

5:22pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Scribus says...

runwellian wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care.

Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live!
Oh Dear Runwellian
You are a first class wally.
Of course they bought the bungalow after the accident to their son. They have never lived in the Property.

I note you deem people who live in Thorpe Bay to be a lot of hieroglyphics but at least they can comprehend what is written on this subject. And of course they can afford to live there. In your prejudice, you are also calling the Clarkes nasty things as they wished to live in Thorpe Bay. Did you not realise you were slagging the family off? What a plonker.
[quote][p][bold]runwellian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care. Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live![/p][/quote]Oh Dear Runwellian You are a first class wally. Of course they bought the bungalow after the accident to their son. They have never lived in the Property. I note you deem people who live in Thorpe Bay to be a lot of hieroglyphics but at least they can comprehend what is written on this subject. And of course they can afford to live there. In your prejudice, you are also calling the Clarkes nasty things as they wished to live in Thorpe Bay. Did you not realise you were slagging the family off? What a plonker. Scribus

5:25pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Produce one single post where I have denigrated this unfortunate family. You can't. You mendacious moron you.

I should demand an apology but since it's you, hell would freeze over first.

All of my comments have been with regard to the planning process or my usual barbs at you, the forum village idiot.

Now put up or shut up you mentally feeble fantasist.

And L I A R.

BTW pedantry usually relates to typos. I pick up on your grammatical, spelling and syntax errors. You allude to being some sort of smart @rse whereas you are just an ill educated idiot.

Your posts prove this every time.

Again, produce a post or quote me making any derogatory remarks toward THIS FAMILY, in this THREAD.

You muppet.
Did I state you denigrated this family?

Beyond reading the posts do you actually understand what you are reading?

It would seem not...Which begs the question why would anyone consider a comment from you on the matter or any matter?

You accuse people of being mendacious when you have failed to understand what you have read!

So you use a thread(s) to post barbs at a poster you feel is mentally restricted?

Why?

Does a disability allow you to do this because it is a disabilty?

You admit to discriminating against a poster you deem to be mentally unstable on a thread about a young man with a physical disability?

Is there no depth you wouldn't sink to?

"BTW pedantry usually relates to typos"

Does it indeed? "usually" Isn't always, is it? So you defeat your own point...oh dear!

You believe someone posting comments with " grammatical, spelling and syntax errors" should be labelled "mentally feeble"?

I again admonish you for your crassness and again advise you " go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings.."

You have hi-jacked this thread long enough with your hate!
So, not a single quotation then. I thought not.

All made up in that tiny shrivelled walnut that serves as your brain.

LL Liar and Loser.

You try and link any comments I make about you, to this unfortunate young man, how sad and desperate that makes you.

You toss pot.

Your really are 'une branleur triste et fin de cloche enorme'
[quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Produce one single post where I have denigrated this unfortunate family. You can't. You mendacious moron you. I should demand an apology but since it's you, hell would freeze over first. All of my comments have been with regard to the planning process or my usual barbs at you, the forum village idiot. Now put up or shut up you mentally feeble fantasist. And L I A R. BTW pedantry usually relates to typos. I pick up on your grammatical, spelling and syntax errors. You allude to being some sort of smart @rse whereas you are just an ill educated idiot. Your posts prove this every time. Again, produce a post or quote me making any derogatory remarks toward THIS FAMILY, in this THREAD. You muppet.[/p][/quote]Did I state you denigrated this family? Beyond reading the posts do you actually understand what you are reading? It would seem not...Which begs the question why would anyone consider a comment from you on the matter or any matter? You accuse people of being mendacious when you have failed to understand what you have read! So you use a thread(s) to post barbs at a poster you feel is mentally restricted? Why? Does a disability allow you to do this because it is a disabilty? You admit to discriminating against a poster you deem to be mentally unstable on a thread about a young man with a physical disability? Is there no depth you wouldn't sink to? "BTW pedantry usually relates to typos" Does it indeed? "usually" Isn't always, is it? So you defeat your own point...oh dear! You believe someone posting comments with " grammatical, spelling and syntax errors" should be labelled "mentally feeble"? I again admonish you for your crassness and again advise you " go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings.." You have hi-jacked this thread long enough with your hate![/p][/quote]So, not a single quotation then. I thought not. All made up in that tiny shrivelled walnut that serves as your brain. LL Liar and Loser. You try and link any comments I make about you, to this unfortunate young man, how sad and desperate that makes you. You toss pot. Your really are 'une branleur triste et fin de cloche enorme' Rochford Rob

5:34pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Scribus says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate.

Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels.

You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property.
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...[/p][/quote]Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate. Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels. You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property. Scribus

5:40pm Thu 19 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

runwellian wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Leon__ wrote:
Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.
why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?
Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care.

Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live!
Are you saying that the Bungalow was bought before mid 2011??
[quote][p][bold]runwellian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Embarrassing, to say the least. And great shame on them if they know why those modifications need to be made and they oppose them. A materialistic and selfish society keen only to preserve bubbling property values above all else, no doubt.[/p][/quote]why buy a bungalow and convert it into a house?[/p][/quote]Because when they bought the bungalow they didn't have a disabled occupant in need of care. Thorpe |Bay where all the a$£e H£$%es of Essex live![/p][/quote]Are you saying that the Bungalow was bought before mid 2011?? BrainTumourMax

5:42pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Produce one single post where I have denigrated this unfortunate family. You can't. You mendacious moron you.

I should demand an apology but since it's you, hell would freeze over first.

All of my comments have been with regard to the planning process or my usual barbs at you, the forum village idiot.

Now put up or shut up you mentally feeble fantasist.

And L I A R.

BTW pedantry usually relates to typos. I pick up on your grammatical, spelling and syntax errors. You allude to being some sort of smart @rse whereas you are just an ill educated idiot.

Your posts prove this every time.

Again, produce a post or quote me making any derogatory remarks toward THIS FAMILY, in this THREAD.

You muppet.
Did I state you denigrated this family?

Beyond reading the posts do you actually understand what you are reading?

It would seem not...Which begs the question why would anyone consider a comment from you on the matter or any matter?

You accuse people of being mendacious when you have failed to understand what you have read!

So you use a thread(s) to post barbs at a poster you feel is mentally restricted?

Why?

Does a disability allow you to do this because it is a disabilty?

You admit to discriminating against a poster you deem to be mentally unstable on a thread about a young man with a physical disability?

Is there no depth you wouldn't sink to?

"BTW pedantry usually relates to typos"

Does it indeed? "usually" Isn't always, is it? So you defeat your own point...oh dear!

You believe someone posting comments with " grammatical, spelling and syntax errors" should be labelled "mentally feeble"?

I again admonish you for your crassness and again advise you " go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings.."

You have hi-jacked this thread long enough with your hate!
So, not a single quotation then. I thought not.

All made up in that tiny shrivelled walnut that serves as your brain.

LL Liar and Loser.

You try and link any comments I make about you, to this unfortunate young man, how sad and desperate that makes you.

You toss pot.

Your really are 'une branleur triste et fin de cloche enorme'
Your rancid posts in regards to what I state are on other threads...you have hi-jacked this one enough to spit your hate, as you clearly admit in your previous post, you then try pretend it is others doing that while inviting me to post off topic comments to disguise what you are doing!

Swearing in french is still swearing you fool..I hope some of the readers will report you for doing so...it seems to have become a habit with you as other threads can prove..

Again I advise you " go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings and keep your foul mouth to yourself...There will be women reading your gutter language..
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Produce one single post where I have denigrated this unfortunate family. You can't. You mendacious moron you. I should demand an apology but since it's you, hell would freeze over first. All of my comments have been with regard to the planning process or my usual barbs at you, the forum village idiot. Now put up or shut up you mentally feeble fantasist. And L I A R. BTW pedantry usually relates to typos. I pick up on your grammatical, spelling and syntax errors. You allude to being some sort of smart @rse whereas you are just an ill educated idiot. Your posts prove this every time. Again, produce a post or quote me making any derogatory remarks toward THIS FAMILY, in this THREAD. You muppet.[/p][/quote]Did I state you denigrated this family? Beyond reading the posts do you actually understand what you are reading? It would seem not...Which begs the question why would anyone consider a comment from you on the matter or any matter? You accuse people of being mendacious when you have failed to understand what you have read! So you use a thread(s) to post barbs at a poster you feel is mentally restricted? Why? Does a disability allow you to do this because it is a disabilty? You admit to discriminating against a poster you deem to be mentally unstable on a thread about a young man with a physical disability? Is there no depth you wouldn't sink to? "BTW pedantry usually relates to typos" Does it indeed? "usually" Isn't always, is it? So you defeat your own point...oh dear! You believe someone posting comments with " grammatical, spelling and syntax errors" should be labelled "mentally feeble"? I again admonish you for your crassness and again advise you " go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings.." You have hi-jacked this thread long enough with your hate![/p][/quote]So, not a single quotation then. I thought not. All made up in that tiny shrivelled walnut that serves as your brain. LL Liar and Loser. You try and link any comments I make about you, to this unfortunate young man, how sad and desperate that makes you. You toss pot. Your really are 'une branleur triste et fin de cloche enorme'[/p][/quote]Your rancid posts in regards to what I state are on other threads...you have hi-jacked this one enough to spit your hate, as you clearly admit in your previous post, you then try pretend it is others doing that while inviting me to post off topic comments to disguise what you are doing! Swearing in french is still swearing you fool..I hope some of the readers will report you for doing so...it seems to have become a habit with you as other threads can prove.. Again I advise you " go away and try learn some empathy for your fellow human beings and keep your foul mouth to yourself...There will be women reading your gutter language.. Lastlaugh,,.

5:51pm Thu 19 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate.

Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels.

You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property.
Emotive language?? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't know if the other Councillors made comments which didn't get in the paper or they recognised that it was better to say nothing. Some people will agree with them and some people won't. I suppose it would be a pretty boring World if everyone had the same opinion on everything.
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...[/p][/quote]Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate. Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels. You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property.[/p][/quote]Emotive language?? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't know if the other Councillors made comments which didn't get in the paper or they recognised that it was better to say nothing. Some people will agree with them and some people won't. I suppose it would be a pretty boring World if everyone had the same opinion on everything. BrainTumourMax

6:08pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Scribus says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate.

Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels.

You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property.
Emotive language?? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't know if the other Councillors made comments which didn't get in the paper or they recognised that it was better to say nothing. Some people will agree with them and some people won't. I suppose it would be a pretty boring World if everyone had the same opinion on everything.
You have hit on the problem of trusting what is in a paper. It cannot be a verbatim report but is censored by the journalist to fit the story. The Echo did not ask the neighbours for a comment. Not exactly balanced reporting that, is it. And using the words" brain damaged disabled kid" is emotive. You could have dignified him with his name!
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...[/p][/quote]Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate. Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels. You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property.[/p][/quote]Emotive language?? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't know if the other Councillors made comments which didn't get in the paper or they recognised that it was better to say nothing. Some people will agree with them and some people won't. I suppose it would be a pretty boring World if everyone had the same opinion on everything.[/p][/quote]You have hit on the problem of trusting what is in a paper. It cannot be a verbatim report but is censored by the journalist to fit the story. The Echo did not ask the neighbours for a comment. Not exactly balanced reporting that, is it. And using the words" brain damaged disabled kid" is emotive. You could have dignified him with his name! Scribus

6:51pm Thu 19 Dec 13

marie k robinson says...

im so sorry, i myself am disabled, and i have a 22 year old disabled daughter, im trying to see why on earth someone would buy a 3 bed bungalow, then try to turn it into a house, if this was not a family home to begin with, why not buy a 4 bed bungalow or a 3 bed with enough space to expand still on one level, if this person was not disabled would it even have made the news?
im so sorry, i myself am disabled, and i have a 22 year old disabled daughter, im trying to see why on earth someone would buy a 3 bed bungalow, then try to turn it into a house, if this was not a family home to begin with, why not buy a 4 bed bungalow or a 3 bed with enough space to expand still on one level, if this person was not disabled would it even have made the news? marie k robinson

7:10pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true.

Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you.

At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations.

The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure.

You just drag emotivism into it and stir.
Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true. Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you. At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations. The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure. You just drag emotivism into it and stir. Rochford Rob

7:18pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true.

Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you.

At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations.

The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure.

You just drag emotivism into it and stir.
Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true. Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you. At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations. The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure. You just drag emotivism into it and stir.[/p][/quote]Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language.. Lastlaugh,,.

7:42pm Thu 19 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true.

Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you.

At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations.

The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure.

You just drag emotivism into it and stir.
Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..
have you two considered a civil ceremony?
[quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true. Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you. At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations. The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure. You just drag emotivism into it and stir.[/p][/quote]Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..[/p][/quote]have you two considered a civil ceremony? profondo asbo

7:49pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Scribus says...

marie k robinson wrote:
im so sorry, i myself am disabled, and i have a 22 year old disabled daughter, im trying to see why on earth someone would buy a 3 bed bungalow, then try to turn it into a house, if this was not a family home to begin with, why not buy a 4 bed bungalow or a 3 bed with enough space to expand still on one level, if this person was not disabled would it even have made the news?
Marie, you spek absolute common sense. The bungalow according to the plans on the council website is actually two bedrooms with two receptions. The proposal was to change the accommodation into a flat for Reece Clarke downstairs and a flat upstairs for his carers. Both units completely self sufficient with their own kitchens and bathrooms.

The accommodation requirement is understandable and equally understandable are the reasons for refusal which the Architect should have foreseen.
[quote][p][bold]marie k robinson[/bold] wrote: im so sorry, i myself am disabled, and i have a 22 year old disabled daughter, im trying to see why on earth someone would buy a 3 bed bungalow, then try to turn it into a house, if this was not a family home to begin with, why not buy a 4 bed bungalow or a 3 bed with enough space to expand still on one level, if this person was not disabled would it even have made the news?[/p][/quote]Marie, you spek absolute common sense. The bungalow according to the plans on the council website is actually two bedrooms with two receptions. The proposal was to change the accommodation into a flat for Reece Clarke downstairs and a flat upstairs for his carers. Both units completely self sufficient with their own kitchens and bathrooms. The accommodation requirement is understandable and equally understandable are the reasons for refusal which the Architect should have foreseen. Scribus

7:55pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Scribus says...

marie k robinson wrote:
im so sorry, i myself am disabled, and i have a 22 year old disabled daughter, im trying to see why on earth someone would buy a 3 bed bungalow, then try to turn it into a house, if this was not a family home to begin with, why not buy a 4 bed bungalow or a 3 bed with enough space to expand still on one level, if this person was not disabled would it even have made the news?
Marie, you spek absolute common sense. The bungalow according to the plans on the council website is actually two bedrooms with two receptions. The proposal was to change the accommodation into a flat for Reece Clarke downstairs and a flat upstairs for his carers. Both units completely self sufficient with their own kitchens and bathrooms.

The accommodation requirement is understandable and equally understandable are the reasons for refusal which the Architect should have foreseen.
[quote][p][bold]marie k robinson[/bold] wrote: im so sorry, i myself am disabled, and i have a 22 year old disabled daughter, im trying to see why on earth someone would buy a 3 bed bungalow, then try to turn it into a house, if this was not a family home to begin with, why not buy a 4 bed bungalow or a 3 bed with enough space to expand still on one level, if this person was not disabled would it even have made the news?[/p][/quote]Marie, you spek absolute common sense. The bungalow according to the plans on the council website is actually two bedrooms with two receptions. The proposal was to change the accommodation into a flat for Reece Clarke downstairs and a flat upstairs for his carers. Both units completely self sufficient with their own kitchens and bathrooms. The accommodation requirement is understandable and equally understandable are the reasons for refusal which the Architect should have foreseen. Scribus

7:58pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Scribus says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true.

Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you.

At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations.

The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure.

You just drag emotivism into it and stir.
Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..
have you two considered a civil ceremony?
I don't know about civil, it seems like a normal marriage to me!
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true. Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you. At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations. The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure. You just drag emotivism into it and stir.[/p][/quote]Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..[/p][/quote]have you two considered a civil ceremony?[/p][/quote]I don't know about civil, it seems like a normal marriage to me! Scribus

8:00pm Thu 19 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate.

Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels.

You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property.
Emotive language?? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't know if the other Councillors made comments which didn't get in the paper or they recognised that it was better to say nothing. Some people will agree with them and some people won't. I suppose it would be a pretty boring World if everyone had the same opinion on everything.
You have hit on the problem of trusting what is in a paper. It cannot be a verbatim report but is censored by the journalist to fit the story. The Echo did not ask the neighbours for a comment. Not exactly balanced reporting that, is it. And using the words" brain damaged disabled kid" is emotive. You could have dignified him with his name!
There is bias wherever you look. The BBC is often said to had a left wing bias. If the Echo decided that they wanted to write the story so that it sounded like the Council ŵere being heartless then they aren't going to include anything which doesn't fit in with that.

I'll have to agree with you that particular phrasing was used to make a point.

I don't agree though that it was necessary or professional to say that "Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

I guess this is another example of people having differing opinions.

Finally, you probably already worked out that Mr Clarke does not get his advice from random people posting on a comments page - whether they are right or wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...[/p][/quote]Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate. Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels. You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property.[/p][/quote]Emotive language?? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't know if the other Councillors made comments which didn't get in the paper or they recognised that it was better to say nothing. Some people will agree with them and some people won't. I suppose it would be a pretty boring World if everyone had the same opinion on everything.[/p][/quote]You have hit on the problem of trusting what is in a paper. It cannot be a verbatim report but is censored by the journalist to fit the story. The Echo did not ask the neighbours for a comment. Not exactly balanced reporting that, is it. And using the words" brain damaged disabled kid" is emotive. You could have dignified him with his name![/p][/quote]There is bias wherever you look. The BBC is often said to had a left wing bias. If the Echo decided that they wanted to write the story so that it sounded like the Council ŵere being heartless then they aren't going to include anything which doesn't fit in with that. I'll have to agree with you that particular phrasing was used to make a point. I don't agree though that it was necessary or professional to say that "Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” I guess this is another example of people having differing opinions. Finally, you probably already worked out that Mr Clarke does not get his advice from random people posting on a comments page - whether they are right or wrong. BrainTumourMax

8:38pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Scribus says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate.

Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels.

You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property.
Emotive language?? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't know if the other Councillors made comments which didn't get in the paper or they recognised that it was better to say nothing. Some people will agree with them and some people won't. I suppose it would be a pretty boring World if everyone had the same opinion on everything.
You have hit on the problem of trusting what is in a paper. It cannot be a verbatim report but is censored by the journalist to fit the story. The Echo did not ask the neighbours for a comment. Not exactly balanced reporting that, is it. And using the words" brain damaged disabled kid" is emotive. You could have dignified him with his name!
There is bias wherever you look. The BBC is often said to had a left wing bias. If the Echo decided that they wanted to write the story so that it sounded like the Council ŵere being heartless then they aren't going to include anything which doesn't fit in with that.

I'll have to agree with you that particular phrasing was used to make a point.

I don't agree though that it was necessary or professional to say that "Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.”

I guess this is another example of people having differing opinions.

Finally, you probably already worked out that Mr Clarke does not get his advice from random people posting on a comments page - whether they are right or wrong.
Well maybe the Concillor was just making a point!
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...[/p][/quote]Why are you using emotive language again? The Councillors were being dispassionate, not uncaring. There is a difference. It is how professionals operate. Actually history informs us that good architecture is important on a number of levels. You have said you have met Mr Clarke previously. May I suggest you ask him to count to ten and consider if it is better to try to do a difficult thing and overturn the refusal or to achieve his laudable aim with a different property.[/p][/quote]Emotive language?? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't know if the other Councillors made comments which didn't get in the paper or they recognised that it was better to say nothing. Some people will agree with them and some people won't. I suppose it would be a pretty boring World if everyone had the same opinion on everything.[/p][/quote]You have hit on the problem of trusting what is in a paper. It cannot be a verbatim report but is censored by the journalist to fit the story. The Echo did not ask the neighbours for a comment. Not exactly balanced reporting that, is it. And using the words" brain damaged disabled kid" is emotive. You could have dignified him with his name![/p][/quote]There is bias wherever you look. The BBC is often said to had a left wing bias. If the Echo decided that they wanted to write the story so that it sounded like the Council ŵere being heartless then they aren't going to include anything which doesn't fit in with that. I'll have to agree with you that particular phrasing was used to make a point. I don't agree though that it was necessary or professional to say that "Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knewwhat was happening.” I guess this is another example of people having differing opinions. Finally, you probably already worked out that Mr Clarke does not get his advice from random people posting on a comments page - whether they are right or wrong.[/p][/quote]Well maybe the Concillor was just making a point! Scribus

8:40pm Thu 19 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Scribus wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true.

Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you.

At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations.

The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure.

You just drag emotivism into it and stir.
Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..
have you two considered a civil ceremony?
I don't know about civil, it seems like a normal marriage to me!
good point. definitely ringing a few bells over here at asbo towers.
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true. Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you. At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations. The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure. You just drag emotivism into it and stir.[/p][/quote]Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..[/p][/quote]have you two considered a civil ceremony?[/p][/quote]I don't know about civil, it seems like a normal marriage to me![/p][/quote]good point. definitely ringing a few bells over here at asbo towers. profondo asbo

10:23pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Scribus wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true.

Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you.

At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations.

The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure.

You just drag emotivism into it and stir.
Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..
have you two considered a civil ceremony?
I don't know about civil, it seems like a normal marriage to me!
good point. definitely ringing a few bells over here at asbo towers.
Ha ha ha, Bril. I think LL is spoken for though. Cuckolded by Shoebury Cyclist I think he's now involved with Ineverknewthat or whatever he's called.

Take no notice of my spat with the idiot, I've actually posted some valid points whereas he's just a busted flush and a broken record.

And a 'Branleur' as they say in France
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true. Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you. At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations. The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure. You just drag emotivism into it and stir.[/p][/quote]Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..[/p][/quote]have you two considered a civil ceremony?[/p][/quote]I don't know about civil, it seems like a normal marriage to me![/p][/quote]good point. definitely ringing a few bells over here at asbo towers.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha, Bril. I think LL is spoken for though. Cuckolded by Shoebury Cyclist I think he's now involved with Ineverknewthat or whatever he's called. Take no notice of my spat with the idiot, I've actually posted some valid points whereas he's just a busted flush and a broken record. And a 'Branleur' as they say in France Rochford Rob

12:54am Fri 20 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Scribus wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
Lastlaugh,,. wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true.

Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you.

At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations.

The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure.

You just drag emotivism into it and stir.
Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..
have you two considered a civil ceremony?
I don't know about civil, it seems like a normal marriage to me!
good point. definitely ringing a few bells over here at asbo towers.
Ha ha ha, Bril. I think LL is spoken for though. Cuckolded by Shoebury Cyclist I think he's now involved with Ineverknewthat or whatever he's called.

Take no notice of my spat with the idiot, I've actually posted some valid points whereas he's just a busted flush and a broken record.

And a 'Branleur' as they say in France
Oh dear..you are getting progressively bizarre!

Now you decide that posters are in relationships and only your points are valid!

And whoever you pick, their points are invalid..!

And yet still more swearing!

Do you feel foul language in a foreign language is not as bad as in English?

It must be quite clear to the admin that swearing and foul language is beyond the pale and you should be removed from the forum...if not why shouldn't others do exactly the same? (besides their morals to stop them, which of course didn't stop you)

Following your example, couldnt people post all sorts of abuse in foreign languages if you're allow to remain?
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lastlaugh,,.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Last Laugh. Do shut up and stop posting lies. I may swear at you in French but at least it's true. Hijack a thread? That's rich, coming from you. At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to bricks & mortar, ordinary law abiding people and planning rules and regulations. The last two posters have made more sense on this than you have, that's for sure. You just drag emotivism into it and stir.[/p][/quote]Go away from this thread...you have disgraced yourself enough with your hate and disgusting language..[/p][/quote]have you two considered a civil ceremony?[/p][/quote]I don't know about civil, it seems like a normal marriage to me![/p][/quote]good point. definitely ringing a few bells over here at asbo towers.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha, Bril. I think LL is spoken for though. Cuckolded by Shoebury Cyclist I think he's now involved with Ineverknewthat or whatever he's called. Take no notice of my spat with the idiot, I've actually posted some valid points whereas he's just a busted flush and a broken record. And a 'Branleur' as they say in France[/p][/quote]Oh dear..you are getting progressively bizarre! Now you decide that posters are in relationships and only your points are valid! And whoever you pick, their points are invalid..! And yet still more swearing! Do you feel foul language in a foreign language is not as bad as in English? It must be quite clear to the admin that swearing and foul language is beyond the pale and you should be removed from the forum...if not why shouldn't others do exactly the same? (besides their morals to stop them, which of course didn't stop you) Following your example, couldnt people post all sorts of abuse in foreign languages if you're allow to remain? Lastlaugh,,.

6:14am Fri 20 Dec 13

BarryTanner says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
Not sure why you've elected to tag my post with your missive. But in answer to some of your points.......nowhere did I say that Steve Clarke is attempting to profit from his son's unfortunate position. What is a matter of record is that it was Steve Clarke who was reported to have said in an article on this site when hawking tickets for an event to raise funds for his lad back in April 2013 that the interim payment that they had received was going to be used for a four bedroom property in Thorpe Bay which they intended to adapt for his son's needs. The fact that the family may have wanted to move subsequent to that after the sad and sudden demise of Steve Clarke's wife in October is only conjecture on your part and without sounding callous has little to do with the issues of this planning request. I'd concur with you that the comments that were made by some of the councillors were ill thought and, to be honest, ridiculous. But I stick by what I said originally that broadly Woodley got it right.
Nobody wishes the lad ill, it is not his fault that he's in the parlous condition that he is, the blame for that lies with the stupidity of the policeman that was driving the vehicle on the night of the accident, a fact confirmed at his trial, but that doesn't mean that the family, nor anybody else, should be allowed to circumvent the rules when submitting planning requests.
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...[/p][/quote]Not sure why you've elected to tag my post with your missive. But in answer to some of your points.......nowhere did I say that Steve Clarke is attempting to profit from his son's unfortunate position. What is a matter of record is that it was Steve Clarke who was reported to have said in an article on this site when hawking tickets for an event to raise funds for his lad back in April 2013 that the interim payment that they had received was going to be used for a four bedroom property in Thorpe Bay which they intended to adapt for his son's needs. The fact that the family may have wanted to move subsequent to that after the sad and sudden demise of Steve Clarke's wife in October is only conjecture on your part and without sounding callous has little to do with the issues of this planning request. I'd concur with you that the comments that were made by some of the councillors were ill thought and, to be honest, ridiculous. But I stick by what I said originally that broadly Woodley got it right. Nobody wishes the lad ill, it is not his fault that he's in the parlous condition that he is, the blame for that lies with the stupidity of the policeman that was driving the vehicle on the night of the accident, a fact confirmed at his trial, but that doesn't mean that the family, nor anybody else, should be allowed to circumvent the rules when submitting planning requests. BarryTanner

7:17am Fri 20 Dec 13

Leon__ says...

Take a drive down an upmarket area's street in a Polish city's suburb. You'll find almost every house is detached and to a different design for 90% of the street. Many of these homes with their fleets of brand new cars in the drive make Thorpe Bay houses look like council prefabs. And dotted along such streets are not just doctors' and accountants' brass signs but fast fit tyres being sold from converted integral garages, English schools with gawdy signs like cheap motels, pizza and dumpling restaurants with neons and delivery bikes. A far cry from mere essential conversions to help a disabled person, and yet still no one bats an eyelid as they get into their 2013 black BMW 4x4 or one of the many Porsches or Bentleys strewn on the road. Even after the property boom subsided, these houses still cost anything from 300,000 quid upwards, some far more. Only in the UK does property wealth come before everything else. If I were at all religious, which I am not, I'd say read the bible about your unsightly nimbyism. But instead I'll say to the I'm alright Jack 100, 'Get a grip for Pete's sake, can you not see yourselves and feel any shame?'
Take a drive down an upmarket area's street in a Polish city's suburb. You'll find almost every house is detached and to a different design for 90% of the street. Many of these homes with their fleets of brand new cars in the drive make Thorpe Bay houses look like council prefabs. And dotted along such streets are not just doctors' and accountants' brass signs but fast fit tyres being sold from converted integral garages, English schools with gawdy signs like cheap motels, pizza and dumpling restaurants with neons and delivery bikes. A far cry from mere essential conversions to help a disabled person, and yet still no one bats an eyelid as they get into their 2013 black BMW 4x4 or one of the many Porsches or Bentleys strewn on the road. Even after the property boom subsided, these houses still cost anything from 300,000 quid upwards, some far more. Only in the UK does property wealth come before everything else. If I were at all religious, which I am not, I'd say read the bible about your unsightly nimbyism. But instead I'll say to the I'm alright Jack 100, 'Get a grip for Pete's sake, can you not see yourselves and feel any shame?' Leon__

8:03am Fri 20 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

Leon__ wrote:
Take a drive down an upmarket area's street in a Polish city's suburb. You'll find almost every house is detached and to a different design for 90% of the street. Many of these homes with their fleets of brand new cars in the drive make Thorpe Bay houses look like council prefabs. And dotted along such streets are not just doctors' and accountants' brass signs but fast fit tyres being sold from converted integral garages, English schools with gawdy signs like cheap motels, pizza and dumpling restaurants with neons and delivery bikes. A far cry from mere essential conversions to help a disabled person, and yet still no one bats an eyelid as they get into their 2013 black BMW 4x4 or one of the many Porsches or Bentleys strewn on the road. Even after the property boom subsided, these houses still cost anything from 300,000 quid upwards, some far more. Only in the UK does property wealth come before everything else. If I were at all religious, which I am not, I'd say read the bible about your unsightly nimbyism. But instead I'll say to the I'm alright Jack 100, 'Get a grip for Pete's sake, can you not see yourselves and feel any shame?'
so in summary you don't espouse the virtues preached in the bible but you are telling us that we should. ok thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Take a drive down an upmarket area's street in a Polish city's suburb. You'll find almost every house is detached and to a different design for 90% of the street. Many of these homes with their fleets of brand new cars in the drive make Thorpe Bay houses look like council prefabs. And dotted along such streets are not just doctors' and accountants' brass signs but fast fit tyres being sold from converted integral garages, English schools with gawdy signs like cheap motels, pizza and dumpling restaurants with neons and delivery bikes. A far cry from mere essential conversions to help a disabled person, and yet still no one bats an eyelid as they get into their 2013 black BMW 4x4 or one of the many Porsches or Bentleys strewn on the road. Even after the property boom subsided, these houses still cost anything from 300,000 quid upwards, some far more. Only in the UK does property wealth come before everything else. If I were at all religious, which I am not, I'd say read the bible about your unsightly nimbyism. But instead I'll say to the I'm alright Jack 100, 'Get a grip for Pete's sake, can you not see yourselves and feel any shame?'[/p][/quote]so in summary you don't espouse the virtues preached in the bible but you are telling us that we should. ok thanks. profondo asbo

8:04am Fri 20 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

Yes Leon, riveting stuff, well I'm sure that most of Britain will look like Poland fairly soon given that we've been inundated with most of their population.

Until then we have to make do with the rules and regulations that we have already.

Read the headline of this piece - I'd hazard a guess and say it was made up - disgraceful journalism.

I don't for one minute think the general populace of this part of Southend (Bournes Green BTW) are so heartless towards this young man's plight. As I've stated before I'm unsure how they could be aware on the basis of a planning application.

What they APPEAR to objected to is an overdevelopment in a tiny cul-d-sac that would be completely out of character.

Which of course is an entirely different matter altogether - however not quite so sensational a story eh?
Yes Leon, riveting stuff, well I'm sure that most of Britain will look like Poland fairly soon given that we've been inundated with most of their population. Until then we have to make do with the rules and regulations that we have already. Read the headline of this piece - I'd hazard a guess and say it was made up - disgraceful journalism. I don't for one minute think the general populace of this part of Southend (Bournes Green BTW) are so heartless towards this young man's plight. As I've stated before I'm unsure how they could be aware on the basis of a planning application. What they APPEAR to objected to is an overdevelopment in a tiny cul-d-sac that would be completely out of character. Which of course is an entirely different matter altogether - however not quite so sensational a story eh? Rochford Rob

10:36am Fri 20 Dec 13

snowwhiteplus7 says...

Would the 100 objectors object to a granny annexe being built on this Thorpe Bay Close? It seems to me that this is a snobbery problem sadly a common theme when speaking about Thorpe Bay. Oh and a senior Southend Councillor would like to move to the cul de sac? As I say blatant snobbery
Would the 100 objectors object to a granny annexe being built on this Thorpe Bay Close? It seems to me that this is a snobbery problem sadly a common theme when speaking about Thorpe Bay. Oh and a senior Southend Councillor would like to move to the cul de sac? As I say blatant snobbery snowwhiteplus7

11:35am Fri 20 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

BarryTanner wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
Not sure why you've elected to tag my post with your missive. But in answer to some of your points.......nowhere did I say that Steve Clarke is attempting to profit from his son's unfortunate position. What is a matter of record is that it was Steve Clarke who was reported to have said in an article on this site when hawking tickets for an event to raise funds for his lad back in April 2013 that the interim payment that they had received was going to be used for a four bedroom property in Thorpe Bay which they intended to adapt for his son's needs. The fact that the family may have wanted to move subsequent to that after the sad and sudden demise of Steve Clarke's wife in October is only conjecture on your part and without sounding callous has little to do with the issues of this planning request. I'd concur with you that the comments that were made by some of the councillors were ill thought and, to be honest, ridiculous. But I stick by what I said originally that broadly Woodley got it right.
Nobody wishes the lad ill, it is not his fault that he's in the parlous condition that he is, the blame for that lies with the stupidity of the policeman that was driving the vehicle on the night of the accident, a fact confirmed at his trial, but that doesn't mean that the family, nor anybody else, should be allowed to circumvent the rules when submitting planning requests.
Sorry Barry. I never meant to imply you had said negative things about the Father. I actually quoted you post as it confirmed the location of the family home and that you agreed that the comments from the councillors weren't clever when it was a sensitive case.

I will endeavour to make my intensions clearer in future!!
[quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...[/p][/quote]Not sure why you've elected to tag my post with your missive. But in answer to some of your points.......nowhere did I say that Steve Clarke is attempting to profit from his son's unfortunate position. What is a matter of record is that it was Steve Clarke who was reported to have said in an article on this site when hawking tickets for an event to raise funds for his lad back in April 2013 that the interim payment that they had received was going to be used for a four bedroom property in Thorpe Bay which they intended to adapt for his son's needs. The fact that the family may have wanted to move subsequent to that after the sad and sudden demise of Steve Clarke's wife in October is only conjecture on your part and without sounding callous has little to do with the issues of this planning request. I'd concur with you that the comments that were made by some of the councillors were ill thought and, to be honest, ridiculous. But I stick by what I said originally that broadly Woodley got it right. Nobody wishes the lad ill, it is not his fault that he's in the parlous condition that he is, the blame for that lies with the stupidity of the policeman that was driving the vehicle on the night of the accident, a fact confirmed at his trial, but that doesn't mean that the family, nor anybody else, should be allowed to circumvent the rules when submitting planning requests.[/p][/quote]Sorry Barry. I never meant to imply you had said negative things about the Father. I actually quoted you post as it confirmed the location of the family home and that you agreed that the comments from the councillors weren't clever when it was a sensitive case. I will endeavour to make my intensions clearer in future!! BrainTumourMax

11:48am Fri 20 Dec 13

hayleyed says...

CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year
[quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year hayleyed

11:56am Fri 20 Dec 13

hayleyed says...

hayleyed wrote:
CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year
Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!!
[quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year[/p][/quote]Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!! hayleyed

11:57am Fri 20 Dec 13

hayleyed says...

hayleyed wrote:
hayleyed wrote:
CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year
Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!!
Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :)
[quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year[/p][/quote]Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!![/p][/quote]Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :) hayleyed

11:57am Fri 20 Dec 13

hayleyed says...

hayleyed wrote:
hayleyed wrote:
CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year
Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!!
Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :)
[quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year[/p][/quote]Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!![/p][/quote]Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :) hayleyed

11:57am Fri 20 Dec 13

hayleyed says...

hayleyed wrote:
hayleyed wrote:
CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year
Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!!
Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :)
[quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year[/p][/quote]Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!![/p][/quote]Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :) hayleyed

11:57am Fri 20 Dec 13

hayleyed says...

hayleyed wrote:
hayleyed wrote:
CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year
Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!!
Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :)
[quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year[/p][/quote]Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!![/p][/quote]Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :) hayleyed

11:57am Fri 20 Dec 13

hayleyed says...

hayleyed wrote:
hayleyed wrote:
CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year
Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!!
Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :)
[quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year[/p][/quote]Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!![/p][/quote]Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :) hayleyed

11:57am Fri 20 Dec 13

hayleyed says...

hayleyed wrote:
hayleyed wrote:
CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year
Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!!
Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :)
[quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year[/p][/quote]Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!![/p][/quote]Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :) hayleyed

11:57am Fri 20 Dec 13

hayleyed says...

hayleyed wrote:
hayleyed wrote:
CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.
I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year
Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!!
Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :)
[quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hayleyed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: Thorpe Bay ???? There is offically no such place as there is no post code its either Southend on Sea or Shoeburyness. if 100 neighbours object ther is more to this family than meets the eye.[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I've read on here!! One question if it was your child or partner what would you do?? And for the record Steve is not knocking down a bungalow to build a two storey house!! He just wants an extension on the back of the property so that the 24hr carers have somewhere to stay and look after Reece. A few properties already have some kind of extension on their properties. Also it wouldn't "spoil the character of the close" what exactly do you think he's going to build?? A four storey extension with flashing lights and painted bloody pink?? And to the comment as to why a disabled person feels the need for a house rather than a bungalow. Because the carers would be staying upstairs!! the downstairs is for Reece so that when/if he can, he can have his independence. All Steve wants is his son home. Reece is stuck in Surrey, his mum who was one of his primary carers has died so that leaves his dad and sister. They can't do it alone, they need the 24/7 live in carers. Yes he maybe he could have bought a house but at the time it was the best option. Also bungalows are hard to come by so when one comes available and you think its the right property at the time, you would go for it. As for the "playing on heart strings and being emotive" Steve didnt write the article, he gave the reporter information and they wrote the article. And so what if it does sound like that. If it was me I'd do whatever is possible to get my child home where they belong!! Steve is just a parent, a parent who wants the best for his son, he's not out to pee his neighbours off. If the plan was that bad why did the planners approve it in the first place?? It was only turned down because some neighbours objected in the name of Goldsworthy. i wonder what hed really think hmmmm?? I believe firmly in karma and I really hope that none of you have to go through what Steve, Reece and his family have been going through over the last few years. But it's ok, while you all sit down for Xmas meals together don't think about Reece, paralysed, brain damaged, lying in his hospital bed in Surrey, hundreds of miles away, don't worry about how his dad is so stressed and worried about when he will get his son home or even if his son will remember that his mum has died or the fact he can't even remember his dad telling him that the neighbours don't want him there. You enjoy your Xmas and your conscience ;) I'm sure Reece isn't bothered about staying there another year[/p][/quote]Oh and referring to the councillors comment in the Echo re "this would add extra traffic to the close" HOW?? For a few weeks/ couple of months there would a couple of builders van etc Thats it!! It's not going to be like it forever!! What a ridiculous reason!![/p][/quote]Sorry Christmas Carol this wasn't aimed at you, I posted it wrong :) hayleyed

1:16pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Point-of-view says...

Scribus wrote:
Point-of-view wrote:
So I've read through all these comments in reply to article about a disabled young man and his family wanting to convert a property into a liveable home for them all.
It left me thinking a few things....
1)What exactly did the 100 people object to?? Does the proposed extension encroach their property? will it block their right to light? will it devalue the price of their own property??
2) All those harping on about the family trying to flout planning law...... Are they not entitled to buy a property and then apply to convert it (and to be allowed to appeal a decision)? People do this every day in this country...... the difference here is that Reece and his family are not doing this out of wanting to profit from it, they are doing this out of necessity.
3) If the 100 people don't want a bungalow extended/converted in their neighbourhood, what do they suggest the Clarke family do?? Go elsewhere? Leave Reece in rehab? neither of which seem ideal.

I do not know Reece, however if I found myself in his situation: A perfectly healthy young person permanently disabled coupled with recently loosing my mum, I would like to think that those in my community would say "How can we help?".
If and it seems it is a big if, you have read all the comments you will surely understand the reasons for the application being refused. If an able bodied person had made the same application they would have been refused. Reece's disability has nothing to with it. Planning rules are impartial. Got it now?

They are allowed to appeal and no one has said they cannot. I dont why I bother really. Bloody well read it all again, only slowly this time and out loud if you must but do try and keep up.
Scribus, what an extremely rude person you are. I have read the comments, there are a fair few from yourself behaving like a petulant child. The anonymity of the Internet clearly appeals to your darker side.
If, and only if, you had taken time to read my comment properly you would have understood what I was trying to convey. I am not about to get into a debate with you, I suggest that you remove the red mist before your eyes and do try to re-read my comment with a more open mind, however, I'm darn sure that you'll reach the same, incorrect, assumption as last time. If the Clarke family are trying to deal with impotently minded folk like yourself, I can understand why they feel so frustrated.
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Point-of-view[/bold] wrote: So I've read through all these comments in reply to article about a disabled young man and his family wanting to convert a property into a liveable home for them all. It left me thinking a few things.... 1)What exactly did the 100 people object to?? Does the proposed extension encroach their property? will it block their right to light? will it devalue the price of their own property?? 2) All those harping on about the family trying to flout planning law...... Are they not entitled to buy a property and then apply to convert it (and to be allowed to appeal a decision)? People do this every day in this country...... the difference here is that Reece and his family are not doing this out of wanting to profit from it, they are doing this out of necessity. 3) If the 100 people don't want a bungalow extended/converted in their neighbourhood, what do they suggest the Clarke family do?? Go elsewhere? Leave Reece in rehab? neither of which seem ideal. I do not know Reece, however if I found myself in his situation: A perfectly healthy young person permanently disabled coupled with recently loosing my mum, I would like to think that those in my community would say "How can we help?".[/p][/quote]If and it seems it is a big if, you have read all the comments you will surely understand the reasons for the application being refused. If an able bodied person had made the same application they would have been refused. Reece's disability has nothing to with it. Planning rules are impartial. Got it now? They are allowed to appeal and no one has said they cannot. I dont why I bother really. Bloody well read it all again, only slowly this time and out loud if you must but do try and keep up.[/p][/quote]Scribus, what an extremely rude person you are. I have read the comments, there are a fair few from yourself behaving like a petulant child. The anonymity of the Internet clearly appeals to your darker side. If, and only if, you had taken time to read my comment properly you would have understood what I was trying to convey. I am not about to get into a debate with you, I suggest that you remove the red mist before your eyes and do try to re-read my comment with a more open mind, however, I'm darn sure that you'll reach the same, incorrect, assumption as last time. If the Clarke family are trying to deal with impotently minded folk like yourself, I can understand why they feel so frustrated. Point-of-view

1:40pm Fri 20 Dec 13

BarryTanner says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter.

As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped.

As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid.

Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately??

I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...
Not sure why you've elected to tag my post with your missive. But in answer to some of your points.......nowhere did I say that Steve Clarke is attempting to profit from his son's unfortunate position. What is a matter of record is that it was Steve Clarke who was reported to have said in an article on this site when hawking tickets for an event to raise funds for his lad back in April 2013 that the interim payment that they had received was going to be used for a four bedroom property in Thorpe Bay which they intended to adapt for his son's needs. The fact that the family may have wanted to move subsequent to that after the sad and sudden demise of Steve Clarke's wife in October is only conjecture on your part and without sounding callous has little to do with the issues of this planning request. I'd concur with you that the comments that were made by some of the councillors were ill thought and, to be honest, ridiculous. But I stick by what I said originally that broadly Woodley got it right.
Nobody wishes the lad ill, it is not his fault that he's in the parlous condition that he is, the blame for that lies with the stupidity of the policeman that was driving the vehicle on the night of the accident, a fact confirmed at his trial, but that doesn't mean that the family, nor anybody else, should be allowed to circumvent the rules when submitting planning requests.
Sorry Barry. I never meant to imply you had said negative things about the Father. I actually quoted you post as it confirmed the location of the family home and that you agreed that the comments from the councillors weren't clever when it was a sensitive case.

I will endeavour to make my intensions clearer in future!!
Fair enough.
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: Obviously an emotionally loaded story with the lad getting injured whilst doing his part-time voluntary job with the police. Not sure that all the comments from some of the councillors really helped, although Woodley pretty much summed it up. The property in question was never the lad’s home though, Steve Clarke and his family lived in Admiral’s Walk until recently and as I understand it used the interim compensation payout to buy the property In Thorpe Bay Close with the presumption that they would be allowed to change the character of the area.[/p][/quote]There has been an awful lot of nonsense said about the family and in particular about the Dad - accusing him of trying to profit from the situation and similar garbage. Obviously none of it is remotely true and it has obviously upset the daughter. As far as the move away from Admirals Walk, did it not occur to anyone that staying in the family home after the sudden and tragic death of the mother would cause bad memories? I'm not saying that was the reason but I doubt it helped. As far as the 100 people that signed the petition, I suppose if all the other properties in the close had 2 parents and 2 grown up kids, and the same from the properties in Willingale Way whose back gardens would back onto theirs then you would get close to 100. I guess they might believe that architecture is more important than a brain damaged disabled kid. Lastly, I don't know if the councillors were misquoted by the Echo but their comments don't seem to be that helpful and when it's a sensitive case why say anything at all publicly - even if you have those opinions privately?? I wish the Clarke good luck for the appeal...[/p][/quote]Not sure why you've elected to tag my post with your missive. But in answer to some of your points.......nowhere did I say that Steve Clarke is attempting to profit from his son's unfortunate position. What is a matter of record is that it was Steve Clarke who was reported to have said in an article on this site when hawking tickets for an event to raise funds for his lad back in April 2013 that the interim payment that they had received was going to be used for a four bedroom property in Thorpe Bay which they intended to adapt for his son's needs. The fact that the family may have wanted to move subsequent to that after the sad and sudden demise of Steve Clarke's wife in October is only conjecture on your part and without sounding callous has little to do with the issues of this planning request. I'd concur with you that the comments that were made by some of the councillors were ill thought and, to be honest, ridiculous. But I stick by what I said originally that broadly Woodley got it right. Nobody wishes the lad ill, it is not his fault that he's in the parlous condition that he is, the blame for that lies with the stupidity of the policeman that was driving the vehicle on the night of the accident, a fact confirmed at his trial, but that doesn't mean that the family, nor anybody else, should be allowed to circumvent the rules when submitting planning requests.[/p][/quote]Sorry Barry. I never meant to imply you had said negative things about the Father. I actually quoted you post as it confirmed the location of the family home and that you agreed that the comments from the councillors weren't clever when it was a sensitive case. I will endeavour to make my intensions clearer in future!![/p][/quote]Fair enough. BarryTanner

6:21pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
Yes Leon, riveting stuff, well I'm sure that most of Britain will look like Poland fairly soon given that we've been inundated with most of their population.

Until then we have to make do with the rules and regulations that we have already.

Read the headline of this piece - I'd hazard a guess and say it was made up - disgraceful journalism.

I don't for one minute think the general populace of this part of Southend (Bournes Green BTW) are so heartless towards this young man's plight. As I've stated before I'm unsure how they could be aware on the basis of a planning application.

What they APPEAR to objected to is an overdevelopment in a tiny cul-d-sac that would be completely out of character.

Which of course is an entirely different matter altogether - however not quite so sensational a story eh?
WOW and not one swear word in a foreign language...you denigrate foreign people for being in this country while you use another country's language to abuse people...Im sure that amounts to something or other!
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: Yes Leon, riveting stuff, well I'm sure that most of Britain will look like Poland fairly soon given that we've been inundated with most of their population. Until then we have to make do with the rules and regulations that we have already. Read the headline of this piece - I'd hazard a guess and say it was made up - disgraceful journalism. I don't for one minute think the general populace of this part of Southend (Bournes Green BTW) are so heartless towards this young man's plight. As I've stated before I'm unsure how they could be aware on the basis of a planning application. What they APPEAR to objected to is an overdevelopment in a tiny cul-d-sac that would be completely out of character. Which of course is an entirely different matter altogether - however not quite so sensational a story eh?[/p][/quote]WOW and not one swear word in a foreign language...you denigrate foreign people for being in this country while you use another country's language to abuse people...Im sure that amounts to something or other! Lastlaugh,,.

8:54pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Scribus says...

Point-of-view wrote:
Scribus wrote:
Point-of-view wrote:
So I've read through all these comments in reply to article about a disabled young man and his family wanting to convert a property into a liveable home for them all.
It left me thinking a few things....
1)What exactly did the 100 people object to?? Does the proposed extension encroach their property? will it block their right to light? will it devalue the price of their own property??
2) All those harping on about the family trying to flout planning law...... Are they not entitled to buy a property and then apply to convert it (and to be allowed to appeal a decision)? People do this every day in this country...... the difference here is that Reece and his family are not doing this out of wanting to profit from it, they are doing this out of necessity.
3) If the 100 people don't want a bungalow extended/converted in their neighbourhood, what do they suggest the Clarke family do?? Go elsewhere? Leave Reece in rehab? neither of which seem ideal.

I do not know Reece, however if I found myself in his situation: A perfectly healthy young person permanently disabled coupled with recently loosing my mum, I would like to think that those in my community would say "How can we help?".
If and it seems it is a big if, you have read all the comments you will surely understand the reasons for the application being refused. If an able bodied person had made the same application they would have been refused. Reece's disability has nothing to with it. Planning rules are impartial. Got it now?

They are allowed to appeal and no one has said they cannot. I dont why I bother really. Bloody well read it all again, only slowly this time and out loud if you must but do try and keep up.
Scribus, what an extremely rude person you are. I have read the comments, there are a fair few from yourself behaving like a petulant child. The anonymity of the Internet clearly appeals to your darker side.
If, and only if, you had taken time to read my comment properly you would have understood what I was trying to convey. I am not about to get into a debate with you, I suggest that you remove the red mist before your eyes and do try to re-read my comment with a more open mind, however, I'm darn sure that you'll reach the same, incorrect, assumption as last time. If the Clarke family are trying to deal with impotently minded folk like yourself, I can understand why they feel so frustrated.
If you think I was rude last time you really ought to get out a bit more often. However, as you appear to be a sensitive soul I will merely begin by saying that you have difficulty in comprehending what has been written on this subject.

Let me take you through yourown anotated points.
1.The objections were to the breaches of the Council's development plan, namely Policy H5 and Policy C11 also Policy H5 requires the Council to have regard to the guidlines in Appendix 4.

2. Not a single person has said the Clarkes are not entitled to buy a property and apply for permission to alter the property. Also no one has said they cannot appeal the decision. All applications to change a property are made out of necessity. Think about that for a bit.

3. No one has said they object to changes. But see point 1. It is not for other people to tell the Clarke family what to do but there seems to be a concensus amongst the writers here who understand and sympathise with the Clarkes situation that a bungalow is not the right type of property for their needs.

A couple of questions for you. Do you or do you not believe that there should be rules governing what we do to our built envronment? If you say yes to that I have to ask if you agree that the rules should be kept and exceptions cannot be made? If you do not agree to the first question then you should live in America.
[quote][p][bold]Point-of-view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Point-of-view[/bold] wrote: So I've read through all these comments in reply to article about a disabled young man and his family wanting to convert a property into a liveable home for them all. It left me thinking a few things.... 1)What exactly did the 100 people object to?? Does the proposed extension encroach their property? will it block their right to light? will it devalue the price of their own property?? 2) All those harping on about the family trying to flout planning law...... Are they not entitled to buy a property and then apply to convert it (and to be allowed to appeal a decision)? People do this every day in this country...... the difference here is that Reece and his family are not doing this out of wanting to profit from it, they are doing this out of necessity. 3) If the 100 people don't want a bungalow extended/converted in their neighbourhood, what do they suggest the Clarke family do?? Go elsewhere? Leave Reece in rehab? neither of which seem ideal. I do not know Reece, however if I found myself in his situation: A perfectly healthy young person permanently disabled coupled with recently loosing my mum, I would like to think that those in my community would say "How can we help?".[/p][/quote]If and it seems it is a big if, you have read all the comments you will surely understand the reasons for the application being refused. If an able bodied person had made the same application they would have been refused. Reece's disability has nothing to with it. Planning rules are impartial. Got it now? They are allowed to appeal and no one has said they cannot. I dont why I bother really. Bloody well read it all again, only slowly this time and out loud if you must but do try and keep up.[/p][/quote]Scribus, what an extremely rude person you are. I have read the comments, there are a fair few from yourself behaving like a petulant child. The anonymity of the Internet clearly appeals to your darker side. If, and only if, you had taken time to read my comment properly you would have understood what I was trying to convey. I am not about to get into a debate with you, I suggest that you remove the red mist before your eyes and do try to re-read my comment with a more open mind, however, I'm darn sure that you'll reach the same, incorrect, assumption as last time. If the Clarke family are trying to deal with impotently minded folk like yourself, I can understand why they feel so frustrated.[/p][/quote]If you think I was rude last time you really ought to get out a bit more often. However, as you appear to be a sensitive soul I will merely begin by saying that you have difficulty in comprehending what has been written on this subject. Let me take you through yourown anotated points. 1.The objections were to the breaches of the Council's development plan, namely Policy H5 and Policy C11 also Policy H5 requires the Council to have regard to the guidlines in Appendix 4. 2. Not a single person has said the Clarkes are not entitled to buy a property and apply for permission to alter the property. Also no one has said they cannot appeal the decision. All applications to change a property are made out of necessity. Think about that for a bit. 3. No one has said they object to changes. But see point 1. It is not for other people to tell the Clarke family what to do but there seems to be a concensus amongst the writers here who understand and sympathise with the Clarkes situation that a bungalow is not the right type of property for their needs. A couple of questions for you. Do you or do you not believe that there should be rules governing what we do to our built envronment? If you say yes to that I have to ask if you agree that the rules should be kept and exceptions cannot be made? If you do not agree to the first question then you should live in America. Scribus

9:05pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Scribus says...

Leon__ wrote:
Take a drive down an upmarket area's street in a Polish city's suburb. You'll find almost every house is detached and to a different design for 90% of the street. Many of these homes with their fleets of brand new cars in the drive make Thorpe Bay houses look like council prefabs. And dotted along such streets are not just doctors' and accountants' brass signs but fast fit tyres being sold from converted integral garages, English schools with gawdy signs like cheap motels, pizza and dumpling restaurants with neons and delivery bikes. A far cry from mere essential conversions to help a disabled person, and yet still no one bats an eyelid as they get into their 2013 black BMW 4x4 or one of the many Porsches or Bentleys strewn on the road. Even after the property boom subsided, these houses still cost anything from 300,000 quid upwards, some far more. Only in the UK does property wealth come before everything else. If I were at all religious, which I am not, I'd say read the bible about your unsightly nimbyism. But instead I'll say to the I'm alright Jack 100, 'Get a grip for Pete's sake, can you not see yourselves and feel any shame?'
What are you talking about?
[quote][p][bold]Leon__[/bold] wrote: Take a drive down an upmarket area's street in a Polish city's suburb. You'll find almost every house is detached and to a different design for 90% of the street. Many of these homes with their fleets of brand new cars in the drive make Thorpe Bay houses look like council prefabs. And dotted along such streets are not just doctors' and accountants' brass signs but fast fit tyres being sold from converted integral garages, English schools with gawdy signs like cheap motels, pizza and dumpling restaurants with neons and delivery bikes. A far cry from mere essential conversions to help a disabled person, and yet still no one bats an eyelid as they get into their 2013 black BMW 4x4 or one of the many Porsches or Bentleys strewn on the road. Even after the property boom subsided, these houses still cost anything from 300,000 quid upwards, some far more. Only in the UK does property wealth come before everything else. If I were at all religious, which I am not, I'd say read the bible about your unsightly nimbyism. But instead I'll say to the I'm alright Jack 100, 'Get a grip for Pete's sake, can you not see yourselves and feel any shame?'[/p][/quote]What are you talking about? Scribus

10:21am Sat 21 Dec 13

Letmetryagain says...

I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us.

I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ?
As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.
I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us. I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ? As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans. Letmetryagain

1:59pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Rochford Rob says...

I shall ask the question for the last time - how does / did anyone know that the reason for the conversion was to aid a disabled person?

Planning applications bear details of the proposal and the applicant, not his personal details nor that of any of his family.

My neighbour has applied for planning, I know what he'd like to do to the structure, I have no idea why. I suspect this is the case in this issue.

The locals have objected on the basis of overdevelopment and being out of character, the applicant has probably explained to planning officers why he wanted to change the building.

Someone else has spun the story perhaps?
I shall ask the question for the last time - how does / did anyone know that the reason for the conversion was to aid a disabled person? Planning applications bear details of the proposal and the applicant, not his personal details nor that of any of his family. My neighbour has applied for planning, I know what he'd like to do to the structure, I have no idea why. I suspect this is the case in this issue. The locals have objected on the basis of overdevelopment and being out of character, the applicant has probably explained to planning officers why he wanted to change the building. Someone else has spun the story perhaps? Rochford Rob

5:15pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Scribus says...

Letmetryagain wrote:
I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us.

I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ?
As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.
Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote.

The property is not on the Burgess Estate. Therefore, they have nothing to do with it. There is actually less to the story than the Echo make out in their sensationalist tripe. It is just a story about a planning application that is outside the rules. The result of poor judgement or more likely, poor advice.
[quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us. I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ? As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.[/p][/quote]Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote. The property is not on the Burgess Estate. Therefore, they have nothing to do with it. There is actually less to the story than the Echo make out in their sensationalist tripe. It is just a story about a planning application that is outside the rules. The result of poor judgement or more likely, poor advice. Scribus

5:18pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Scribus says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
I shall ask the question for the last time - how does / did anyone know that the reason for the conversion was to aid a disabled person?

Planning applications bear details of the proposal and the applicant, not his personal details nor that of any of his family.

My neighbour has applied for planning, I know what he'd like to do to the structure, I have no idea why. I suspect this is the case in this issue.

The locals have objected on the basis of overdevelopment and being out of character, the applicant has probably explained to planning officers why he wanted to change the building.

Someone else has spun the story perhaps?
Wow. You think someone has spun the story? No sh*t Sherlock!
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: I shall ask the question for the last time - how does / did anyone know that the reason for the conversion was to aid a disabled person? Planning applications bear details of the proposal and the applicant, not his personal details nor that of any of his family. My neighbour has applied for planning, I know what he'd like to do to the structure, I have no idea why. I suspect this is the case in this issue. The locals have objected on the basis of overdevelopment and being out of character, the applicant has probably explained to planning officers why he wanted to change the building. Someone else has spun the story perhaps?[/p][/quote]Wow. You think someone has spun the story? No sh*t Sherlock! Scribus

10:36am Sun 22 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Scribus wrote:
Letmetryagain wrote:
I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us.

I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ?
As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.
Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote.

The property is not on the Burgess Estate. Therefore, they have nothing to do with it. There is actually less to the story than the Echo make out in their sensationalist tripe. It is just a story about a planning application that is outside the rules. The result of poor judgement or more likely, poor advice.
This is slightly off topic but...

There have been various posts stating that this was simply a case of planning rules and whether or not the rules had been met etc. this may well be true...

1). Does this mean strictly speaking the Petition signed by 100 people would of had no effect had the planning rules been met??

2). Are the rules really that "black and white"?? Is there no "wiggle room" at all where someone can bend the rules in certain circumstances??

Sorry if this has already been asked and answered. This thread is getting quite large now!!
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us. I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ? As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.[/p][/quote]Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote. The property is not on the Burgess Estate. Therefore, they have nothing to do with it. There is actually less to the story than the Echo make out in their sensationalist tripe. It is just a story about a planning application that is outside the rules. The result of poor judgement or more likely, poor advice.[/p][/quote]This is slightly off topic but... There have been various posts stating that this was simply a case of planning rules and whether or not the rules had been met etc. this may well be true... 1). Does this mean strictly speaking the Petition signed by 100 people would of had no effect had the planning rules been met?? 2). Are the rules really that "black and white"?? Is there no "wiggle room" at all where someone can bend the rules in certain circumstances?? Sorry if this has already been asked and answered. This thread is getting quite large now!! BrainTumourMax

4:13pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Scribus says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
Letmetryagain wrote:
I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us.

I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ?
As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.
Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote.

The property is not on the Burgess Estate. Therefore, they have nothing to do with it. There is actually less to the story than the Echo make out in their sensationalist tripe. It is just a story about a planning application that is outside the rules. The result of poor judgement or more likely, poor advice.
This is slightly off topic but...

There have been various posts stating that this was simply a case of planning rules and whether or not the rules had been met etc. this may well be true...

1). Does this mean strictly speaking the Petition signed by 100 people would of had no effect had the planning rules been met??

2). Are the rules really that "black and white"?? Is there no "wiggle room" at all where someone can bend the rules in certain circumstances??

Sorry if this has already been asked and answered. This thread is getting quite large now!!
What the petition did was to show the council the strength of feeling in the local community that the changes being proposed were totally incompatible and out of character with the streetscene. If the changes proposed to the bungalow were not incompatible and did not alter the character of the streetscene the petition would still carry weight but not as much.

For your second point you need to read the Council's development policies. You cannot bend the rules but you can work within guidlines. The application was outside policy and guidlines were stretched to breaking point and beyond in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us. I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ? As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.[/p][/quote]Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote. The property is not on the Burgess Estate. Therefore, they have nothing to do with it. There is actually less to the story than the Echo make out in their sensationalist tripe. It is just a story about a planning application that is outside the rules. The result of poor judgement or more likely, poor advice.[/p][/quote]This is slightly off topic but... There have been various posts stating that this was simply a case of planning rules and whether or not the rules had been met etc. this may well be true... 1). Does this mean strictly speaking the Petition signed by 100 people would of had no effect had the planning rules been met?? 2). Are the rules really that "black and white"?? Is there no "wiggle room" at all where someone can bend the rules in certain circumstances?? Sorry if this has already been asked and answered. This thread is getting quite large now!![/p][/quote]What the petition did was to show the council the strength of feeling in the local community that the changes being proposed were totally incompatible and out of character with the streetscene. If the changes proposed to the bungalow were not incompatible and did not alter the character of the streetscene the petition would still carry weight but not as much. For your second point you need to read the Council's development policies. You cannot bend the rules but you can work within guidlines. The application was outside policy and guidlines were stretched to breaking point and beyond in my opinion. Scribus

8:01pm Sun 22 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Scribus wrote:
Letmetryagain wrote:
I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us.

I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ?
As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.
Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote.

The property is not on the Burgess Estate. Therefore, they have nothing to do with it. There is actually less to the story than the Echo make out in their sensationalist tripe. It is just a story about a planning application that is outside the rules. The result of poor judgement or more likely, poor advice.
This is slightly off topic but...

There have been various posts stating that this was simply a case of planning rules and whether or not the rules had been met etc. this may well be true...

1). Does this mean strictly speaking the Petition signed by 100 people would of had no effect had the planning rules been met??

2). Are the rules really that "black and white"?? Is there no "wiggle room" at all where someone can bend the rules in certain circumstances??

Sorry if this has already been asked and answered. This thread is getting quite large now!!
What the petition did was to show the council the strength of feeling in the local community that the changes being proposed were totally incompatible and out of character with the streetscene. If the changes proposed to the bungalow were not incompatible and did not alter the character of the streetscene the petition would still carry weight but not as much.

For your second point you need to read the Council's development policies. You cannot bend the rules but you can work within guidlines. The application was outside policy and guidlines were stretched to breaking point and beyond in my opinion.
Thanks. So basically it's a sort of "no" to both points?? ( I'm not referring to this case specifically ).
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us. I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ? As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.[/p][/quote]Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote. The property is not on the Burgess Estate. Therefore, they have nothing to do with it. There is actually less to the story than the Echo make out in their sensationalist tripe. It is just a story about a planning application that is outside the rules. The result of poor judgement or more likely, poor advice.[/p][/quote]This is slightly off topic but... There have been various posts stating that this was simply a case of planning rules and whether or not the rules had been met etc. this may well be true... 1). Does this mean strictly speaking the Petition signed by 100 people would of had no effect had the planning rules been met?? 2). Are the rules really that "black and white"?? Is there no "wiggle room" at all where someone can bend the rules in certain circumstances?? Sorry if this has already been asked and answered. This thread is getting quite large now!![/p][/quote]What the petition did was to show the council the strength of feeling in the local community that the changes being proposed were totally incompatible and out of character with the streetscene. If the changes proposed to the bungalow were not incompatible and did not alter the character of the streetscene the petition would still carry weight but not as much. For your second point you need to read the Council's development policies. You cannot bend the rules but you can work within guidlines. The application was outside policy and guidlines were stretched to breaking point and beyond in my opinion.[/p][/quote]Thanks. So basically it's a sort of "no" to both points?? ( I'm not referring to this case specifically ). BrainTumourMax

8:07am Tue 24 Dec 13

seasider270 says...

sosad 1 wrote:
ron Woodley= Thorpe residents lackey poodle they say to him jump he barks back how high
Er - He is a local councillor - that is what he is elected to do! Just because many other councillors do not understand that THEY represent their constituents does not mean he is wrong. Far from it! it's the way it is supposed to work!
[quote][p][bold]sosad 1[/bold] wrote: ron Woodley= Thorpe residents lackey poodle they say to him jump he barks back how high[/p][/quote]Er - He is a local councillor - that is what he is elected to do! Just because many other councillors do not understand that THEY represent their constituents does not mean he is wrong. Far from it! it's the way it is supposed to work! seasider270

4:55pm Tue 24 Dec 13

Devils Advocate says...

This is just so typical of the current government and all its devoted fans.
This poor lad was a passenger in the car that crashed a couple of hundred yards from my home. He was not the driver, just a public spirited special, doing an unpaid job that helps to keep the "Wealth and Safety" of the selfish, feckless, greedy self-centred nimby's such as the mob that live in that close. (Which, I notice, has managed to keep even Google maps away from their street.)
But it somewhat surprised me to find that even people living in UTOB houses can be such trolls.
My son was also a special here and that gave me a little inside info of just how devoted the people who fulfill that role can be.

But this is the right wing world now, and we are to seee much more of this as they "Take Back" everything they cheated for through history. Camoron himself said he wants to see the numbers of police reduced and replaced in a large part by specials. Is it any wonder then that his devoted followers react the way they do?

But please, to the members of this poor lads family, let me assure them that there really are many, many people in the real world who do care about the lad and feel outraged at the baa-lambs that live around your house (and those other unfeeling, uncaring people on here whose only thoughts are to tread on anyone they can, no matter why.) Just take their selfishness from whence it comes.
I wish I could curse them to a lifetime of bad luck and bad health, but I don't know how!
This is just so typical of the current government and all its devoted fans. This poor lad was a passenger in the car that crashed a couple of hundred yards from my home. He was not the driver, just a public spirited special, doing an unpaid job that helps to keep the "Wealth and Safety" of the selfish, feckless, greedy self-centred nimby's such as the mob that live in that close. (Which, I notice, has managed to keep even Google maps away from their street.) But it somewhat surprised me to find that even people living in UTOB houses can be such trolls. My son was also a special here and that gave me a little inside info of just how devoted the people who fulfill that role can be. But this is the right wing world now, and we are to seee much more of this as they "Take Back" everything they cheated for through history. Camoron himself said he wants to see the numbers of police reduced and replaced in a large part by specials. Is it any wonder then that his devoted followers react the way they do? But please, to the members of this poor lads family, let me assure them that there really are many, many people in the real world who do care about the lad and feel outraged at the baa-lambs that live around your house (and those other unfeeling, uncaring people on here whose only thoughts are to tread on anyone they can, no matter why.) Just take their selfishness from whence it comes. I wish I could curse them to a lifetime of bad luck and bad health, but I don't know how! Devils Advocate

4:47pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Letmetryagain says...

Scribus says...

Letmetryagain wrote:
I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us.

I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ?
As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.

Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote.

....................
...........

Ahhh, such a way with words :)
Scribus says... Letmetryagain wrote: I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us. I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ? As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans. Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote. .................... ........... Ahhh, such a way with words :) Letmetryagain

7:23pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Scribus says...

Letmetryagain wrote:
Scribus says...

Letmetryagain wrote:
I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us.

I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ?
As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans.

Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote.

....................

...........

Ahhh, such a way with words :)
Why do you not quote my response to you in full?
It seems your way with words is to be censorious. Just what did you think your first post added to the debate? Did you think it had any merit? If so, what? If it was worth posting I would not have respoded as I did.
Do try.
[quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: Scribus says... Letmetryagain wrote: I suspect that there's more to this story than the Echo is telling us. I also wonder what part Burges Estates are playing in the story ? As (I assume) they would have the final say in approving any plans. Why don't people like you bother to do some homework before you post what you imagine to be a polemic and thought provoking bon mote. .................... ........... Ahhh, such a way with words :)[/p][/quote]Why do you not quote my response to you in full? It seems your way with words is to be censorious. Just what did you think your first post added to the debate? Did you think it had any merit? If so, what? If it was worth posting I would not have respoded as I did. Do try. Scribus

6:34pm Mon 30 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

seasider270 wrote:
sosad 1 wrote:
ron Woodley= Thorpe residents lackey poodle they say to him jump he barks back how high
Er - He is a local councillor - that is what he is elected to do! Just because many other councillors do not understand that THEY represent their constituents does not mean he is wrong. Far from it! it's the way it is supposed to work!
As a local councillor Mr Woodley should have chosen his words more carefully. Assuming the quote attributed to him is correct he said :

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

Although it may beggar his understanding it's not that complicated. Basically, the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers.

It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This also of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have.

What Mr Woodley meant by describing the proposals as a "sub-standard two-storey house" is anyone's guess but it is common as I said. I actually know 2 people that "went up into the roof" and it was very well done in both cases. Certainly not "sub-standard"

Also there are not "so many houses available". Yes, you can knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors.

The thing about Mr Woodley is that as a Councillor he should have had enough sense to keep his mouth shut on this occasion. Who wants a Councillor that has no common sense or judgement? He should have kept his opinion to himself.
[quote][p][bold]seasider270[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sosad 1[/bold] wrote: ron Woodley= Thorpe residents lackey poodle they say to him jump he barks back how high[/p][/quote]Er - He is a local councillor - that is what he is elected to do! Just because many other councillors do not understand that THEY represent their constituents does not mean he is wrong. Far from it! it's the way it is supposed to work![/p][/quote]As a local councillor Mr Woodley should have chosen his words more carefully. Assuming the quote attributed to him is correct he said : “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” Although it may beggar his understanding it's not that complicated. Basically, the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers. It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This also of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have. What Mr Woodley meant by describing the proposals as a "sub-standard two-storey house" is anyone's guess but it is common as I said. I actually know 2 people that "went up into the roof" and it was very well done in both cases. Certainly not "sub-standard" Also there are not "so many houses available". Yes, you can knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors. The thing about Mr Woodley is that as a Councillor he should have had enough sense to keep his mouth shut on this occasion. Who wants a Councillor that has no common sense or judgement? He should have kept his opinion to himself. BrainTumourMax

6:34pm Mon 30 Dec 13

BrainTumourMax says...

seasider270 wrote:
sosad 1 wrote:
ron Woodley= Thorpe residents lackey poodle they say to him jump he barks back how high
Er - He is a local councillor - that is what he is elected to do! Just because many other councillors do not understand that THEY represent their constituents does not mean he is wrong. Far from it! it's the way it is supposed to work!
As a local councillor Mr Woodley should have chosen his words more carefully. Assuming the quote attributed to him is correct he said :

“It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.”

Although it may beggar his understanding it's not that complicated. Basically, the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers.

It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This also of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have.

What Mr Woodley meant by describing the proposals as a "sub-standard two-storey house" is anyone's guess but it is common as I said. I actually know 2 people that "went up into the roof" and it was very well done in both cases. Certainly not "sub-standard"

Also there are not "so many houses available". Yes, you can knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors.

The thing about Mr Woodley is that as a Councillor he should have had enough sense to keep his mouth shut on this occasion. Who wants a Councillor that has no common sense or judgement? He should have kept his opinion to himself.
[quote][p][bold]seasider270[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sosad 1[/bold] wrote: ron Woodley= Thorpe residents lackey poodle they say to him jump he barks back how high[/p][/quote]Er - He is a local councillor - that is what he is elected to do! Just because many other councillors do not understand that THEY represent their constituents does not mean he is wrong. Far from it! it's the way it is supposed to work![/p][/quote]As a local councillor Mr Woodley should have chosen his words more carefully. Assuming the quote attributed to him is correct he said : “It beggars my understanding as to why somebody would spend so much converting a bungalow into a sub-standard two-storey house when there are so many houses available.” Although it may beggar his understanding it's not that complicated. Basically, the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers. It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This also of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have. What Mr Woodley meant by describing the proposals as a "sub-standard two-storey house" is anyone's guess but it is common as I said. I actually know 2 people that "went up into the roof" and it was very well done in both cases. Certainly not "sub-standard" Also there are not "so many houses available". Yes, you can knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors. The thing about Mr Woodley is that as a Councillor he should have had enough sense to keep his mouth shut on this occasion. Who wants a Councillor that has no common sense or judgement? He should have kept his opinion to himself. BrainTumourMax

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree