Leigh Town Council votes no to Havens Hospice plans (From Echo)

“I personally cannot believe, given how big Essex is, there is not another site available that could accommodate this building.”

Not for a cheap enough price!

If you wanted to build a casino or a mosque then that would have been approved.

No it wouldn't, Not on Belton Way. Where is your evidence of that?

I don't know the full history or circumstances of this proposal, but I'll share my potentially ill informed and jaded view anyway :-)
It's a hospice - They've got their game together and are in a position to provide more(?) care for people and the council don't want it because they are concerned it would "open the flood gates" for more development.......er
rr? The only people in a position to allow a flood of further development from occurring is the council themselves? So the only reason you should be concerned about it is if you have no confidence in your own ability to say no to any further applications? The whole argument about it being greenbelt is laughable, when councils all over the the south east are considering greenbelt for building hundreds and hundreds of homes? Consistency?

Havens should change their name to Miller. They would then (like he) be afforded a prime piece of the seashore, without even having to say what they intend to do with it!

Why not the derelict site opposite the (old) Gas Works Pier - been empty for years and has superb views and plenty of space - also not a greenfield site!

Olivia2847 wrote:
Why not the derelict site opposite the (old) Gas Works Pier - been empty for years and has superb views and plenty of space - also not a greenfield site!

No profit in selling it on!!!

The problem here is that Little Haven's are a charity.

If they were a big multi million pound building company who wanted to build profit making homes on green belt land they'd soon get their plans approved because they know how to play the game and would oil the wheels with a few cash stuffed brown paper bags.

I can probably find half a dozen stories about controversial building developments on green belt land on here which aren't rejected unanimously but instead are placed 'under review' which seems to be code for 'it will get approved when you give us a back hander'

This isn't about Little Havens, this is about Fair Havens.

Incidently Little Havens was built on Greenbelt, apparently there would have been enough land to also build this hospice there but they have sold it off to developers! (not sure how much truth there is in the above but another poster mentioned it in these comments pages previously)

I can probably find half a dozen stories about controversial building developments on green belt land on here which aren't rejected unanimously but instead are placed 'under review' which seems to be code for 'it will get approved when you give us a back hander'

Go on then.

Thank god I dont live in Leigh,but then
Leigh seems pretty godless,especially
the council.

j-w wrote:
This isn't about Little Havens, this is about Fair Havens.

Incidently Little Havens was built on Greenbelt, apparently there would have been enough land to also build this hospice there but they have sold it off to developers! (not sure how much truth there is in the above but another poster mentioned it in these comments pages previously)

Sadly your wrong
The land that Little Havens is built on was first bought by British Airways back in the 70s because of Maplin Sands airport and had building permission "sort of"

Stick a caravan on it then you can do what ever you want. Sorry i forgot your Southend council not Basildon.

WhateverS wrote:

j-w wrote:
This isn't about Little Havens, this is about Fair Havens.

Incidently Little Havens was built on Greenbelt, apparently there would have been enough land to also build this hospice there but they have sold it off to developers! (not sure how much truth there is in the above but another poster mentioned it in these comments pages previously)

Sadly your wrong
The land that Little Havens is built on was first bought by British Airways back in the 70s because of Maplin Sands airport and had building permission "sort of"

BA bought land in Daws Heath because of Maplin sands (which is nowhere near there and was abandoned just as BA finally came into being). That sounds more far fetched than what I heard (which I agree is also wrong)

Usual emotive rubbish behind the Havens campaign. I've stopped donating to them; their proposal is devicive; peol eshould never forget that all charities are businesses first and foremost who happen to be in the business of doing good work. That doesn't make them exempt from the rules that we are all expected to live by. Sack the CEO and Executive managment and report them to the cahrities comission for misuse of funds.

If Fair Havens have worked closely with the various Councils to identify appropriate locations whereby planning would be favoured and obtainable and they arrive back at Belton Way then perhaps all the "obvious" alternatives mentioned in this and previous threads have been considered and rejected by the Councils?

If the NIMBY's (as most (but not all) opposition seems to come from Leigh people) were ever in need the services of the likes of a local Hospice perhaps they would appreciate it more than it appears they do now? I am sure they are grateful they don't need it - but why negate the work of those who deal every day with caring for those who are dying. There are many families who have dealt with great loss, pain and trauma and come through primarily as a result of the work of Hospices.

I agree with the last comment and others - let's just hope the N I M B Y S and their mates never need the help of a hospice and hope they would be turned away if they did need one. There is no cash in heaven or developers thank god its a place where none of them are going

the citizen wrote:
If Fair Havens have worked closely with the various Councils to identify appropriate locations whereby planning would be favoured and obtainable and they arrive back at Belton Way then perhaps all the "obvious" alternatives mentioned in this and previous threads have been considered and rejected by the Councils?

If the NIMBY's (as most (but not all) opposition seems to come from Leigh people) were ever in need the services of the likes of a local Hospice perhaps they would appreciate it more than it appears they do now? I am sure they are grateful they don't need it - but why negate the work of those who deal every day with caring for those who are dying. There are many families who have dealt with great loss, pain and trauma and come through primarily as a result of the work of Hospices.

And what exactly has any of your comment got to do with allowing planning permission on green belt land? Let me answer that... nothing.

Havens were great with my father during his final days; they do a wonderful job; they are very supportive of those who suffer the loss. However that doesn't mean I should feel obliged to sit back and watch them tread all over planning laws. I live in Rochford by the way, so not a NIMBY!

The havend executive team have spent a lot of money on these plans and this process; they cannoty turn back as to do so will put their own jobs in jeopardy. They should all resign.

_champagne2 wrote:
I agree with the last comment and others - let's just hope the N I M B Y S and their mates never need the help of a hospice and hope they would be turned away if they did need one. There is no cash in heaven or developers thank god its a place where none of them are going

I agree with your comments 100% with the exception maybe of the term NIMBY. The term should be NIMFY, (Not In My Front Yard), in this case, as the most vocal objections seem to be coming from Marine Parade. Still, it will be open house soon on greenbelt. When their view is obscured by blocks of flats with £1mil penthouses enjoying the sea views they used to have, they will regret objecting to a unobtrusive hospice.

Elephantman2 wrote:

the citizen wrote:
If Fair Havens have worked closely with the various Councils to identify appropriate locations whereby planning would be favoured and obtainable and they arrive back at Belton Way then perhaps all the "obvious" alternatives mentioned in this and previous threads have been considered and rejected by the Councils?

If the NIMBY's (as most (but not all) opposition seems to come from Leigh people) were ever in need the services of the likes of a local Hospice perhaps they would appreciate it more than it appears they do now? I am sure they are grateful they don't need it - but why negate the work of those who deal every day with caring for those who are dying. There are many families who have dealt with great loss, pain and trauma and come through primarily as a result of the work of Hospices.

And what exactly has any of your comment got to do with allowing planning permission on green belt land? Let me answer that... nothing.

Havens were great with my father during his final days; they do a wonderful job; they are very supportive of those who suffer the loss. However that doesn't mean I should feel obliged to sit back and watch them tread all over planning laws. I live in Rochford by the way, so not a NIMBY!

The havend executive team have spent a lot of money on these plans and this process; they cannoty turn back as to do so will put their own jobs in jeopardy. They should all resign.

Firstly, I am glad that you are separating the work of Havens from the legitimacy of their application. Not everyone has done that and I am saddened at some of the vilification of the charity and its work.
With regard to your location...I DID say that not all are NIMBY's. With regard to planning permission. It would appear that if Fair havens have worked closely with Planning Authorities in the area then and STILL find themselves going for Belton Way then this means that there IS scope for building on what has been considered Green Belt. Of course before all the titling of land as Green Belt, Brown Field etc houses were built all over on what would now be considered Green Belt. If you go back you can see just how much of the Marine Estate (and possibly even large areas of where I live AND perhaps even where you live in Rochford) were farm land and so today would have been considered as Green Belt. I guess we do not object to our own houses having been built ? It is easy for us who already own property, or work in buildings that were built on land previously used as farm land to say to others "You cannot do now what was previously done for us." I think the cooperation of the local authorities in finding a suitable location has EVERYTHING to do with building on Greenbelt. If you have a complaint I suggest it is directed at the planning authorities rather than the charity itself. By all means do not sit back. Go with your own convictions, just as others are doing in desiring this facility in this location. I am very glad that Havens were able to help your family in their time of need -they do indeed do an amazing work.

billericay boy wrote:
Stick a caravan on it then you can do what ever you want. Sorry i forgot your Southend council not Basildon.

Ill think thats the very opposite of what would happen...

j-w wrote:

I can probably find half a dozen stories about controversial building developments on green belt land on here which aren't rejected unanimously but instead are placed 'under review' which seems to be code for 'it will get approved when you give us a back hander'

Go on then.

well, there's the 150 homes in Benfleet being built on green belt land in Geleblands despite resident protests which was only reported last week.

Then there's the Downer road development, also in Benfleet on green belt land.

The homes being built on Canvey near the methane terminal(not sure if this is actually designated green belt land).

Chalvedon Hall in Basildon, the green belt land just by Pound Lane in Benfleet and the huge tract of green belt land near Barleylands.

With the exception of the Canvey one, all of those are building projects on green belt land that are in the process of getting the go ahead despite public opposition

Those are not stories, thats just a list you have typed.

here
http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/local_ne
ws/9917360.MP_Rebecc
a_joins_fight_to_pro
tect_green_belt_site
/?ref=nt

rejected by council but currently being appealed to communities minister.

http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/local_ne
ws/castlepoint/98925
57.Ex_MP_for_Castle_
Point_bids_to_sell_g
reen_belt_home_to_de
veloper/
Planning permission not even applied for let alone granted by backhander or otherwise.

http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/9909969.
Green_belt_land_in_B
asildon_faces_fight_
for_survival/

similarly no planning even applied for yet, just proposals.

How are none of those sites suitable for a hospice but this pocket of Leigh is the only place in the whole of Essex that is?

Dan_ wrote:
I don't know the full history or circumstances of this proposal, but I'll share my potentially ill informed and jaded view anyway :-)
It's a hospice - They've got their game together and are in a position to provide more(?) care for people and the council don't want it because they are concerned it would "open the flood gates" for more development.......er

rr? The only people in a position to allow a flood of further development from occurring is the council themselves? So the only reason you should be concerned about it is if you have no confidence in your own ability to say no to any further applications? The whole argument about it being greenbelt is laughable, when councils all over the the south east are considering greenbelt for building hundreds and hundreds of homes? Consistency?

Sadly it would open the flood gates Dan. Allowing any development would open a legal gateway for future developments, The planning committee can say no but on appeal due to the fact they had already allowed the land to be developed puts any future developers in the legal driving seat and would almost certainly win their case.
**
Ian P also makes a good point. One way or another at some point this land will get planning permission. The government are making strong suggestions that greenbelt land must be used for housing, the question is should it be the Hospice now or a housing estate later. All those objecting now might have wished they opted for the Hospice further down the line.

AndyBSG wrote:

j-w wrote:

I can probably find half a dozen stories about controversial building developments on green belt land on here which aren't rejected unanimously but instead are placed 'under review' which seems to be code for 'it will get approved when you give us a back hander'

Go on then.

well, there's the 150 homes in Benfleet being built on green belt land in Geleblands despite resident protests which was only reported last week.

Then there's the Downer road development, also in Benfleet on green belt land.

The homes being built on Canvey near the methane terminal(not sure if this is actually designated green belt land).

Chalvedon Hall in Basildon, the green belt land just by Pound Lane in Benfleet and the huge tract of green belt land near Barleylands.

With the exception of the Canvey one, all of those are building projects on green belt land that are in the process of getting the go ahead despite public opposition

You can thank our wonderful CPBC for this one AndyBSG.
The fact we are one of the few councils not to have a core strategy gives developers more powers, especially on appeal.
**
Canvey is a good example of this, CPBC spent £500.000 of public money on a core strategy which had to be scrapped, why? the government inspector made strong suggestions that areas selected were un-suitable for various reasons. He suggested to the the Council that they re think the core strategy and so it was scrapped and now we are seeing the same areas that the inspector declared unsuitable being granted planning permission. Go figure? Well the simple answer is in the absence of a core strategy planning applications are a free for all. This is why we are seeing so many applications now before the proposed new core strategy is published late Autumn. Thanks CPBC...

j-w says....."How are none of those sites suitable for a hospice but this pocket of Leigh is the only place in the whole of Essex that is?"
Perhaps j-w has noted that there are already Hospice's in a number of parts of Essex, each serving their local and surrounding communities. That is why a pocket of land in the Southend or surrounding area is required, and we understand this has been researched and discussed with each of the Council Planning Offices in those areas. j-w needs to address his questions to the relative planning authorities. Maybe then j-w could share with us their answers to his questions.
Aside from the above......A plea. It is disappointing that some other comments in this whole thread are made without foundation of truth (and even admitted to being so in some instances) and yet they are still written and commented upon. I applaud the right to free speech and would defend even the fiercest critic of my own thoughts and the right to speak out against them. But let's move this matter away from hearsay, and rumours and purely speculative comments - it does us all no favours.

Citizen, you managed to completely miss my point.
Havens already have a hospice in Southend, they say that they wish to increase its size and update facilities, which is fantastic.
They claim to have scoured Essex looking for a suitable site for the replacement hospice.
They claim that Belton Way is the only suitable site.

_champagne2 wrote:
I agree with the last comment and others - let's just hope the N I M B Y S and their mates never need the help of a hospice and hope they would be turned away if they did need one. There is no cash in heaven or developers thank god its a place where none of them are going

Totally irrellevant !

No-one is saying you cant build a hospice, they are saying you cant build it on green belt, green belt is what it say..green..IT IS NOT for building on.

Havens should go back and look again at the 212 sites and stop being so picky, Im sure there are plenty of suitable sites locally that will provide great accomodation.

Nearly every post supporting the hospice uses emotional blackmail 'lets hope you never need it', etc, this sort of behaviour is exactly what Havens promised NOt to use, neither should their supporters.

Andy

I agree whole heartedly with the above comment!

j-w wrote:
Citizen, you managed to completely miss my point.
Havens already have a hospice in Southend, they say that they wish to increase its size and update facilities, which is fantastic.
They claim to have scoured Essex looking for a suitable site for the replacement hospice.
They claim that Belton Way is the only suitable site.

For clarification..the desire to increase size is because of the increase in local need, not just aspirational growth, but necessity growth. Therefore the current facility in Westcliff is unsuitable for development - most people can see this. As far a "scouring Essex" my understanding is that they have focussed in South East Essex, naming Southend, Rochford and Castle Point councils they have liaised with. This is the local area they wish to serve. Not other areas in Essex which are already served with other Hospices. There are needs here in THIS town, THIS area. As the report in the Echo quotes Andy Smith in saying......".We’v
e been working closely with Southend, Rochford and Castle Point councils, in particular, the planning officers of Southend Council, to consider all existing and newly-available brownfield sites in the area.
“We have also reviewed our original site selection criteria to ensure all the sites were equally and fairly assessed.
“All three local councils have concluded there are no brownfield sites in the area suitable for a new hospice. As agreed with them, we went on to review greenfield sites.”
I am not sure I have missed your point. Just tried to get it - geographically speaking. If I have failed, I apologise. Please explain further. Are you saying they should relocate their services for the Southend area to another area of Essex (outside of the 3 Authorities mentioned), away from the families etc.? PS @Andy, I am not one who would wish the need of a Hospice on anyone, nor would want even the most vociferous opposer turned away as another has stated - that is just inhumane, and uncaring, OR it is from someone who has experienced the work of a Hospice and holds it in very high standing and cannot understand the opposition? Either way it is not a rational, caring view and i would not want to be seen as holding that view.

I think it would be an ideal place to build
a wind farm,and I am sure that would
please the objectors.

I wonder if they had all this fuss when they built the Railway Line along the Thames.
I can imagine the outcry these days having a dirty loud vehicle like a train run in front of their homes.

I heavily disagree with the above statements that if it was a Casino, Mosque or MNC that they would get the go-ahead. Developers are using a Charity with it's guilt trip to create a stepping stone to develop one of the few untouched wildlife havens in South East Essex. Belfairs woods has been ruined by a Weedkiller filled golf course. Fair havens already have acres of land at the other site with woodland views, why not expand? This development is only to care for a dozen people! compared to the thousands that enjoy the green space, along with the wildlife it truly belongs to. If the Salvo want to sell their land, why not sell the field along the London road which already has great access, views, and is just left fallow every year!!!
I wont be buying from, donating or supporting either fair havens or little havens until they withdraw

For those that OPPOSE the green belt land being built on - head to https://www.facebook
.com/saveoursouthend
greenbelt.

Having read in a newspaper of the 30's reharding the long term stability, and attempts to do something, of the cliffs both in southend and leigh I would not build a shed on it. I predict any building would suffer stability problems forever there. It would cost less to build on brown field sites than those cliffs.

jolllyboy wrote:
Having read in a newspaper of the 30's reharding the long term stability, and attempts to do something, of the cliffs both in southend and leigh I would not build a shed on it. I predict any building would suffer stability problems forever there. It would cost less to build on brown field sites than those cliffs.

I do understand your concern. However, thankfully, foundation technology has somewhat improved since the 30's which enables us to build on all sorts of ground types - including unstable geology. Yes, brownfield sites would perhaps be cheaper, but IF we informed correctly then there are no brownfield sites suitable from a planning authority view in the 3 Authorities mentioned for an enlarged local Hospice. Regarding your reluctance to build a shed.....thankfully my shed is founded on a stable foundation of a few inches of Type , some paving slabs and some chunky timbers.

If you look at the trouble in York with underground streams you know that the Hospice should not be built there. Nor the Museum where it is known there is underground water.