Havens set to appeal if plans for a new hospice are not approved

Echo: Havens set to appeal if plans for  a new hospice are not approved Havens set to appeal if plans for a new hospice are not approved


A HOSPICE has vowed to fight on with plans to build a new centre on green belt land.

Haven’s Hospices say they are devastated Southend Council planning officers have recommended a refusal of plans for a £15million hospice off Belton Way West in Leigh.

Chief Executive Andy Smith said they would attend next week’s development control meeting to put their case but added an appeal would be lodged immediately if the application is turned down.

Mr Smith claimed that in a succession of pre-application meetings planning officers at Southend Council had indicated the proposal for a purpose-built 16-bed hospice would be looked upon in a favourable light. But a subsequent report said the case for building on green belt had not been met.

Mr Smith said: “An enormous amount of time and investment was put into meeting with council planning authorities. To have it agreed every step of the way and to get to the stage where all are satisfied, it’s as if those meetings didn’t happen.”

Andy Lewis, Southend Council’s corporate director for enterprise, tourism and the environment, angrily dismissed the hospice claims and said officers had in fact warned of the “considerable challenges” that would have to be overcome to get the plans approved.

He said: “I am extremely disappointed that Havens have chosen to make these wholly unfounded claims, particularly as they come before the Development Control Committee has had chance to consider the report prepared by officers.”

The application will be heard on Wednesday, October 17. The meeting will be held at 2pm in the Southend Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Victoria Avenue.
 

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:13am Mon 15 Oct 12

al coniston says...

Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press)

There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect.

The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.
Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press) There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect. The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram. al coniston
  • Score: 3

8:35am Mon 15 Oct 12

Brunning999 says...

al coniston wrote:
Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press)

There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect.

The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.
Havens have bent over backwards to liaise with planning officers.
Havens have been told there is no more sites in Southend available for a Hospice.
Scaremongers have said that it will spoil the green belt at the suggested site which is not the case if Little Havens site is an indication of what the scheme will involve.
It is an insult to say that it will destroy The Green Belt and disrupt the lives of residents, this scare story is rubbish in the area of Daws Heath Thundersley Little Havens has improved the area especially the nature reserve which was prior to the Hospice site a place where 'magic mushrooms' attracted many undesirables and druggies from far and wide, plus other anti social behaviour by motocross riders, all of which is no longer a problem.
That site is ideal and should be a 'Special case' for approval.
God is on the side of the Hospice through the ghost of General Booth it must and will be built there.
[quote][p][bold]al coniston[/bold] wrote: Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press) There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect. The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.[/p][/quote]Havens have bent over backwards to liaise with planning officers. Havens have been told there is no more sites in Southend available for a Hospice. Scaremongers have said that it will spoil the green belt at the suggested site which is not the case if Little Havens site is an indication of what the scheme will involve. It is an insult to say that it will destroy The Green Belt and disrupt the lives of residents, this scare story is rubbish in the area of Daws Heath Thundersley Little Havens has improved the area especially the nature reserve which was prior to the Hospice site a place where 'magic mushrooms' attracted many undesirables and druggies from far and wide, plus other anti social behaviour by motocross riders, all of which is no longer a problem. That site is ideal and should be a 'Special case' for approval. God is on the side of the Hospice through the ghost of General Booth it must and will be built there. Brunning999
  • Score: -5

8:44am Mon 15 Oct 12

j-w says...

Rubbish.
Rubbish. j-w
  • Score: 0

8:49am Mon 15 Oct 12

perini says...

j-w wrote:
Rubbish.
Agree absolutely - it is utter madness to write that no place other than a green belt site is suitable. What a load of cr*p! Seems to me Havens is trying to create a precedent of developing green belt land - mind you, if they hadn't sold some of the Thundersley green belt site off there would have been plenty of room there for a new hospice.
[quote][p][bold]j-w[/bold] wrote: Rubbish.[/p][/quote]Agree absolutely - it is utter madness to write that no place other than a green belt site is suitable. What a load of cr*p! Seems to me Havens is trying to create a precedent of developing green belt land - mind you, if they hadn't sold some of the Thundersley green belt site off there would have been plenty of room there for a new hospice. perini
  • Score: 4

9:37am Mon 15 Oct 12

Horace Wimpole says...

How much time and money has this fruitless pursuit cost?

One wonders about the impact of all this on the primary purpose at Fairhavens, i.e. providing hospice and respite care.
How much time and money has this fruitless pursuit cost? One wonders about the impact of all this on the primary purpose at Fairhavens, i.e. providing hospice and respite care. Horace Wimpole
  • Score: 3

9:55am Mon 15 Oct 12

Broadwaywatch says...

Brunning999 wrote:
al coniston wrote:
Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press)

There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect.

The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.
Havens have bent over backwards to liaise with planning officers.
Havens have been told there is no more sites in Southend available for a Hospice.
Scaremongers have said that it will spoil the green belt at the suggested site which is not the case if Little Havens site is an indication of what the scheme will involve.
It is an insult to say that it will destroy The Green Belt and disrupt the lives of residents, this scare story is rubbish in the area of Daws Heath Thundersley Little Havens has improved the area especially the nature reserve which was prior to the Hospice site a place where 'magic mushrooms' attracted many undesirables and druggies from far and wide, plus other anti social behaviour by motocross riders, all of which is no longer a problem.
That site is ideal and should be a 'Special case' for approval.
God is on the side of the Hospice through the ghost of General Booth it must and will be built there.
You speak of the Ghost of General Booth! I presume you are referring to William Booth the founder of the Salvation Army, an organisation I have great respect for.
However, I believe one of their policies is no gambling which fails to fit in with the selling of lottery scratch cards which I understand Fair Havens are now selling in their shops therefore I think it quite pointless to bring the Generals ghost into the argument.
[quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]al coniston[/bold] wrote: Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press) There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect. The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.[/p][/quote]Havens have bent over backwards to liaise with planning officers. Havens have been told there is no more sites in Southend available for a Hospice. Scaremongers have said that it will spoil the green belt at the suggested site which is not the case if Little Havens site is an indication of what the scheme will involve. It is an insult to say that it will destroy The Green Belt and disrupt the lives of residents, this scare story is rubbish in the area of Daws Heath Thundersley Little Havens has improved the area especially the nature reserve which was prior to the Hospice site a place where 'magic mushrooms' attracted many undesirables and druggies from far and wide, plus other anti social behaviour by motocross riders, all of which is no longer a problem. That site is ideal and should be a 'Special case' for approval. God is on the side of the Hospice through the ghost of General Booth it must and will be built there.[/p][/quote]You speak of the Ghost of General Booth! I presume you are referring to William Booth the founder of the Salvation Army, an organisation I have great respect for. However, I believe one of their policies is no gambling which fails to fit in with the selling of lottery scratch cards which I understand Fair Havens are now selling in their shops therefore I think it quite pointless to bring the Generals ghost into the argument. Broadwaywatch
  • Score: 1

10:24am Mon 15 Oct 12

APR says...

As I said previously, why do they feel the need to build at Belton Way ?
Is it just for the view ?

The existing Havens and Little Havens don't have views.

Before anyone says anything, we do all realize what a fantastic job these people do.
As I said previously, why do they feel the need to build at Belton Way ? Is it just for the view ? The existing Havens and Little Havens don't have views. Before anyone says anything, we do all realize what a fantastic job these people do. APR
  • Score: 1

11:54am Mon 15 Oct 12

j-w says...

"why do they feel the need to build at Belton Way ?"

One imagines the land is at a very good price compared to other sites?
"why do they feel the need to build at Belton Way ?" One imagines the land is at a very good price compared to other sites? j-w
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Brunning999 says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
Brunning999 wrote:
al coniston wrote:
Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press)

There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect.

The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.
Havens have bent over backwards to liaise with planning officers.
Havens have been told there is no more sites in Southend available for a Hospice.
Scaremongers have said that it will spoil the green belt at the suggested site which is not the case if Little Havens site is an indication of what the scheme will involve.
It is an insult to say that it will destroy The Green Belt and disrupt the lives of residents, this scare story is rubbish in the area of Daws Heath Thundersley Little Havens has improved the area especially the nature reserve which was prior to the Hospice site a place where 'magic mushrooms' attracted many undesirables and druggies from far and wide, plus other anti social behaviour by motocross riders, all of which is no longer a problem.
That site is ideal and should be a 'Special case' for approval.
God is on the side of the Hospice through the ghost of General Booth it must and will be built there.
You speak of the Ghost of General Booth! I presume you are referring to William Booth the founder of the Salvation Army, an organisation I have great respect for.
However, I believe one of their policies is no gambling which fails to fit in with the selling of lottery scratch cards which I understand Fair Havens are now selling in their shops therefore I think it quite pointless to bring the Generals ghost into the argument.
Agreed the Covenant of the Land must be upheld, no alcohol, no gambling if that fact is correct Havens must not accept money from Gambling money for use on this land.

The location is Gods chosen sight far beyond the opinions of mere commenters on here.

I believe some of the commenters should listen to the case put forward by Havens re their careful following and understanding of negotiations with Southend Council Planners which led them to believe there reasons for continuing were that there was and is an achievable solution to any problems.

God will see this through to a satisfactory conclusion despite all the scaremongers.
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]al coniston[/bold] wrote: Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press) There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect. The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.[/p][/quote]Havens have bent over backwards to liaise with planning officers. Havens have been told there is no more sites in Southend available for a Hospice. Scaremongers have said that it will spoil the green belt at the suggested site which is not the case if Little Havens site is an indication of what the scheme will involve. It is an insult to say that it will destroy The Green Belt and disrupt the lives of residents, this scare story is rubbish in the area of Daws Heath Thundersley Little Havens has improved the area especially the nature reserve which was prior to the Hospice site a place where 'magic mushrooms' attracted many undesirables and druggies from far and wide, plus other anti social behaviour by motocross riders, all of which is no longer a problem. That site is ideal and should be a 'Special case' for approval. God is on the side of the Hospice through the ghost of General Booth it must and will be built there.[/p][/quote]You speak of the Ghost of General Booth! I presume you are referring to William Booth the founder of the Salvation Army, an organisation I have great respect for. However, I believe one of their policies is no gambling which fails to fit in with the selling of lottery scratch cards which I understand Fair Havens are now selling in their shops therefore I think it quite pointless to bring the Generals ghost into the argument.[/p][/quote]Agreed the Covenant of the Land must be upheld, no alcohol, no gambling if that fact is correct Havens must not accept money from Gambling money for use on this land. The location is Gods chosen sight far beyond the opinions of mere commenters on here. I believe some of the commenters should listen to the case put forward by Havens re their careful following and understanding of negotiations with Southend Council Planners which led them to believe there reasons for continuing were that there was and is an achievable solution to any problems. God will see this through to a satisfactory conclusion despite all the scaremongers. Brunning999
  • Score: 1

4:21pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Broadwaywatch says...

Brunning999 wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote:
Brunning999 wrote:
al coniston wrote:
Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press)

There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect.

The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.
Havens have bent over backwards to liaise with planning officers.
Havens have been told there is no more sites in Southend available for a Hospice.
Scaremongers have said that it will spoil the green belt at the suggested site which is not the case if Little Havens site is an indication of what the scheme will involve.
It is an insult to say that it will destroy The Green Belt and disrupt the lives of residents, this scare story is rubbish in the area of Daws Heath Thundersley Little Havens has improved the area especially the nature reserve which was prior to the Hospice site a place where 'magic mushrooms' attracted many undesirables and druggies from far and wide, plus other anti social behaviour by motocross riders, all of which is no longer a problem.
That site is ideal and should be a 'Special case' for approval.
God is on the side of the Hospice through the ghost of General Booth it must and will be built there.
You speak of the Ghost of General Booth! I presume you are referring to William Booth the founder of the Salvation Army, an organisation I have great respect for.
However, I believe one of their policies is no gambling which fails to fit in with the selling of lottery scratch cards which I understand Fair Havens are now selling in their shops therefore I think it quite pointless to bring the Generals ghost into the argument.
Agreed the Covenant of the Land must be upheld, no alcohol, no gambling if that fact is correct Havens must not accept money from Gambling money for use on this land.

The location is Gods chosen sight far beyond the opinions of mere commenters on here.

I believe some of the commenters should listen to the case put forward by Havens re their careful following and understanding of negotiations with Southend Council Planners which led them to believe there reasons for continuing were that there was and is an achievable solution to any problems.

God will see this through to a satisfactory conclusion despite all the scaremongers.
Then by what you state here it means that no alcohol can be consumed by patients or staff whilst on the premises if the Hospice gets approval to be built on Green Belt/ Salvation Army land. That goes for Birthdays and Christmas also. Shame really for those who enjoy a little tipple as my mother did because part of the concept of hospice care as I understand it is to continue to live life as normally and with as much dignity as possible until the end
[quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]al coniston[/bold] wrote: Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press) There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect. The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.[/p][/quote]Havens have bent over backwards to liaise with planning officers. Havens have been told there is no more sites in Southend available for a Hospice. Scaremongers have said that it will spoil the green belt at the suggested site which is not the case if Little Havens site is an indication of what the scheme will involve. It is an insult to say that it will destroy The Green Belt and disrupt the lives of residents, this scare story is rubbish in the area of Daws Heath Thundersley Little Havens has improved the area especially the nature reserve which was prior to the Hospice site a place where 'magic mushrooms' attracted many undesirables and druggies from far and wide, plus other anti social behaviour by motocross riders, all of which is no longer a problem. That site is ideal and should be a 'Special case' for approval. God is on the side of the Hospice through the ghost of General Booth it must and will be built there.[/p][/quote]You speak of the Ghost of General Booth! I presume you are referring to William Booth the founder of the Salvation Army, an organisation I have great respect for. However, I believe one of their policies is no gambling which fails to fit in with the selling of lottery scratch cards which I understand Fair Havens are now selling in their shops therefore I think it quite pointless to bring the Generals ghost into the argument.[/p][/quote]Agreed the Covenant of the Land must be upheld, no alcohol, no gambling if that fact is correct Havens must not accept money from Gambling money for use on this land. The location is Gods chosen sight far beyond the opinions of mere commenters on here. I believe some of the commenters should listen to the case put forward by Havens re their careful following and understanding of negotiations with Southend Council Planners which led them to believe there reasons for continuing were that there was and is an achievable solution to any problems. God will see this through to a satisfactory conclusion despite all the scaremongers.[/p][/quote]Then by what you state here it means that no alcohol can be consumed by patients or staff whilst on the premises if the Hospice gets approval to be built on Green Belt/ Salvation Army land. That goes for Birthdays and Christmas also. Shame really for those who enjoy a little tipple as my mother did because part of the concept of hospice care as I understand it is to continue to live life as normally and with as much dignity as possible until the end Broadwaywatch
  • Score: 0

9:04am Tue 16 Oct 12

GentleGiant says...

al coniston wrote:
Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press)

There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect.

The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.
Well said :)
[quote][p][bold]al coniston[/bold] wrote: Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press) There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect. The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.[/p][/quote]Well said :) GentleGiant
  • Score: -1

11:30am Tue 16 Oct 12

Dapper Dave says...

GentleGiant wrote:
al coniston wrote: Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press) There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect. The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.
Well said :)
Actually no, not well said. @ al coniston, if you are so certain that there are alternative sites out there, then please do us a favour and show and tell everyone where they are and how they suit the hospices needs. If you could (but I highly suspect that you cant), you would be doing a much better job than the planning officers. The hospice is not losing credibility and respect with me, I actually admire them for their determination and for responding with dignity to all these bully boys who accuse them of 'throwing their toys out of the pram'. People have thrown accusations at them left, right and centre filled with litigous comments and statements - all they are trying to do is provide a better service of care for people in and around the Southend area which could include YOU, YOU'RE PARTNER, YOU'RE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN!!! So I will be at the Civic Centre on Wednesday supporting the hospice whether they are successful or not.
[quote][p][bold]GentleGiant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]al coniston[/bold] wrote: Andy Smith . . . . Havens are not above the law, your plans are highly likely to be thrown out . . . deal with it (and i don't mean by crying to the press) There are alternate sites but you are hellbent on securing the green-belt land off of Belton Way and your vigorous and aggressive stance is losing you all credibitiy and respect. The townplanners are there to make their decision so abide by it and stop throwing your bloody toys out the pram.[/p][/quote]Well said :)[/p][/quote]Actually no, not well said. @ al coniston, if you are so certain that there are alternative sites out there, then please do us a favour and show and tell everyone where they are and how they suit the hospices needs. If you could (but I highly suspect that you cant), you would be doing a much better job than the planning officers. The hospice is not losing credibility and respect with me, I actually admire them for their determination and for responding with dignity to all these bully boys who accuse them of 'throwing their toys out of the pram'. People have thrown accusations at them left, right and centre filled with litigous comments and statements - all they are trying to do is provide a better service of care for people in and around the Southend area which could include YOU, YOU'RE PARTNER, YOU'RE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN!!! So I will be at the Civic Centre on Wednesday supporting the hospice whether they are successful or not. Dapper Dave
  • Score: 1

5:22pm Tue 16 Oct 12

JNFEnergy says...

I understand why emotions run high but we need to remember some of the big issues - we need all the agricultural land to grow food. The UK imports over 40% of its food, we have a rapidly growing population and climate change is impacting upon food production around the world. We simply must not build on our fields ! Why can't the hospice be built on the Seaway car park in central Southend?
I understand why emotions run high but we need to remember some of the big issues - we need all the agricultural land to grow food. The UK imports over 40% of its food, we have a rapidly growing population and climate change is impacting upon food production around the world. We simply must not build on our fields ! Why can't the hospice be built on the Seaway car park in central Southend? JNFEnergy
  • Score: -1

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