Havens hospice plan set for rejection again (From Echo)

RobertFS wrote:
As a lady mentioned in the Leigh Times the hospice controllers had looked at 40 other sites which were all considered unsuitable. there are now 41 unsuitable sites

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:
As I understand it, the money was set aside specifically for this project from legacy funds, and none of it from donations so no money has been taken away from care. There is a whole Q&A on the Havens website!! http://www.havenshos pices.org.uk/about_u s/new-fair-havens-ho spice/faqs

v.randy wrote:
sick of this hospice thing.
Sick of the coverage and constant whinning ,move on

r6keith wrote:

RobertFS wrote:
As a lady mentioned in the Leigh Times the hospice controllers had looked at 40 other sites which were all considered unsuitable. there are now 41 unsuitable sites

Give a location to some of these

Lamur1 wrote:
It's about time people realise that 1 in 4 of us will get cancer (not forgetting the many other life limiting diseases) and with a forever growing population it's inevitable that this service will high in demand. As it stands they can't provide that. With an increasing population where do you think they are going to live? Go figure. If its not a hospice it's only a matter of time till there's a block of flats.
I experienced the hospice first hand in April. My grandad died there. We were lucky enough to get a bed there (only because someone else was still able to walk upstairs to another room). Had this had not happened my grandad would have died in pain.
This proposed site is pretty much opposite the dump and is near the train station. Oh what a massive eyesore a hospice would be....

Lidsp2012 wrote:
I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site
would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

andy:) wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote:
I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site
would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

All your points are irrellevant, no-one is saying no hospice, just no hopsice on green belt land, there clearly are lots of alternative sites but Havens have choosen criteria that rules them all out, this criteria should be looked at again, instead Havens have choosen to blow nearly half a million in putting forward a second attempt to build on Beltons Way.

You may believe its a great site, indeed it is..it doesnt need ruining by building a huge hospice/conference centre/office.

Andy

Alan Robbo wrote:
I do not agree with the Planning officers at Southend Council, I believe it's the best place for a Hospice, there is a local train station, and two or three local bus services which many old and frail visitors can use, at present the land is a waste land, but will be opened up so as to allow much freer usage for everyone. I believe it will even be wheelchair friendly and still open for the dog walkers, so what is the problem, everyone wins.

dizzy15 wrote:

andy:) wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote:
I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site
would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

All your points are irrellevant, no-one is saying no hospice, just no hopsice on green belt land, there clearly are lots of alternative sites but Havens have choosen criteria that rules them all out, this criteria should be looked at again, instead Havens have choosen to blow nearly half a million in putting forward a second attempt to build on Beltons Way.

You may believe its a great site, indeed it is..it doesnt need ruining by building a huge hospice/conference centre/office.

Andy

Just to say that the Hospice planned is not huge, and it needs a conference and offices too. Are the care staff to compute to offices to write care notes? The conference centre is needed to plan care and services.

andy:) wrote:

Lamur1 wrote:
It's about time people realise that 1 in 4 of us will get cancer (not forgetting the many other life limiting diseases) and with a forever growing population it's inevitable that this service will high in demand. As it stands they can't provide that. With an increasing population where do you think they are going to live? Go figure. If its not a hospice it's only a matter of time till there's a block of flats.
I experienced the hospice first hand in April. My grandad died there. We were lucky enough to get a bed there (only because someone else was still able to walk upstairs to another room). Had this had not happened my grandad would have died in pain.
This proposed site is pretty much opposite the dump and is near the train station. Oh what a massive eyesore a hospice would be....

BUT its green belt, GREEN..it is NOT for building on. Simples.

You have not evidence that flats will eventually be built there, no-one is denying the great work Havens do, but they should go back to their list of sites and change the criteria that clearly rules them all out.

dizzy15 wrote:

andy:) wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote:
I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site
would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

All your points are irrellevant, no-one is saying no hospice, just no hopsice on green belt land, there clearly are lots of alternative sites but Havens have choosen criteria that rules them all out, this criteria should be looked at again, instead Havens have choosen to blow nearly half a million in putting forward a second attempt to build on Beltons Way.

You may believe its a great site, indeed it is..it doesnt need ruining by building a huge hospice/conference centre/office.

Andy

Just to say that the Hospice planned is not huge, and it needs a conference and offices too. Are the care staff to compute to offices to write care notes? The conference centre is needed to plan care and services.

shortman wrote:
Some of the locations looked at by the hospice folk... from a site opposite a cemetery, to land NOT for sale, to Land not for sale now.......

Land Opposite Cemetery, Hockley Road Rayleigh:
“Has a sense of symmetry but not much sensitivity”

List of sites reviewed, but not for sale:
Seaway Car Park
Land at Southchurch Avenue / Marine Parade
The Golden Mile
Land East of Canvey Road
Land South of Essex Way
Land North East of Hadleigh
Football pitch West Canvey
Land West of Glebelands
Land South of Charfleets
Land North West of Essex Way
The Triangle , West Canvey
Land Northwest of Northwich Road
Land at 164 – 240 Daws Heath Road
Eldon Way Industrial Estate - Not available
Stambridge Mills Mill Lane Stambridge - Not available
Land at Morrisons, Western Approaches – Not available
Land at Pond Chase Nurseries - Not vacant
Former Ekco Works – “ not sure about true availability”
Land North of the Chase - Unlikely to be available for 5 to 10 years

Not big enough:
Castle Road Recycling Centre, Rayleigh
Land to South of Back Lane Car Park
Scrub Land

Lidsp2012 wrote:
I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

Alan Robbo wrote:
I do not agree with the Planning officers at Southend Council, I believe it's the best place for a Hospice, there is a local train station, and two or three local bus services which many old and frail visitors can use, at present the land is a waste land, but will be opened up so as to allow much freer usage for everyone. I believe it will even be wheelchair friendly and still open for the dog walkers, so what is the problem, everyone wins.

Lamur1 wrote:

dizzy15 wrote:

andy:) wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote: I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

All your points are irrellevant, no-one is saying no hospice, just no hopsice on green belt land, there clearly are lots of alternative sites but Havens have choosen criteria that rules them all out, this criteria should be looked at again, instead Havens have choosen to blow nearly half a million in putting forward a second attempt to build on Beltons Way. You may believe its a great site, indeed it is..it doesnt need ruining by building a huge hospice/conference centre/office. Andy

Just to say that the Hospice planned is not huge, and it needs a conference and offices too. Are the care staff to compute to offices to write care notes? The conference centre is needed to plan care and services.

In addition to Dizzy's comment they currently have a meeting each morning to discuss who is more or a priority for the few beds they have. Meetings of this nature need a suitable space to be discussed.

perini wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote: I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

So as you say it's the level of care and compassion that is given to the patients there - so the location is immaterial then!

onegreatjohnny wrote:
People might get a better perspective of the proposed site if they saw that this is a rather scraggy end-wedge of – otherwise lovely - 3 mile-wide of green belt just up from Leigh Station opposite Leigh Tip alongside the railway line to Benfleet. Tree-shielded and landscaped with the footpath unaffected it would actually enhance this area, just as has been done with Little Havens in Thundersley. A small local clique of Nimbys wielding local political influence way beyond their numbers must not be allowed to stop us getting such a valuable community service for the Borough at a spot so obviously best suited to its needs in the round.

al coniston wrote:

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:
As I understand it, the money was set aside specifically for this project from legacy funds, and none of it from donations so no money has been taken away from care. There is a whole Q&A on the Havens website!! http://www.havenshos pices.org.uk/about_u s/new-fair-havens-ho spice/faqs

if, as you say, money was set aside from legacy funds and, if the figure of 400,000 is indeed accurate, would you not agree that it is still a substantial amount of money which has been spent on what was always considered a high risk/futile application ??

onegreatjohnny wrote:
People might get a better perspective of the proposed site if they saw that this is a rather scraggy end-wedge of – otherwise lovely - 3 mile-wide of green belt just up from Leigh Station opposite Leigh Tip alongside the railway line to Benfleet.

Tree-shielded and landscaped with the footpath unaffected it would actually enhance this area, just as has been done with Little Havens in Thundersley.

A small local clique of Nimbys wielding local political influence way beyond their numbers must not be allowed to stop us getting such a valuable community service for the Borough at a spot so obviously best suited to its needs in the round.

perini wrote:

Lamur1 wrote:

dizzy15 wrote:

andy:) wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote: I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

All your points are irrellevant, no-one is saying no hospice, just no hopsice on green belt land, there clearly are lots of alternative sites but Havens have choosen criteria that rules them all out, this criteria should be looked at again, instead Havens have choosen to blow nearly half a million in putting forward a second attempt to build on Beltons Way. You may believe its a great site, indeed it is..it doesnt need ruining by building a huge hospice/conference centre/office. Andy

Just to say that the Hospice planned is not huge, and it needs a conference and offices too. Are the care staff to compute to offices to write care notes? The conference centre is needed to plan care and services.

In addition to Dizzy's comment they currently have a meeting each morning to discuss who is more or a priority for the few beds they have. Meetings of this nature need a suitable space to be discussed.

Lots of business's hold meetings on a daily basis - a conference centre is not an essential part of that - unless you want to use it for other activities that is!

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:

al coniston wrote:

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:
As I understand it, the money was set aside specifically for this project from legacy funds, and none of it from donations so no money has been taken away from care. There is a whole Q&A on the Havens website!! http://www.havenshos pices.org.uk/about_u s/new-fair-havens-ho spice/faqs

if, as you say, money was set aside from legacy funds and, if the figure of 400,000 is indeed accurate, would you not agree that it is still a substantial amount of money which has been spent on what was always considered a high risk/futile application ??

No, because a new hospice is urgently needed, so it cannot be considered a futile application. Havens have had to turn people away because the current building is fit for purpose. Can you imagine what that must be like for the families?

The legacies left to the hospice where specifically left to fund the design and build of a new hospice. I know that, by law, a charity cannot use funds allocated for a specific reason for anything else...so either way the money was always going to go on this!

HK9597 wrote:

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:

al coniston wrote:

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:
As I understand it, the money was set aside specifically for this project from legacy funds, and none of it from donations so no money has been taken away from care. There is a whole Q&A on the Havens website!! http://www.havenshos pices.org.uk/about_u s/new-fair-havens-ho spice/faqs

if, as you say, money was set aside from legacy funds and, if the figure of 400,000 is indeed accurate, would you not agree that it is still a substantial amount of money which has been spent on what was always considered a high risk/futile application ??

No, because a new hospice is urgently needed, so it cannot be considered a futile application. Havens have had to turn people away because the current building is fit for purpose. Can you imagine what that must be like for the families?

The legacies left to the hospice where specifically left to fund the design and build of a new hospice. I know that, by law, a charity cannot use funds allocated for a specific reason for anything else...so either way the money was always going to go on this!

Well it was doomed from the start, and they were told that it was highly unlikely to succeed. So, in that respect, they have gambled a huge sum of money, which could have been better used to help purchase a brown field site.

They say there isn't anything else available and they need to move quickly. Well time will tell and I will be surprised if another location isn't found soon. Unless they want to throw good money after bad and lodge another appeal.

Stop wasting time and money and focus your energy on finding a location you will be able to build on. There is one out there!

perini wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote:
I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

So as you say it's the level of care and compassion that is given to the patients there - so the location is immaterial then!

shortman wrote:

perini wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote:
I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

So as you say it's the level of care and compassion that is given to the patients there - so the location is immaterial then!

The land is not covered by syringes, and green belt land does not have to be one that has " natural beauty", it is however a green space, and a " green lung". I do not think that having a hospice next to a train line with the noise levels make any sense. You have two hospice services at two locations, merging onto one site, and sharing back office services / hotel services makes far more sense, and value for money. If the site at Hadleigh is good enough for Little Havens, it is good enough for the adult hospice service. And as for not being able to have an adult service on the same site as a children's service, it seems to work find at the local hospital.

Slight issue with your proposal... More green belt land.

Lamur1 wrote:

shortman wrote:

perini wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote:
I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

So as you say it's the level of care and compassion that is given to the patients there - so the location is immaterial then!

The land is not covered by syringes, and green belt land does not have to be one that has " natural beauty", it is however a green space, and a " green lung". I do not think that having a hospice next to a train line with the noise levels make any sense. You have two hospice services at two locations, merging onto one site, and sharing back office services / hotel services makes far more sense, and value for money. If the site at Hadleigh is good enough for Little Havens, it is good enough for the adult hospice service. And as for not being able to have an adult service on the same site as a children's service, it seems to work find at the local hospital.

Slight issue with your proposal... More green belt land.

Lamur1 wrote:

shortman wrote:

perini wrote:

Lidsp2012 wrote:
I am shocked disgusted by the awful comments I have read on here today. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones are never in need of a bed at the hospice. It is quite clear you have never had someone very close to you in fair havens, otherwise you would not be rejecting these plans.I do not think people understand what comfort a hospice gives to the patient and their families. The level of care and comfort that is given by the hospice is second to none and when you are a relative you do not have to worry about overstaying your welcome, which is well needed when you have a dying relative in a critical condition. The level of hospice beds that the area has to offer at present is clearly not enough, our population is growing and we need to be sensible as the palliative care within hospices is needed more than ever. I believe the this would be a great site to build a new hospice and the grounds would be certainly well maintained and looked after. Havens have looked at other sites which are unsuitable and this site would have been the best location in the area. I really hope that you recognise how much a new hospice is needed and appreciate the fact that it is more important to help a dying person and their family have a better final journey than preserve a piece of land that is covered with syringes and is NOT an area of natural beauty.

So as you say it's the level of care and compassion that is given to the patients there - so the location is immaterial then!

The land is not covered by syringes, and green belt land does not have to be one that has " natural beauty", it is however a green space, and a " green lung". I do not think that having a hospice next to a train line with the noise levels make any sense. You have two hospice services at two locations, merging onto one site, and sharing back office services / hotel services makes far more sense, and value for money. If the site at Hadleigh is good enough for Little Havens, it is good enough for the adult hospice service. And as for not being able to have an adult service on the same site as a children's service, it seems to work find at the local hospital.

Slight issue with your proposal... More green belt land.

andy:) wrote:

Alan Robbo wrote:
I do not agree with the Planning officers at Southend Council, I believe it's the best place for a Hospice, there is a local train station, and two or three local bus services which many old and frail visitors can use, at present the land is a waste land, but will be opened up so as to allow much freer usage for everyone. I believe it will even be wheelchair friendly and still open for the dog walkers, so what is the problem, everyone wins.

Youve missed a major point, its on GREEN belt,(it is NOT waste land as you claim),it is not to be built on, how can a big building plonked in green belt by open for walkers, cyclists, etc...the greenery will be gone replaced by bricks and mortar, people cant walk through walls.

Anyway Im sure the Councillors will see sense, this was a dumb decision by Havens and they have wasted money by making the second application, as the Echo editorial points out, its time to move on, forget this position and move forward to a suitable non-green belt site that everyone can support and get behind.

Alan Robbo wrote:

andy:) wrote:

Alan Robbo wrote:
I do not agree with the Planning officers at Southend Council, I believe it's the best place for a Hospice, there is a local train station, and two or three local bus services which many old and frail visitors can use, at present the land is a waste land, but will be opened up so as to allow much freer usage for everyone. I believe it will even be wheelchair friendly and still open for the dog walkers, so what is the problem, everyone wins.

Youve missed a major point, its on GREEN belt,(it is NOT waste land as you claim),it is not to be built on, how can a big building plonked in green belt by open for walkers, cyclists, etc...the greenery will be gone replaced by bricks and mortar, people cant walk through walls.

Anyway Im sure the Councillors will see sense, this was a dumb decision by Havens and they have wasted money by making the second application, as the Echo editorial points out, its time to move on, forget this position and move forward to a suitable non-green belt site that everyone can support and get behind.

Dear All, I think you miss the point;
Did Tesco not build on Green belt land, has not the Car sales showrooms built on Green Belt land (cheery orchard way), and as for the new Southend Football ground, ho yes GREEN BELT!
I believe all the new buildings in and around Southend in the last few years have been on Green Belt land.
Also, Waitrose, Wellesley hospital, Maplin, Ets, YES WAS GREEN BELT.

Alan Robbo wrote:

andy:) wrote:

Alan Robbo wrote:
I do not agree with the Planning officers at Southend Council, I believe it's the best place for a Hospice, there is a local train station, and two or three local bus services which many old and frail visitors can use, at present the land is a waste land, but will be opened up so as to allow much freer usage for everyone. I believe it will even be wheelchair friendly and still open for the dog walkers, so what is the problem, everyone wins.

Youve missed a major point, its on GREEN belt,(it is NOT waste land as you claim),it is not to be built on, how can a big building plonked in green belt by open for walkers, cyclists, etc...the greenery will be gone replaced by bricks and mortar, people cant walk through walls.

Anyway Im sure the Councillors will see sense, this was a dumb decision by Havens and they have wasted money by making the second application, as the Echo editorial points out, its time to move on, forget this position and move forward to a suitable non-green belt site that everyone can support and get behind.

Dear All, I think you miss the point;
Did Tesco not build on Green belt land, has not the Car sales showrooms built on Green Belt land (cheery orchard way), and as for the new Southend Football ground, ho yes GREEN BELT!
I believe all the new buildings in and around Southend in the last few years have been on Green Belt land.
Also, Waitrose, Wellesley hospital, Maplin, Ets, YES WAS GREEN BELT.

Lamur1 wrote:
I'm leaving this conversation comment board now as its all getting a bit tit for tat. From comments made it is evident that the main issue is with it 'being in your backyard'. The emotional element has been brought in but it's fact. If you have not been in the situation where your loved one is making gurggling noises because they can no longer swallow and could choke on their spit and die from that rather from their cancer and you are there trying to prop them up to prevent them from doing so then you will never quite understand and that is unfortunate. I'm 23 by the way and I had to do that there are kids much younger than me doing that too.

Lamur1 wrote:
I'm leaving this conversation comment board now as its all getting a bit tit for tat. From comments made it is evident that the main issue is with it 'being in your backyard'. The emotional element has been brought in but it's fact. If you have not been in the situation where your loved one is making gurggling noises because they can no longer swallow and could choke on their spit and die from that rather from their cancer and you are there trying to prop them up to prevent them from doing so then you will never quite understand and that is unfortunate. I'm 23 by the way and I had to do that there are kids much younger than me doing that too.

shortman wrote:

HK9597 wrote:

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:

al coniston wrote:

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:
As I understand it, the money was set aside specifically for this project from legacy funds, and none of it from donations so no money has been taken away from care. There is a whole Q&A on the Havens website!! http://www.havenshos pices.org.uk/about_u s/new-fair-havens-ho spice/faqs

if, as you say, money was set aside from legacy funds and, if the figure of 400,000 is indeed accurate, would you not agree that it is still a substantial amount of money which has been spent on what was always considered a high risk/futile application ??

No, because a new hospice is urgently needed, so it cannot be considered a futile application. Havens have had to turn people away because the current building is fit for purpose. Can you imagine what that must be like for the families?

The legacies left to the hospice where specifically left to fund the design and build of a new hospice. I know that, by law, a charity cannot use funds allocated for a specific reason for anything else...so either way the money was always going to go on this!

Well it was doomed from the start, and they were told that it was highly unlikely to succeed. So, in that respect, they have gambled a huge sum of money, which could have been better used to help purchase a brown field site.

They say there isn't anything else available and they need to move quickly. Well time will tell and I will be surprised if another location isn't found soon. Unless they want to throw good money after bad and lodge another appeal.

Stop wasting time and money and focus your energy on finding a location you will be able to build on. There is one out there!

From an Echo report last year - the final sites looked at by the Hospice was in the end 212! However, as you can see an option was taken out on the land in Leigh before the hospice even started to " look" at other sites. says it.....

“Land Registry documents obtained by the Echo show Havens Development Company, a subsidiary set up to oversee the building of the new hospice, signed an option agreement with the Salvation Army on July 27, 2010”.
It has often been stated that they “promised no decision would be taken before an authoritative search for alternatives had been completed”.
That contract for an option was finalised three months before the charity began a search of 80 possible sites, which it claimed led to its decision to select the Leigh green belt land for its plans.

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:

shortman wrote:

HK9597 wrote:

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:

al coniston wrote:

BigmouthStrikesAgain wrote:
As I understand it, the money was set aside specifically for this project from legacy funds, and none of it from donations so no money has been taken away from care. There is a whole Q&A on the Havens website!! http://www.havenshos pices.org.uk/about_u s/new-fair-havens-ho spice/faqs

if, as you say, money was set aside from legacy funds and, if the figure of 400,000 is indeed accurate, would you not agree that it is still a substantial amount of money which has been spent on what was always considered a high risk/futile application ??

No, because a new hospice is urgently needed, so it cannot be considered a futile application. Havens have had to turn people away because the current building is fit for purpose. Can you imagine what that must be like for the families?

The legacies left to the hospice where specifically left to fund the design and build of a new hospice. I know that, by law, a charity cannot use funds allocated for a specific reason for anything else...so either way the money was always going to go on this!

Well it was doomed from the start, and they were told that it was highly unlikely to succeed. So, in that respect, they have gambled a huge sum of money, which could have been better used to help purchase a brown field site.

They say there isn't anything else available and they need to move quickly. Well time will tell and I will be surprised if another location isn't found soon. Unless they want to throw good money after bad and lodge another appeal.

Stop wasting time and money and focus your energy on finding a location you will be able to build on. There is one out there!

From an Echo report last year - the final sites looked at by the Hospice was in the end 212! However, as you can see an option was taken out on the land in Leigh before the hospice even started to " look" at other sites. says it.....

“Land Registry documents obtained by the Echo show Havens Development Company, a subsidiary set up to oversee the building of the new hospice, signed an option agreement with the Salvation Army on July 27, 2010”.
It has often been stated that they “promised no decision would be taken before an authoritative search for alternatives had been completed”.
That contract for an option was finalised three months before the charity began a search of 80 possible sites, which it claimed led to its decision to select the Leigh green belt land for its plans.

Errr...Havens took out an option to purchase on the Belton Way land - no agreement to buy was ever reached or signed. If Havens are going to put in all the work to submit plans it makes sense to at least know that the land owner would be potentially willing to sell in the future rather than waste both time and money! Think through what you are complaining about logically...!!!

onegreatjohnny wrote:
People might get a better perspective of the proposed site if they saw that this is a rather scraggy end-wedge of – otherwise lovely - 3 mile-wide of green belt just up from Leigh Station opposite Leigh Tip alongside the railway line to Benfleet. Tree-shielded and landscaped with the footpath unaffected it would actually enhance this area, just as has been done with Little Havens in Thundersley. A small local clique of Nimbys wielding local political influence way beyond their numbers must not be allowed to stop us getting such a valuable community service for the Borough at a spot so obviously best suited to its needs in the round.

shortman wrote:

Alan Robbo wrote:

andy:) wrote:

Alan Robbo wrote: I do not agree with the Planning officers at Southend Council, I believe it's the best place for a Hospice, there is a local train station, and two or three local bus services which many old and frail visitors can use, at present the land is a waste land, but will be opened up so as to allow much freer usage for everyone. I believe it will even be wheelchair friendly and still open for the dog walkers, so what is the problem, everyone wins.

Youve missed a major point, its on GREEN belt,(it is NOT waste land as you claim),it is not to be built on, how can a big building plonked in green belt by open for walkers, cyclists, etc...the greenery will be gone replaced by bricks and mortar, people cant walk through walls. Anyway Im sure the Councillors will see sense, this was a dumb decision by Havens and they have wasted money by making the second application, as the Echo editorial points out, its time to move on, forget this position and move forward to a suitable non-green belt site that everyone can support and get behind.

Dear All, I think you miss the point; Did Tesco not build on Green belt land, has not the Car sales showrooms built on Green Belt land (cheery orchard way), and as for the new Southend Football ground, ho yes GREEN BELT! I believe all the new buildings in and around Southend in the last few years have been on Green Belt land. Also, Waitrose, Wellesley hospital, Maplin, Ets, YES WAS GREEN BELT.

Not all of that was green belt, a little more research might be of help before making such remarks. And with the parts that had been green belt, being built on, even more reason to protect what we have left locally. Leigh has very little green belt land, so maybe we value green belt a tad more for that reason. It seems that logic is lost on those that do not want to hear it.

v.randy wrote:
Hospices are being fazed out nationally. There is little appetite for building more. And now the whole Jimmy Saville business has come to light I think more of us will look after our love ones at home where we can keep an eye on them.

Dapper Dave wrote:

v.randy wrote:
Hospices are being fazed out nationally. There is little appetite for building more. And now the whole Jimmy Saville business has come to light I think more of us will look after our love ones at home where we can keep an eye on them.

v randy, you seem like a complete tool. By the way it is phased out, not fazed out. Learn to read and write you idiot

Dapper Dave wrote:

onegreatjohnny wrote:
People might get a better perspective of the proposed site if they saw that this is a rather scraggy end-wedge of – otherwise lovely - 3 mile-wide of green belt just up from Leigh Station opposite Leigh Tip alongside the railway line to Benfleet. Tree-shielded and landscaped with the footpath unaffected it would actually enhance this area, just as has been done with Little Havens in Thundersley. A small local clique of Nimbys wielding local political influence way beyond their numbers must not be allowed to stop us getting such a valuable community service for the Borough at a spot so obviously best suited to its needs in the round.

Well said onegreatjohnny, completely agree with you!!!

Dapper Dave wrote:

shortman wrote:

Alan Robbo wrote:

andy:) wrote:

Alan Robbo wrote: I do not agree with the Planning officers at Southend Council, I believe it's the best place for a Hospice, there is a local train station, and two or three local bus services which many old and frail visitors can use, at present the land is a waste land, but will be opened up so as to allow much freer usage for everyone. I believe it will even be wheelchair friendly and still open for the dog walkers, so what is the problem, everyone wins.

Youve missed a major point, its on GREEN belt,(it is NOT waste land as you claim),it is not to be built on, how can a big building plonked in green belt by open for walkers, cyclists, etc...the greenery will be gone replaced by bricks and mortar, people cant walk through walls. Anyway Im sure the Councillors will see sense, this was a dumb decision by Havens and they have wasted money by making the second application, as the Echo editorial points out, its time to move on, forget this position and move forward to a suitable non-green belt site that everyone can support and get behind.

Dear All, I think you miss the point; Did Tesco not build on Green belt land, has not the Car sales showrooms built on Green Belt land (cheery orchard way), and as for the new Southend Football ground, ho yes GREEN BELT! I believe all the new buildings in and around Southend in the last few years have been on Green Belt land. Also, Waitrose, Wellesley hospital, Maplin, Ets, YES WAS GREEN BELT.

Not all of that was green belt, a little more research might be of help before making such remarks. And with the parts that had been green belt, being built on, even more reason to protect what we have left locally. Leigh has very little green belt land, so maybe we value green belt a tad more for that reason. It seems that logic is lost on those that do not want to hear it.

Yet you state that its fine to build on green belt land in Hadleigh - it doesnt matter if this has already been built on or not, it is still green belt land! Therefore your entire argument that you dont support greenbelt is defunct - more accurately you are concerned with green belt land right on your doorstep. Dont try and pretend you are a green martyr - you argue against the hospice as its on your doorstep, and you are probably worried about the value of your house on the marine parage estate! You people make me laugh!!!!